4.5 Article

Reference Values of Thromboelastometry Parameters in Healthy Term Neonates Using NATEM in Cord Blood Samples

Journal

CHILDREN-BASEL
Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/children9010047

Keywords

thromboelastometry; NATEM; neonates; coagulation; cord blood; reference ranges

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study establishes reference ranges for ROTEM assay in healthy term neonates, providing a reference group for future studies of neonates with underlying pathology.
Background: ROTEM assay has gained increasing acceptance as a method for rapid and specific coagulation pathway assessment. However, its use in the neonatal population remains limited since reference ranges have not yet been established. Aims: (1) to determine reference ranges for healthy term neonates of ROTEM parameters using non-activated assay (NATEM) in cord blood samples; (2) to assess whether delivery mode, gender, gestational age, birth weight and blood group (ABO and Rhesus) of the neonate, coagulation disorder and anticoagulant medication of the mother have an impact on NATEM parameters. Methods: NATEM assay was conducted in cord blood samples of 189 term neonates without any medical history. Results: Reference ranges (2.5th and 97.5th percentiles) are established for clotting time (CT), clot formation time (CFT), alpha-angle, clot amplitude at 5, 10 and 20 min (A5, A10, A20), maximum clot firmness (MCF), lysis index at 30 and 60 min (LI30, LI60, %) and maximum clot elasticity (MCE). Reference ranges for NATEM are CT 182-499 s, CFT 63-176 s, alpha-angle 58-78 degrees, A5 28-52 mm, A10 37-61 mm, A20 42-66 mm, MCF 43-67 mm, LI30 97-100%, LI60 87-98% and MCE 75-203. Male neonates appear to be more hypocoagulable than females. Conclusions: We demonstrate reference ranges for healthy term neonates in NATEM assay that could be used as a reference group for future studies of neonates with an underlying pathology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available