Vokes Jessica R, Lovett Amy L, de Kantzow Max C, Rogers Chris W, Wilkins Pamela A, Sykes Benjamin W
School of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra 2601, Australia.
Animals (Basel). 2024 Oct 8;14(19):2892. doi: 10.3390/ani14192892.
Viscoelastic monitoring of horse coagulation is increasing due to its advantages over traditional coagulation testing. The use of a point-of-care viscoelastic coagulation monitor (VCM Vet™) has been validated for use in horses using native whole blood (NWB) but has not been assessed using citrated whole blood (CWB), a technique that might have advantages in practicality and precision. Blood was collected from 70 horses, tested in duplicate immediately using NWB (T0), and stored at room temperature as CWB for testing in duplicate at 1 (T1) and 4 (T4) hours after venipuncture for comparison to NWB. Of these horses, 20 were classified as clinically healthy and used to determine reference intervals for CWB at 1 and 4 h post-collection. There were clinically relevant differences in all measured viscoelastic parameters of CWB compared to NWB meaning that they cannot be used interchangeably. These differences were not consistent at T1 and T4 meaning the resting time of CWB influences the results and should be kept consistent. The use of CWB in this study also resulted in more machine errors when compared to NWB resulting in measurements that might not be interpretable.
由于与传统凝血检测相比具有优势,马凝血的粘弹性监测正在增加。即时检测粘弹性凝血监测仪(VCM Vet™)已被验证可用于使用天然全血(NWB)的马匹,但尚未使用枸橼酸盐全血(CWB)进行评估,而CWB在实用性和精确性方面可能具有优势。从70匹马采集血液,立即使用NWB进行重复检测(T0),并作为CWB在室温下储存,以便在静脉穿刺后1小时(T1)和4小时(T4)进行重复检测,以与NWB进行比较。在这些马匹中,20匹被分类为临床健康,并用于确定采血后1小时和4小时CWB的参考区间。与NWB相比,CWB的所有测量粘弹性参数均存在临床相关差异,这意味着它们不能互换使用。这些差异在T1和T4时并不一致,这意味着CWB的静置时间会影响结果,应保持一致。与NWB相比,本研究中使用CWB还导致更多的机器错误,从而导致可能无法解释的测量结果。