Singh Shweta A, Krishnan Gopi, Ashraf Hashir, Subramanian Rajkumar, Pandey Vijaykant, Nasa Vaibhav K, Goyal Sumit, Gupta Subhash
Center for Liver and Biliary Sciences Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Max Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Indian J Anaesth. 2020 Apr;64(4):286-291. doi: 10.4103/ija.IJA_762_19. Epub 2020 Mar 28.
Viscoelastic haemostatic assays (VHA) namely Thromboelastogram (TEG) and Rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) are used for global assessment of coagulopathy and guiding transfusion during living donor liver transplant (LDLT).We conducted a study to compare the interchangeability of the values obtained from these devices in patients with End stage liver disease (ESLD) undergoing LDLT.
In 76 patients undergoing LDLT, ROTEM and TEG were performed and assessed for interchangeability using Spearman Correlation. The direction and strength of correlation between equivalent parameters was calculated using Inter Class Correlation (ICC) and Bland Altman analysis.
The correlation ρ between CT (clotting time) of ROTEM and R of TEG was 0.16 ( = 0.19).The ICC was 0.15, with 95% confidence interval (CI) of -0.38-0.48 ( = 0.25).The ρ of CFT (ROTEM) with K (TEG) was 0.425 (=<0.001). The ICC was0.49 with 95% CI of 0.17-0.69, = 0.003.Alpha of ROTEM correlated with Angle of TEG with ρ of 0.475 (=<0.001). The ICC was 0.61, with 95% CI of 0.36-0.76, =<0.001.Maximum Clot firmness (MCF) correlated with maximum amplitude (MA) with ρ=0.76 (=<0.001).The ICC was 0.86, with 95% CI of 0.77-0.92, =<0.001. Lysis index (L30) of ROTEM correlated clot lysis (CL30) of TEG with ρ of 0.16 ( = 0.18).However, the ICC was 0.45, with 95% CI of 0.11-0.66, = 0.08. The correlation between CT of ROTEM and R of TEG as well as L30 of ROTEM and CL30 of TEG was not significant.The strongest correlation was found between MCF and MA ( < 0.001). However the MCF/MA showed an agreement of only 86% (ICC = 0.86).
Values from ROTEM and TEG were not found to be interchangeable.
黏弹性止血检测(VHA),即血栓弹力图(TEG)和旋转血栓弹力测定法(ROTEM),用于全面评估凝血病,并在活体肝移植(LDLT)期间指导输血。我们开展了一项研究,以比较这些设备在接受LDLT的终末期肝病(ESLD)患者中所获数值的可互换性。
对76例接受LDLT的患者进行ROTEM和TEG检测,并使用Spearman相关性分析评估其可互换性。使用组内相关系数(ICC)和Bland Altman分析计算等效参数之间相关性的方向和强度。
ROTEM的凝血时间(CT)与TEG的R之间的相关系数ρ为0.16(P = 0.19)。ICC为0.15,95%置信区间(CI)为-0.38至0.48(P = 0.25)。ROTEM的CFT与TEG的K之间的ρ为0.425(P<=0.001)。ICC为0.49,95%CI为0.17至0.69,P = 0.003。ROTEM的α与TEG的角度相关,ρ为0.475(P<=0.001)。ICC为0.61,95%CI为0.36至0.76,P<=0.001。最大血凝块硬度(MCF)与最大振幅(MA)相关,ρ = 0.76(P<=0.001)。ICC为0.86,95%CI为0.77至0.92,P<=0.001。ROTEM的溶解指数(L30)与TEG的血凝块溶解(CL30)相关,ρ为0.16(P = 0.18)。然而,ICC为0.45,95%CI为0.11至0.66,P = 0.08。ROTEM的CT与TEG的R以及ROTEM的L30与TEG的CL30之间的相关性不显著。MCF与MA之间的相关性最强(P<0.001)。然而,MCF/MA的一致性仅为86%(ICC = 0.86)。
未发现ROTEM和TEG的数值具有可互换性。