Limits of agreement between measures obtained from standard laboratory and the point-of-care device Hemochron Signature Elite(R) during acute haemorrhage

Does heparin rebound lead to postoperative blood loss in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass?

BACKGROUND

Heparin rebound is a common observed phenomenon after cardiac surgery with CPB and is associated with increased postoperative blood loss. However, the administration of extra protamine may lead to increased blood loss as well. Therefore, we want to investigate the relation between heparin rebound and postoperative blood loss and the necessity to provide extra protamine to reverse heparin rebound.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Google Scholar and Web of Science to review the question: "Does heparin rebound lead to postoperative blood loss in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass." Combination of search words were framed within four major categories: heparin rebound, blood loss, cardiac surgery and cardiopulmonary bypass. All studies that met our question were included. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB2) tool for randomized controlled trials and the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of intervention (ROBINS-I) for non-randomised trials.

RESULTS

4 randomized and 17 non-randomized studies were included. The mean incidence of heparin rebound was 40%. The postoperative heparin levels, due to heparin rebound, were often below or equal to 0.2 IU/mL. We could not demonstrate an association between heparin rebound and postoperative blood loss or transfusion requirements. However the quality of evidence was poor due to a broad variety of definitions of heparin rebound, measured by various coagulation tests and studies with small sample sizes.

CONCLUSION

The influence of heparin rebound on postoperative bleeding seems to be negligible, but might get significant in conjunction with incomplete heparin reversal or other coagulopathies. For that reason, it might be useful to get a picture of the entire coagulation spectrum after cardiac surgery, as can be done by the use of a viscoelastic test in conjunction with an aggregometry test.

The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: sixth edition

BACKGROUND

Severe trauma represents a major global public health burden and the management of post-traumatic bleeding continues to challenge healthcare systems around the world. Post-traumatic bleeding and associated traumatic coagulopathy remain leading causes of potentially preventable multiorgan failure and death if not diagnosed and managed in an appropriate and timely manner. This sixth edition of the European guideline on the management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following traumatic injury aims to advise clinicians who care for the bleeding trauma patient during the initial diagnostic and therapeutic phases of patient management.

METHODS

The pan-European, multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma included representatives from six European professional societies and convened to assess and update the previous version of this guideline using a structured, evidence-based consensus approach. Structured literature searches covered the period since the last edition of the guideline, but considered evidence cited previously. The format of this edition has been adjusted to reflect the trend towards concise guideline documents that cite only the highest-quality studies and most relevant literature rather than attempting to provide a comprehensive literature review to accompany each recommendation.

RESULTS

This guideline comprises 39 clinical practice recommendations that follow an approximate temporal path for management of the bleeding trauma patient, with recommendations grouped behind key decision points. While approximately one-third of patients who have experienced severe trauma arrive in hospital in a coagulopathic state, a systematic diagnostic and therapeutic approach has been shown to reduce the number of preventable deaths attributable to traumatic injury.

CONCLUSION

A multidisciplinary approach and adherence to evidence-based guidelines are pillars of best practice in the management of severely injured trauma patients. Further improvement in outcomes will be achieved by optimising and standardising trauma care in line with the available evidence across Europe and beyond.

Reliability of International Normalized Ratio Results in the CoaguChek Pro II System in a Clinical Setting

The National Institute of Cardiology has previously used the CoaguChek® XS Plus system (Roche Diagnostics International Ltd), comparing capillary blood prothrombin time/international normalized ratio (PT/INR) results with those obtained using BCS-XP/Thromborel (Siemens). We assessed the reliability of PT/INR results using the third-generation CoaguChek Pro II system, the CoaguChek XS Plus system, and cobas® t 411 for citrated plasma analysis. Venous and capillary PT/INR were measured (N = 204). Spearman's correlation, Bland-Altman, and concordance analysis between methods were conducted. Spearman's correlation coefficients between venous/capillary INR were high for CoaguChek Pro II versus CoaguChek XS Plus (r = 0.994), CoaguChek Pro II versus cobas t 411 (r = 0.967), and CoaguChek XS Plus versus cobas t 411 (r = 0.968). Good concordance was observed among capillary methods (concordance coefficient [κ] = 0.888) and remaining relationships (P < .001 for all): cobas t 411 versus CoaguChek XS Plus (κ = 0.696) and cobas t 411 versus CoaguChek Pro II (κ = 0.684). In conclusion, good agreement was observed between CoaguChek Pro II, CoaguChek XS Plus, and cobas t 411.

