Comparison of tissue factor-activated versus citrated native thromboelastography in dogs with suspected hemostatic abnormalities.

Abstract

Viscoelastic testing methods, including thromboelastography (TEG) and rotational thromboelastometry, have an advantage over traditional tests of coagulation due to their ability to reflect in vivo hemostasis and predict need for transfusion of blood products more accurately. TEG in clinical settings is most often performed on citrated whole blood samples that are recalcified at the time of analysis, with or without the addition of an activator of coagulation. To date, superiority of the use of an activator in canine patients with abnormal hemostasis has not been demonstrated. We compared the use of tissue factor-activated (TF) TEG with citrated native (CN) TEG in dogs with suspected hemostatic abnormalities. Forty-five of 79 enrolled dogs with suspected abnormal hemostasis had an abnormal MA value. There was very high correlation between CN samples and TF-activated samples for alpha, K, MA, and R; there was a high correlation for LY30 and LY60. Categorical agreement for CN- and TF-activated TEG classification of hypercoagulable and hypocoagulable cases based on MA was good to very good, with 91% and 97% categorical agreement, respectively. No difference was found in the variance for any TEG variable between the 2 methods of analysis. For canine patients with suspected abnormal hemostasis, use of CN or TF-activated TEG appears acceptable. Monitoring of coagulation should be done with the same method; methods may not be used interchangeably.