| JOURNAL HOME | CME HOME | THIS MONTH | PAST ISSUES | ETOC | COLLECTIONS |
| AUTHORS | REVIEWERS | EDITORIAL BOARD | FEEDBACK | RSS | HELP |
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
*Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China; and Departments of Anaesthesia, Clinical Perfusion, Surgery, and ||Medicine, Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Anthony Ho, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong SAR, PRC. Address e-mail to hoamh{at}hotmail.com
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
16 s or 
18 s suggests a 83% or 93% probability of not requiring or potentially requiring, respectively, FFP after CPB. We conclude that the majority of PT measurements obtained from blood taken before weaning from CPB and treated in vitro with heparinase was associated with a high probability of whether or not FFP would be needed after CPB. IMPLICATIONS: Coagulation dysfunction after cardiopulmonary bypass may contribute to bleeding. Obtaining coagulation tests and fresh frozen plasma requires time and delays treatment in patients who need fresh frozen plasma. We have devised a technique to provide early estimation of postbypass coagulation status.
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Lyophilized heparinase I (IBEX Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada) from the bacterium Flavobacterium heparinum catalyzes an eliminase reaction at the antithrombin III site (13). This was chosen to neutralize the heparin in vitro. Unlike protamine, excessive heparinase does not render coagulation tests inaccurate. Previous authors (14–16) have used heparinase to neutralize heparin in blood samples drawn during CPB and have found significant correlation (14) or agreement (15) with blood samples taken after protamine administration. However, these studies were done with thrombelastography, which measures whole blood clotting. This study of agreements of PTs has never been reported.
An accurate point-of-care (on-site) coagulation test would avoid the typical delay caused by processing in the laboratory. As a secondary objective, we investigated the agreement of PTs as measured using the HemoTec automatic coagulation timer (Medtronic-HemoTec Inc., Englewood, CO) and using standard hospital laboratory techniques at various time points.
|
Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
All patients received an opioid-based anesthetic, supplemented with midazolam, isoflurane, and muscle relaxants. Antifibrinolytics were not used in any patient. CPB was accomplished with a Stöckert SIII Roller Pump (Stöckert Instrumente GmbH, München, Germany) and an Affinity (Medtronic Cardiovascular, Minneapolis, MN) or Monolyth (Sorin BioMedica, Mirandola, Italy) membrane oxygenator. The pump was primed with 2 L of Plasmalyte-148 (Baxter International, Deerfield, IL) containing 5000 IU of porcine intestinal heparin (bioMérieux, Marcy-l’Étoile, France), 100 mEq of sodium bicarbonate, and 24 g of mannitol. CPB was established after IV administration of 400 IU/kg of heparin and an activated clotting time (ACT) >480 s, as measured on a Hemochron 401 (International Technidyne Corp., Edison, NJ), was reached. Mild-to-moderate hypothermia was maintained during cardioplegia. During CPB, additional 5000-IU aliquots of heparin were given as required to maintain an ACT >480 s. Shortly before the aortic cross-clamp was released, 5 mL of blood was taken from the CPB machine. The heparin in this blood was neutralized with heparinase, at a ratio of 1 mL of blood to 4 IU of heparinase [as recommended by IBEX, and used by other authors (15)]. The mixture was then measured for PT, APTT, and ACT by using an on-site HemoTec automatic coagulation timer, and also in the central hospital hematology laboratory (for PT, APTT, and thrombin time [TT]) using standard techniques (henceforth referred to as the "heparinase" results). Upon successful total separation from CPB, the protamine dose based on the heparin dose-ACT response curve (17) was administered. Five minutes later, blood samples were obtained via the arterial catheter (after removal of six dead space volumes) for the same measurements (as at the "heparinase" stage) using the same techniques (henceforth referred to as the "postprotamine" results). This postprotamine blood sample was not treated with heparinase. Transfusion of clotting factors between the sampling times was avoided. Only PT data were analyzed. ACT, PTT, and TT were examined to ensure that no gross omission or inadequate heparin neutralization had occurred.
