O Karlsson1, A Jeppsson2, M Hellgren3. 1. Department of Anaesthesiology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. Electronic address: ove.i.karlsson@vgregion.se. 2. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery and Anaesthesia, Sahlgrenska University Hospital and Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 3. Department of Obstetrics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg and Department of Prenatal Care, Primary Care, South Bohuslän, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Haemorrhage is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in the obstetric population. The aim of this study was to compare the use of thromboelastography and laboratory analyses to evaluate haemostasis during major obstetric haemorrhage. A secondary aim was to evaluate correlations between the results of thromboelastography, laboratory analyses and estimated blood loss. METHODS: Forty-five women with major obstetric haemorrhage and 49 women with blood loss <600 mL were included. The following thromboelastography analyses were performed: time to start of clotting (TEG-R), time to 20 mm of clot firmness (TEG-K), rate of clot growth (TEG-Angle), maximum amplitude of clot (TEG-MA) and lysis after 30 min (TEG-LY30). In addition, platelet count, activated partial thromboplastin time, prothrombin time, fibrinogen, antithrombin and D-dimer were measured. RESULTS: Thromboelastography variables reflecting clot stability and fibrinolysis were decreased in women with massive obstetric haemorrhage compared to women with normal bleeding, while clot initiation was accelerated. Laboratory analyses also showed impaired haemostasis with the most pronounced differences in platelet count, fibrinogen concentration and antithrombin activity. The strongest correlations existed between fibrinogen and TEG-MA and between estimated blood loss and TEG-MA, fibrinogen and antithrombin, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Impaired haemostasis, demonstrated by thromboelastography and laboratory analyses, was found after an estimated blood loss of 2000 mL. Thromboelastography provides faster results than standard laboratory testing which is advantageous in the setting of on-going obstetric haemorrhage. However, laboratory analyses found greater differences in coagulation variables, which correlated better with estimated blood loss.
BACKGROUND:Haemorrhage is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in the obstetric population. The aim of this study was to compare the use of thromboelastography and laboratory analyses to evaluate haemostasis during major obstetric haemorrhage. A secondary aim was to evaluate correlations between the results of thromboelastography, laboratory analyses and estimated blood loss. METHODS: Forty-five women with major obstetric haemorrhage and 49 women with blood loss <600 mL were included. The following thromboelastography analyses were performed: time to start of clotting (TEG-R), time to 20 mm of clot firmness (TEG-K), rate of clot growth (TEG-Angle), maximum amplitude of clot (TEG-MA) and lysis after 30 min (TEG-LY30). In addition, platelet count, activated partial thromboplastin time, prothrombin time, fibrinogen, antithrombin and D-dimer were measured. RESULTS: Thromboelastography variables reflecting clot stability and fibrinolysis were decreased in women with massive obstetric haemorrhage compared to women with normal bleeding, while clot initiation was accelerated. Laboratory analyses also showed impaired haemostasis with the most pronounced differences in platelet count, fibrinogen concentration and antithrombin activity. The strongest correlations existed between fibrinogen and TEG-MA and between estimated blood loss and TEG-MA, fibrinogen and antithrombin, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Impaired haemostasis, demonstrated by thromboelastography and laboratory analyses, was found after an estimated blood loss of 2000 mL. Thromboelastography provides faster results than standard laboratory testing which is advantageous in the setting of on-going obstetric haemorrhage. However, laboratory analyses found greater differences in coagulation variables, which correlated better with estimated blood loss.
Authors: Ada Gillissen; Thomas van den Akker; Camila Caram-Deelder; Dacia D C A Henriquez; Kitty W M Bloemenkamp; Moniek P M de Maat; Jos J M van Roosmalen; Joost J Zwart; Jeroen Eikenboom; Johanna G van der Bom Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2018-10-09
Authors: Grace Lim; Francesca L Facco; Naveen Nathan; Jonathan H Waters; Cynthia A Wong; Holger K Eltzschig Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Dietmar Schlembach; Hanns Helmer; Wolfgang Henrich; Christian von Heymann; Franz Kainer; Wolfgang Korte; Maritta Kühnert; Heiko Lier; Holger Maul; Werner Rath; Susanne Steppat; Daniel Surbek; Jürgen Wacker Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 2.915