Thromboelastometry as a diagnostic tool in mild bleeding disorders: A prospective cohort study.

Wieland Greguare-Sander, Anna; Wuillemin, Walter A; Nagler, Michael (2019). Thromboelastometry as a diagnostic tool in mild bleeding disorders: A prospective cohort study. European journal of anaesthesiology, 36(6), pp. 457-465. Wolters Kluwer 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000985

Text Thromboelastometry.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (389kB)

BACKGROUND

Major guidelines emphasise the potential of visco-elastic methods to overcome the limitations of conventional laboratory assays in the peri-operative setting. Their sensitivity regarding mild bleeding disorders (MBDs), the most common bleeding disorders in the general population, is however unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the sensitivity of thromboelastometry for diagnosis of MBD.

DESIGN

A single-centre prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Haematology outpatient unit of a tertiary general hospital in Central Switzerland.

PATIENTS

All consecutive patients referred over a 32-month period with a suspected bleeding disorder were included and thromboelastometry was conducted using a ROTEM delta (EXTEM, INTEM and FIBTEM). Diagnostic work-up was performed according to current guidelines including the ISTH bleeding assessment tool (ISTH BAT).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Distribution of clotting time (CT) and maximum clot firmness (MCF) results in relation to the presence of MBD.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seventeen patients were assessed; the median [IQR] age was 39 years [28 to 57]; 151 patients were women (70%). MBD was diagnosed in 97 patients (45%), no MBD was found in 100 patients (46%) and a systemic disorder recognised in 20 patients (9%). Presence of MBD was not associated with a significant difference in thromboelastometry variables (0.2 s in CT EXTEM, 95% CI -2.3 to 2.7; -0.2 mm in MCF EXTEM, 95% CI -1.8 to 1.5; -0.7 s in CT INTEM, 95% CI -12.6 to 11.2; 0.6 mm in MCF INTEM, 95% CI -1.2 to 1.3; 0.8 mm in MCF FIBTEM, 95% CI -1.6 to 1.4) and most results were within the established reference ranges.

CONCLUSION

Our data did not support the use of thromboelastometry as a diagnostic tool in patients with MBD.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

3 since deposited on 17 Sep 2019
0 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item