4.3 Article

Application of Rotational Thromboelastometry in Patients with Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/10760296221119809

关键词

acute promyelocytic leukemia; hemorrhagic early death; bleeding; ROTEM; conventional coagulation tests

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the prognostic potential of rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) for bleeding in patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). The results suggest that ROTEM parameters may improve current hemorrhage prognostic methods and are associated with hemorrhagic early death (HED).
Introduction Hemorrhagic early death (HED) remains a major cause of treatment failure among patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). We aimed to investigate the prognostic potential of rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) for bleeding in patients with APL. Materials and Methods 31 newly-diagnosed APL patients (median age of 40 years; 14 female/17 male) that underwent treatment at the Clinic of Hematology UCCS from 2016-2020 with all-trans retinoic acid and anthracyclines were recruited. CBCs (complete blood count), conventional coagulation tests (CCTs), and ROTEM parameters obtained before treatment initiation were evaluated. Results All patients demonstrated at least one ROTEM parameter out of the reference range. ROTEM parameters associated with significant hemorrhage were EXTEM clotting time (CT) (P = 0.041) and INTEM amplitude 10 (A10) (P = 0.039), however, only EXTEM CT (P = 0.036) was associated with HED. Among CBCs and CCTs, only platelets were associated with significant bleeding (P = 0.015), while D-dimer was associated with both bleeding and HED (P = 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively). Conclusion Our results indicate that ROTEM parameters may reveal hypocoagulability in APL patients and have the potential to improve current hemorrhage prognostic methods. Additionally, these results suggest the combination of ROTEM and CCTs might be useful in identifying patients at risk for HED.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据