OBJECTIVES: The Thromboelastogram (TEG; Haemoscope Corporation, Niles, IL) and the ROTEM thromboelastometry analyzer (Pentapharm GmbH, Munich, Germany) are coagulation monitors that measure the viscoelastic changes accompanying whole-blood coagulation generation and lysis. It is not clear whether TEG and ROTEM transfusion algorithms suggest similar blood component intervention. This study aims to report the extent to which administration of platelets, fresh frozen plasma, and cryoprecipitate would be indicated using protocol-dictated interventions by the Rotem, TEG, and conventional coagulation screens during orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: University hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation. INTERVENTIONS: Coagulation was managed with native TEG protocols. Additional samples for kaolin TEG, kaolin heparinase TEG, Rotem in-TEM, Rotem hep-TEM, Rotem fib-TEM, full blood count, prothrombin time, and Clauss fibrinogen assays were taken at 5 fixed operative stages. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Results were reviewed and protocol-indicated interventions recorded. There was moderate agreement between Clauss fibrinogen and Rotem fib-TEM assays about fulfilling fibrinogen transfusion criteria (kappa = 0.42, p < or = 0.05). Agreement between TEG and Rotem to transfuse platelets was fair (Rotem in-TEM/native heparinase TEG, kappa = 0.33, Rotem in-TEM/kaolin heparinase TEG, kappa = 0.28). There was moderate agreement between Rotem in-TEM and prothrombin time (kappa = 0.42), and poor agreement between other tests about the point to administer fresh frozen plasma. CONCLUSIONS: Transfusion practice is likely to differ according to the method of coagulation monitoring used. A prospective case-matched study using the viscoelastic tests used in this study would be beneficial in determining the optimal therapy. Rotem fib-TEM monitoring may improve hemostasis management.
OBJECTIVES: The Thromboelastogram (TEG; Haemoscope Corporation, Niles, IL) and the ROTEM thromboelastometry analyzer (Pentapharm GmbH, Munich, Germany) are coagulation monitors that measure the viscoelastic changes accompanying whole-blood coagulation generation and lysis. It is not clear whether TEG and ROTEM transfusion algorithms suggest similar blood component intervention. This study aims to report the extent to which administration of platelets, fresh frozen plasma, and cryoprecipitate would be indicated using protocol-dictated interventions by the Rotem, TEG, and conventional coagulation screens during orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: University hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation. INTERVENTIONS: Coagulation was managed with native TEG protocols. Additional samples for kaolin TEG, kaolin heparinase TEG, Rotem in-TEM, Rotem hep-TEM, Rotem fib-TEM, full blood count, prothrombin time, and Clauss fibrinogen assays were taken at 5 fixed operative stages. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Results were reviewed and protocol-indicated interventions recorded. There was moderate agreement between Clauss fibrinogen and Rotem fib-TEM assays about fulfilling fibrinogen transfusion criteria (kappa = 0.42, p < or = 0.05). Agreement between TEG and Rotem to transfuse platelets was fair (Rotem in-TEM/native heparinase TEG, kappa = 0.33, Rotem in-TEM/kaolin heparinase TEG, kappa = 0.28). There was moderate agreement between Rotem in-TEM and prothrombin time (kappa = 0.42), and poor agreement between other tests about the point to administer fresh frozen plasma. CONCLUSIONS: Transfusion practice is likely to differ according to the method of coagulation monitoring used. A prospective case-matched study using the viscoelastic tests used in this study would be beneficial in determining the optimal therapy. Rotem fib-TEM monitoring may improve hemostasis management.
Authors: Marcel Adler; Sandra Ivic; Nicolas S Bodmer; Hugo Ten Cate; Lucas M Bachmann; Walter A Wuillemin; Michael Nagler Journal: Transfus Med Hemother Date: 2017-03-08 Impact factor: 3.747
Authors: Diogo Sobreira Fernandes; Cátia C Pereira Real; Paula A Sá Couto Romão; Filinto B Marcos Correia De Barros; Isabel M Marques Aragão; Luis F Guimarães Fonseca; José M Gonçalves Aguiar; Teresa M Costa Branco; Zélia M Fernandes Moreira; Simão M Barros Esteves Journal: Blood Transfus Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Mohammad Ali Sahmeddini; Ashkan Taghizadehimani; Mohammad Bagher Khosravi; Mohammad Hossein Eghbal Journal: Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus Date: 2020-02-24 Impact factor: 0.900
Authors: Gregory R Stettler; Joshua J Sumislawski; Ernest E Moore; Geoffrey R Nunns; Lucy Z Kornblith; Amanda S Conroy; Rachael A Callcut; Christopher C Silliman; Anirban Banerjee; Mitchell J Cohen; Angela Sauaia Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: David R Altmann; Wolfgang Korte; Micha T Maeder; Thomas Fehr; Philipp Haager; Hans Rickli; Gian-Reto Kleger; Regulo Rodriguez; Peter Ammann Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-02-03 Impact factor: 3.240