Viscoelastic hemostatic assay (VHAs) are whole blood point-of-care tests that have become an essential method for assaying hemostatic competence in liver transplantation, cardiac surgery, and most recently, trauma surgery involving hemorrhagic shock. It has taken more than three-quarters of a century of research and clinical application for this technology to become mainstream in these three clinical areas. Within the last decade, the cup and pin legacy devices, such as thromboelastography (TEG® 5000) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM® delta), have been supplanted not only by cartridge systems (TEG® 6S and ROTEM® sigma), but also by more portable point-of-care bedside testing iterations of these legacy devices (e.g., Sonoclot®, Quantra®, and ClotPro®). Here, the legacy and new generation VHAs are compared on the basis of their unique hemostatic parameters that define contributions of coagulation factors, fibrinogen/fibrin, platelets, and clot lysis as related to the lifespan of a clot. In conclusion, we offer a brief discussion on the meteoric adoption of VHAs across the medical and surgical specialties to address COVID-19-associated coagulopathy.

This narrative review explores the pathophysiology, geographic variation, and historical developments underlying the selection of fixed ratio versus whole blood resuscitation for hemorrhaging trauma patients. We also detail a physiologically driven and goal-directed alternative to fixed ratio and whole blood, whereby viscoelastic testing guides the administration of blood components and factor concentrates to the severely bleeding trauma patient. The major studies of each resuscitation method are highlighted, and upcoming comparative trials are detailed.

No abstract

Tension pneumomediastinum is a rare complication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection that has increased in incidence with the novel coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Although traditionally managed with conservative measures, we present the indications and methods for the first operative management of tension pneumomediastinum with concomitant SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.

Background: The treatment of COVID-19 patients with heparin is not always effective in preventing thrombotic complications, but can also be associated with bleeding complications, suggesting a balanced approach to anticoagulation is needed. A prior pilot study supported that thromboelastography and conventional coagulation tests could predict hemorrhage in COVID-19 in patients treated with unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin, but did not evaluate the risk of thrombosis. Methods: This single-center, retrospective study included 79 severely ill COVID-19 patients anticoagulated with intermediate or therapeutic dose unfractionated heparin. Two stepwise logistic regression models were performed with bleeding or thrombosis as the dependent variable, and thromboelastography parameters and conventional coagulation tests as the independent variables. Results: Among all 79 patients, 12 (15.2%) had bleeding events, and 20 (25.3%) had thrombosis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified a prediction model for bleeding (adjusted R2 = 0.787, p < 0.001) comprised of increased reaction time (p = 0.016), decreased fibrinogen (p = 0.006), decreased D-dimer (p = 0.063), and increased activated partial thromboplastin time (p = 0.084). Multivariate analysis of thrombosis identified a weak prediction model (adjusted R2 = 0.348, p < 0.001) comprised of increased D-dimer (p < 0.001), decreased reaction time (p = 0.002), increased maximum amplitude (p < 0.001), and decreased alpha angle (p = 0.014). Adjunctive thromboelastography decreased the use of packed red cells (p = 0.031) and fresh frozen plasma (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Significantly, this study demonstrates the need for a precision-based titration strategy of anticoagulation for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Since severely ill COVID-19 patients may switch between thrombotic or hemorrhagic phenotypes or express both simultaneously, institutions may reduce these complications by developing their own titration strategy using daily conventional coagulation tests with adjunctive thromboelastography.

Letter to the Editor 442This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.

Early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, global governing bodies prioritized transmissibility-based precautions and hospital capacity as the foundation for delay of elective procedures. As elective surgical volumes increased, convalescent COVID-19 patients faced increased postoperative morbidity and mortality and clinicians had limited evidence for stratifying individual risk in this population. Clear evidence now demonstrates that those recovering from COVID-19 have increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. These data—in conjunction with the recent American Society of Anesthesiologists guidelines—offer the evidence necessary to expand the early pandemic guidelines and guide the surgeon’s preoperative risk assessment. Here, we argue elective surgeries should still be delayed on a personalized basis to maximize postoperative outcomes. We outline a framework for stratifying the individual COVID-19 patient’s fitness for surgery based on the symptoms and severity of acute or convalescent COVID-19 illness, coagulopathy assessment, and acuity of the surgical procedure. Although the most common manifestation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is COVID-19 pneumonitis, every system in the body is potentially afflicted by an endotheliitis. This endothelial derangement most often manifests as a hypercoagulable state on admission with associated occult and symptomatic venous and arterial thromboembolisms. The delicate balance between hyper and hypocoagulable states is defined by the local immune-thrombotic crosstalk that results commonly in a hemostatic derangement known as fibrinolytic shutdown. In tandem, the hemostatic derangements that occur during acute COVID-19 infection affect not only the timing of surgical procedures, but also the incidence of postoperative hemostatic complications related to COVID-19-associated coagulopathy (CAC). Traditional methods of thromboprophylaxis and treatment of thromboses after surgery require a tailored approach guided by an understanding of the pathophysiologic underpinnings of the COVID-19 patient. Likewise, a prolonged period of risk for developing hemostatic complications following hospitalization due to COVID-19 has resulted in guidelines from differing societies that recommend varying periods of delay following SARS-CoV-2 infection. In conclusion, we propose the perioperative, personalized assessment of COVID-19 patients’ CAC using viscoelastic hemostatic assays and fluorescent microclot analysis.

Earlier variants of SARS-CoV-2 have been associated with plasma hypercoagulability (as judged by thromboelastography) and an extensive formation of fibrin amyloid microclots, which are considered to contribute to the pathology of the coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19). The newer Omicron variants appear to be far more transmissible, but less virulent, even when taking immunity acquired from previous infections or vaccination into account. We here show that while the clotting parameters associated with Omicron variants are significantly raised over those of healthy, matched controls, they are only raised to levels significantly lower than those seen with more severe variants such as beta and delta. We also observed that individuals infected with omicron variants manifested less extensive microclot formation in platelet-poor plasma compared with those harboring the more virulent variants. The measurement of clotting effects between the different variants acts as a kind of “internal control” that demonstrates the relationship between the extent of coagulopathies and the virulence of the variant of interest. This adds to the evidence that microclots may play an important role in reflecting the severity of symptoms observed in COVID-19.