| Literature DB >> 28292321 |
Clare A Balendran1, Ann Lövgren2,3, Kenny M Hansson2, Karin Nelander4, Marita Olsson4, Karin J Johansson2, Karim Brohi5, Dietmar Fries6, Anders Berggren4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fibrinogen and prothrombin have been suggested to become rate limiting in trauma associated coagulopathy. Administration of fibrinogen is now recommended, however, the importance of prothrombin to patient outcome is unknown.Entities:
Keywords: Biomarker; Coagulopathy; PT; Prothrombin; ROTEM; Severe bleeding
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28292321 PMCID: PMC5348885 DOI: 10.1186/s13049-016-0332-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med ISSN: 1757-7241 Impact factor: 2.953
Patient characteristics at admission to emergency department, or within 24 h of admission (24 h survival, and ≥1 PRBC). Data shown is median (IQR) unless otherwise stated
| Database 1 | Database 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Men, | 288 (80%) | 259 (78%) |
| Age, years | 35 (23–50) | 43 (27–56) |
| Time from injury, minutes | 76 (58–101) | 75 (55–120) |
| Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) | 15 (14, 15) | 11 (6–15) |
| Injury Severity Score | 13 (5–27) | 34 (24–45) |
| Systolic BP, mmHg | 132 (110–150) | 120 (100–140) |
| Temp, °C | 35.8 (35.1–36.5) | 35.0 (34.2–36.0) |
| Hct | 0.4 (0.37–0.43) | 0.34 (0.28–0.38) |
| Platelets, 109/L | 233 (194–273) | 170 (139–203) |
| Hb, g/dL | 13.8 (12.5–14.9) | 11.6 (9.5–13.1) |
| AT, IU/dL | 94 (82–104) | 68 (56–81) |
| Factor VII, IU/dL | 94 (76–118) | 83 (50–98) |
| Factor X, IU/dL | 96 (82–112) | 69 (46–88) |
| 24 h survival, | 347, (97%) | 308, (92%) |
| ≥1 PRBC units, | 104 (29%) | 148 (44%) |
| Prothrombin, IU/dL | 93 (77–105) | 68 (55–86) |
| Fibrinogen, g/L | 2.2 (1.7–2.7) | 2.1 (1.6–2.6) |
| EXTEM CT, seconds | 62 (50–77) | 63 (55–74) |
| EXTEM MCF, mm | 60 (56–63) | 52 (46–57) |
| PT, seconds | 11.1 (10.6–11.8) | 14.9 (13.1–17.0) |
aAt most 6% missing values in any variable except for Time from injury, Temp, and GCS which had 10, 36 and 44% missing values respectively
bFactor VII, Factor X and Prothrombin were missing in 86% of the subjects, Time from injury and Temp in 20 and 62%, respectively. The rest of the variables had missing values in at most 4% of the 331 subjects
Fig. 124 h survival a and amount of PRBC delivered during the first 24 h after admission b are plotted versus prothrombin concentration at admission for database 1. For clarity prothrombin concentration is divided into intervals (ninterval = (3, 6, 17, 29, 44, 61, 67, 66, 32, 33)). In the upper graph a proportion of 24 h survival is plotted versus prothrombin concentration interval, and in the lower graph b distribution of units of PRBC delivered during the first 24 h is plotted versus prothrombin concentration interval using box plots (box representing 25th, median (dot) and 75th percentiles, whiskers go out to 10th and 90th percentiles). Note: only 11 out of the 358 patients included in the graph died within 24 h
Fig. 2Impact of prothrombin depletion by adding increasing amount of neutralizing antibody or step-wise dilution for a Prothrombin time (PT), b ROTEM EXTEM Coagulation time (CT) and c ROTEM EXTEM Maximum Clot Firmness (MCF). The PT experiment was performed in citrated plasma from 5 different donors and the ROTEM EXTEM experiments were performed in citrated whole blood from the same 5 donors. The boxes represent 25th to 75th percentiles, the horizontal bar in the box is median and the whiskers are min and max values
Fig. 3Prothrombin Time (PT) a EXTEM Coagulation Time (CT) b Fibrinogen c and EXTEM Maximum Clot Firmness (MCF) d versus prothrombin concentration for database 1. Loess curves (local regression curves) are added to aid in evaluating the relationship between variables. Fibrinogen concentration, CT and PT were log transformed due to skewed distributions
Fig. 4ROCs for each of PT, EXTEM Maximum Clot Firmness (MCF) and EXTEM Coagulation Time (CT), when entered as single predictor of each outcome indicator in the underlying logistic regression. a ROCs based on database 1. b ROCs based on database 2
Summary of ROC analyses
| Database | Biomarker | Low prothrombin | Mortality 24 h | Massive transfusion | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC (95% CI) | AUC (95% CI) |
| AUC (95% CI) |
| |||
| 1 | PT | 0.94 (0.88,0.96) | – | 0.90 (0.82,0.97) | – | 0.92 (0.89,0.98) | – |
| EXTEM CT | 0.68 (0.61,0.85) | <0.001 | 0.66 (0.48, 0.82) | <0.001 | 0.73 (0.55,0.80) | <0.001 | |
| EXTEM MCF | 0.78 (0.71,0.92) | 0.003 | 0.81 (0.66,0.96) | 0.04 | 0.81 (0.67,0.89) | 0.04 | |
| 2 | PT | Not applicable | 0.78 (0.68,0.89) | – | 0.81 (0.73,0.89) | – | |
| EXTEM CT | 0.74 (0.62,0.86) | 0.44 | 0.70 (0.61,0.78) | 0.008 | |||
| EXTEM MCF | 0.67 (0.54,0.81) | 0.03 | 0.75 (0.66,0.84) | 0.05 | |||
The area under the ROC (AUC), was calculated in separate logistic regression models for each of the binary response variables low prothrombin (<60 IU/dL), mortality 24 h and massive transfusion (PRBC 24 h >10 units) for each of the three biomarkers PT, EXTEM CT and EXTEM MCF. The AUC p-value refers to a two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference in AUC between PT and each of the two other biomarkers. In database 2 there were too few patients with admission prothrombin concentrations to perform a valid ROC analysis