The HemoTec timer contains a high-range heparinase cartridge with two reaction channels maintained at 37°C, both containing kaolin activator. One of the channels also contains sufficient heparinase to neutralize 6 U/mL heparin. Clot formation is detected by repeatedly raising and releasing a plunger out of the blood and timing its rate of fall. Blood is added to both channels, and the clotting time is determined independently for both channels. The machine then provides the ACT and PT with and without the effects of heparin. The HemoTec device was calibrated according to the manufacturer’s instructions before each case.
In the laboratory, the PT (Amax Mechanical CS 190 Coagulation Analyzer; Sigma Diagnostics, St. Louis, MO) measures the time (normal: 12–15 s) for clot formation of citrated test plasma after incubation with calcified human placenta-derived tissue factor thromboplastin (Thromborel S; Dade Behring, Deerfield, IL). For each batch of thromboplastin, a normal and abnormal control is assayed and graded in potency. The PT is often used to guide FFP therapy in surgical patients (1–3,6,18–21). All postprotamine PT values were measured in the hospital laboratory and were the reference standards for comparison with all heparinase results.
The Bland and Altman plot (22) was used to assess agreement between the PT measurements done during (heparinase) CPB and after (postprotamine) CPB (reference standard). It is a graphical representation (22,23) of the data with between-method difference (y axis) plotted against the average of the data (x axis).
Bias is the mean difference between the two methods of measurement and represents the systematic error. The limits of agreement were defined as mean ± 2 standard deviations, representing the range within which most differences between measurements by different methods will lie (23). A Spearman’s correlation (r) was used to assess whether the differences in measurement values varied systematically over a range of measurements. A significant result indicates that the assumption of uniform variance is not met.
When the mean difference was proportional to the magnitude of the measurement, a regression approach was used (22). The limits of agreement for this regression were estimated by modeling the absolute values of the residuals from the regression as a function of the size of the measurement (22). The expected value of the difference between methods is given by: equation
|
|
and the limits of agreement is given by: equation
|
|
where D is the mean difference in measurements between the methods, b0 is an intercept for Equation (1), b1 is slope of the regression line in Equation (1), c0 is an intercept for Equation (2), c1 is slope of the regression line of residuals in Equation (2), and A is any true value of the measurement (average of methods). In practice, when only one method is being used, the observed value by that method provides the value of A (22).
The two methods (PT measurements toward the end of CPB and after IV protamine administration) were judged to be interchangeable if the limits of agreement did not exceed the threshold, set a priori ±1.0 s, deliberately stringent to ensure clinical relevance.
The agreement between the HemoTec and laboratory methods of measuring PT was established by analyzing the data across all time intervals (before CPB, before termination of CPB, after CPB) according to the above graphic method (22,23). The limits of agreement were adjusted for repeated measurements (22). Only data from patients with a complete set of all three pairs of data obtained before and during CPB, and after IV protamine, were analyzed. The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated around the estimated bias and upper and lower limits of agreement.
Repeatability assessment was not performed because it was not practical to take repeated blood samples at each time interval for each method for each patient. Values were reported as mean and standard deviation or 95% CI, or median and range. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05.
Finally, the percentage level of confidence (probability) of the postprotamine PT either 15 s or 16 s that can be inferred from each heparinase PT, measured in the laboratory or with the HemoTec device, was calculated by using the method outlined by Shakespeare et al. (24).
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The PT range measured by HemoTec (9–26 s) and laboratory (13–26 s) was wide.
Agreement Between Laboratory PT Measurements During (Heparinase) CPB Versus After (Postprotamine) CPB, and Corresponding Confidence Levels of Postprotamine Indices for Each Heparinase PT
Two patients did not have postprotamine PT measurements. There was a significant relationship between the average and difference in PT measurements (r = -0.27, P = 0.001). Therefore, a regression approach to Bland and Altman plot was used to assess method comparison PT (Fig. 1).
|
Table 1 shows the expected PT after CPB for the range of PT taken during CPB and the probability of a postprotamine PT of 15 s and PT 16 s.
|
|
15 s or 16 s.
|
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The HemoTec device consistently underestimated the PT by 1.2 seconds compared with laboratory PT. Because the limits of agreement exceeded the predetermined level of 1.0 second, the 2 methods were judged not to be interchangeable even if 71% of measurements were within the predetermined limits of agreement. It is conceivable that the use of a threshold of ±1.5 seconds would have found good agreement.
