Why the study?
The study investigated clinically relevant differences between the Hemochron Response and Hemochron Signature Elite to determine reliability, bias, and which device has the lowest variation during cardiothoracic surgery.
Does the Hemochron Signature Elite differ from the Hemochron Response in reliability, bias, and variation for monitoring activated clotting time in patients undergoing CABG or AVR?
Does the Hemochron Signature Elite differ from the Hemochron Response in reliability, bias, and variation for monitoring activated clotting time in patients undergoing CABG or AVR?
The Hemochron Signature Elite and Hemochron Response devices are not interchangeable for monitoring activated clotting time during cardiothoracic surgery due to significant positive bias in the Response system.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Response-Elite bias warrants device-specific ACT thresholds; leaves open standardization and outcome validation in cardiac surgery.
INTRODUCTION: Signature Elite. METHODS: In this observational study the clinically relevant differences of both devices were investigated simultaneously, using duplicate measurements, in 29 patients who underwent a Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) or Aortic Valve Replacement (AVR) in order to determine reliability, bias, and to detect which method has the lowest variation. Blood samples were obtained from the arterial line prior to surgery, after administration of 300 IU/kg heparin, 5 minutes after initiation of cardiopulmonary bypass and successively every 30 minutes, and after protamine administration. RESULTS: A total of 202 measurements were performed. Of these 10 measurements were out of range in the Response and 9 in the Elite. About 27 single unstable magnet errors were seen in the Response versus no measurement errors in the Elite. No statistically significant differences between the Response (p = 0.22, Wilcoxon rank) and Elite (p = 0.064) duplicates were observed. The Response values were consistently higher during heparinization than the Elite measurements (p = 0.002, repeated measurements) with an average positive bias of around 56 seconds during heparinization (Bland-Altman). Overall, the coefficient of variation (CoV) increased during heparinization. CONCLUSION: The Elite was more reliable, but the variation was higher for the Elite than the Response. The observed positive bias in the Response compared to the Elite could affect heparin administration during surgery making the two systems not interchangeable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hoffmann et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: