Suppr超能文献

心脏手术后患者床旁凝血监测试验与标准实验室检测的比较

Comparison of bedside coagulation monitoring tests with standard laboratory tests in patients after cardiac surgery.

作者信息

Reich D L, Yanakakis M J, Vela-Cantos F P, DePerio M, Jacobs E

机构信息

Dept. of Anesthesiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY 10029-6574.

出版信息

Anesth Analg. 1993 Oct;77(4):673-9. doi: 10.1213/00000539-199310000-00004.

Abstract

We compared portable bedside tests of whole blood coagulation with standard laboratory plasma coagulation tests to assess the accuracy and precision of the bedside tests in a clinical setting (postcardiac surgery). The Ciba Corning 512 Coagulation Monitor (Ciba Corning Diagnostics Corp., Medfield, MA) and the Hemochron 801 (International Technidyne Corp., Edison, NJ) were tested. One hundred forty-one patients who underwent cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass were evaluated upon arrival in the intensive care unit. Nine milliliters of fresh whole blood were used to obtain the prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), thrombin time (TT), and the heparin-neutralized thrombin time (HNTT) that were measured by bedside coagulation monitors. TT and HNTT were only measured by the Hemochron method. Blood from the same sample was also sent to the Hospital Stat Laboratory for simultaneous comparison of bedside results and standard coagulation tests. For PT and aPTT testing, an accuracy of +/- 10% and a precision of +/- 25% were considered clinically acceptable. Both of the PT tests met the dual criteria for clinical acceptability, but the aPTT tests did not meet either criterion. The difference between Hemochron TT and Hemochron HNTT correlated weakly, but significantly, with laboratory aPTT ratio (r = 0.52, P < 0.001). The slope of the regression line indicated that a TT-HNTT difference > 30 s correlated with an aPTT > 1.5 x control. We conclude that, in the postoperative cardiac surgical patient, PT was both accurate and precise in two commercially available tests, but aPTT was not.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

摘要

我们将全血凝血的便携式床边检测与标准实验室血浆凝血检测进行比较,以评估在临床环境(心脏手术后)中床边检测的准确性和精密度。对Ciba Corning 512凝血监测仪(Ciba Corning诊断公司,马萨诸塞州梅德菲尔德)和Hemochron 801(国际技术公司,新泽西州爱迪生)进行了测试。141例接受需要体外循环的心脏手术的患者在进入重症监护病房时接受了评估。使用9毫升新鲜全血通过床边凝血监测仪获得凝血酶原时间(PT)、活化部分凝血活酶时间(aPTT)、凝血酶时间(TT)和肝素中和凝血酶时间(HNTT)。TT和HNTT仅通过Hemochron方法测量。同一样本的血液也被送往医院检验科,以便同时比较床边检测结果和标准凝血检测结果。对于PT和aPTT检测,临床上可接受的准确性为±10%,精密度为±25%。两种PT检测均符合临床可接受性的双重标准,但aPTT检测均未达到任何一项标准。Hemochron TT与Hemochron HNTT之间的差异与实验室aPTT比值呈弱但显著的相关性(r = 0.52,P < 0.001)。回归线的斜率表明,TT - HNTT差异> 30秒与aPTT > 1.5×对照相关。我们得出结论,在心脏手术后的患者中,两种市售检测中PT的准确性和精密度均良好,但aPTT并非如此。(摘要截短为250字)

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