Comparison of Two Viscoelastic Testing Devices in a Parturient Population

Abstract

Background: Viscoelastic hemostatic assays (VHAs) have become an integral diagnostic tool in guiding hemostatic therapy, offering new opportunities in personalized hemostatic resuscitation. This study aims to assess the interchangeability of ClotPro® and ROTEM® delta in the unique context of parturient women. Methods: Blood samples from 217 parturient women were collected at three timepoints. A total of 631 data sets were eligible for our final analysis. The clotting times were analyzed via extrinsic and intrinsic assays, and the clot firmness parameters A5, A10, and MCF were analyzed via extrinsic, intrinsic, and fibrin polymerization assays. In parallel, the standard laboratory coagulation statuses were obtained. Device comparison was assessed using regression and Bland–Altman plots. The best cutoff calculations were used to determine the VHA values corresponding to the established standard laboratory cutoffs. Results: The clotting times in the extrinsic and intrinsic assays showed notable differences between the devices, while the extrinsic and intrinsic clot firmness results demonstrated interchangeability. The fibrinogen assays revealed higher values in ClotPro® compared to ROTEM®. An ROC analysis identified VHA parameters with high predictive values for coagulopathy exclusion and yet low specificity. Conclusions: In the obstetric setting, the ROTEM® and ClotPro® parameters demonstrate a significant variability. Device- and indication-specific transfusion algorithms are essential for the accurate interpretation of measurements and adequate hemostatic therapy.

The Role of Viscoelastic Testing in Assessing Hemostasis: A Challenge to Standard Laboratory Assays?

“…The differences between ClotPro ® and ROTEM ® has recently been studied by Gruneberg et al (2024) in 217 parturient women, whereby differences were seen in extrinsic and intrinsic pathways as well as fibrinogen assays, highlighting the need for device-specific transfusion algorithms given these differences [ 86 ].…”