Standard vs. point-of-care measurement of fibrinogen: potential impact on clinical decisions

Intraoperative major bleeding is a common complication during surgery and can lead to the transfusion of blood products and/or procoagulant drugs. This is a therapeutic challenge, and adherence to guidelines is desirable to preserve blood product resources. The intraoperative administration of fibrinogen concentrate, a pro-coagulant drug, in bleeding patients might reduce the use and therefore the risks associated with blood products.

Does point of care prothrombin time measurement reduce the transfusion of fresh frozen plasma in patients undergoing major surgery? The POC-OP randomized-controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Bleeding is a frequent complication during surgery. The intraoperative administration of blood products, including packed red blood cells, platelets and fresh frozen plasma (FFP), is often live saving. Complications of blood transfusions contribute considerably to perioperative costs and blood product resources are limited. Consequently, strategies to optimize the decision to transfuse are needed. Bleeding during surgery is a dynamic process and may result in major blood loss and coagulopathy due to dilution and consumption. The indication for transfusion should be based on reliable coagulation studies. While hemoglobin levels and platelet counts are available within 15 minutes, standard coagulation studies require one hour. Therefore, the decision to administer FFP has to be made in the absence of any data. Point of care testing of prothrombin time ensures that one major parameter of coagulation is available in the operation theatre within minutes. It is fast, easy to perform, inexpensive and may enable physicians to rationally determine the need for FFP. METHODS/DESIGN: The objective of the POC-OP trial is to determine the effectiveness of point of care prothrombin time testing to reduce the administration of FFP. It is a patient and assessor blind, single center randomized controlled parallel group trial in 220 patients aged between 18 and 90 years undergoing major surgery (any type, except cardiac surgery and liver transplantation) with an estimated blood loss during surgery exceeding 20% of the calculated total blood volume or a requirement of FFP according to the judgment of the physicians in charge. Patients are randomized to usual care plus point of care prothrombin time testing or usual care alone without point of care testing. The primary outcome is the relative risk to receive any FFP perioperatively. The inclusion of 110 patients per group will yield more than 80% power to detect a clinically relevant relative risk of 0.60 to receive FFP of the experimental as compared with the control group. DISCUSSION: Point of care prothrombin time testing in the operation theatre may reduce the administration of FFP considerably, which in turn may decrease costs and complications usually associated with the administration of blood products. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00656396.

Is perioperative point-of-care prothrombin time testing accurate compared to the standard laboratory test?

There is no accepted way of measuring prothrombin time without time loss for patients undergoing major surgery who are at risk of intraoperative dilution and consumption coagulopathy due to bleeding and volume replacement with crystalloids or colloids. Decisions to transfuse fresh frozen plasma and procoagulatory drugs have to rely on clinical judgment in these situations. Point-of-care devices are considerably faster than the standard laboratory methods. In this study we assessed the accuracy of a Point-of-care (PoC) device measuring prothrombin time compared to the standard laboratory method. Patients undergoing major surgery and intensive care unit patients were included. PoC prothrombin time was measured by CoaguChek XS Plus (Roche Diagnostics, Switzerland). PoC and reference tests were performed independently and interpreted under blinded conditions. Using a cut-off prothrombin time of 50%, we calculated diagnostic accuracy measures, plotted a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and tested for equivalence between the two methods. PoC sensitivity and specificity were 95% (95% CI 77%, 100%) and 95% (95% CI 91%, 98%) respectively. The negative likelihood ratio was 0.05 (95% CI 0.01, 0.32). The positive likelihood ratio was 19.57 (95% CI 10.62, 36.06). The area under the ROC curve was 0.988. Equivalence between the two methods was confirmed. CoaguChek XS Plus is a rapid and highly accurate test compared with the reference test. These findings suggest that PoC testing will be useful for monitoring intraoperative prothrombin time when coagulopathy is suspected. It could lead to a more rational use of expensive and limited blood bank resources.