Observational studyScientific reports2019
Comparison of ROTEM parameters from venous and intraosseous blood.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rotational thromboelastometry is recommended to guide haemostatic therapy in trauma-related coagulopathy. In the case of unsuccessful venepuncture, intraosseous access allows immediate administration of drugs and volume replacement. Feasibility of rotational thromboelastometry from intraosseous blood has not yet been investigated in humans. We performed rotational thromboelastometry and standard coagulation assays from intraosseous and intravenous blood samples in 19 volunteers and 4 patients undergoing general anaesthesia. Intraosseous access was performed either at the tibial bone or the proximal humerus. We observed visible clotting in the majority of the intraosseous samples. Only 13% of the probes allowed realization of rotational thromboelastometry. ROTEM parameters are reported as follows: shorter median clotting time (CT) in EXTEM, INTEM, and APTEM (53 vs. 68 s; 140 vs. 154 s; 54 vs. 62.5 s) and smaller median maximal clot firmness (MCF) in EXTEM and APTEM (56 vs. 63 mm; 55 vs. 62 mm) in intraosseous samples. We found no relevant differences in median MCF values in FIBTEM and INTEM (12 vs. 13 mm; 60 vs. 59 mm). Given the difficulties we faced during IO blood sampling in a study setting, we advise against ROTEM measurements out of IO blood for guidance of procoagulant therapy in emergency situations.
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.