The nonideal agreement between the coagulation tests taken during and after CPB may be attributable to changes in the coagulation status of the patients occurring between the two sampling times. Another cause of disagreement could be the variations in fluids infused (not controlled) and blood loss that occurred between the two sampling times. We did not attempt to derive a formula for the postprotamine PT based on the PT measured during CPB, patient weight, fluid change between sampling times, etc., because such an equation has no practical clinical value. Other causes of disagreement might include the presence in blood of small quantities of very low-molecular-weight heparinase-resistant heparin fragments (14,26).
By using ACT, APTT, and TT, we were able to confirm adequacy of heparin neutralization by heparinase in vitro and by protamine in vivo in all patients. Any residual heparin, if present, was not sufficient to increase the TT, which is much more sensitive than APTT to even small amounts of heparin (3). Likewise, the postprotamine plasma fibrinogen level (not measured) was unlikely to have been grossly subnormal.
It was our opinion that the postprotamine results would not have been influenced by excessive protamine. Compared with a weight-based protamine dosing for heparin neutralization, a heparin dose-ACT response curve calculation (17) resulted in reduced protamine dosages and better-matched neutralization as reflected in reduced transfusion requirements (17,20). Although the use of protamine titration methods might have further reduced protamine use, the Hamilton team, using the heparin dose-ACT response curve technique (17), has an excellent record of minimal use of blood products and small mediastinal re-exploring rate (unpublished data).
During the study period, antifibrinolytics were not standard treatment during cardiac surgery at the Hamilton General Hospital.
The Bland and Altman plot was designed to determine whether two techniques tested under the same conditions are interchangeable. Our aim was to determine whether during CPB the PT of blood treated with heparinase in vitro could replace the PT of blood after IV protamine. Conditions during the two sampling times were similar. To this end, the choice of the Bland and Altman plot was appropriate (as confirmed with Prof. J. M. Bland, St. George’s Hospital Medical School, London, UK, personal communication, 2002). Correlation analysis was not used because, in determining whether two techniques are interchangeable, it does not ensure their comparability (22). The correlation coefficient measures the strength of a relation, not the agreement, between variables (22,23).
Although our PT measurements obtained from blood taken before weaning from CPB and treated in vitro with heparinase did not agree with laboratory-determined PT measurements after CPB, determination of the likelihood for FFP after CPB does not require excellent agreement throughout the range of laboratory values. If the only issue of interest is whether the postprotamine PT will be 15 seconds or 16 seconds, then the technique is useful. We have found that a laboratory-measured PT 16 seconds in blood taken shortly before CPB separation and treated in vitro with heparinase is likely to be associated with a postprotamine laboratory PT 15 seconds. If the PT of the heparinased blood is 18 seconds, there is a high probability that the postprotamine PT will be 16 seconds. The decision on whether FFP is needed after CPB can be further facilitated with the use of a fast and accurate point-of-care device. Our results are consistent with those of a previous study (16), in which heparinase-modified thrombelastography during CPB was used to guide treatment with FFP and resulted in a more than threefold reduction in FFP use with no significant effect on post-CPB chest tube blood losses. By the same principle, using our technique to guide post-CPB FFP transfusion could potentially result in improved hemostasis management. The heparinase used costs US$5 per case, a small price to pay for minimizing delayed and/or unnecessary FFP transfusion. Although the HemoTec timer did not produce PT results that were in adequate agreement with those measured using a standard laboratory technique, when used to measure PT of a heparinase-treated blood sample during CPB, it produced useful data indicative of whether or not the PT would likely be unduly prolonged after separation from CPB.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We thank Professor J. Martin Bland of St. George’s Hospital Medical School, London, UK, for his statistical advice on the appropriateness of the use of Bland and Altman plots in our measurement of agreement analyses. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticisms.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
This work was presented in part at the 58th Annual Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society Meeting in Victoria, BC, Canada, in June 2002, and was published in abstract form: Ho AMH, Lee A, Ling E, Daly A, Teoh K, Warkentin TE. Comparing INR’s measured during (on a heparinase-treated sample) and after CPB. Can J Anesth 2002;44:A44.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  B. S. Donahue Factor V Leiden and Perioperative Risk Anesth. Analg., June 1, 2004; 98(6): 1623 - 1634. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
