Comparison of structured use of routine laboratory tests or near-patient assessment with clinical judgement in the management of bleeding after cardiac surgery

Avidan, Michael S.; Alcock, Emma; Fonseca, Jorge; Ponte, J; Desai, Jatin; Despotis, George J.; Hunt, Beverley J.

doi:10.1093/bja/aeh037

Cited by 262 publications

(174 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

163

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Also for the ROTEM ® instrument, different commercial reagents are available, with tissue factor, with aprotinin to detect hyperfibrinolysis or with GPIIb/IIIa antagonists to evaluate the fibrin network contribution to the clot strength, with contact activator or with heparinase for the use during heparin treatment. TEG has been used to monitor blood component therapy during surgery [21][22][23][24]. Free oscillation rheometry (FOR) (MediRox AB, Sweden) is a new technology which makes it possible for the first time both to measure changes in viscosity and elasticity in clotting whole blood and in dissolving clots and to obtain results in real time in SI-units.…”

Section: Instruments Measuring Clotting and Clot Elasticitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for evaluation of platelet function

Lindahl

Ramström

2009

Transfusion and Apheresis Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Instruments Measuring Clotting and Clot Elasticitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for evaluation of platelet function

Lindahl

Ramström

2009

Transfusion and Apheresis Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Fifteen trials that randomised a total of 8737 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. 112,129,[135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147] Two of the included studies were published in abstract form. 139,144 The two review authors (GJM, GFS) were in agreement on the selection of included studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 15 trials identified in our search, 13 enrolled adults undergoing CABG (n = 2), 135,136 mixed cardiac surgery (n = 10), 112,129,139,140,[142][143][144][145][146][147] or surgery on the thoracic aorta (n = 1) 138 and two enrolled children undergoing surgery for congenital disease. 137,141 The sample size ranged from 22 143 to 7402 129 participants.…”

Section: Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic and therapeutic medical devices for safer blood management in cardiac surgery: systematic reviews, observational studies and randomised controlled trials

Murphy

Mumford

Rogers

et al. 2017

Programme Grants Appl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report should be referenced as follows:Murphy GJ, Mumford AD, Rogers CA, Wordsworth S, Stokes EA, Verheyden V, et al. Diagnostic and therapeutic medical devices for safer blood management in cardiac surgery: systematic reviews, observational studies and randomised controlled trials. Programme Grants Appl Res 2017;5(17). Programme Grants for Applied ResearchISSN 2050-4322 (Print) ISSN 2050-4330 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: journals.library@nihr.ac.ukThe full PGfAR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/pgfar. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Programme Grants for Applied Research journalReports are published in Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the PGfAR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. Programme Grants for Applied Research programmeThe Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 2006 to produce independent research findings that will have practical application for the benefit of patients and the NHS in the relatively near future. The Programme is managed by the NIHR Central Commissioning Facility (CCF) with strategic input from the Programme Director.The programme is a national response mode funding scheme that aims to provide evidence to improve health outcomes in England through promotion of health, prevention of ill health, and optimal disease management (including safety and quality), with particular emphasis on conditions causing significant disease burden.For more information about the PGfAR programme please visit the website: http://www.nihr.ac.uk/funding/programme-grants-forapplied-research.htm This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by PGfAR as project number RP-PG-0407-10384. The contractual start date was in July 2008. The final report began editorial review in July 2016 and was accepted for publication in April 2017. As the funder, the PGfAR programme agreed the research questions and study designs in advance with the investigators. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The PGfAR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not ...

show abstract

“…Avidan et al (51) showed in a prospective randomised comparison trial that following algorithms based on point of care tests or on structured clinical practice with standard laboratory tests did not decrease blood loss, but did reduce the transfusion of all blood components (p < 0.05) after routine cardiac surgery, when compared with clinician discretion. Finally, Westbrook et al showed in a prospective randomised controlled study a nonstatistically significant trend toward less blood product usage in a strict protocol utilizing TEG compared to physician's choice based on clinical experience and standard laboratory coagulation tests.…”

Section: Clinical Application Of Near Patient Test Results and Evidenmentioning

confidence: 99%