Thromboelastography versus thromboelastometry for unfractionated heparin monitoring in adult patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Perfusion-Uk Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-20 DOI:10.1177/02676591241232513
Ellen B Yin, Arthur W Bracey, Subhasis Chatterjee
{"title":"Thromboelastography versus thromboelastometry for unfractionated heparin monitoring in adult patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.","authors":"Ellen B Yin, Arthur W Bracey, Subhasis Chatterjee","doi":"10.1177/02676591241232513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Background</i>: Monitoring the anticoagulant effect of unfractionated heparin (UFH) in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) patients is complex but critically important to balance the risks of treatment related bleeding and circuit thrombosis. While guidelines recommend using more than one method to monitor UFH activity, the use of thromboelastometry (ROTEM) to monitor UFH in ECMO patients has not been investigated in detail.<i>Methods</i>: This is an observational, single-center retrospective study looking at adult ECMO patients on UFH that had ROTEM and thromboelastography (TEG) tests obtained concurrently. A total of 20 samples were obtained from nine patients during the study period, seven of which were on veno-arterial (VA) ECMO and two of which were on veno-venous (VV) ECMO.<i>Results</i>: Under institutional standard operating practice, when TEG and/or activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) were considered therapeutic, intrinsic thromboelastometry clotting time (INTEM CT) was only 1.2 times higher than the normal range. TEG based monitoring compared to aPTT based monitoring tended to result in lower anti-Xa levels and less intensive anticoagulation. For the total cohort, bleeding events, driven by the need for blood transfusions, were more common compared to ischemic events (77% vs 11%; <i>p</i> = 0.02).<i>Conclusion</i>: INTEM CT tended to be less sensitive to lower doses of UFH with a value of 1.2 times higher than the normal range when aPTT and/or TEG were considered therapeutic. Due to the relative insensitivity of ROTEM, our institution decided to continue to use TEG instead of ROTEM. Larger, multicenter trials may be helpful to validate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":49707,"journal":{"name":"Perfusion-Uk","volume":" ","pages":"235-242"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11715060/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perfusion-Uk","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02676591241232513","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Monitoring the anticoagulant effect of unfractionated heparin (UFH) in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) patients is complex but critically important to balance the risks of treatment related bleeding and circuit thrombosis. While guidelines recommend using more than one method to monitor UFH activity, the use of thromboelastometry (ROTEM) to monitor UFH in ECMO patients has not been investigated in detail.Methods: This is an observational, single-center retrospective study looking at adult ECMO patients on UFH that had ROTEM and thromboelastography (TEG) tests obtained concurrently. A total of 20 samples were obtained from nine patients during the study period, seven of which were on veno-arterial (VA) ECMO and two of which were on veno-venous (VV) ECMO.Results: Under institutional standard operating practice, when TEG and/or activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) were considered therapeutic, intrinsic thromboelastometry clotting time (INTEM CT) was only 1.2 times higher than the normal range. TEG based monitoring compared to aPTT based monitoring tended to result in lower anti-Xa levels and less intensive anticoagulation. For the total cohort, bleeding events, driven by the need for blood transfusions, were more common compared to ischemic events (77% vs 11%; p = 0.02).Conclusion: INTEM CT tended to be less sensitive to lower doses of UFH with a value of 1.2 times higher than the normal range when aPTT and/or TEG were considered therapeutic. Due to the relative insensitivity of ROTEM, our institution decided to continue to use TEG instead of ROTEM. Larger, multicenter trials may be helpful to validate these findings.

血栓弹力图与血栓弹力测定法用于监测体外膜氧合成人患者的非分数化肝素。
背景:监测体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)患者使用的非小份子肝素(UFH)的抗凝效果非常复杂,但对于平衡治疗相关出血和回路血栓形成的风险至关重要。虽然指南建议使用一种以上的方法来监测 UFH 的活性,但尚未对使用血栓弹性测量法(ROTEM)监测 ECMO 患者的 UFH 进行详细研究:这是一项观察性的单中心回顾性研究,研究对象是同时接受 ROTEM 和血栓弹性成像 (TEG) 测试的使用 UFH 的成年 ECMO 患者。在研究期间,共从 9 名患者身上采集了 20 份样本,其中 7 人使用静脉-动脉 (VA) ECMO,2 人使用静脉-静脉 (VV) ECMO:根据机构标准操作惯例,当 TEG 和/或活化部分凝血活酶时间 (aPTT) 被认为具有治疗作用时,固有血栓弹性测定凝血时间 (INTEM CT) 仅比正常范围高 1.2 倍。与基于 aPTT 的监测相比,基于 TEG 的监测往往会降低抗 Xa 水平,减少抗凝强度。在所有队列中,因需要输血而导致的出血事件比缺血事件更常见(77% vs 11%; p = 0.02):结论:INTEM CT 对低剂量 UFH 的敏感性较低,当 aPTT 和/或 TEG 被视为治疗性时,其值比正常范围高 1.2 倍。由于 ROTEM 的敏感性相对较低,我院决定继续使用 TEG 代替 ROTEM。更大规模的多中心试验可能有助于验证这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Perfusion-Uk
Perfusion-Uk 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
203
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Perfusion is an ISI-ranked, peer-reviewed scholarly journal, which provides current information on all aspects of perfusion, oxygenation and biocompatibility and their use in modern cardiac surgery. The journal is at the forefront of international research and development and presents an appropriately multidisciplinary approach to perfusion science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信