Geoffrey Kershaw

The activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) assay is a very common coagulation test, used for several reasons. The test is conventionally used for assessing the contact factor (intrinsic) pathway of blood coagulation, and thus for screening deficiencies in this pathway, most typically factors VIII, IX, and XI. The APTT is also sensitive to contact factor deficiencies, including factor XII, prekallikrein, and high-molecular-weight kininogen. The APTT may also be elevated in a variety of conditions, including liver disease, vitamin K deficiency, and disseminated intravascular coagulation. The APTT can also be used for monitoring unfractionated heparin (UFH) therapy, as well as for screening lupus anticoagulant (LA) or for assessing thrombosis risk. Which of these separate uses is important to a given laboratory or clinician depends on the laboratory and the clinical context. For example, UFH sensitivity is important in hospital-based laboratories, where UFH therapy is used, but not in hospital-based laboratories where low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is largely employed or where UFH may be assessed by anti-factor Xa testing, or in private/community laboratories not associated with a hospital system. High sensitivity to (low levels of) factors VIII, IX, and XI is generally preferred, as their deficiencies are clinically significant. Also preferred, but not usually achieved, is low sensitivity to factor XII and other contact factors, as these deficiencies are usually asymptomatic. Nevertheless, a good knowledge of factor sensitivity is usually needed, if only to help explain the reasons for a prolonged APTT in a given patient, or whether factor testing or other investigation is required. A good working knowledge of reagents sensitivity to LA is also advisable, especially when the reagent is used as part of a LA test panel, or else as a "general-purpose screening reagent." The current report is aimed at providing some guidance around these questions, and is intended as a kind of "how to" guide, that will enable laboratories to assess APTT reagents in regard to their sensitivity to heparin, LA, and clotting factors. The report also provides some advice on generation of normal reference ranges, as well as solutions for troubleshooting prolonged APTTs, when performing factor testing or searching for inhibitors.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support has a high incidence of both bleeding and thrombotic complications. Despite clear differences in patient characteristics and pathologies between veno-venous (VV) and veno-arterial (VA) ECMO support, anticoagulation practices are often the same across modalities. Moreover, there is very little data on their respective coagulation profiles and comparisons of thrombin generation in these patients. This study compares the coagulation profile and thrombin generation between patients supported with either VV and VA ECMO. A prospective cohort study of patients undergoing VA and VV ECMO at an Intensive care department of a university hospital and ECMO referral centre. In addition to routine coagulation testing and heparin monitoring per unit protocol, thromboelastography (TEG), multiplate aggregometry (MEA), calibrated automated thrombinography (CAT) and von-Willebrand's activity (antigen and activity ratio) were sampled second-daily for 1 week, then weekly thereafter. VA patients had significantly lower platelets counts, fibrinogen, anti-thrombin and clot strength with higher d-dimer levels than VV patients, consistent with a more pronounced consumptive coagulopathy. Thrombin generation was higher in VA than VV patients, and the heparin dose required to suppress thrombin generation was lower in VA patients. There were no significant differences in total bleeding or thrombotic event rates between VV and VA patients when adjusted for days on extracorporeal support. VA patients received a lower median daily heparin dose 8500 IU [IQR 2500-24000] versus VV 28,800 IU [IQR 17,300-40,800.00]; < 0.001. Twenty-eight patients (72%) survived to hospital discharge; comprising 53% of VA patients and 77% of VV patients. Significant differences between the coagulation profiles of VA and VV patients exist, and anticoagulation strategies for patients of these modalities should be different. Further research into the development of tailored anticoagulation strategies that include the mode of ECMO support need to be completed.

Mixing tests are a relatively simple procedure used in the hemostasis laboratory as a first-line investigation into the cause of an abnormal screening test, typically a prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time and/or a prolonged prothrombin time. The mixing test involves combining the test plasma with normal plasma, then repeating the screening test on the mixture to assess whether the clotting time becomes normal or remains prolonged. The primary purpose of a mixing test is to guide further investigations. When mixing test results "normalize," this suggests the test plasma is deficient in clotting factor(s) and thus specific factor assays can be performed to determine which are reduced. When the mixing test result does not "normalize," this suggests the presence of an inhibitor or other type of interference (e.g., the presence of an anticoagulant such as high-dose heparinoids), and so the laboratory needs to determine if this is a lupus anticoagulant or a specific coagulation factor inhibitor, or another type of inhibitor. Because these follow-up investigations are more costly and time-consuming than the basic screening tests, the appropriate performance and interpretation of mixing tests is advantageous for the laboratory. Moreover, the correct laboratory approach is also clinically relevant, as patient management is ultimately affected, and an incorrect interpretation may lead to inappropriate therapies being established. Components of a mixing test that can influence result interpretation include the sensitivity of the used screening reagents to various factor deficiencies and inhibitors, the source or composition of the normal plasma, and the setting of cutoffs for the formula used in expressing mixing test results. Numerous and differing criteria for mixing test interpretation have been suggested historically, which can lead to confusion as to which approach is the most appropriate. The use of differing criteria will also lead to differing interpretations regarding "normalization." For this pivotal reason, standardized mixing test procedures and a consistent set of validated interpretive criteria represent the most favorable approach to maximizing the utility of a mixing test, and ensure the most accurate diagnosis for investigated patients.

Summary Introduction Studies have shown dabigatran to be an effective anticoagulant with an acceptable bleeding profile. None the less, these patients do suffer from bleeding complications. Unfortunately, there are currently no direct reversal agents to dabigatran or established guidelines on the management of bleeding in these circumstances. Methods We examined the effects on thrombin generation parameters, after ex‐vivo spiking the plasma of patients on dabigatran ( n = 8) with FEIBA ® . These parameters were measured using the calibrated automated thrombography ( CAT ) machine. Results In our study, we showed the ability of FEIBA ® to improve the abnormal thrombin generation parameters caused by dabigatran in these patients. Conclusion This provides evidence, lacking in the literature, that this agent may be able to provide haemostatic support in situations where dabigatran induced coagulopathy exists.