Whole-blood Point-of-Care Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time Ratio (APR) is not Accurate Enough to Monitor Heparin Therapy in Patients with Severe Respiratory Failure Secondary to SARS-Cov-2 Infection Supported with Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VV-ECMO)

Support with VV-ECMO requires anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin to prevent thrombotic complications. This must be monitored due to bleeding risk. A point-of-care (POC) method of testing aPTT and APR was evaluated for agreement with laboratory methods. In a prospective observational study, patients supported on VV-ECMO as a result of severe respiratory failure secondary to Covid-19 infection were given heparin as part of standard therapy. The aPTT was measured (i) at the bedside using the Hemochron Signature Elite device and (ii) at the hospital laboratory. Duplicate results were compared. Agreement between the POC and laboratory tests was poor, as assessed using the Bland-Altman method. The maximum difference between POC and laboratory methods was 133% and the minimum was 0%. Overall bias was 7.3% and limits of agreement were between -43.8% and 58.5%. Correlation increased when results were normalised to platelet count and creatinine. This POC test is insufficiently accurate for use as the primary method of heparin monitoring in patients requiring VV-ECMO for Covid-19. Platelets and renal function may influence the result of this whole blood POC test.

An Agreement Study Between Point-of-Care and Laboratory Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time for Anticoagulation Monitoring During Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Background

Laboratory activated partial thromboplastin time (LAB-aPTT) is a widely used laboratory assay for monitoring unfractionated heparin (UFH) therapy during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). But LAB-aPTT is confined to a central laboratory, and the procedure is time-consuming. In comparison, point-of-care aPTT (POC-aPTT) is a convenient and quick assay, which might be a promising method for anticoagulation monitoring in ECMO. This study was aimed to evaluate the agreement between POC-aPTT (hemochron Jr. Signature instruments) and LAB-aPTT for anticoagulation monitoring in adult ECMO patients.

Methods

Data of ECMO-supported adult patients anticoagulated with UFH in our institute from January 2017 to December 2020 was retrospectively reviewed. POC-aPTT and LAB-aPTT results measured simultaneously were paired and included in the analysis. The correlation between POC-aPTT and LAB-aPTT was assessed using Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Bias between POC-aPTT and LAB-aPTT were described with the Bland-Altman method. Influence factors for bias were identified using multinomial logistic regression analysis.

Results

A total 286 pairs of aPTT results from 63 patients were included in the analysis. POC-aPTT and LAB-aPTT correlated weakly (r = 0.385, P < 0.001). The overall bias between POC-aPTT and LAB-aPTT was 7.78 [95%CI (−32.49, 48.05)] s. The overall bias between POC-aPTT and LAB-aPTT ratio (to normal value) was 0.54 [95%CI (−0.68, 1.76)]. A higher plasma fibrinogen level [OR 1.353 (1.057, 1.733), P = 0.017] was associated with a higher chance of POC-aPTT underestimating LAB-aPTT. While a lower plasma fibrinogen level [OR 0.809 (0.679, 0.963), P = 0.017] and lower UFH rate [OR 0.928 (0.868, 0.992), P = 0.029] were associated with a higher chance of POC-aPTT overestimating LAB-aPTT.

Conclusion

The present study showed poor agreement between POC-aPTT and LAB-aPTT. POC-aPTT was not suitable for anticoagulation monitoring in adult ECMO patients.

