ArticleThe journal of trauma and acute care surgery2024
Investigation and validation of the TEG6s during rotary wing aeromedical flight.
Article in The journal of trauma and acute care surgery, 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTo improve rural and austere trauma care, hospital-based testing performed at the point of injury may shorten the time lapsed from injury to intervention. This study aimed to evaluate the use of the TEG6s device (Haemonetics(R), Clinton, PA) in a rotary wing aircraft. Prior attempts suffered from limitation related to lack of vibration mitigation.
methodsThis was an investigator-initiated, industry-supported study. Haemonetics provided a TEG6s analyzer. The device underwent a standard validation. It was secured in place on the aircraft using shipping foam for vibration mitigation. Donors provided two tubes of sample blood in one sitting. Paired studies were performed on the aircraft during level flight and in the hospital, using the Global Hemostasis with Lysis Cartridge(Haemonetics (R), Clinton, PA). Both normal and presumed pathologic samples were tested in separate phases. Paired t tests were performed.
resultsFor normal donors, the mean R for laboratory compared with the aircraft was 6.2 minutes versus 7.2 minutes ( p = 0.025). The mean ± SD Citrated Rapid TEG Maximum Amplitude (CRT MA) was 59.3 ± 5.6 mm and 55.9 ± 7.3 mm ( p < 0.001) for laboratory and aircraft ( p < 0.001). Among normal donors, R was within normal range for 17 of 18 laboratory tests and 18 of 18 aircraft tests ( p > 0.99). During the testing of pathologic samples, the mean R time was 14.8 minutes for laboratory samples and 12.6 minutes for aircraft ( p = 0.02). Aircraft samples were classified as abnormal in 78% of samples; this was not significantly different than laboratory samples ( p = 0.5).
conclusionThe use of the TEG6s for inflight viscoelastic testing appears promising. While statistically significant differences are seen in some results, these values are not considered clinically significant. Classifying samples as normal or abnormal demonstrated a higher correlation. Future studies should focus on longer flight times to evaluate for LY30, takeoff, and landing effects. Overall, this study suggests that TEG6s can be used in a prehospital environment, and further study is warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Tests or Criteria; Level III.
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.