Skip to main content
Log in

Point-of-Care and Standard Laboratory Coagulation Testing During Cardiovascular Surgery: Balancing Reliability and Timeliness

  • Published:
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective. The use of point-of-care technology has increased faster than efforts to validate its effectiveness compared to standard laboratory testing modalities. To address this issue with a current point-of-care coagulation system (HEMOCHRON® Jr, International Technidyne Corporation (ITC), Edison, NJ), we designed a study to test the hypothesis that data obtained from point-of-care coagulation equipment correlates with data obtained from standard laboratory coagulation equipment. One of the potential advantages gained using point-of-care testing is the ability to obtain more rapid results. To address this issue, turnaround time, defined as the elapsed time (in minutes) from when the sample was acquired from the patient until the investigators knew the results, was also determined. Methods. Following Human Investigation Committee approval and informed consent, a prospective study was conducted to compare results obtained from point-of-care coagulation equipment with those results obtained from standard laboratory coagulation equipment. The study was performed in three groups of patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery, each requiring different levels of anticoagulation. Results. Of the 83 patients who met the inclusion criteria, the correlation (combining data from groups 1–3) between results obtained from point-of-care and standard laboratory prothrombin time was r = 0.867, p < 0.001. The correlation (group 3) between point-of-care and standard laboratory international normalized ratio was r = 0.943, p < 0.001. The correlation (combining data from groups 1 & 2) between point-of-care and standard laboratory activated partial thromboplastin time was r = 0.825, p < 0.001. Median turnaround time for the standard laboratory was 90 minutes, with a mean turnaround time of 74 to 78 minutes, depending upon the group. In contrast, the median turnaround time for point-of-care testing was two minutes and 14 seconds. Conclusions.The results from this study population reveal that data obtained from point-of-care prothrombin time, international normalized ratio and activated partial thromboplastin time results correlate with results obtained from standard laboratory coagulation testing. The value of obtaining reliable results in a timely fashion offers a potential advantage for point-of-care testing in clinical situations, such as in the operating room, where saving time may translate into financial savings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Bick RL. Hemostatic defects associated with cardiac surgery, prosthetic devices, and other extracorporeal cir-cuits. SeminThromb Hemost 1985; 11: 249–280

    Google Scholar 

  2. Becker RC, Alpert JS. The impact of medical therapy on hemorrhagic complications following coronary artery bypass grafting. Arch InternMed 1990; 150: 2016–2021

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hirsch J. Heparin. NEJM 1991; 324: 1565–1574

    Google Scholar 

  4. Nuttall GA, Oliver WC, Beynen FM et al. Intraoperative measurement of activated partial thromboplastin time and prothrombin time by a portable laser photometer in patients following cardiopulmonary bypass. J Cardiothor Vasc Anesth 1993; 7: 402–409

    Google Scholar 

  5. Reich DL, Yanakakis MJ, Vela-Cantos FP et al. Compar-ison of bedside coagulation monitoring tests with standard laboratory tests in patients after cardiac surgery. Anesth Analg 1993; 77: 673–679

    Google Scholar 

  6. Despotis GJ, Santoro SA, Spitznagel E et al. On-site prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and platelet count. Anesth 1994; 80: 338–351

    Google Scholar 

  7. Werner M, Gallagher JV, Ballo MS, Karcher DS. Effect of analytic uncertainty of conventional and point-of-care assays of activated partial thromboplastin time on clinical decisions in heparin therapy. Am J Clin Pathol 1994; 102: 237–241

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bull, BS, Korpman RA, Huse WM, Briggs BD. Heparin therapy during extracorporeal circulation. I. Problems inherent in existing heparin protocols. J Thorac Cardio-vasc Surg 1975; 69: 674–684

    Google Scholar 

  9. Reinhardt AC, Tonneson AS, Bracey A et al. Minimum discard volume from arterial catheters to obtain coagu-lation studies free of heparin's effect. Heart Lung 1987; 16: 699–705

    Google Scholar 

  10. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Register: U.S. Government Printing Office 1990; 55: 9495

  11. van Rijn JLML, Schmidt NA, Rutten WPF. Correction of instrument and reagent based differences in determi-nation of the international normalized ratio (INR) for monitoring anticoagulant therapy. Clin Chem 1989; 35: 840–843

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measure-ment. Lancet 1986; 1307–1310

  13. Carter AJ, Hicks K, Heidman AW, Resar JR, Laird JR, Coombs VJ, Blumenthal RS. Clinical evaluation of a microsample coagulation analyzer, and comparison with existing techniques. Cath Cardiovasc Diagnostic 1996; 39: 97–102

    Google Scholar 

  14. Naghibi F, Han Y, Dodds J, Lawrence CE. Effects of reagent and instrument on prothrombin times, activated partial thromboplastin times and patient/control ratios. Thromb Haemostasis 1988; 59: 455–463

    Google Scholar 

  15. Valenstein PN, and Emancipator K. Sensitivity, specific-ity, and reproducibility of four measures of laboratory turnaround time. AJCP 1989; 91: 452–457

    Google Scholar 

  16. Saxena S, Wong ET. Does the emergency department need a dedicated satellite laboratory? Continuous quality improvement as a management tool for the clinical labo-ratory. Clin Chem 1993; 100: 606–610

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hilborne LH, Oye RK, McArdle JE, Repinski JA, Rodgerson DO. Evaluation of stat and routine turn-around times as a component of laboratory quality. 1989; 91: 331–335

    Google Scholar 

  18. Despotis GJ, Santoro SA, Spitznagel E, Kater KM, Cox JL, Barnes P, Lappas DG. Prospective evaluation and clinical utility of on-site monitoring of coagulation in patients undergoing cardiac operation. J Thorac Cardio-vasc Surg 1994; 107: 271–279

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gilbert HC, Vender JS. The current status of point-of-care monitoring. Int Anesth Clin 1996; 34(3): 243–261

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gaiser RR, Hayes T, Castro AD. Telephone reporting of blood analysis results into the operating room. Anesth Analg 1996; 82: 1284–1286

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fitch, J.C.K., Mirto, G.P., Geary, K.L.B. et al. Point-of-Care and Standard Laboratory Coagulation Testing During Cardiovascular Surgery: Balancing Reliability and Timeliness. J Clin Monit Comput 15, 197–204 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009934804369

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009934804369

Navigation