Article

A comparison of kaolin-activated versus nonkaolin-activated thromboelastography in native and citrated blood

Sheila Sherlock Hepatobiliarypancreatic and Liver Transplantation Unit, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
Blood Coagulation and Fibrinolysis (Impact Factor: 1.38). 09/2008; 19(6):495-501. DOI: 10.1097/MBC.0b013e3282f9adf9
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Thromboelastography can be performed with native or citrated blood (a surrogate to native blood in healthy controls, surgical and cirrhotic patients). Activators such as kaolin are increasingly used to reduce the time to trace generation. To compare kaolin-activated thromboelastography with nonkaolin-activated thromboelastography of native and citrated blood in patients with liver disease, patients undergoing treatment with warfarin or low-molecular weight heparin and healthy volunteers. We studied thromboelastography parameters in 21 healthy volunteers (group 1) and 50 patients, including 20 patients with liver cirrhosis with a nonbiliary aetiology (group 2), 10 patients with primary biliary cirrhosis or primary sclerosing cholangitis (group 3), 10 patients on warfarin treatment (group 4) and 10 patients with enoxaparin prophylaxis (group 5). Thromboelastography was performed using four methods: native blood (kaolin-activated and nonkaolin-activated) and citrated blood (kaolin-activated and nonkaolin-activated). For all thromboelastography parameters, correlation was poor (Spearman correlation coefficient < 0.70) between nonkaolin-activated and kaolin-activated thromboelastography, for both citrated and native blood. In healthy volunteers, in patients with liver disease and in those receiving anticoagulant treatment, there was a poor correlation between nonkaolin-activated and kaolin-activated thromboelastography. Kaolin-activated thromboelastography needs further validation before routine clinical use in these settings, and the specific methodology must be considered in comparing published studies.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Andrew K Burroughs, Aug 16, 2015
3 Followers
 · 
337 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Thromboelastography (TEG) as a method of assessing global hemostatic and fibrinolytic function has existed for more than 60 years. Improvements in TEG technology have led to increased reliability and thus increased usage. The TEG has been used primarily in the settings of liver transplant and cardiac surgery, with proven utility for monitoring hemostatic and fibrinolytic derangements. In recent years, indications for TEG testing have expanded to include managing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy, assessing bleeding of unclear etiology, and assessing hypercoagulable states. In addition, TEG platelet mapping has been utilized to monitor antiplatelet therapy. Correlation between TEG platelet mapping and other platelet function tests such as the PFA-100 or platelet aggregation studies, however, has not been evaluated fully for clinical outcomes, and results may not be comparable. In general, the advantages of the TEG include evaluation of global hemostatic function using whole blood, a quick turn-around-time, the possibility of both point-of-care-testing and performance in central laboratories, the ability to detect hyperfibrinolysis, monitoring therapy with recombinant activated factor VII, and detection of low factor XIII activity. Potential applications include polycythemia and dysfibrinogenemia. Disadvantages of TEG include a relatively high coefficient of variation, poorly standardized methodologies, and limitations on specimen stability of native whole blood samples. In the pediatric setting, an additional advantage of the TEG is a relatively small sample volume, but a disadvantage is the difference in normal ranges between infants, especially newborns, and adults. In summary, TEG is an old concept with new applications that may provide a unique perspective on global hemostasis in various clinical settings.
    Clinics in laboratory medicine 07/2009; 29(2):391-407. DOI:10.1016/j.cll.2009.04.003 · 1.35 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To provide a comprehensive review of the pharmacotherapy associated with the provision of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) to patients with end-stage heart failure and guidance regarding the selection, assessment, and optimization of drug therapy for this population. The MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from 1960 to July 2010 for articles published in English using the search terms mechanical circulatory support, ventricular assist system, ventricular assist device, left ventricular assist device, right ventricular assist device, biventricular assist device, total artificial heart, pulsatile, positive displacement, axial, centrifugal, hemostasis, bleeding, hemodynamic, blood pressure, thrombosis, antithrombotic therapy, anticoagulant, antiplatelet, right ventricular failure, ventricular arrhythmia, anemia, arteriovenous malformation, stroke, infection, and clinical pharmacist. All relevant original studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, guidelines, and reviews were assessed for inclusion. References from pertinent articles were examined for content not found during the initial search. MCS has advanced significantly since the first left ventricular assist device was implanted in 1966. Further advancements in MCS technology that occurred in the latter decade are changing the overall management of endstage heart failure care and cardiac transplantation. These pumps allow for improved bridge-to-transplant rates, enhanced survival, and quality of life. Pharmacotherapy associated with MCS devices may optimize the performance of the pumps and improve patient outcomes, as well as minimize morbidity related to their adverse effects. This review highlights the knowledge needed to provide appropriate clinical pharmacy services for patients supported by MCS devices. The HeartMate II clinical investigators called for the involvement of pharmacists in MCS patient assessment and optimization. Pharmacotherapeutic management of patients supported with MCS devices requires individualized care, with pharmacists as part of the team, based on the characteristics of each pump and recipient.
    Annals of Pharmacotherapy 01/2011; 45(1):60-77. DOI:10.1345/aph.1P459 · 2.92 Impact Factor
Show more