| Literature DB >> 33319008 |
Tapasyapreeti Mukhopadhyay1, Arulselvi Subramanian2.
Abstract
Thromboelastography (TEG), a hemostatic point-of-care assay, provides global information about fibrin formation, platelet activation, and clot retraction in real-time. As it is an operator-dependent technique, error in any phase of the testing process can result in the misinterpretation of the thromboelastogram, and subsequently lead to mismanagement of the patient, wastage of blood products besides increasing the financial burden on the hospital and the patient. The present paper describes the possible errors leading to wrong thromboelastogram interpretation, and the respective preventive measure. In the light of limited resources available for operational challenges in TEG, this review paper can prove to be helpful.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33319008 PMCID: PMC7723805 DOI: 10.1016/j.plabm.2020.e00193
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pract Lab Med ISSN: 2352-5517
Fig. 1Working principle of Thromboelastography (TEG).
Fig. 2Normal schematic representation of a Thromboelastogram.
Fig. 3Straight line suggestive of no clot formation.
Fig. 4Delayed clot initiation and decreased rate of clot formation with poor clot strength suggestive of a hypocoagulable state.
Fig. 5A beak shaped TEG tracing due to incorrect placement of the reaction cup in the instrument socket.
Fig. 6Random jerky tracing due to pin slippage during analysis.
Fig. 7Widely open graph close to the origin appearing to have for increased rate of clot formation and high clot strength suggestive of a hypercoagulable state is actually due to failed auto-calibration before the sample run.
Fig. 8K-time = 0 observed in hypocoagulable state.
Fig. 9Spikes (continuous or sudden) in TEG tracing are due to environmental disturbances.
Fig. 10Unpredictable evaporation of sample during the run appears to have very high clot strength suggesting a hypercoagulable state.
Summary of the potential sources of diagnostic errors in TEG interpretation and preventive measures.
| Phase of testing process | Sources of error | Preventability | Preventive measures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-analytical phase | During collection | Use of a wrong vial for blood collection | Preventable | To collect whole blood up to the ‘mark’ in blue-capped blood collection tube |
| Incorrect blood withdrawal technique | Preventable | To follow good phlebotomy practice | ||
| During transport | Delay in transit | Preventable | To follow the recommended testing time | |
| Inappropriate sample handling | Preventable | To standardise sample handling during transportation | ||
| Analytical phase | Operator related factors | Incorrect placement of the reaction cup | Preventable | To appoint a trained personnel dedicated for operating TEG |
| Incorrect pipetting technique | Preventable | To use calibrated pipettes by competent operators | ||
| Instrument and accessory related factors | Old or expired reagent | Preventable | To use freshly prepared calcium chloride solution for the test | |
| Repeated re-use of the reaction cup | Preventable | To use of only disposable reaction cups | ||
| Instrument error due to failed auto-calibration | Non-preventable but care could have been improved | To perform frequent instrument maintenance | ||
| k–time=0 | Non-preventable | To correlate all the TEG parameters visually with the graph | ||
| Environmental factors | Disturbance in the surrounding environment | Preventable | To maintain a vibration-free environment. | |
| Evaporation of the sample from the reaction cup | Potentially preventable | To optimise the humidity and room temperature of the laboratory. | ||
| Post-analytical phase | Delayed validation of test results | Preventable | To increase awareness amongst medical professionals | |
| Increased the turnaround time | Preventable | |||