Thromb Haemost 1994; 72(06): 804-807
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1648965
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH Stuttgart

Recombinant Versus High-sensitivity Conventional Thromboplastin: A Randomized Clinical Study in Patients on Oral Anticoagulation

Authors

  • Guido Finazzi

    The Department of Hematology, Ospedali Riuniti and the “Mario Negri” Institute, Bergamo, Italy
  • Anna Falanga

    The Department of Hematology, Ospedali Riuniti and the “Mario Negri” Institute, Bergamo, Italy
  • Monica Galli

    The Department of Hematology, Ospedali Riuniti and the “Mario Negri” Institute, Bergamo, Italy
  • Sergio Cortelazzo

    The Department of Hematology, Ospedali Riuniti and the “Mario Negri” Institute, Bergamo, Italy
  • Andrea Remuzzi

    1   “Mario Negri” Institute, Bergamo, Italy
  • Tiziano Barbui

    The Department of Hematology, Ospedali Riuniti and the “Mario Negri” Institute, Bergamo, Italy
Further Information

Publication History

Received 21 April 1994

Accepted after resubmission 09 August 1994

Publication Date:
06 July 2018 (online)

Preview

Summary

A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial was carried out in a single center to compare the clinical and laboratory quality of oral anticoagulant therapy monitored with recombinant tissue factor (RTF) or with a sensitive, human-derived, conventional thromboplastin (CT) in the PT test. Seven hundred and fifty-seven consecutive patients receiving oral anticoagulation for various indications were randomized to RTF (n = 379) or CT (n = 368) for 6 months. Total follow-up was 167 and 153 patient-years for RTF and TP groups respectively. Fifty-six bleeding events were observed: 31 in the RTF group and 25 in the TP group. The incidence of bleeding was 18.5 and 16.5% pt-yrs for RTF and TP patients respectively (n.s.). The event-free follow-up curves were not significantly different between the two groups. The laboratory quality of oral anticoagulation was evaluated with the “last check in file” method: therapeutic INR was found in the same propor-tipn of RTF and TP patients (70.2% vs 68.8%). Our study shows that RTF is as effective as a sensitive, conventional thromboplastin for monitoring oral anticoagulation.