Suppr超能文献

全血凝血检测的操作者间和操作者内变异性:血栓弹力图与旋转血栓弹力测定法的比较

Interoperator and intraoperator variability of whole blood coagulation assays: a comparison of thromboelastography and rotational thromboelastometry.

作者信息

Anderson Lynne, Quasim Isma, Steven Mark, Moise Stephen F, Shelley Ben, Schraag Stefan, Sinclair Andrew

机构信息

Department of Anesthesia, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Clydebank, Scotland.

Department of Anesthesia, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Clydebank, Scotland.

出版信息

J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2014 Dec;28(6):1550-7. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2014.05.023. Epub 2014 Sep 26.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Near-patient viscoelastic tests have proved useful in decreasing blood and blood product use in cardiac surgery. Two different analyzers are available, TEG and ROTEM. Many different individuals operate these devices, which raises concern that this factor may significantly affect results. The present study sought to objectively assess variability in results between operators.

DESIGN

Prospective study.

SETTING

Regional cardiac center.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Thirty-six mL of blood were taken from each of 21 patients. TEG kaolin and functional fibrinogen (FF) analyses and the equivalent ROTEM INTEM S and FIBTEM S analyses were performed. Six operators performed one of each test per patient to assess interoperator variability. One further operator performed 6 of each test per patient to assess intraoperator variability.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

All routine measurement parameters were noted and the coefficient of variation (CV) calculated, analyzing comparable parameters. All inter-operator CVs were significantly lower for ROTEM analyses compared with TEG. CV for INTEM S CT/ kaolin r time was 4.7 versus 16.3 and MCF/MA was 2.6 versus 4.3 (p < 0.01). Similarly, FIBTEM S MCF/ FF MA was 8.3 versus 12.2. All intraoperator CVs were significantly lower for ROTEM analyses compared with TEG (p<0.01). CV for INTEM S CT/kaolin r time was 3.1 versus 9.8 and MCF/ MA was 1.6 versus 4. Similarly, FIBTEM S MCF/ MA was 6.9 versus 12.1.

CONCLUSIONS

This series of results suggested ROTEM analyses are more reproducible than TEG and, consequently, that ROTEM may be better suited for use in a multiuser environment.

摘要

目的

床旁粘弹性检测已被证明有助于减少心脏手术中血液及血液制品的使用。现有两种不同的分析仪,即血栓弹力图(TEG)和旋转血栓弹力图(ROTEM)。许多不同的人员操作这些设备,这引发了人们对该因素可能显著影响检测结果的担忧。本研究旨在客观评估不同操作人员之间检测结果的变异性。

设计

前瞻性研究。

地点

地区心脏中心。

参与者

接受择期心脏手术的成年患者。

干预措施

从21例患者中每人采集36毫升血液。进行TEG高岭土和功能性纤维蛋白原(FF)分析以及等效的ROTEM INTEM S和FIBTEM S分析。六名操作人员对每位患者各进行一项检测以评估不同操作人员间的变异性。另一名操作人员对每位患者各进行六项检测以评估同一操作人员内的变异性。

测量指标及主要结果

记录所有常规测量参数并计算变异系数(CV),分析可比参数。与TEG相比,ROTEM分析中所有不同操作人员间的CV均显著更低。INTEM S CT/高岭土r时间的CV为4.7对16.3,MCF/MA为2.6对4.3(p<0.01)。同样,FIBTEM S MCF/FF MA为8.3对12.2。与TEG相比,ROTEM分析中所有同一操作人员内的CV均显著更低(p<0.01)。INTEM S CT/高岭土r时间的CV为3.1对9.8,MCF/MA为1.6对4。同样,FIBTEM S MCF/MA为6.9对12.1。

结论

这一系列结果表明ROTEM分析比TEG具有更高的可重复性,因此,ROTEM可能更适合在多用户环境中使用。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验