ArticleSurgery2022
Rotational thromboelastometry in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome owing to coronavirus disease 2019: Is there a viscoelastic fingerprint and a role for predicting thrombosis?
Article in Surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relationship between neonatal respiratory distress syndrome pulmonary ultrasonography and respiratory distress score, oxygenation index, and chest radiography grading.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe evaluated rotational thromboelastometry tracings in 44 critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients, to determine whether there is a viscoelastic fingerprint and to test the hypothesis that the diagnosis and prediction of venous thromboembolism would be enhanced by the addition of rotational thromboelastometry testing.
resultsRotational thromboelastometry values reflected an increase in clot strength for the EXTEM, INTEM, and FIBTEM assays beyond the reference range. No hyperfibrinolysis was noted. Fibrinolysis shutdown was present but did not correlate with thrombosis; 32% (14/44) of patients experienced a thrombotic episode. For every 1 mm increase of FIBTEM maximum clot formation, the odds of developing thrombosis increased 20% (95% confidence interval, 0-40%, P = .043), whereas for every 1,000 ng/mL increase in D-dimer, the odds of thrombosis increased by 70% (95% confidence interval, 20%-150%, P = .004), after adjustment for age and sex (AUC 0.96, 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.00). There was a slight but significant improvement in model performance after adding FIBTEM maximum clot formation and EXTEM clot formation time to D-dimer in a multivariable model (P = .04).
conclusionsD-dimer concentrations were more predictive of thrombosis in our patient population than any other parameter. Rotational thromboelastometry confirmed the hypercoagulable state of coronavirus disease 2019 intensive care unit patients. FIBTEM maximum clot formation and EXTEM clot formation time increased the predictability for thrombosis compared with only using D-dimer. Rotational thromboelastometry analysis is most useful in augmenting the information provided by the D-dimer concentration for venous thromboembolism risk assessment when the D-dimer concentration is between 1,625 and 6,900 ng/dL, but the enhancement is modest. Fibrinolysis shutdown did not correlate with thrombosis.
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.