Key result
Using Visual Clot increased the likelihood of delivering correct targeted coagulation therapy compared to ROTEM temograms (rate ratio 1.56; 95% CI 1.00-2.47; P=.05).
Why the study?
Does Visual Clot improve correct targeted coagulation therapy compared to ROTEM temograms in anesthesia teams managing critical bleeding?
RCT (n=59)
randomized
Does Visual Clot improve correct targeted coagulation therapy compared to ROTEM temograms in anesthesia teams managing critical bleeding?
Relative Risk: 1.56 (95% CI 1–2.47)
p-value: p=.05
Visual Clot, a 3D animated presentation of viscoelastic tests, improved the accuracy and speed of targeted coagulation therapy by anesthesia teams in simulated critical bleeding scenarios compared to conventional ROTEM temograms.
Visual Clot improved targeted coagulation therapy accuracy and speed in anesthesia team simulations; extends evidence for user-centered viscoelastic visualization and warrants clinical trials.
BACKGROUND Guidelines recommend using viscoelastic coagulation tests to guide coagulation management, but interpreting the results remains challenging. Visual Clot, a 3D animated blood clot, facilitates interpretation through a user-centered and situation awareness–oriented design. OBJECTIVE This study aims to compare the effects of Visual Clot versus conventional viscoelastic test results (rotational thrombelastometry [ROTEM] temograms) on the coagulation management performance of anesthesia teams in critical bleeding situations. METHODS We conducted a prospective, randomized, high-fidelity simulation study in which anesthesia teams (consisting of a senior anesthesiologist, a resident anesthesiologist, and an anesthesia nurse) managed perioperative bleeding scenarios. Teams had either Visual Clot or ROTEM temograms available to perform targeted coagulation management. We analyzed the 15-minute simulations with post hoc video analysis. The primary outcome was correct targeted coagulation therapy. Secondary outcomes were time to targeted coagulation therapy, confidence, and workload. In addition, we have conducted a qualitative survey on user acceptance of Visual Clot. We used Poisson regression, Cox regression, and mixed logistic regression models, adjusted for various potential confounders, to analyze the data. RESULTS We analyzed 59 simulations. Teams using Visual Clot were more likely to deliver the overall targeted coagulation therapy correctly (rate ratio 1.56, 95% CI 1.00-2.47; P=.05) and administer the first targeted coagulation product faster (hazard ratio 2.58, 95% CI 1.37-4.85; P=.003). In addition, participants showed higher decision confidence with Visual Clot (odds ratio 3.60, 95% CI 1.49-8.71; P=.005). We found no difference in workload (coefficient –0.03, 95% CI –3.08 to 2.88; P=.99). CONCLUSIONS Using Visual Clot led to a more accurate and faster-targeted coagulation therapy than using ROTEM temograms. We suggest that relevant viscoelastic test manufacturers consider augmenting their complex result presentation with intuitive, easy-to-understand visualization to ease users’ burden from unnecessary cognitive load and enhance patient care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Castellucci et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in critical bleeding situations (n=59). Visual Clot vs. Conventional viscoelastic test results (ROTEM temograms) was evaluated on correct targeted coagulation therapy (rate ratio 1.56, 95% CI 1.00-2.47, p=.05). Using Visual Clot increased the likelihood of delivering correct targeted coagulation therapy compared to ROTEM temograms (rate ratio 1.56; 95% CI 1.00-2.47; P=.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: