Download PDF
Thromb Haemost 1960; 4(03): 357-364
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1654518
Originalarbeiten — Original Articles — Travaux Originaux
Schattauer GmbH

The „Bridge Effect”

Delay in coagulation time as seen by testing in incomplete (partial) thromboplastin on the homologous substrate in the thromboplastin generation test.
G Mayer
1   Department of Coagulation of the Regional Transfusion Center at Strasbourg (Director: Professor R. Waitz)
,
S Mayer
1   Department of Coagulation of the Regional Transfusion Center at Strasbourg (Director: Professor R. Waitz)
,
R Waitz   *
1   Department of Coagulation of the Regional Transfusion Center at Strasbourg (Director: Professor R. Waitz)
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
17 June 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

The “Bridge effect“ consists in the fact that an incomplete thromboplastin, tested by the thromboplastin generation test of Biggs and Douglas on a substrate having a deficiency in its own thromboplastin generation, coagulates it more slowly than a normal substrate. It is observed when the factorial deficiencies of the substrate and the thromboplastin correspond with each other (hemophilic — hemophilic, Christmas — Christmas), it is weak and inconstant (Christmas thromboplastin — hemophilic substrate) or non existent (hemophilic thromboplastin — Christmas substrate) when they are crossed. It is eliminated by an adequate correction of the substrate (AHG added to the hemophilic substrate, PTC added to the Christmas substrate). The “Bridge effect“ is a source of error which must be taken into account in the manipulation of thromboplastin generation tests.

* With the collaboration of Miss E. Ribs and Miss D. Gerhard.


 

  • References

  • (1) Bell W. N, Allon G. H. A brain extract as a substitute for platelet suspensions in the thromboplastin generation test. Nature 174: 880-881 1954;
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • (2) Bachmann F, Duckert F, Koller F. The Stuart-Prower factor assay and its clinical significance. Thromb. Diath. haem. 2: 24-38 1958;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • (3) Biggs R, Douglas A. S. The thromboplastin generation test. J. clin. Path. 6: 23-29 1953;
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • (4) Biggs R. The inhibitory effect of haemophilic plasma. Brit. J. Haemat. 4: 192-200 1958;
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • (5) Hougie C. Pathogenesis of haemophilia: a critical analysis of the evidence for the Bridge anticoagulant. Brit. J. Haemat. 5: 177-183 1959;
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • (6) Ingram G. I. C, Tanner E. J, Mateheit M. O. Experiments on the “Bridge effect“. Brit. J. Haemat. 5: 307-318 1959;
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • (7) Ingram G. I. C. Experiments in Bridge anticoagulant. European Congress of Hematology. London: Sept. 7—12 1959. Abstracts 227.
    Google Scholar
  • (8) Langdell R. D, Wagner R. H, Brinkhous K. M. Effect of antihemophilic factor on one-stage clotting tests. A presumption test for haemophilia and a simple one-stage antihaemophilic factor assay procedure. J. Lab. clin. Med. 41: 637-647 1953;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • (9) Nour-Eldin F, Wilkinson J. F. Bridge anticoagulant: a hitherto unrecognized blood clotting inhibitor in haemophilic and Christmas disease plasma. A simple method for its demonstration. Brit. J. Haemat. 4: 38-50 1958;
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • (10) Nour-Eldin F, Wilkinson J. F. In vivo study of the relation between Bridge anticoagulant and antihaemophilic globulin. Brit. J. Haemat. 4: 292-301 1958;
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • (11) Seibert R. H, Margolius Jr. A, Ratnof O. D. Observations on haemophilia and coexistent haemophilia and parahaemophilia. Alterations in the platelets and thromboplastin generation test. J. Lab. clin. Med. 52: 449-462 1958;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar