BACKGROUND: Evaluation of hemostasis in bleeding patients requires both accuracy and speed. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: As an alternative to point-of-care testing, we developed an emergency hemorrhage panel (EHP: prothrombin time [PT], fibrinogen, platelet count, hematocrit) for use in making transfusion decisions on bleeding patients with a goal of less than 20-minute turnaround time (TAT) when performed in the clinical laboratory on automated instruments. Because point-of-care samples are not checked for clotting or hemolysis, we evaluated their effect on automated testing. RESULTS: TAT was reduced by moving the sample immediately to testing and shortening centrifugation times. Clotting in samples was rare (1.1%) and shortened the PT by only 0.7 seconds. It lowered fibrinogen on average 18%, but resulted in only one of 2300 samples changing from normal to low fibrinogen. Hemolysis had no clinically significant effect on the PT or fibrinogen. Therefore, hemolysis checks were eliminated and clot checks minimized. Initially TAT averaged 15±4 minutes (range, 8-30min), but 9% of samples exceeded the 20-minute goal due to low fibrinogens that slowed testing. A revised fibrinogen assay with expanded calibration range resulted in a TAT of 14±3 minutes (range, 6-28min) with only 2% of samples exceeding the 20-minute goal. By limiting EHPs to patients that were actively bleeding, EHPs accounted for only 8 of 243 coagulation samples per day. CONCLUSION: Limiting EHPs to bleeding patients and modifications to the process and assays used for hemostasis testing lead to TATs of less than 20 minutes for critical testing in the clinical laboratory.
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of hemostasis in bleedingpatients requires both accuracy and speed. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: As an alternative to point-of-care testing, we developed an emergency hemorrhage panel (EHP: prothrombin time [PT], fibrinogen, platelet count, hematocrit) for use in making transfusion decisions on bleedingpatients with a goal of less than 20-minute turnaround time (TAT) when performed in the clinical laboratory on automated instruments. Because point-of-care samples are not checked for clotting or hemolysis, we evaluated their effect on automated testing. RESULTS: TAT was reduced by moving the sample immediately to testing and shortening centrifugation times. Clotting in samples was rare (1.1%) and shortened the PT by only 0.7 seconds. It lowered fibrinogen on average 18%, but resulted in only one of 2300 samples changing from normal to low fibrinogen. Hemolysis had no clinically significant effect on the PT or fibrinogen. Therefore, hemolysis checks were eliminated and clot checks minimized. Initially TAT averaged 15±4 minutes (range, 8-30min), but 9% of samples exceeded the 20-minute goal due to low fibrinogens that slowed testing. A revised fibrinogen assay with expanded calibration range resulted in a TAT of 14±3 minutes (range, 6-28min) with only 2% of samples exceeding the 20-minute goal. By limiting EHPs to patients that were actively bleeding, EHPs accounted for only 8 of 243 coagulation samples per day. CONCLUSION: Limiting EHPs to bleedingpatients and modifications to the process and assays used for hemostasis testing lead to TATs of less than 20 minutes for critical testing in the clinical laboratory.
Authors: Jeannie L Callum; Calvin H Yeh; Andrew Petrosoniak; Mark J McVey; Stephanie Cope; Troy Thompson; Victoria Chin; Keyvan Karkouti; Avery B Nathens; Kimmo Murto; Suzanne Beno; Jacob Pendergrast; Andrew McDonald; Russell MacDonald; Neill K J Adhikari; Asim Alam; Donald Arnold; Lee Barratt; Andrew Beckett; Sue Brenneman; Hina Razzaq Chaudhry; Allison Collins; Margaret Harvey; Jacinthe Lampron; Clarita Margarido; Amanda McFarlan; Barto Nascimento; Wendy Owens; Menaka Pai; Sandro Rizoli; Theodora Ruijs; Robert Skeate; Teresa Skelton; Michelle Sholzberg; Kelly Syer; Jami-Lynn Viveiros; Josee Theriault; Alan Tinmouth; Rardi Van Heest; Susan White; Michelle Zeller; Katerina Pavenski Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2019-09-03
Authors: Walter H Dzik; Morris A Blajchman; Dean Fergusson; Morad Hameed; Blair Henry; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Teresa Korogyi; Sarvesh Logsetty; Robert C Skeate; Simon Stanworth; Charles MacAdams; Brian Muirhead Journal: Crit Care Date: 2011-12-08 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Christoph J Schlimp; Anna Khadem; Anton Klotz; Cristina Solomon; Gerald Hochleitner; Martin Ponschab; Heinz Redl; Herbert Schöchl Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Janne Cadamuro; Cornelia Mrazek; Alexander B Leichtle; Ulrike Kipman; Thomas K Felder; Helmut Wiedemann; Hannes Oberkofler; Georg M Fiedler; Elisabeth Haschke-Becher Journal: Biochem Med (Zagreb) Date: 2017-11-24 Impact factor: 2.313
Authors: Kjersti Baksaas-Aasen; Lewis Gall; Simon Eaglestone; Claire Rourke; Nicole P Juffermans; J Carel Goslings; Paal Aksel Naess; Susan van Dieren; Sisse Rye Ostrowski; Jakob Stensballe; Marc Maegele; Simon J Stanworth; Christine Gaarder; Karim Brohi; Per I Johansson Journal: Trials Date: 2017-10-18 Impact factor: 2.279