On-site prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and platelet count. A comparison between whole blood and laboratory assays with coagulation factor analysis in patients presenting for cardiac surgery

Abstract

Background: Although available hemostasis assays from institutional laboratories permit an analytical approach to diagnosis and treatment of coagulation disorders following cardiopulmonary bypass, their clinical utility has been limited by delays in obtaining results. The development of instrumentation for on-site testing allows rapid return of results. This study was designed to compare whole blood (WB) results obtained from on-site coagulation assays with values provided by our institutional laboratory (LAB).

Methods: After Institutional Human Studies Committee approval, 362 patients presenting for cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass were enrolled in this study. Prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and platelet count (PLT) assays were performed in both WB and LAB systems. PT, aPTT, and PLT measurements were compared between WB and LAB assays using blood specimens obtained from at least two time points for each patient. Normal range values for both PT and aPTT methods were determined by using measurements from a normal reference population. Coagulation factor levels were measured in a subset of patients to characterize the response of PT and aPTT assays to individual and multiple factor levels. To employ Bayes' theorem and calculate predictive indexes (e.g., sensitivity, specificity), the disease or factor deficiency was determined using factor levels. Predictive indexes were used to evaluate the ability of PT and aPTT assays to identify factor deficiency.

Results: PLT counts were similar between systems. Linear regression and bias analysis demonstrated similar results for WB and LAB PT and discordant results for aPTT measurements. Both PT assays had a similar normal range, whereas a wider distribution of results was evident for the WB aPTT normal range. Although statistically greater slopes for factor:aPTT regressions were observed for the WB system, WB aPTT correlated better with factor V and with factor V, VIII, and XII levels (multivariate linear regression). Diagnostic performance for factor levels less than 0.3 and 0.4 U/ml was similar for both WB and laboratory PT and aPTT assays. WB and LAB PT and aPTT assays performed similarly in detecting factor deficiency in the period after cardiopulmonary bypass.

Conclusions: WB PT and PLT values correlate well with those obtained from the LAB. The discrepancy between measurement systems in aPTT values is probably a reflection of both different normal ranges and responsiveness to factor deficiency. These WB assays provide coagulation results that can accurately identify patients with quantitative deficiencies in platelets and coagulation factors.