Utilizing Plasma Composition Data to Help Determine Procoagulant Dynamics in Patients with Thermal Injury: A Computational Assessment.

INTRODUCTION

The development of methods that generate individualized assessments of the procoagulant potential of burn patients could improve their treatment. Beyond its role as an essential intermediate in the formation of thrombin, factor (F)Xa has systemic effects as an agonist to inflammatory processes. In this study, we use a computational model to study the FXa dynamics underlying tissue factor-initiated thrombin generation in a small cohort of burn patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Plasma samples were collected upon admission (Hour 0) from nine subjects (five non-survivors) with major burn injuries and then at 48 hours. Coagulation factor concentrations (II, V, VII, VIII, IX, X, TFPI, antithrombin (AT), protein C (PC)) were measured and used in a computational model to generate time course profiles for thrombin (IIa), FXa, extrinsic tenase, intrinsic tenase and prothrombinase complexes upon a 5 pM tissue factor stimulus in the presence of 1 nM thrombomodulin. Parameters were extracted from the thrombin and FXa profiles (including max rate (MaxRIIa and MaxRFXa) and peak level (MaxLIIa and MaxLFXa)). Procoagulant potential was also evaluated by determining the concentration of the complexes at select times. Parameter values were compared between survivors and non-survivors in the burn cohort and between the burn cohort and a simulation based on the mean physiological (100%) concentration for all factor levels.

RESULTS

Burn patients differed at Hour 0 (p < 0.05) from 100% mean physiological levels for all coagulation factor levels except FV and FVII. The concentration of FX, FII, TFPI, AT and PC was lower; FIX and FVIII were increased. The composition differences resulted in all nine burn patients at Hour 0 displaying a procoagulant phenotype relative to 100% mean physiological simulation (MaxLIIa (306 ± 90 nM vs. 52 nM), MaxRIIa (2.9 ± 1.1 nM/s vs. 0.3 nM/s), respectively p < 0.001); MaxRFXa and MaxLFXa were also an order of magnitude greater than 100% mean physiological simulation (p < 0.001). When grouped by survival status and compared at the time of admission, non-survivors had lower PC levels (56 ± 18% vs. 82 ± 9%, p < 0.05), and faster MaxRFXa (29 ± 6 pM/s vs. 18 ± 6 pM/s, p < 0.05) than those that survived; similar trends were observed for all other procoagulant parameters. At 48 hours when comparing non-survivors to survivors, TFPI levels were higher (108 ± 18% vs. 59 ± 18%, p < 0.05), and MaxRIIa (1.5 ± 1.4 nM/s vs. 3.6 ± 0.7 nM/s, p < 0.05) and MaxRFXa (13 ± 12 pM/s vs. 35 ± 4 pM/s, p < 0.05) were lower; similar trends were observed with all other procoagulant parameters. Overall, between admission and 48 hours, procoagulant potential, as represented by MaxR and MaxL parameters for thrombin and FXa, in non-survivors decreased while in survivors they increased (p < 0.05). In patients that survived, there was a positive correlation between FX levels and MaxLFXa (r = 0.96) and reversed in mortality (r= -0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

Thrombin and FXa generation are increased in burn patients at admission compared to mean physiological simulations. Over the first 48 hours, burn survivors became more procoagulant while non-survivors became less procoagulant. Differences between survivors and non-survivors appear to be present in the underlying dynamics that contribute to FXa dynamics. Understanding how the individual specific balance of procoagulant and anticoagulant proteins contributes to thrombin and FXa generation could ultimately guide therapy and potentially reduce burn injury-related morbidity and mortality.