This site is intended for healthcare professionals
  • Home
  • /
  • Journals
  • /
  • Coagulation and haemorrhagic disorders
  • /
  • A comparison of fibrinogen measurement methods wit...

A comparison of fibrinogen measurement methods with fibrin clot elasticity assessed by thromboelastometry, before and after administration of fibrinogen concentrate in cardiac surgery patients.

Read time: 1 mins
Published:1st Aug 2011
Author: Solomon C, Cadamuro J, Ziegler B, Schöchl H, Varvenne M, Sørensen B et al.
Source: Transfusion
Availability: Pay for access, or by subscription
Ref.:Transfusion. 2011;51(8):1695-706.

Background: Fibrinogen concentrate administration can be guided by measuring fibrinogen concentration or quality of the fibrin-based clot. This study compared different fibrinogen concentration measurement methods with maximum clot firmness (MCF) of the fibrin clot, assessed by thromboelastometry (FIBTEM), in 33 cardiovascular surgery patients receiving fibrinogen concentrate for hemostatic therapy.

Study design and methods: Blood samples were collected after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and after fibrinogen concentrate administration. FIBTEM MCF was measured using a rotational thromboelastometry device (ROTEM, Tem International). Fibrinogen concentration was measured using photo-optical (CA-7000, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics), mechanical (KC-10 steel ball, Schnitger and Gross hook, Amelung GmbH), and electromechanical (STA-R, Diagnostica Stago) coagulometers. Assessments included agreement between fibrinogen concentration measurements and correlations between fibrinogen concentration and FIBTEM MCF.

Results: After CPB, correlations were significant (p < 0.001) between FIBTEM MCF and fibrinogen concentration determined by steel ball (r = 0.71), hook (r = 0.73), STA-R (r = 0.81), and CA-7000 (r = 0.82) coagulometers. After fibrinogen concentrate administration, agreement between fibrinogen measurement methods was severely impaired, and correlations with FIBTEM MCF were 0.39 (steel ball), 0.33 (hook), 0.59 (STA-R), and 0.33 (CA-7000).

Conclusion: Agreement between fibrinogen concentration measurement methods decreased considerably after fibrinogen concentrate administration. All methods correlated acceptably with FIBTEM MCF at the end of CPB, but not after hemostatic therapy. Further investigation is needed to explain these findings.

Read abstract on library site

Access full article