A Cohort, Semi-Randomized, open label quality improvement patient blood management (PBM) comparison of point of care viscoelastic coagulation monitors in cardiac surgery.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Bruce D Spiess, Melissa Burger, Mary Jane Michael R N, Stephanie Gore R N, Cynthia Garvan, Peter Pellitier, Marc Zumberg
{"title":"A Cohort, Semi-Randomized, open label quality improvement patient blood management (PBM) comparison of point of care viscoelastic coagulation monitors in cardiac surgery.","authors":"Bruce D Spiess, Melissa Burger, Mary Jane Michael R N, Stephanie Gore R N, Cynthia Garvan, Peter Pellitier, Marc Zumberg","doi":"10.1007/s10877-025-01406-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Viscoelastic testing (VET), recommended for heart surgery, lacks adoption due to data reporting times (central laboratory coagulation assay-CLCA and laboratory VET tests) and interpretation (predicate VET devices). Three point of care (POC) -VET devices have now become available. The hypotheses of this quality initiative (QI), patient blood management program-PBM), was that: (1) Clinicians desire timely, easily interpreted coagulation data (2) Comparison of two (first available) POC-VETs would determine the technology embraced for PBM. To evaluate these hypotheses clinicians were surveyed as to need ease of use, acceptability, and support of the expanding PBM program before and after testing in operating rooms (ORs). This was not a randomized study to examine reduction in transfusion utilization or improved outcome. It was, however, a QI study to examine perception of an existing problem; with investigation of a solution the clinicians would support decision making. Cardiac team members (anesthesia, surgery, and perfusion) were informed, and their written consent was obtained prior to survey. Team members completed QI surveys before and after the use of the technologies. Anesthesiology members were trained by the manufacturers and assessed for proficiency by Laboratory Medicine (LM). The TEG-6s® and the Quantra® QPlus, evaluated in sixty-eight cardiac patients over a six-week period (May 15-June 30, 2021) gave the clinicians direct experience. The time from blood draw (arterial line) until final coagulation data reported were compared between technologies and where available to CLCA/lab testing. Algorithms for coagulation treatments with the POC-VET data were created in consultation with the manufacturers. QI survey data were reported as percentage of answers in categories. Time to data acquisition and blood usage (pilot data only) were examined with chi-square and Wilcoxon rank sum, two sided tests. Cardiac team members (anesthesia, surgery, and perfusion) were informed, and their written consent was obtained prior to survey. Team members completed QI surveys before and after the use of the technologies. Anesthesiology members were trained by the manufacturers and assessed for proficiency by Laboratory Medicine (LM). The TEG-6s® and the Quantra® QPlus, evaluated in sixty-eight cardiac patients over a six-week period (May 15 -June 30, 2021) gave the clinicians direct experience. The time from blood draw (arterial line) until final coagulation data reported were compared between technologies and where available to CLCA/lab testing. Algorithms for coagulation treatments with the POC-VET data were created in consultation with the manufacturers. QI survey data were reported as percentage of answers in categories. Time to data acquisition and blood usage (pilot data only) were examined with chi-square and Wilcoxon rank sum, two sided tests.</p>","PeriodicalId":15513,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","volume":" ","pages":"747-755"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-025-01406-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Viscoelastic testing (VET), recommended for heart surgery, lacks adoption due to data reporting times (central laboratory coagulation assay-CLCA and laboratory VET tests) and interpretation (predicate VET devices). Three point of care (POC) -VET devices have now become available. The hypotheses of this quality initiative (QI), patient blood management program-PBM), was that: (1) Clinicians desire timely, easily interpreted coagulation data (2) Comparison of two (first available) POC-VETs would determine the technology embraced for PBM. To evaluate these hypotheses clinicians were surveyed as to need ease of use, acceptability, and support of the expanding PBM program before and after testing in operating rooms (ORs). This was not a randomized study to examine reduction in transfusion utilization or improved outcome. It was, however, a QI study to examine perception of an existing problem; with investigation of a solution the clinicians would support decision making. Cardiac team members (anesthesia, surgery, and perfusion) were informed, and their written consent was obtained prior to survey. Team members completed QI surveys before and after the use of the technologies. Anesthesiology members were trained by the manufacturers and assessed for proficiency by Laboratory Medicine (LM). The TEG-6s® and the Quantra® QPlus, evaluated in sixty-eight cardiac patients over a six-week period (May 15-June 30, 2021) gave the clinicians direct experience. The time from blood draw (arterial line) until final coagulation data reported were compared between technologies and where available to CLCA/lab testing. Algorithms for coagulation treatments with the POC-VET data were created in consultation with the manufacturers. QI survey data were reported as percentage of answers in categories. Time to data acquisition and blood usage (pilot data only) were examined with chi-square and Wilcoxon rank sum, two sided tests. Cardiac team members (anesthesia, surgery, and perfusion) were informed, and their written consent was obtained prior to survey. Team members completed QI surveys before and after the use of the technologies. Anesthesiology members were trained by the manufacturers and assessed for proficiency by Laboratory Medicine (LM). The TEG-6s® and the Quantra® QPlus, evaluated in sixty-eight cardiac patients over a six-week period (May 15 -June 30, 2021) gave the clinicians direct experience. The time from blood draw (arterial line) until final coagulation data reported were compared between technologies and where available to CLCA/lab testing. Algorithms for coagulation treatments with the POC-VET data were created in consultation with the manufacturers. QI survey data were reported as percentage of answers in categories. Time to data acquisition and blood usage (pilot data only) were examined with chi-square and Wilcoxon rank sum, two sided tests.

