INTRODUCTION: To what extent haematocrit levels (Hct) and platelet counts (PLT) influence the measurement of parameters of thromboelastometry when assessed with the ROTEM® device is unclear. We investigated to what extent thromboelastometry measurements depend on Hct and PLT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Whole blood samples were taken for in-vitro preparations of mixtures with three different levels of PLT and a varying Hct. Maximum clot firmness (MCF), clotting time (CT), clot formation time (CFT) and alpha angle (α) for INTEM, EXTEM, FIBTEM and APTEM was recorded. RESULTS: Measurements depended substantially on Hct and PLT. MCF readings were systematically lower with increasing Hct (0.2 vs. 0.4: -7.8 (-8.3 to -7.2); p<0.001, 0.2 vs. 0.55: -14.5 (-17.3 to -14.3); p<0.001) but higher with increasing PLT (50 vs. 125×10(9)/l: 8.2 (4.2 to 12.3); p=0.005, 50 vs. 250×10(9)/l: 12.0 (7.2 to 16.8); p=0.002). CT readings were systematically higher with increasing Hct (0.2 vs. 0.4: 9.2 (6.2 to 12.1); p=0.001, 0.2 vs. 0.55: 38.2 (21.5 to 54.9); p=0.003) while increasing PLT had no influence. CFT readings were also systematically higher with increasing Hct (0.2 vs. 0.4: 83.8 (40.2 to 127.6); p=0.006, 0.2 vs. 0.55: 226.2 (110.7 to 341.7); p=0.006) but systematically lower with increasing PLT (50 vs. 125×10(9)/l: -144.0 (-272.3 to -15.6); p=0.036, 50 vs. 250×10(9)/l: -189.2 (-330.4 to -48.0); p=0.02); readings of the alpha angle showed a similar pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that readings of thromboelastometry parameters need to be adjusted by Hct and PLT to avoid potential confounding and miss-interpretations in clinical practice.
INTRODUCTION: To what extent haematocrit levels (Hct) and platelet counts (PLT) influence the measurement of parameters of thromboelastometry when assessed with the ROTEM® device is unclear. We investigated to what extent thromboelastometry measurements depend on Hct and PLT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Whole blood samples were taken for in-vitro preparations of mixtures with three different levels of PLT and a varying Hct. Maximum clot firmness (MCF), clotting time (CT), clot formation time (CFT) and alpha angle (α) for INTEM, EXTEM, FIBTEM and APTEM was recorded. RESULTS: Measurements depended substantially on Hct and PLT. MCF readings were systematically lower with increasing Hct (0.2 vs. 0.4: -7.8 (-8.3 to -7.2); p<0.001, 0.2 vs. 0.55: -14.5 (-17.3 to -14.3); p<0.001) but higher with increasing PLT (50 vs. 125×10(9)/l: 8.2 (4.2 to 12.3); p=0.005, 50 vs. 250×10(9)/l: 12.0 (7.2 to 16.8); p=0.002). CT readings were systematically higher with increasing Hct (0.2 vs. 0.4: 9.2 (6.2 to 12.1); p=0.001, 0.2 vs. 0.55: 38.2 (21.5 to 54.9); p=0.003) while increasing PLT had no influence. CFT readings were also systematically higher with increasing Hct (0.2 vs. 0.4: 83.8 (40.2 to 127.6); p=0.006, 0.2 vs. 0.55: 226.2 (110.7 to 341.7); p=0.006) but systematically lower with increasing PLT (50 vs. 125×10(9)/l: -144.0 (-272.3 to -15.6); p=0.036, 50 vs. 250×10(9)/l: -189.2 (-330.4 to -48.0); p=0.02); readings of the alpha angle showed a similar pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that readings of thromboelastometry parameters need to be adjusted by Hct and PLT to avoid potential confounding and miss-interpretations in clinical practice.
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: Alistair S Rocke; Gordon G Paterson; Matthew T Barber; Alexander I R Jackson; Shona E Main; Calum Stannett; Martin F Schnopp; Martin MacInnis; J Kenneth Baillie; Elizabeth H Horn; Carl Moores; Paul Harrison; Alastair F Nimmo; A A Roger Thompson Journal: Thromb Haemost Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 5.249
Authors: Debnath Maji; Aman Opneja; Michael A Suster; Kara L Bane; Brigid M Wilson; Pedram Mohseni; Evi X Stavrou Journal: Thromb Haemost Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 5.249