Why the study?
Do point-of-care aPTT assays agree with conventional aPTT assays and heparin assays in supporting clinical decision algorithms for heparin therapy?
Do point-of-care aPTT assays agree with conventional aPTT assays and heparin assays in supporting clinical decision algorithms for heparin therapy?
Point-of-care aPTT assays are as reliable as conventional assays for simple (two- and three-way) heparin dosing algorithms, but neither is reliable for complex (six-way) classifications.
May support POC aPTT use in simple heparin algorithms; leaves open validation against heparin levels for complex decisions.
The authors assessed the capability of assays of activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) for supporting clinical decision algorithms for heparin therapies of varying complexity. Blood samples were collected prospectively in three explicit management strategies from 100 sequential patients for whom heparin dosage was adjusted for therapeutic monitoring, femoral venous sheath removal after cardiac catheterization, or heparinization after thrombolytic therapy. In two- and three-way decision algorithms, conventional and point-of-care aPTT assays agreed with heparin assays in approximately two thirds of cases, and the two aPTT assays agreed in 80% or more of all cases. In six-way decision algorithms, the two aPTT assays agreed in only about half of all cases. The authors conclude that the reliability of point-of-care aPTT assays is similar to that of conventional assays. Both techniques can support two- and three-way decision algorithms but not some more complex patient classifications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Werner et al. (1994) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: