Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia · 2024
Comparison of the Quantra QPlus and ROTEM Goal-Directed Transfusion Protocols in Cardiothoracic Surgery Patients: A Prospective Observational Study.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Willers Vera, Krumeich Jan Royce Linton, Hulshof Anne-Marije, Buise Marcus Paulus, van der Horst Iwan Cornelis Clemens, Henskens Yvonne Maria Cornelia, van Bussel Bas Carolus Theodorus, Kuiper Gerhardus Johannes Albert Josef Maria
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare the designed treatment protocols for the Quantra QPlus and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) with regard to transfusion advice.
DESIGN: Prospective observational study.
SETTING: Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands.
PARTICIPANTS: Adults with elective cardiopulmonary bypass surgery with a ROTEM test.
INTERVENTIONS: ROTEM tests were performed postoperatively for standard monitoring of coagulation status and clinical decision making. Simultaneously, a concurrent sample was analyzed for the Quantra QPlus.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 100 samples were analyzed using both the ROTEM and Quantra QPlus. Agreement between the transfusion advice for the ROTEM and Quantra QPlus protocols were compared using Cohen κ values for i.a. fibrinogen, platelet concentrates, and fresh frozen plasma (FFP). The agreement between ROTEM and Quantra QPlus was poor for overall transfusion (0.174) and fibrinogen transfusion (0.300). The agreement of cutoff values for fibrinogen clot stiffness for the Quantra QPlus and EXTEM A10 for the ROTEM was poor (0.160). The fibrinogen clot stiffness and FIBTEM A10 had a moderate agreement (0.731). A Cohen κ could not be calculated for the agreement of protamine, thrombocytes, FFP or cutoff values for these transfusions since frequencies included zero in these cases. The Quantra QPlus transfusion protocol advises transfusion in many non-bleeders, adjustments appear to be necessary. In a small group of cases in which clinically relevant blood loss was observed, the Quantra QPlus advised administration of transfusion products, whereas the ROTEM tests did not.
CONCLUSION: ROTEM-guided and Quantra-guided transfusion did not correspond in this patient group, and agreement was moderate at best. Specificity and sensitivity for transfusion within protocols were heterogeneous between the methods. More clinical research in high-bleeding risk populations is needed to determine the clinical impact of the different protocols.
DESIGN: Prospective observational study.
SETTING: Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands.
PARTICIPANTS: Adults with elective cardiopulmonary bypass surgery with a ROTEM test.
INTERVENTIONS: ROTEM tests were performed postoperatively for standard monitoring of coagulation status and clinical decision making. Simultaneously, a concurrent sample was analyzed for the Quantra QPlus.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 100 samples were analyzed using both the ROTEM and Quantra QPlus. Agreement between the transfusion advice for the ROTEM and Quantra QPlus protocols were compared using Cohen κ values for i.a. fibrinogen, platelet concentrates, and fresh frozen plasma (FFP). The agreement between ROTEM and Quantra QPlus was poor for overall transfusion (0.174) and fibrinogen transfusion (0.300). The agreement of cutoff values for fibrinogen clot stiffness for the Quantra QPlus and EXTEM A10 for the ROTEM was poor (0.160). The fibrinogen clot stiffness and FIBTEM A10 had a moderate agreement (0.731). A Cohen κ could not be calculated for the agreement of protamine, thrombocytes, FFP or cutoff values for these transfusions since frequencies included zero in these cases. The Quantra QPlus transfusion protocol advises transfusion in many non-bleeders, adjustments appear to be necessary. In a small group of cases in which clinically relevant blood loss was observed, the Quantra QPlus advised administration of transfusion products, whereas the ROTEM tests did not.
CONCLUSION: ROTEM-guided and Quantra-guided transfusion did not correspond in this patient group, and agreement was moderate at best. Specificity and sensitivity for transfusion within protocols were heterogeneous between the methods. More clinical research in high-bleeding risk populations is needed to determine the clinical impact of the different protocols.