Teryn R Roberts1, John A Jones, Jae-Hyek Choi, Kyle N Sieck, George T Harea, Daniel S Wendorff, Brendan M Beely, Vitali Karaliou, Andrew P Cap, Michael R Davis, Leopoldo C Cancio, Valerie G Sams, Andriy I Batchinsky. 1. From the The Geneva Foundation (T.R.R., J.A.J., J.-H.C., K.N.S., G.T.H., D.S.W., B.M.B., A.I.B.), Tacoma, Washington; Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida; U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research (T.R.R., J.-H.C., D.S.W., B.M.B., A.P.C., L.C.C., A.I.B.), JBSA, Fort Sam Houston, Texas; Department of Surgery (V.R.), University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas; U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (M.R.D.), Fort Detrick, Maryland; San Antonio Military Medical Center (V.G.S.), JBSA, Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coagulation monitoring capabilities during transport are limited. Thromboelastography (TEG) is a whole-blood clotting test measuring clot formation, stabilization, and fibrinolysis and is traditionally performed in a laboratory. We evaluated a new point-of-care TEG analyzer, TEG 6s (Haemonetics, Braintree, MA), in a large animal model of combat-relevant trauma managed with extracorporeal life support during ground and high-altitude aeromedical evacuation. The objective was to compare TEG 6s used during transport versus the predicate device, TEG 5000, used in the laboratory. We hypothesized that TEG 6s would be comparable with TEG 5000 during dynamically changing transport conditions. METHODS: Thromboelastography parameters (R, K, angle, MA, LY30) derived by TEG 6s and TEG 5000 were compared during transport of 8 swine. TEG 6s was transported with animals during ground transport and flight. TEG 5000 was stationary in an adjacent building. TEG 6s activated clotting time (ACT) was compared with a Hemochron Junior ACT analyzer (Accriva Diagnostics, San Diego, CA). Statistics were performed using SAS 9.4 with Deming regressions, Spearman correlations, and average differences compared. RESULTS: Correlation between devices was stronger at sea-level (R, r = 0.7413; K, r = 0.7115; angle, r = 0.7192; MA, r = 0.8386; LY30, r = 0.9099) than during high-altitude transport (R, r = 0.4787; K, r = 0.4007; angle, r = 0.3706; MA, r = 0.6573; LY30, r = 0.8481). Method agreement was comparable during stationary operation (R, r = 0.7978; K, r = 0.7974; angle, r = 0.7574; MA, r = 0.7841; LY30, r = 0.9140) versus ground transport (R, r = 0.7927; K, r = 0.6246; angle, r = 0.6967; MA, r = 0.9163; LY30, r = 0.8603). TEG 6s ACT trended higher than Hemochron ACT when subjects were heparinized (average difference, 1,442 ± 1,703 seconds) without a methodological difference by Deming regression. CONCLUSION: Mobile TEG 6s during ground and altitude transport is feasible and provides unprecedented information to guide coagulation management. Future studies should assess the precision and accuracy of TEG 6s during transport of critically ill.
BACKGROUND: Coagulation monitoring capabilities during transport are limited. Thromboelastography (TEG) is a whole-blood clotting test measuring clot formation, stabilization, and fibrinolysis and is traditionally performed in a laboratory. We evaluated a new point-of-care TEG analyzer, TEG 6s (Haemonetics, Braintree, MA), in a large animal model of combat-relevant trauma managed with extracorporeal life support during ground and high-altitude aeromedical evacuation. The objective was to compare TEG 6s used during transport versus the predicate device, TEG 5000, used in the laboratory. We hypothesized that TEG 6s would be comparable with TEG 5000 during dynamically changing transport conditions. METHODS: Thromboelastography parameters (R, K, angle, MA, LY30) derived by TEG 6s and TEG 5000 were compared during transport of 8 swine. TEG 6s was transported with animals during ground transport and flight. TEG 5000 was stationary in an adjacent building. TEG 6s activated clotting time (ACT) was compared with a Hemochron Junior ACT analyzer (Accriva Diagnostics, San Diego, CA). Statistics were performed using SAS 9.4 with Deming regressions, Spearman correlations, and average differences compared. RESULTS: Correlation between devices was stronger at sea-level (R, r = 0.7413; K, r = 0.7115; angle, r = 0.7192; MA, r = 0.8386; LY30, r = 0.9099) than during high-altitude transport (R, r = 0.4787; K, r = 0.4007; angle, r = 0.3706; MA, r = 0.6573; LY30, r = 0.8481). Method agreement was comparable during stationary operation (R, r = 0.7978; K, r = 0.7974; angle, r = 0.7574; MA, r = 0.7841; LY30, r = 0.9140) versus ground transport (R, r = 0.7927; K, r = 0.6246; angle, r = 0.6967; MA, r = 0.9163; LY30, r = 0.8603). TEG 6s ACT trended higher than Hemochron ACT when subjects were heparinized (average difference, 1,442 ± 1,703 seconds) without a methodological difference by Deming regression. CONCLUSION: Mobile TEG 6s during ground and altitude transport is feasible and provides unprecedented information to guide coagulation management. Future studies should assess the precision and accuracy of TEG 6s during transport of critically ill.
Authors: Matthew D Neal; Ernest E Moore; Mark Walsh; Scott Thomas; Rachael A Callcut; Lucy Z Kornblith; Martin Schreiber; Akpofure Peter Ekeh; Adam J Singer; Lawrence Lottenberg; Michael Foreman; Susan Evans; Robert D Winfield; Michael D Goodman; Carl Freeman; David Milia; Noelle Saillant; Jan Hartmann; Hardean E Achneck Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 3.697
Authors: James H Lantry; Phillip Mason; Matthew G Logsdon; Connor M Bunch; Ethan E Peck; Ernest E Moore; Hunter B Moore; Matthew D Neal; Scott G Thomas; Rashid Z Khan; Laura Gillespie; Charles Florance; Josh Korzan; Fletcher R Preuss; Dan Mason; Tarek Saleh; Mathew K Marsee; Stefani Vande Lune; Qamarnisa Ayoub; Dietmar Fries; Mark M Walsh Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 4.241