Register Login

October 2023 Quick Question: Should we Update Coag Factor Names?

Our October 2023 Quick Question follows up a provocative discussion that started with a question by Dave McGlasson who had seen recent hemostasis publications that used Arabic numerals [alternatively called Western or European numerals] instead of Roman numerals. For clarity, Mr. McGlasson was not referring to genetic terminology, which has always used, for example, F8 to identify the gene for factor VIII. Please answer the Quick Question and provide your opinion in the comments section.

Comments (2)
Quick Question Archive
Dave McGlasson
Oct 6, 2023 3:41pm

A 9-22-23 Medscape publication “This Week in Cardiology” discussed the terminology to describe cogulation factors.The presenter was John M. Mandrola, Md/strong>D. He discussed FXI inhibition,”Will FXI Be the Goldilocks anticoagulant target?
First there were Vitamin K antagonists. Now there are the direct oral anticoagulants; either Factor 10 inhibition or direct thrombin inhibitors. Perhaps soon there will be factor XI inhibitors.

Mandrola listed the DOACs using Arabic numerals such as “factor 10.” We test for the levels of DOACs using the chromogenic anti-FXa assay. Why switch arbitrarily to a different numerical set? This interchangeable terminology could lead to numerous ordering and identifying issues.

Oct 3, 2023 5:57pm

From Mayukh Sarkar, PhD:I see the advantage for change in a hospital LIS system to Arabic numerals, but like to stick to Roman numerals in teaching/educational sessions. To differentiate that a F8 ordered is not, for example, like the gene sequence, maybe spell out as F8 coagulation factor activity. This was how it was in the LIS in my previous workplace. However, all validation documents signed by the medical director had the factor assays named in Roman numerals. In my experience, my CAP inspector actually appreciated that the validation documents followed the traditional approach.

Leave a Reply