Activated clotting time in inpatient diagnostic and interventional settings

Monitoring for the anticoagulant effect of unfractionated (UFH) at the point of care using activated clotting time in real time is vital where risk of thrombosis is high. Although monitoring UFH effect is a routine and important task, changing from one ACT instrument type or technology to another must be preceded by a clinical and statistical evaluation to determine the suitability and repeatability and establish normal and treatable ranges of this newer instrument. In this multi-center prospective evaluation we tested 1236 paired ACT+ samples, and 463 paired ACT-LR samples (1699 total) from enrolled study subjects. Clinical settings included CVOR cardiopulmonary bypass, at the beside in extracorporeal life support (ELS), the Cardiac Catheterization Lab (CCL) during diagnostic studies and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), interventional radiology procedures and EP interventions. This study found more consistent clinical performance from the GEM Hemochron 100 as compared to the current clinical model, the Hemochron Signature Elite. The bias of GEM Hemochron 100 for ACT+ and ACT-LR was greatest in the setting of the CVOR where ACT levels were high. ACT-LR measurements by the GEM Hemochron 100 were comparable to the SE when performed in settings of CCL, ECM, EP and ICU. Results obtained for both ACT-LR and ACT+ in all clinical settings in this study using the GEM Hemochron 100 are as accurate and more repeatable as those with the current clinically available Signature Elite.

Tools to predict acute traumatic coagulopathy in the pre-hospital setting: a review of the literature

Introduction:

Recognising acute traumatic coagulopathy (ATC) poses a significant challenge to improving survival in emergency care. Paramedics are in a prime position to identify ATC in pre-hospital major trauma and initiate appropriate coagulopathy management.

Method:

A database literature review was conducted using Scopus, CINAHL and MEDLINE.

Results:

Two themes were identified from four studies: prediction tools, and point-of-care testing. Prediction tools identified key common ATC markers in the pre-hospital setting, including: systolic blood pressure, reduced Glasgow Coma Score and trauma to the chest, abdomen and pelvis. Point-of-care testing was found to have limited value.

Conclusion:

Future research needs to explore paramedics using prediction tools in identifying ATC, which could alert hospitals to prepare for blood products for damage control resuscitation.

Efficacy of Point-of-Care for INR Testing Compared to Standard Laboratory Methods at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Saudi Arabia

Introduction

Regular testing of the international normalized ratio (INR) is essential for people taking vitamin K antagonists as part of anticoagulation therapy. This study was undertaken to ascertain the efficacy of point-of-care testing (POCT)-INR versus conventional core laboratory testing in terms of result adequacy, waiting-time reduction, and patient satisfaction enhancement at the thrombosis clinic of the outpatient Medical Specialties Department in King Fahad Medical City, Saudi Arabia.

Methods

The study was conducted prospectively for 6 months (from June 2017 to December 2017) on 182 eligible participants out of 250 entitled patients who were attending the thrombosis clinic for warfarin dose adjustment and who fulfilled all the prerequisites for performing dual testing by fingerstick at the clinic and venipuncture by the core laboratory. The data-capturing template created on Microsoft Excel recorded turnaround times (TATs), clinical concordance of INR result variables by POCT, and laboratory methods. Individual patient experience was recorded to gauge satisfaction rate, and all the data were analyzed statistically.

Results

Of 182 patients included in the study, overall good concord was observed between POCT whole blood and laboratory plasma INR results with median bias of 0.07 and 92.3% agreement using acceptability criteria for clinical concordance of Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 14-A and International Standards Organization (ISO) 17593-2007, respectively. Marked improvement in terms of patient's time spent at the clinic was noted, with substantial reduction from 180 to ∼30 minutes (p < 0.001). Survey questionnaire responses indicated that POCT of INR was highly convenient and enhanced patient experience in terms of shorter wait time, minimal invasive procedures, and immediate result availability (p < 0.001). Predominantly, participants (75.4%) endorsed and expressed a strong preference for the POCT procedure over conventional laboratory testing.

Conclusions

Whole blood INR testing for warfarin dose adjustment with validated POCT devices is adequately comparable to the core laboratory results. It also simplifies workflow steps at the thrombosis clinic, enhancing patient experience and convenience via the immediate availability of results, a less invasive procedure, and a marked reduction in waiting time. However, caution is needed with regard to higher INR results (≥4.7), which call for core laboratory confirmation.

The accuracy of a point of care measurement of activated partial thromboplastin time in intensive care patients

Point of care (POC) devices are increasingly being used in intensive care units to obtain faster results. Data are limited on the performance of these devices in critically ill patients, especially those on heparin infusion. The objective of this study was to assess the agreement between POC activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) and laboratory APTT results in patients on heparin infusion and to determine its impact on the clinical decisions regarding heparin dosage. We screened all patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at St George Hospital, Sydney, over a 7-month period and enrolled those who were receiving intravenous heparin infusion. We measured APTT by two methods: bedside POC test (Hemochron Junior Signature Plus) and central laboratory method (STA analyser). We used the Bland-Altman method to test the statistical agreement between the two measurements and Cohen's kappa statistic to test the clinical agreement regarding heparin dosing decision. A total of 176 paired samples from 44 patients (mean age 63 years, 64% males, mean APACHE 18) were analysed. The mean turnaround time for the point of care APTT result was significantly shorter than the central laboratory result (5.0±0.2 min vs 64.6±2.7 min, p<0.0001). Despite the statistically significant correlation, the overall agreement tested by the Bland-Altman method was poor. The 95% limits of agreement were widest (-27.266 to 64.791) and mean percentage bias was highest (24%) for the comparison between POC APTT using citrated blood and laboratory APTT. When POC APTT results of less than 90 seconds using whole blood were compared to laboratory APTT results, the limits of the agreement became narrower (-23.243 to 28.419), and the mean percentage bias decreased to 5%. The agreement between clinical decisions regarding heparin dosage based on the two methods was poor for plain and citrated blood (kappa 0.35 and 0.11, respectively). The POC APTT results were not sufficiently accurate for use in patients on heparin infusion compared to laboratory APTT assay.

The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: fifth edition

BACKGROUND

Severe traumatic injury continues to present challenges to healthcare systems around the world, and post-traumatic bleeding remains a leading cause of potentially preventable death among injured patients. Now in its fifth edition, this document aims to provide guidance on the management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following traumatic injury and encourages adaptation of the guiding principles described here to individual institutional circumstances and resources.

METHODS

The pan-European, multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was founded in 2004, and the current author group included representatives of six relevant European professional societies. The group applied a structured, evidence-based consensus approach to address scientific queries that served as the basis for each recommendation and supporting rationale. Expert opinion and current clinical practice were also considered, particularly in areas in which randomised clinical trials have not or cannot be performed. Existing recommendations were re-examined and revised based on scientific evidence that has emerged since the previous edition and observed shifts in clinical practice. New recommendations were formulated to reflect current clinical concerns and areas in which new research data have been generated.

RESULTS

Advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of post-traumatic coagulopathy have supported improved management strategies, including evidence that early, individualised goal-directed treatment improves the outcome of severely injured patients. The overall organisation of the current guideline has been designed to reflect the clinical decision-making process along the patient pathway in an approximate temporal sequence. Recommendations are grouped behind the rationale for key decision points, which are patient- or problem-oriented rather than related to specific treatment modalities. While these recommendations provide guidance for the diagnosis and treatment of major bleeding and coagulopathy, emerging evidence supports the author group's belief that the greatest outcome improvement can be achieved through education and the establishment of and adherence to local clinical management algorithms.

CONCLUSIONS

A multidisciplinary approach and adherence to evidence-based guidance are key to improving patient outcomes. If incorporated into local practice, these clinical practice guidelines have the potential to ensure a uniform standard of care across Europe and beyond and better outcomes for the severely bleeding trauma patient.

Benefits and Pitfalls of Point-of-Care Coagulation Testing for Anticoagulation Management: An ACLPS Critical Review

Objectives

Point-of-care (POC) testing is generally less precise and has higher reagent costs per test than laboratory-based assays. However, POC hemostasis testing can offer significant advantages in particular situations: patient-managed warfarin therapy as well as rapid turnaround time heparin management for intraoperative patients. Of note, POC hemostasis testing is generally approved for the purposes of anticoagulation monitoring and is inferior to laboratory coagulation testing for the diagnosis of congenital or acquired coagulopathy.

Methods

The frequently used POC coagulation instruments for POC international normalized ratio and activated clotting time are reviewed, as well as their typical performance relative to central laboratory testing (where available).

Results

Several cases are discussed that highlight the benefits, as well as pitfalls, of POC coagulation testing.

Conclusions

POC coagulation testing for anticoagulation monitoring offers advantages in particular situations. Clear policies and protocols must be developed to guide proper use of POC versus central laboratory hemostasis testing.

