1971
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1654328
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Evaluation of the Two-Stage Prothrombin Assay

Abstract: SummaryIt is shown that (and why) the traditional ways of evaluating a thrombin generation curve do not give acceptable estimations of the prothrombin content of the sample. An alternative method is shown to meet the requirements better; it consists of drawing the thrombin generation curve on a semi-logarithmic graph, and extrapolating the descending slope to zero time. This gives a thrombin concentration representing the prothrombin concentration of the original sample.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

1975
1975
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…-We confirmed the discrepancy between the one-stage and the two-stage determination of factor II activity in prothrombin prepared according to Kisiel and Hanahan, but did not find it in our preparation (Table III)' ln a one-stage assay the initial rate of thrombin generation determines the outcome of the estimate [11] whereas in the two-stage assay the total eventual yield of thrombin determines the result [7]. A two-stage assay showing higher activities than a one-stage assay, therefore, indicates that there may be prothrombin molecules present that do not (or only partially) contribute to the initial rate of thrombin ieneration whereas they do contribute to the final thrombin yield [12].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 56%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…-We confirmed the discrepancy between the one-stage and the two-stage determination of factor II activity in prothrombin prepared according to Kisiel and Hanahan, but did not find it in our preparation (Table III)' ln a one-stage assay the initial rate of thrombin generation determines the outcome of the estimate [11] whereas in the two-stage assay the total eventual yield of thrombin determines the result [7]. A two-stage assay showing higher activities than a one-stage assay, therefore, indicates that there may be prothrombin molecules present that do not (or only partially) contribute to the initial rate of thrombin ieneration whereas they do contribute to the final thrombin yield [12].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 56%
“…The two-stage assay for factor lI was carried out and evaluated as described in ref. 7. Factor IX was estimated according to ref.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fredi Loeliger himself had learned the trade in the department of Fritz Koller, where he had been instrumental in the discovery of factor (F) VII. In the Basel–Leiden tradition, thrombin generation did not play a dominant role [3,4]; we mostly used one stage clotting times (Fig. 1).…”
Section: Stage One: One Stagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Factor IIa was determined according to Hemker et al [11]; factor VIIa in the same system as factor VII [26] but with phospholipids instead of thromboplastin; the fac tors VIIIa and IXa in the same systems as used for factors VIII and IX [42] except that no kaolin was added to the test system and the incubation time of sample and reagent prior to recalcification was 1 min instead of 30 min; factor Xa was determined in a one-stage test with a factor VII and X deficient reagent and phospholipid [26].…”
Section: Determination O F the Activated Coagulation Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%