队列,半随机,开放标签质量改善患者血液管理(PBM)比较护理点粘弹性凝血监测仪在心脏手术。
粘弹性测试(VET),推荐用于心脏手术,由于数据报告时间(中心实验室凝血测定- clca和实验室VET测试)和解释(谓式VET设备)缺乏采用。三点护理(POC) -VET设备现在已经可用。这项质量倡议(QI),即患者血液管理计划(PBM)的假设是:(1)临床医生希望及时、易于解释的凝血数据;(2)比较两个(第一个可用的)pocc - vet将决定PBM所采用的技术。为了评估这些假设,对临床医生进行了调查,以了解在手术室(or)测试前后对扩大PBM计划的易用性、可接受性和支持度。这不是一项随机研究,以检查输血利用率的减少或改善的结果。然而,这是一项QI研究,旨在检查对存在问题的看法;通过对解决方案的调查,临床医生将支持决策制定。告知心脏小组成员(麻醉、手术和灌注),并在调查前获得他们的书面同意。团队成员在使用这些技术之前和之后完成了QI调查。麻醉人员由制造商培训,并由检验医学(LM)评估其熟练程度。TEG-6s®和Quantra®QPlus在6周内(2021年5月15日至6月30日)对68名心脏病患者进行了评估,为临床医生提供了直接经验。从抽血(动脉线)到报告最终凝血数据的时间,比较了两种技术之间的时间,以及CLCA/实验室测试的可用时间。使用pocc - vet数据的凝血治疗算法是在与制造商协商后创建的。QI调查数据以类别中回答的百分比报告。数据采集时间和血液使用情况(仅限试点数据)采用卡方和Wilcoxon秩和双侧检验进行检验。告知心脏小组成员(麻醉、手术和灌注),并在调查前获得他们的书面同意。团队成员在使用这些技术之前和之后完成了QI调查。麻醉人员由制造商培训,并由检验医学(LM)评估其熟练程度。TEG-6s®和Quantra®QPlus在六周内(2021年5月15日至6月30日)对68名心脏病患者进行了评估,为临床医生提供了直接经验。从抽血(动脉线)到报告最终凝血数据的时间,比较了两种技术之间的时间,以及CLCA/实验室测试的可用时间。使用pocc - vet数据的凝血治疗算法是在与制造商协商后创建的。QI调查数据以类别中回答的百分比报告。数据采集时间和血液使用情况(仅限试点数据)采用卡方和Wilcoxon秩和双侧检验进行检验。
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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.60%
发文量
144
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing is a clinical journal publishing papers related to technology in the fields of anaesthesia, intensive care medicine, emergency medicine, and peri-operative medicine. The journal has links with numerous specialist societies, including editorial board representatives from the European Society for Computing and Technology in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (ESCTAIC), the Society for Technology in Anesthesia (STA), the Society for Complex Acute Illness (SCAI) and the NAVAt (NAVigating towards your Anaestheisa Targets) group. The journal publishes original papers, narrative and systematic reviews, technological notes, letters to the editor, editorial or commentary papers, and policy statements or guidelines from national or international societies. The journal encourages debate on published papers and technology, including letters commenting on previous publications or technological concerns. The journal occasionally publishes special issues with technological or clinical themes, or reports and abstracts from scientificmeetings. Special issues proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Specific details of types of papers, and the clinical and technological content of papers considered within scope can be found in instructions for authors.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书