Thromboelastography parameters versus classical coagulation profile in trauma patients: Retrospective study

Abdulraouf Y. Lamoshi, Alison M Wilson
{"title":"Thromboelastography parameters versus classical coagulation profile in trauma patients: Retrospective study","authors":"Abdulraouf Y. Lamoshi, Alison M Wilson","doi":"10.4103/1595-1103.194214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Thrombelastography (TEG) assesses the viscoelastic properties of the whole blood and it is more comprehensive and capable to detect any coagulation abnormalities in comparison to classical coagulation tests (CCTs). On this ground, TEG can be more efficient in acute settings. Therefore, the primary aim was to compare TEG parameters of traumatic brain injury (TBI) versus non-TBI (NTBI) patients. The secondary aim was to identify TEG versus CCT parameters associated with outcome. Methods: A cross-sectional retrospective observational study of 142 patients admitted to a university-based, Level 1 trauma center. TEG and CCT were collected on admission. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for this study. SAS was used for categorical data were analyzed using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test. A comparison of continuous variables between TBI and NTBI patients was performed using the independent-sample t-test. Results: In a total of 142 patients, 48 patients had TBI and 94 patients did not. Overall, mortality was 20.4% (45.8% TBI vs. 7.4% NTBI). There were no significant associations between TEG or CCT parameters and studied variables some of which are injury severity score, abbreviated injury scale, craniotomy/ectomy, type of brain injury, discharge status, and blood pressure. There was no difference between the TBI and NTBI groups regarding TEG or CCT parameters. Maximum amplitude (MA) was the only parameter (TEG or CCT) associated with need for transfusion of packed red blood cell (PRBC) (P = 0.0377). PRBC transfusion was given in 94% of patients with an MA <57.4. Platelet transfusion was given in 89% of patients who have MA < 58.1. Fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) transfusion was given in 80% of patients who have R ≥5.8. PRBC transfusion was given in 77% of 18 patients with α <62.9. Conclusions: TEG parameters are potentially useful as means to rapidly diagnose coagulopathy and predict transfusion in trauma patients. Independently, the presence of TBI does not cause a detectable coagulopathy. TEG analysis is more efficient than the classical parameters in detecting patients who will need PRBC and FFP transfusion.","PeriodicalId":19188,"journal":{"name":"Nigerian Journal of Surgical Research","volume":"271 1","pages":"33 - 37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nigerian Journal of Surgical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/1595-1103.194214","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Thrombelastography (TEG) assesses the viscoelastic properties of the whole blood and it is more comprehensive and capable to detect any coagulation abnormalities in comparison to classical coagulation tests (CCTs). On this ground, TEG can be more efficient in acute settings. Therefore, the primary aim was to compare TEG parameters of traumatic brain injury (TBI) versus non-TBI (NTBI) patients. The secondary aim was to identify TEG versus CCT parameters associated with outcome. Methods: A cross-sectional retrospective observational study of 142 patients admitted to a university-based, Level 1 trauma center. TEG and CCT were collected on admission. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for this study. SAS was used for categorical data were analyzed using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test. A comparison of continuous variables between TBI and NTBI patients was performed using the independent-sample t-test. Results: In a total of 142 patients, 48 patients had TBI and 94 patients did not. Overall, mortality was 20.4% (45.8% TBI vs. 7.4% NTBI). There were no significant associations between TEG or CCT parameters and studied variables some of which are injury severity score, abbreviated injury scale, craniotomy/ectomy, type of brain injury, discharge status, and blood pressure. There was no difference between the TBI and NTBI groups regarding TEG or CCT parameters. Maximum amplitude (MA) was the only parameter (TEG or CCT) associated with need for transfusion of packed red blood cell (PRBC) (P = 0.0377). PRBC transfusion was given in 94% of patients with an MA <57.4. Platelet transfusion was given in 89% of patients who have MA < 58.1. Fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) transfusion was given in 80% of patients who have R ≥5.8. PRBC transfusion was given in 77% of 18 patients with α <62.9. Conclusions: TEG parameters are potentially useful as means to rapidly diagnose coagulopathy and predict transfusion in trauma patients. Independently, the presence of TBI does not cause a detectable coagulopathy. TEG analysis is more efficient than the classical parameters in detecting patients who will need PRBC and FFP transfusion.
创伤患者的血栓弹性成像参数与经典凝血特征:回顾性研究
背景:血栓造影(TEG)评估全血的粘弹性特性,与传统的凝血试验(CCTs)相比,它更全面,能够检测任何凝血异常。基于这一点,TEG可以在急性环境中更有效。因此,主要目的是比较外伤性脑损伤(TBI)与非TBI (NTBI)患者的TEG参数。次要目的是确定与结果相关的TEG和CCT参数。方法:对一所大学一级创伤中心收治的142例患者进行横断面回顾性观察研究。入院时采集TEG和CCT。本研究获得了机构审查委员会的批准。分类资料采用SAS分析,采用卡方检验或Fisher精确检验。使用独立样本t检验比较TBI和NTBI患者之间的连续变量。结果:142例患者中,48例发生TBI, 94例未发生TBI。总体死亡率为20.4% (TBI为45.8%,NTBI为7.4%)。TEG或CCT参数与损伤严重程度评分、简略损伤量表、开颅/切除术、脑损伤类型、出院状态和血压等研究变量之间无显著相关性。TBI组和NTBI组在TEG或CCT参数方面没有差异。最大振幅(MA)是唯一与需要输血填充红细胞(PRBC)相关的参数(TEG或CCT) (P = 0.0377)。94%的MA <57.4的患者接受了PRBC输血。在MA < 58.1的患者中,89%给予血小板输注。80% R≥5.8的患者接受新鲜冷冻血浆(FFP)输注。α <62.9的18例患者中77%给予PRBC输注。结论:TEG参数可作为创伤患者凝血病快速诊断和输血预测的有效手段。单独来看,TBI不会引起可检测到的凝血功能障碍。在检测需要PRBC和FFP输血的患者时,TEG分析比经典参数更有效。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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