Point-of-Care Diagnostic Assays and Novel Preclinical Technologies for Hemostasis and Thrombosis

Association between Functional Parameters of Coagulation and Conventional Coagulation Tests in the Setting of Fluid Resuscitation with Balanced Crystalloid or Gelatine: A Secondary Analysis of an In Vivo Prospective Randomized Crossover Study

Functional point-of-care tests (POCTs) have evolved into useful tools for diagnosing disorders of blood coagulation and fibrinolysis. We aimed to describe the in vivo association between standard and functional parameters of coagulation and fibrinolysis in the setting of acute hemodilution induced by an infusion of balanced crystalloid or synthetic gelatine solutions. This prospective randomized crossover in vivo study included healthy male volunteers aged 18–30 years. Enrolled participants were randomly assigned to receive either the Optilyte^® or Geloplasma^® infusion. Laboratory analysis included conventional coagulation parameters and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) assays. A total of 25 healthy Caucasian males were included. ROTEM viscoelastic assays presented moderate to strong correlations with conventional coagulation tests, regardless of the fluid type utilized. Irrespectively of the extent of hemodilution, significant correlations remained unaffected. The strongest associations were found between the ROTEM clot formation and clot strength and the fibrinogen concentration and platelet count, and between the ROTEM clotting time and the APTT and PT. This in vivo experimental study in healthy male volunteers demonstrated that ROTEM may be used as a credible alternative to standard laboratory tests to assess blood coagulation and fibrinolysis in the setting of fluid resuscitation with both crystalloid and colloid solutions. The study was registered online in the ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT05148650).

Basic science research opportunities in thrombosis and hemostasis: Communication from the SSC of the ISTH

Bleeding and thrombosis are major clinical problems with high morbidity and mortality. Treatment modalities for these diseases have improved in recent years, but there are many clinical questions remaining and a need to advance diagnosis, management, and therapeutic options. Basic research plays a fundamental role in understanding normal and disease processes, yet this sector has observed a steady decline in funding prospects thereby hindering support for studies of mechanisms of disease and therapeutic development opportunities. With the financial constraints faced by basic scientists, the ISTH organized a basic science task force (BSTF), comprising Scientific and Standardization Committee subcommittee chairs and co-chairs, to identify research opportunities for basic science in hemostasis and thrombosis. The goal of the BSTF was to develop a set of recommended priorities to build support in the thrombosis and hemostasis community and to inform ISTH basic science programs and policy making. The BSTF identified three principal opportunity areas that were of significant overarching relevance: mechanisms causing bleeding, innate immunity and thrombosis, and venous thrombosis. Within these, five fundamental research areas were highlighted: blood rheology, platelet biogenesis, cellular contributions to thrombosis and hemostasis, structure-function protein analyses, and visualization of hemostasis. This position paper discusses the importance and relevance of these opportunities and research areas, and the rationale for their inclusion. These findings have implications for the future of fundamental research in thrombosis and hemostasis to make transformative scientific discoveries and tackle key clinical questions. This will permit better understanding, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of hemostatic and thrombotic conditions.