Retrospective cohort study compares ROTEM-derived A5 platelet for diagnosing thrombocytopenia in trauma, suggesting clinical utility.
Background: Thrombocytopenia contributes to trauma-induced coagulopathy and may require platelet transfusion. Viscoelastic assays can provide rapid surrogates of platelet count, but thresholds may be influenced by physiological derangements. We compared ROTEM-derived parameters for diagnosing thrombocytopenia and tested their robustness across selected conditions. Methods: We performed a retrospective registry-based cohort study in a level-1 trauma center (2011–2021). Severely injured adults were included if they had at least one paired ROTEM and platelet count measurement within 24 h of admission; patients receiving anticoagulants were excluded. Thrombocytopenia was defined as platelets < 100 G/L. Associations between platelet count and ROTEM parameters were assessed with Spearman correlation. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using ROC and precision–recall (PR) analyses; optimal thresholds were chosen by maximal F1-score. For the best parameter, performance was explored across hemoglobin level, acidosis, and hypocalcemia. Results: Of 4,395 admissions, 865 patients were included with 1,395 paired measurements; thrombocytopenia occurred in 213 samples (15.3%) and was present at admission in 35 (4%). Platelet count correlated with clot amplitude/elasticity (p<0.001). The platelet component of clot amplitude at 5 min (A5 PLAT) had the best discrimination (AUC 0.929; AUPRC 0.627). The optimal PR-based threshold was A5 PLAT ≤ 21 mm. Performance was mainly affected by severe acidosis and severe hypocalcemia. Conclusions: In severe trauma, ROTEM‑derived A5 PLAT accurately identifies platelet count < 100 G/L and outperforms other ROTEM parameters, supporting its use for rapid platelet-related decision-making. Hypocalcemia and acidosis may reduce precision and should be considered when applying ROTEM‑based thresholds during early trauma resuscitation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: