1998
DOI: 10.1177/107602969800400313
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

aPTT in Heparinized Patients: Influence of the Interval Between Sampling and Testing

Abstract: Activated partial thromboplastin times (aPTTs) from 29 whole blood samples were drawn from patients receiv ing unfractionated heparin through a constant intravenous drip. Three aPTTs were determined for each whole blood sample. The first aPTT was performed on a separated portion of the original sample at approximately 30 min from the time of sam pling. A second was performed on the same separated sample at approximately 90 min from the time of sampling, and the third was performed on the original sample at 90 … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1999
1999
1999
1999

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 17 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, the response of the aPTT to UFH varies markedly with the kind of equipment, thromboplastic reagents, and timing that a laboratory uses, making interlaboratory variation important. 20,[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] Heparin activity, measured as either antifactor IIa 32,33 or antifactor Xa34 activity, has been considered too expensive and cumbersome to be used for routine monitoring [6][7][8] despite the fact that the assay is available in over 4000 laboratories in France alone. 8 Technologic improvements have made the assays much easier to perform, and it might be a more accurate way to monitor therapy in at least some subgroups of patients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, the response of the aPTT to UFH varies markedly with the kind of equipment, thromboplastic reagents, and timing that a laboratory uses, making interlaboratory variation important. 20,[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] Heparin activity, measured as either antifactor IIa 32,33 or antifactor Xa34 activity, has been considered too expensive and cumbersome to be used for routine monitoring [6][7][8] despite the fact that the assay is available in over 4000 laboratories in France alone. 8 Technologic improvements have made the assays much easier to perform, and it might be a more accurate way to monitor therapy in at least some subgroups of patients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%