Subramanian Arulselvi, Albert Venencia, Agrawal Deepak, Saxena Renu, Pandey Ravindra Mohan
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi 110029, India.
Department of Neurosurgery, Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi 110029, India.
ISRN Hematol. 2014 Feb 12;2014:849626. doi: 10.1155/2014/849626. eCollection 2014.
Background. Thromboelastography (TEG) unlike conventional coagulation assays evaluates the dynamic interaction of clotting factors and platelets indicating an overall clot quality. Literature assessing the efficacy of TEG in identifying trauma associated bleeding is lacking. Aim. To compare TEG with conventional plasma based coagulation tests and assess whether TEG can serve as a screening test or replace the conventional routine test. Materials. Retrospective data was collected for 150 severe trauma patients. Patients with known evidence of severe comorbidities, which may influence the outcome, were excluded. Detailed evaluation of the patient's clinical and laboratory records was conducted. Diagnostic characteristics such as sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated. Results. Fifty-one patients were defined as coagulopathic by the conventional coagulation test, 30 by the laboratory established range for TEG indices and 105 by manufactures range. Specificity and sensitivity for the laboratory established range for TEG were 29.4% and 84.8%; for manufactures range sensitivity was 74.5%, specificity was 32.3%. Conclusion. We observed that conventional coagulation assays are the most sensitive tests for diagnosis of coagulopathy due to trauma. However in emergency trauma situations, where immediate corrective measures need to be taken, coagulation parameters and conventional coagulation tests may cause delay. TEG can give highly specific results depicting the underlying coagulopathy.
背景。与传统凝血检测不同,血栓弹力图(TEG)评估凝血因子和血小板的动态相互作用,反映整体凝血质量。目前缺乏评估TEG在识别创伤相关出血方面疗效的文献。目的。比较TEG与传统基于血浆的凝血检测,并评估TEG是否可作为筛查检测或替代传统常规检测。材料。收集了150例严重创伤患者的回顾性数据。排除有已知严重合并症证据且可能影响结果的患者。对患者的临床和实验室记录进行了详细评估。计算了敏感性、特异性和准确性等诊断特征。结果。通过传统凝血检测,51例患者被定义为凝血异常;根据实验室确定的TEG指标范围,30例患者被定义为凝血异常;根据制造商范围,105例患者被定义为凝血异常。实验室确定的TEG范围的特异性和敏感性分别为29.4%和84.8%;制造商范围的敏感性为74.5%,特异性为32.3%。结论。我们观察到,传统凝血检测是诊断创伤性凝血异常最敏感的检测方法。然而,在需要立即采取纠正措施的紧急创伤情况下,凝血参数和传统凝血检测可能会导致延误。TEG可以给出高度特异的结果,描绘潜在的凝血异常。