Point-of-care (POC) measurement of coagulation after cardiac surgery

Citation
J. Boldt et al., Point-of-care (POC) measurement of coagulation after cardiac surgery, INTEN CAR M, 24(11), 1998, pp. 1187-1193
Citations number
22
Categorie Soggetti
Aneshtesia & Intensive Care
Journal title
INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
ISSN journal
03424642 → ACNP
Volume
24
Issue
11
Year of publication
1998
Pages
1187 - 1193
Database
ISI
SICI code
0342-4642(199811)24:11<1187:P(MOCA>2.0.ZU;2-#
Abstract
Objective:Two different: point-of-care (POC) systems for the monitoring of coagulation variables at the bedside were evaluated with regard to practica bility, accuracy and costs; Design: Prospective, descriptive study. Setting: Single-institutional, clinical investigation on an intensive care unit (ICU) of an urban, university-affiliated hospital. Patients: Eighty cardiac surgery patients were studied postoperatively. Interventions: Arterial blood samples were drawn postoperatively on the ICU at different data points. Measurements ann results: Activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and prothrombin time (PT) were measured using two POC systems (Thrombolytic Ass essment System [TAS] and CoaguCheck Plus(o)). At the same time coagulation parameters were measured by the central laboratory of the hospital. Measure ments were carried out at different data points after cardiac surgery on th e ICU. The direct and indirect costs of measuring aPTT/PT were also assesse d. Bias analyses revealed good agreement of the POC-based monitoring of aPT T/PT with laboratory-based monitoring of coagulation (e.g. aPTT CoaguCheck: bias of - 2.8 s with +/- 2 SD [limits of agree ment] of + 13.7 and -19.1 s ). Mean turn-around time (TAT; time from blood sampling until availability of data for the ICU physicians) was significantly longer for the central la boratory-based coagulation monitoring (130 +/- 38 min) than for the two POC systems (aPTT-TAS: 9.6 +/- 2.7 min; aPTT-CoaguCheck: 6.5 +/- 1.9 min). Blo od sampling at unfavorable times increased the TAT for laboratory-based mea surements considerably. The direct costs for measuring aPPT and PT were sig nificantly higher using both POC systems (aPTT-TAS: $ 4.84; aPTT-CoaguCheck : $ 4.34) than for the central laboratory ($ 1.59). Costs for transportatio n increased the laboratory-based monitoring considerably ($ 3.77). Conclusions: Both POC analyzers may reduce the potential for preanalytical errors associated with coagulation measurements at the central laboratory, hasten TAT significantly and may improve patient therapy by reducing inappr opriate administration of blood products.