Infection by SARS-CoV-2 is associated with a high risk of thrombosis. The laboratory documentation of hypercoagulability and impaired fibrinolysis remains a challenge. Our aim was to assess the potential usefulness of viscoelastometric testing (VET) to predict thrombotic events in COVID-19 patients according to the literature. We also (i) analyzed the impact of anticoagulation and the methods used to neutralize heparin, (ii) analyzed whether maximal clot mechanical strength brings more information than Clauss fibrinogen, and (iii) critically scrutinized the diagnosis of hypofibrinolysis. We performed a systematic search in PubMed and Scopus databases until December 31st, 2020. VET methods and parameters, and patients’ features and outcomes were extracted. VET was performed for 1063 patients (893 intensive care unit (ICU) and 170 non-ICU, 44 studies). There was extensive heterogeneity concerning study design, VET device used (ROTEM, TEG, Quantra and ClotPro) and reagents (with non-systematic use of heparin neutralization), timing of assay, and definition of hypercoagulable state. Notably, only 4 out of 25 studies using ROTEM reported data with heparinase (HEPTEM). The common findings were increased clot mechanical strength mainly due to excessive fibrinogen component and impaired to absent fibrinolysis, more conspicuous in the presence of an added plasminogen activator. Only 4 studies out of the 16 that addressed the point found an association of VETs with thrombotic events. So-called functional fibrinogen assessed by VETs showed a variable correlation with Clauss fibrinogen. Abnormal VET pattern, often evidenced despite standard prophylactic anticoagulation, tended to normalize after increased dosing. VET studies reported heterogeneity, and small sample sizes do not support an association between the poorly defined prothrombotic phenotype of COVID-19 and thrombotic events.

No abstract

Low tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI) together with low antithrombin allows sufficient thrombin generation in neonates.

No abstract

No abstract

With the advent of new viscoelastometric hemostatic assay (VHA) devices, with ready-to-use cartridge reagents allowing for their use by people without special laboratory skills, the appreciation of the actual clinical value of VHAs in settings such as severe trauma, post-partum hemorrhage, cardiac surgery and liver transplantation still needs to be fully validated. While two of the newest versions remain based on a ‘cup and pin’ system (ROTEM® sigma, ClotPro®), two other new devices (TEG® 6s, Quantra®) rely on very different technologies: clotting blood is no longer in contact with the probe and challenged by oscillation of one of the components but explored with ultrasound exposure. A systematic literature search (including Sonoclot®) retrieved 20 observational studies (19 prospective). Most studies pointed to imperfect agreements, highlighting the non-interchangeability of devices. Only a few studies, often with a limited number of patients enrolled, used a clinical outcome. No study compared VHA results with conventional laboratory assays obtained through a rapid tests panel. Clinical evidence of the utility of the new VHAs largely remains to be proven through randomized clinical trials, with clinically relevant outcomes, and compared to rapid panel hemostasis testing. The availability of new, improved VHA devices provides an impetus and an opportunity to do so.

Background There is currently no universal and standardized test available to phenotype plasma fibrinolytic system. Aims Our main aims were to evaluate the performances of the ‘global fibrinolysis capacity’ assay (GFC) performed with the Lysis Timer® instrument, and to study the influence of some preanalytical conditions. Method Euglobulin clot lysis time (ECLT) and GFC were performed under several preanalytical conditions. Results GFC showed satisfactory intra- and inter-run precision. Frozen controls and reagents showed stability over the studied period. There was no statistically significant difference between GFC assessed in plasma samples processed at 4 °C or at 20 °C. GFC assessed with frozen-thawed plasma samples was prolonged when compared to fresh samples (p = 0.014). The centrifugation scheme had no influence on PAI-1 activity levels, GFC and ECLT. Reference interval for GFC ranges from 29.3 (C I90% = 26.9–31.9) to 49.5 (90% CI = 45.9–52.2) minutes. In addition, a preliminary study in 40 healthy volunteers and 43 adult patients referred for investigation of a bleeding disorder was conducted to compare GFC and ECLT assays in their ability to classify samples with shortened or prolonged clot lysis times. Disagreements between ECLT and GFC were observed for 23 samples (out of 83), most of them minor. Conclusion GFC is suitable and convenient for a broad clinical use and can be performed with frozen-thawed plasma samples. Unlike ECLT, GFC is designed to take into account the balance between inhibitors and activators of the fibrinolytic system and could detect both hypo- and hyperfibrinolytic states. Whether it is as suitable as or even better than ECLT to detect a bleeding tendency due to a hyperactive fibrinolytic system deserves to be properly investigated.

No abstract