Observational studyJournal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia2019
Comparison of Coagulation Parameters in Arterial and Venous Blood in Cardiac Surgery Measured Using the Quantra System.
Observational study in Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retrospective study assessing outcomes in cardiac surgery after implementation of Quantra.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2023Article
- Viscoelastic Hemostatic Assays: A Primer on Legacy and New Generation Devices.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- STS/SCA/AmSECT/SABM Update to the Clinical Practice Guidelines on Patient Blood Management.The journal of extra-corporeal technology · 2021Article
- Measuring Activated Clotting Time during Cardiac Catheterization and PCI: The Effect of the Sampling Site.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePerioperative coagulation testing often is performed with arterial samples even though device reference ranges typically are established in venous samples. Although limited studies exist comparing coagulation parameters across sampling sites, viscoelastic testing devices have demonstrated some differences. The objective of this study was to compare coagulation parameters determined using the Quantra System for venous and arterial samples.
designProspective, observational study.
settingTertiary care university hospital.
participantsThe study comprised 30 adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
interventionsPaired arterial and venous samples were obtained at 2 of the following time points: baseline, during bypass, or after protamine reversal of heparin. Quantra measurements included Clot Time (CT), Heparinase Clot Time (CTH), Clot Time Ratio (CTR), Clot Stiffness (CS), and Fibrinogen (FCS) and Platelet (PCS) Contributions to clot stiffness. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsThe relationship and agreement between matched data pairs were established and statistical analysis was performed via paired t tests. CTR, CS, FCS, and PCS were unaffected by the sampling site, whereas CT and CTH demonstrated statistically significant differences between arterial and venous samples (p < 0.001). Arterial clot times were prolonged relative to the venous ones with a mean percent error of 14.2 % and 11.9 %, respectively. These results are in general agreement with those reported for other viscoelastic testing devices.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that Quantra clot stiffness-based parameters (CS, FCS, PCS) are unaffected by sampling site, whereas the clot time parameters (CT and CTH) show good correlation in the presence of a bias. CTR, a ratio of CT and CTH, also is unaffected.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.