ArticlePediatric cardiology2025
Diagnostic Agreement Between TEG5000 and TEG6S in the Assessment of Hemostasis in Pediatric Cardiac Surgery: A Prospective Non-inferiority Study.
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 2025. 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, 5 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
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Thromboelastography (TEG) is a point-of-care test (POCT) used to analyze the hemostatic properties of whole blood. TEG® 5000and TEG® 6s (Haemonetics Corp, USA) measure the same parameters describing clot viscoelasticity using different methodologies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate agreement between TEG5000 and TEG6s measurements. We analyzed prospectively collected tests resulting from paired blood samples in cardiac surgery pediatric patients at one hour (T0) and 24 h (T1) postoperatively. Each citrated sample was utilized for TEG® 5000 and TEG ®6s. Six specific TEG parameters were analyzed and compared: R kaolin time (RK), R kaolin heparinase (RKH) time, K kaolin time (KK), K kaolin heparinase time KH (KKH), Maximum Amplitude kaolin (MAK), Maximal Amplitude Kaolin Heparinase (MAKH). We enrolled 30 patients. Median (interquartile range) patients' age was 206 (20-597) days. All surgical patients underwent correction except 5 who were palliated. At T0, RK and RKH showed an average (standard deviation) % bias of 15.8 (31) and 16.1 (28), respectively, with similar results at T1. A % bias of -6 (23) and - 6 [15] in MAK was found at T0 and T1, respectively. Similarly, MAKH % bias was 1.5 (22) and 7.6 (29) at T0 and T1, respectively. At both timepoints, low % biases (< ± 6%) were demonstrated in KK and KKH. All parameters showed improved coagulation from T0 to T1, but without significant interaction between type of device and time. Analysis of the entire pool of 60 paired samples showed no agreement in diagnostic performance (within the range vs. outside the range) in 12 (20%), 5 (9.8%), 1 (1.7%), 4 (7.8%), 9 (15%), and 5 (9.8%) cases for RK, RKH, MAK, MAKH, KK and KKH, respectively. We observed substantial agreement in MAK and KK in a cohort of pediatric patients undergoing uncomplicated cardiac surgery. Our findings suggest that TEG®5000 and TEG®6s are interchangeable for assessing these parameters.
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.