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.

A novel computer test to assess driving-relevant cognitive functions - a pilot study

BACKGROUND: The assessment of driving-relevant cognitive functions in older drivers is a difficult challenge as there is no clear-cut dividing line between normal cognition and impaired cognition and not all cognitive functions are equally important for driving. METHODS: To support decision makers, the Bern Cognitive Screening Test (BCST) for older drivers was designed. It is a computer-assisted test battery assessing visuo-spatial attention, executive functions, eye-hand coordination, distance judgment, and speed regulation. Here we compare the performance in BCST with the performance in paper and pencil cognitive screening tests and the performance in the driving simulator testing of 41 safe drivers (without crash history) and 14 unsafe drivers (with crash history). RESULTS: Safe drivers performed better than unsafe drivers in BCST (Mann-Whitney U test: U = 125.5; p = 0.001) and in the driving simulator (Student's t-test: t(44) = -2.64, p = 0.006). No clear group differences were found in paper and pencil screening tests (p > 0.05; ns). BCST was best at identifying older unsafe drivers (sensitivity 86%; specificity 61%) and was also better tolerated than the driving simulator test with fewer dropouts. CONCLUSIONS: BCST is more accurate than paper and pencil screening tests, and better tolerated than driving simulator testing when assessing driving-relevant cognition in older drivers.