1996
DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/105.3.293
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Markers ofIn VivoActivation of Coagulation:Interrelationships Change With Intensity of Oral Anticoagulation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2007
2007

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
(13 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The prothrombin activation fragment F 1+2 is an index of in vivo thrombin generation; one molecule of F1+2 is released with the generation of each thrombin molecule [11][12][13][14] . Anticoagulation suppresses the F1+2 level in a dose-response fashion [15][16][17] .It has been demonstrated that CU patients showed high blood coagulation state with F1+2 levels were higher than normal [18] . The mechanism may be: excessive activation of mast cells in patients with (CU).…”
Section: Discssionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The prothrombin activation fragment F 1+2 is an index of in vivo thrombin generation; one molecule of F1+2 is released with the generation of each thrombin molecule [11][12][13][14] . Anticoagulation suppresses the F1+2 level in a dose-response fashion [15][16][17] .It has been demonstrated that CU patients showed high blood coagulation state with F1+2 levels were higher than normal [18] . The mechanism may be: excessive activation of mast cells in patients with (CU).…”
Section: Discssionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A second possibility is that capture antibodies are not very specific for F 1+2 and this is likely to become more evident at the lowest F 1+2 levels which accompanies the higher degrees of anticoagulation. Whatever the reason(s), these and other similar observations (18,19) indicate that the measurement of F 1+2 is not a suitable laboratory tool to monitor oral anticoagulants. Methods suitable to this goal must be responsive to anticoagulation both at low and high intensity of treatment.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…36,37 An approach that suggests the use of biological markers as therapeutic indicators has already been proposed, with determination of F 1.2 levels to monitor anticoagulant treatment and response to therapy in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. 38,39 A substudy of an ongoing randomized trial 40 is also currently looking at the potential value of F 1.2 as a guide to the use of antithrombotic therapy, which may include either aspirin or warfarin in the prevention of stroke recurrence after a first noncardiogenic cerebral infarction.…”
Section: Côté Et Al Hemostasis and Cerebral Ischemia 1859mentioning
confidence: 99%