Korean clinical practice guideline for perioperative red blood cell transfusion from Korean Society of Anesthesiologists

Background

Considering the functional role of red blood cells (RBC) in maintaining oxygen supply to tissues, RBC transfusion can be a life-saving intervention in situations of severe bleeding or anemia. RBC transfusion is often inevitable to address intraoperative massive bleeding; it is a key component in safe perioperative patient management. Unlike general medical resources, packed RBCs (pRBCs) have limited availability because their supply relies entirely on voluntary donations. Additionally, excessive utilization of pRBCs may aggravate prognosis or increase the risk of developing infectious diseases. Appropriate perioperative RBC transfusion is, therefore, crucial for the management of patient safety and medical resource conservation. These concerns motivated us to develop the present clinical practice guideline for evidence-based efficient and safe perioperative RBC transfusion management considering the current clinical landscape.

Methods

This guideline was obtained after the revision and refinement of exemplary clinical practice guidelines developed in advanced countries. This was followed by rigorous evidence-based reassessment considering the healthcare environment of the country.

Results

This guideline covers all important aspects of perioperative RBC transfusion, such as preoperative anemia management, appropriate RBC storage period, and leukoreduction (removal of white blood cells using filters), reversal of perioperative bleeding tendency, strategies for perioperative RBC transfusion, appropriate blood management protocols, efforts to reduce blood transfusion requirements, and patient monitoring during a perioperative transfusion.

Conclusions

This guideline will aid decisions related to RBC transfusion in healthcare settings and minimize patient risk associated with unnecessary pRBC transfusion.

Thrombolysis in stroke patients: Comparability of point-of-care versus central laboratory international normalized ratio

BACKGROUND

In acute stroke patients, thrombolysis is one gold standard therapy option within the first four hours after the ischemic event. A contraindication for thrombolysis is an International Normalized Ratio (INR) value >1.7. Since time is brain, rapid and reliable INR results are fundamental. Aim was to compare INR values determined by central laboratory (CL) analyzer and Point-of-Care Testing(POCT)-device and to evaluate the quality of POCT performance in cases of potential therapeutic thrombolysis at a certified stroke unit.

METHODS

In 153 patients INR measurements using POCT-devices (HEMOCHRON Signature Elite®) were compared to INR measurements (BCS®XP) performed at the central laboratory. Outlier evaluation was performed regarding the critical thrombolysis cut-off.

RESULTS

Overall, we demonstrated a significant correlation (r = 0.809, p<0.0001) between both measurement methods. Mean value of the absolute difference between CL-INR and POCT-INR measurements was 0.23. In 95.4% of these cases, no differences regarding the critical cut-off (INR 1.7) were observed. POCT-INR values tended to be higher than the CL-INR values (p = 0.01). In 4.6% cases, a different value regarding thrombolysis cut-off was found. All patients were >75 years.

CONCLUSIONS

POCT-INR measurements based on our POCT concept are suitable to determine INR values in critical stroke patients. Nevertheless, outlier evaluation is mandatory.

Performance of point-of-care international normalized ratio measurement to diagnose trauma-induced coagulopathy

Background

Trauma-induced coagulopathy (TIC) is a common feature after severe trauma. Detection of TIC is based upon classic coagulation tests including international normalized ratio (INR) value. Point-of-care (POC) devices have been developed to rapidly measure INR at the bedside on whole blood. The aim of the study was to test the precision of the Coagucheck® XS Pro device for INR measurement at hospital admission after severe trauma.

Methods

We conducted a prospective observational study in a French level I trauma center. From January 2015 to May 2016, 98 patients with a suspicion of a post-traumatic acute hemorrhage had POC-INR measurement on whole blood concomitantly to classic laboratory INR determination (lab-INR) on plasma at hospital admission. The agreement between the two methods in sorting three predefined categories of INR (normal coagulation, moderate TIC and severe TIC) was evaluated using the Cohen’s kappa test with a quadratic weighting. The correlation between POC-INR and lab-INR was measured using the Pearson’s coefficient. We also performed a Bland and Altman analysis.

Results

The agreement between the lab-INR and the POC-INR was moderate (Kappa = 0.45 [95% CI 0.36–0.50]) and the correlation between the two measurements was also weak (Pearson’s coefficient = 0.44 [95% CI 0.27–0.59]). Using a Bland and Altman analysis, the mean difference (bias) for INR was 0.22 [95% CI 0.02–0.42], and the standard deviation (precision) of the difference was 1.01.

