ArticleJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2025
Accuracy of a Bedside Heparin Anticoagulation Monitoring Test in Critically Ill Patients.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anticoagulation therapy with unfractionated heparin (UHF) is a mandatory treatment for many critically ill patients. While the gold standard for monitoring this therapy remains the laboratory-based aPTT (aPTT-lab), the need for immediate results has led to an increase in the development of point-of-care (POC) measurement systems. This study assessed the correlation and agreement between activated clotting time-low range (ACT-LR) and aPTT-POC measurements using aPTT-lab in a cohort of critically ill patients requiring anticoagulation. This prospective cohort study involved patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) who were treated with UFH between January 2022 and January 2024. We performed simultaneous measurements of aPTT-lab, aPTT-POC, and ACT-LR and analyzed 14 samples from healthy volunteers (the control group) to determine the range of normality and mean aPTT-POC. The aPTT-lab value was considered the gold standard measure of coagulation. A poor correlation was observed between ACT-LR and aPTT-lab in the global sample (r = 0.51), which improved slightly when excluding patients with invasive devices (r = 0.61). aPTT-POC showed moderate agreement (bias of 10.4%) but underestimated the aPTT ratio (bias = -0.23), which was similar in patients with and without devices. Agreement was very high in the control group (bias = -0.003). The accuracy of POC anticoagulation monitoring systems is limited in critically ill patients. The aPTT-POC measurements showed better agreement than the ACT-LR measurements. A clinical validation study is needed to adjust for systematic bias in patients with aPTT-POC.
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.