Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the relationships between different methods of measuring functional fibrinogen levels in severely injured, bleeding trauma patients across multiple timepoints during hospitalisation. METHODS: In 100 adult trauma patients enrolled in the FEISTY pilot randomised clinical trial at four tertiary trauma centres in Australia, blood samples were collected prospectively. Consistency of agreement was calculated, comparing functional fibrinogen levels measured by four methods - ROTEM® Delta and Sigma FIBTEM A5, TEG® 6s CFF MA, and gold-standard Clauss Fibrinogen. RESULTS: was 0.25-0.67, and comparing TEG® 6s CFF MA and CFA (CFA) 0.65-0.82, although not all differences were significant with the latter comparison. Relationships across all timepoints combined were Clauss Fibrinogen (CF) (g/L) = 0.21𝑥 + 0.004 (where 𝑥 = ROTEM® Sigma FIBTEM A5 in mm) and (g/L) = 0.16𝑥 - 0.06 (where 𝑥 = TEG® 6s CFF MA in mm). CONCLUSIONS: The present study revealed acceptable agreement between four different assays measuring functional fibrinogen, with current- and previous-generation ROTEM® machines (Sigma, Delta) performing similarly measuring functional fibrinogen via FIBTEM assay. This suggests that haemostatic resuscitation algorithms designed for the ROTEM® Delta can be applied to the ROTEM® Sigma to guide fibrinogen replacement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Auty et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: