4.2 Article

Assessment of agreement between EXTEM and NATEM thromboelastometry measurement assays in critically ill neonates

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
Volume 109, Issue 4, Pages 327-335

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ejh.13812

Keywords

critically ill neonates; EXTEM; NATEM; method comparison; rotational thromboelastometry

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This retrospective observational study investigates the agreement between EXTEM and NATEM measurements in ill neonates. The results show a strong correlation and good agreement between the two methods, indicating that they can be used interchangeably.
Objectives To investigate the agreement between the EXTEM and NATEM measurements. Methods In this retrospective observational study, EXTEM and NATEM analyses were performed on blood samples from 162 ill neonates, providing 324 paired measurements. The agreement between EXTEM and NATEM measurements was evaluated by the nonparametric spearman's rank correlation to assess the correlation between the paired measurements, by the Bland-Altman analysis for the graphical presentation of the agreement, and by the Deming regression model to assess the significance of the agreement. The agreement between the two methods for the detection of bleeding events was determined by kappa statistic. Results Strong correlations were found between EXTEM and NATEM measurements for A10, MCF. The Bland-Altman plots showed good agreement for A10, MCF, LI60, and alpha angle parameters, while CT showed a nearly linear slope indicating that bias increased with the mean. The highest agreement for bleeding events was found for the A10 parameter (kappa = 0.70, p < .001), while the lowest for the CT parameter (kappa = 0.36, p = .94). Conclusions NATEM parameters that reflect clot firmness and fibrinolytic activity are strongly correlated with the corresponding EXTEM measurements with a good agreement between them, indicating that these two methods could be used interchangeably.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available