Discussion/conclusion

POC Coagucheck® XS Pro device is not reliable to measure bedside INR. Its moderate agreement with lab-INR weakens the usefulness of such device after severe trauma.

Trial registration

NCT02869737. Registered 9 August 2016.

Evaluation of point-of-care testing in critically unwell patients: comparison with clinical laboratory analysers and applicability to patients with Ebolavirus infection

Data on the performance of point-of-care (POC) or near-patient devices in the management of critically unwell patients are limited, meaning that there are demands for confirming POC test results in the routine clinical laboratory and so potentially leading to delay in treatment provision. We evaluated the performance of the i-STAT CHEM 8+ and CG4+, Hemochron Signature Elite, HemoCue Hb 201+ and WBC Diff Systems on whole blood collected from medical and surgical patients admitted to the intensive care unit at an Australian tertiary care hospital. Measurements obtained for haematology, coagulation, biochemistry and arterial blood gas parameters using POC devices were compared against clinical laboratory analysers (XE-5000, STA-R Evolution, Dimension Vista 1500 and ABL800 FLEX). Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablok regression plots were constructed to assess agreement. Good correlation was defined as a bias of <10% between the POC device and the reference method. Forty arterial blood samples were collected from 28 patients. There was good correlation demonstrated for sodium, potassium, chloride, ionised calcium, glucose, urea, haemoglobin and haematocrit values (i-STAT Chem 8+); pH, pCO(2), bicarbonate and oxygen saturation (i-STAT CG4+); haemoglobin, white cell, neutrophil count and lymphocyte counts (Hemocue); and internationalised normal ratio (INR; Hemochron Signature Elite), but not creatinine, anion gap, pO(2), base excess, lactate, eosinophil count, prothrombin and activated partial thromboplastin time. POC devices were comparable to clinical laboratory analysers in measuring the majority of haematology, biochemistry and coagulation parameters in critically unwell patients, including those with infections. These devices may be deployed at the bedside to allow 'real-time' testing to improve patient care.

The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: fourth edition

BACKGROUND

Severe trauma continues to represent a global public health issue and mortality and morbidity in trauma patients remains substantial. A number of initiatives have aimed to provide guidance on the management of trauma patients. This document focuses on the management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma and encourages adaptation of the guiding principles to each local situation and implementation within each institution.

METHODS

The pan-European, multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was founded in 2004 and included representatives of six relevant European professional societies. The group used a structured, evidence-based consensus approach to address scientific queries that served as the basis for each recommendation and supporting rationale. Expert opinion and current clinical practice were also considered, particularly in areas in which randomised clinical trials have not or cannot be performed. Existing recommendations were reconsidered and revised based on new scientific evidence and observed shifts in clinical practice; new recommendations were formulated to reflect current clinical concerns and areas in which new research data have been generated. This guideline represents the fourth edition of a document first published in 2007 and updated in 2010 and 2013.

RESULTS

The guideline now recommends that patients be transferred directly to an appropriate trauma treatment centre and encourages use of a restricted volume replacement strategy during initial resuscitation. Best-practice use of blood products during further resuscitation continues to evolve and should be guided by a goal-directed strategy. The identification and management of patients pre-treated with anticoagulant agents continues to pose a real challenge, despite accumulating experience and awareness. The present guideline should be viewed as an educational aid to improve and standardise the care of the bleeding trauma patients across Europe and beyond. This document may also serve as a basis for local implementation. Furthermore, local quality and safety management systems need to be established to specifically assess key measures of bleeding control and outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

A multidisciplinary approach and adherence to evidence-based guidance are key to improving patient outcomes. The implementation of locally adapted treatment algorithms should strive to achieve measureable improvements in patient outcome.

Point-of-care devices for physiological measurements in field conditions. A smorgasbord of instruments and validation procedures

Point-of-care (POC) devices provide quick diagnostic results that increase the efficiency of patient care. Many POC devices are currently available to measure metabolites, blood gases, hormones, disease biomarkers or pathogens in samples as diverse as blood, urine, feces or exhaled breath. This diversity is potentially very useful for the comparative physiologist in field studies if proper validation studies are carried out to justify the accuracy of the devices in non-human species under different conditions. Our review presents an account of physiological parameters that can be monitored with POC devices and surveys the literature for suitable quantitative and statistical procedures for comparing POC measurements with reference "gold standard" procedures. We provide a set of quantitative tools and report on different correlation coefficients (Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficient or the more widespread Pearson correlation coefficient), describe the graphical assessment of variation using Bland-Altman plots and discuss the difference between Model I and Model II regression procedures. We also report on three validation datasets for lactate, glucose and hemoglobin measurements in birds using the newly proposed procedures. We conclude the review with a haphazard account of future developments in the field, emphasizing the interest in lab-on-a-chip devices to carry out more complex experimental measurements than the ones currently available in POC devices.

All the bang without the bucks: Defining essential point-of-care testing for traumatic coagulopathy

BACKGROUND

Rapid assessment and treatment of coagulopathy reduces postinjury morbidity and mortality. Although thrombelastography (TEG) may be more accurate and efficient than conventional coagulation tests, it requires significant financial and personnel investments. We hypothesized that point-of-care international normalized ratio (POC INR) may provide a rapid and accurate alternative to TEG.

METHODS

A retrospective review of sequential trauma patients who underwent both POC INR and rapid TEG (r-TEG) testing upon presentation to a Level I trauma center from July 2012 to December 2013 was performed. POC INR was compared with r-TEG values (R value, K time, α angle, maximum amplitude, percent clot lysis in 30 minutes) and transfusion requirements. Vital signs, admission laboratory values, and injury severity were analyzed. POC INR and venous blood gas testing was performed in the emergency department. All results and Pearson correlations noted were significant if p < 0.05.

RESULTS

We identified 628 trauma patients with concomitant r-TEG and POC INR testing. Median Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 13, 20% arrived in shock (base value < -5), 21% were transfused, and 11% died. POC INR correlated with all r-TEG values, with stronger correlations for patients in shock. POC INR and r-TEG had similar correlations with blood products transfused at 4 hours and 24 hours, but only POC INR predicted substantial bleeding and massive transfusion. POC INR also correlated strongly with standard INR testing. POC INR test duration was less than 1 minute, compared with at least 30 minutes for r-TEG. Total cohort charges for POC INR were estimated at $21,980 versus $396,896 for r-TEG.

CONCLUSION

POC INR testing is faster and cheaper than r-TEG. In addition, POC INR correlates not only with r-TEG values but also with acute blood product transfusions. POC INR provides a practical alternative for rapid coagulopathy assessment in the trauma patient at institutions that lack TEG capability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic study, level III. Therapeutic/care management study, level IV.

Reliability of a point-of-care device for international normalized ratio testing during the three surgical phases of orthotopic liver transplantation: a retrospective observational study

PURPOSE

To investigate the reliability of a point-of-care device, the HEMOCHRON(®) Jr. Signature, for measuring the international normalized ratio (INR) during the three surgical phases of liver transplantation.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on patients undergoing liver transplantation during July to December 2013. Thirty-one patients who had simultaneous laboratory and point-of-care INR readings from each phase of liver transplant surgery (paleohepatic, anhepatic, and neohepatic) were eligible for inclusion. Bland-Altman analysis, Spearman's rank correlation, and four quadrant plots were used to compare INR results from the point-of-care device (pocINR) with those from the laboratory (labINR).

RESULTS

Based on the Bland-Altman analysis, mean biases (95% prediction interval) were 0.10 (0.03 to 0.17), 0.19 (0.12 to 0.27), and 0.21 (0.01 to 0.43) for the paleohepatic, anhepatic, and neohepatic phases, respectively. The pocINR device showed a systematic underestimation of the labINR. The Spearman's rank correlation coefficients (95% confidence interval [CI]) were: Ρ = 0.90 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.95); Ρ = 0.92 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.93); and Ρ = 0.71 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.85), respectively. Direction-of-change analysis between the paleohepatic to anhepatic and the anhepatic to neohepatic phases showed strong concordance of 84% and, also considering the small bias between the measurements, supports the use of the pocINR device in the clinical management of liver transplant surgery.

CONCLUSION

Point-of-care INR was accurate prior to hepatic reperfusion, but reliability decreased in the neohepatic phase.