Light transmission aggregation (LTA) is the gold standard for the diagnosis of platelet function disorders (PFDs), but it is time-consuming and limited to specialized laboratories. Whole-blood impedance aggregometry (Multiplate) and platelet function analyzer (PFA) may be used as rapid screening tools to exclude PFDs. The aim of this study is to assess the diagnostic performance of Multiplate and PFA for PFDs, as detected by LTA.Data from preoperative patients, patients referred to the hematologist for bleeding evaluation, and patients with a diagnosed bleeding disorder were used. PFDs were defined as ≥2 abnormal LTA curves. Diagnostic performance of Multiplate and PFA for detecting PFDs was expressed as sensitivity and specificity. The ability of Multiplate agonists and PFA kits to detect corresponding LTA curve abnormalities was expressed as area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Prevalence of PFDs was 16/335 (4.8%) in preoperative patients, 10/54 (18.5%) in referred patients, and 3/25 (12%) in patients with a diagnosed bleeding disorder. In preoperative and referred patients, the sensitivity of Multiplate and PFA for detecting mild PFDs varied between 0% and 40% and AUCs for detecting corresponding LTA curve abnormalities were close to 0.50. In patients with a diagnosed bleeding disorder, both assays could detect Glanzmann thrombasthenia (GT) with sensitivity of 100% and AUCs of 0.70-1.00. Multiplate and PFA cannot discriminate between preoperative and referred patients with and without mild PFDs, meaning that they cannot be used as screening tests to rule out mild PFDs in these populations. Both Multiplate and PFA can detect GT in previously diagnosed patients.

Background: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients often present with thromboembolic events. In COVID-19 patients, routine hemostatic assays cannot correctly identify patients at risk for thromboembolic events. Viscoelastic testing with rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) might improve the characterization of COVID-19-associated coagulopathy.Objective: To unravel underlying coagulopathy and fibrinolysis over time as measured by serial assessment heparin-independent (FIBTEM and EXTEM) and fibrinolysis illustrating (tissue plasminogen activator; tPA) ROTEM assays.Patients/Methods: Between April 23 and June 12, consecutive adult patients enrolled within the Maastricht Intensive Care COVID (MaastrICCht) cohort were included, and a comprehensive set of clinical, physiological, pharmaceutical, and laboratory variables were collected daily. Twice per week, EXTEM, FIBTEM, and tPA ROTEM were performed. Clotting time (CT), clot formation time (CFT), maximum clot firmness (MCF), lysis onset time (LOT), and lysis time (LT) were determined to assess clot development and breakdown and were compared to routine hemostatic assays.Results: In 36 patients, 96 EXTEM/FIBTEM and 87 tPA ROTEM tests were performed during a 6-week follow-up. CT prolongation was present in 54% of EXTEM measurements, which were not matched by prothrombin time (PT) in 37%. Respectively, 81 and 99% of all EXTEM and FIBTEM MCF values were above the reference range, and median MCF remained elevated during follow-up. The ROTEM fibrinolysis parameters remained prolonged with median LOT consequently >49 min and unmeasurable LT in 56% of measurements, suggesting a severe hypofibrinolytic phenotype.Conclusion: ROTEM tests in COVID-19 ICU patients show hypercoagulability and severe hypofibrinolysis persisting over at least 6 weeks.

BackgroundTraditional coagulation tests are included in emergency guidelines for management of patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) who experience acute bleeding or require surgery. We determined the ability of traditional coagulation tests and fast whole blood thromboelastography (ROTEM®) to screen for anticoagulation activity of dabigatran and rivaroxaban as low as 30 ng/mL.MethodsOne hundred eighty-four citrated blood samples (75 dabigatran, 109 rivaroxaban) were collected from patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), to perform screening tests from different manufacturers, (diluted, D) PT, aPTT, TT and ROTEM®. The activity of DOACs was quantitatively determined by clot detection assays: Hemoclot DTT and DiXaI test (Biophen), on CS2100 (Siemens). The clotting time (CT) of INTEM and EXTEM ROTEM® (Werfen) were used as test parameters.ResultsDabigatran, ≥ 30 ng/mL, was accurately detected by five coagulation tests: APTT Actin FSL (93%), PT Neoplastin (93%), APTT Cephascreen, Thromboclotin, and Thrombin (all 100%), but not by PT Innovin (49%). CT-EXTEM (91%) was sufficiently sensitive, but not CT-INTEM (52%). APTT Cephascreen and Thrombin showed good linearity (R2 = 0.71,R2 = 0.72). For the other tests linearity was moderate to poor. Rivaroxaban was accurately detected by PT Neoplastin (98%) and less so by APTT Cephascreen (85%). In addition, rivaroxaban was also accurately detected by CT-INTEM (96%). PT Neoplastin showed good linearity (R2 = 0.81), all other tests had moderate to poor linearity.ConclusionIn patients with NVAF, the ability of routine coagulation tests to detect the presence of significant levels of DOACs is test and reagent dependent. CT-INTEM and CT-EXTEM may be fast whole blood alternatives.Trial registrationThe Institutional Review Board of the MUMC approved this study (December 2011, project number 114069).

Objective Severe cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can require continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) and/or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Unfractionated heparin (UFH) to prevent circuit clotting is mandatory but monitoring is complicated by (pseudo)-heparin resistance. In this observational study, we compared two different activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) assays and a chromogenic anti-Xa assay in COVID-19 patients on CRRT or ECMO in relation to their UFH dosages and acute phase reactants. Materials and Methods The aPTT (optical [aPTT-CS] and/or mechanical [aPTT-STA] clot detection methods were used), anti-Xa, factor VIII (FVIII), antithrombin III (ATIII), and fibrinogen were measured in 342 samples from 7 COVID-19 patients on CRRT or ECMO during their UFH treatment. Dosage of UFH was primarily based on the aPTT-CS with a heparin therapeutic range (HTR) of 50–80s. Associations between different variables were made using linear regression and Bland–Altman analysis. Results Dosage of UFH was above 35,000IU/24 hours in all patients. aPTT-CS and aPTT-STA were predominantly within the HTR. Anti-Xa was predominantly above the HTR (0.3–0.7 IU/mL) and ATIII concentration was >70% for all patients; mean FVIII and fibrinogen were 606% and 7.5 g/L, respectively. aPTT-CS correlated with aPTT-STA (r 2 = 0.68) with a bias of 39.3%. Correlation between aPTT and anti-Xa was better for aPTT-CS (0.78 ≤ r 2 ≤ 0.94) than for aPTT-STA (0.34 ≤ r 2 ≤ 0.81). There was no general correlation between the aPTT-CS and ATIII, FVIII, fibrinogen, thrombocytes, C-reactive protein, or ferritin. Conclusion All included COVID-19 patients on CRRT or ECMO conformed to the definition of heparin resistance. A patient-specific association was found between aPTT and anti-Xa. This association could not be explained by FVIII or fibrinogen.

Our results suggest that the PFTs, with accompanying therapeutic windows, are not interchangeable when determining the response to antiplatelet therapy in vulnerable coronary artery disease patients on P2Y12 inhibitors. Hence, the type of PFT can directly affect the treatment strategy, which may be especially relevant for patients with multiple factors influencing individual PFTs and thereby test agreement.