Why the study?
Does Thrombelastography (TEG) improve risk assessment for ischemic and hemorrhagic events in patients with coronary artery disease compared to traditional assays?
Does Thrombelastography (TEG) improve risk assessment for ischemic and hemorrhagic events in patients with coronary artery disease compared to traditional assays?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
TEG provides combined coagulation and platelet measurements that can identify patients at increased risk for ischemic and bleeding events after PCI or CABG, supporting its potential role in personalized antithrombotic therapy.
Clinical Development Phases I‐III Regulatory, Quality, Manufacturing Thrombelastography ( TEG ) is a viscoelastic assay method used to assess whole blood and plasma coagulation kinetics. Specialized platelet mapping assays have been developed for the TEG platform to quantify the extent of platelet inhibition derived from P 2 Y 12 receptor inhibitors, glycoprotein IIb / IIIa inhibitors, and aspirin. In this review, we describe the current evidence and summarize the data supporting the use of TEG in patients with cardiovascular disease. High thrombin‐ or adenosine diphosphate ( ADP )‐induced whole blood maximal clot strength ( MA ) has been associated with increased risk of ischemic events after percutaneous coronary interventions ( PCI ) and coronary artery bypass grafting ( CABG ). We discuss the data linking an increased clot strength phenotype with changes in metabolic and inflammatory markers. In addition, the data supporting the role of TEG in identifying subjects at risk for hemorrhagic complications while treated with dual antiplatelet therapy or while undergoing cardiac surgery is reviewed. In summary, TEG may provide additional information combining coagulation and platelet measurements within one assay, as compared with traditional coagulation or platelet assays. Further research is warranted to establish the role of TEG in personalized medicine treatment protocols.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bitar et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: