Preoperative thromboelastometry for the prediction of increased chest tube output in cardiac surgery: A retrospective study

Rapid thrombelastography predicts perioperative massive blood transfusion in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: A retrospective study

Massive blood transfusion (MBT) is a relatively common complication of cardiac surgery, which is independently associated with severe postoperative adverse events. However, the value of using rapid thrombotomography (r-TEG) to predict MBT in perioperative period of cardiac surgery has not been explored. This study aimed to identify the effect of r-TEG in predicting MBT for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).This retrospective study included consecutive patients first time undergoing CABG at the Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University between March 2015 and November 2017. All the patients had done r-TEG tests before surgery. The MBT was defined as receiving at least 4 units of red blood cells intra-operatively and 5 units postoperatively (1 unit red blood cells from 200 mL whole blood).Lower preoperative hemoglobin level (P = .001) and longer cardiopulmonary bypass time (P = .001) were the independent risk factors for MBT during surgery, and no components of the r-TEG predicted MBT during surgery. Meanwhile, longer activated clotting time (P < .001), less autologous blood transfusion (P = .001), and older age (P = .008) were the independent risk factors for MBT within 24 hours of surgery.Preoperative r-TEG activated clotting time can predict the increase of postoperative MBT in patients undergoing CABG. We recommend the careful monitoring of coagulation system with r-TEG, which allows rapid diagnosis of coagulation abnormalities even before the start of surgery.

Thromboelastography and rotational thromboelastometry for the surgical intensivist: A narrative review

BACKGROUND

Viscoelastic tests (VETs), specifically thromboelastography (TEG) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM), are gaining popularity in the management of critically ill surgical patients with hemorrhage or thrombosis due to their comprehensive characterization of the coagulation process and point-of-care availability in comparison to conventional coagulation tests (CCTs). We review current evidence for VET use in patients in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU).

METHODS

We searched PUBMED, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library through May 30, 2018 for articles that evaluated the use of VETs in patient populations and clinical scenarios germane to the surgical intensivist. Individual articles were critically evaluated for relevance and appropriate methodology using a structured technique. Information on patient characteristics, timing and methods of CCTs/VETs, and outcomes was collected and summarized in narrative form.

RESULTS

Of 2,589 identified articles, 36 were included. Five (14%) were interventional studies and 31 (86%) were observational. Twenty-five (69%) evaluated TEG, 11 (31%) ROTEM and 18 (50%) CCTs. Investigated outcomes included quantitative blood loss (13 (36%)), blood product transfusion (9 (25%)), thromboembolic events (9 (25%)) and mortality (6 (17%)). We identified 12 clinical scenarios with sufficient available evidence, much of which was of limited quantity and poor methodological quality. Nonetheless, research supports the use of VETs for guiding early blood product administration in severe traumatic hemorrhage and for the prediction of abstract excess bleeding following routine cardiac surgery. In contrast, evidence suggests VET-based heparin dosing strategies for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis are not superior to standard dosing in SICU patients.

CONCLUSION

While VETs have the potential to impact the care of critically ill surgical patients in many ways, current evidence for their use is limited, mainly because of poor methodological quality of most available studies. Further high-quality research, including several ongoing randomized controlled trials, is needed to elucidate the role of TEG/ROTEM in the SICU population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review, level IV.