Cited by 92Trauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationBlood transfusion and managementHemostasis and retained surgical items

An Assessment of Clinical Interchangeability of TEG® and RoTEM® Thromboelastographic Variables in Cardiac Surgical Patients

Open access
Venema, Lieneke F., Post, Wendy J., Hendriks, Herman G., Huet, Rolf C., de Wolf, Joost Th., de Vries, Adrianus J.·2010·Anesthesia & Analgesia

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bedside thromboelastography is increasingly used, but an assessment of the clinical interchangeability of the 2 major systems, TEG (Hemoscope) and RoTEM (Pentapharm), has not been performed. METHODS: We measured blood samples from 46 cardiac surgical patients after induction of anesthesia with kaolin TEG(R) (kaoTEG), native TEG(R) (natTEG), intrinsic RoTEM (inTEM), and extrinsic RoTEM (exTEM). Each measurement consisted of reaction time (R), coagulation time (K), maximum amplitude (MA), and angle (alpha). Bland-Altman plots and mixed-model analysis were used. To assess repeatability, we made 7 replicated measurements in rapid succession in 2 volunteers. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-six measurements were available for analysis. The R time of the kaoTEG (345 + or - 102 seconds, mean + or - sd) was longer than that of the inTEM (179 + or - 74 seconds, P < 0.001) and the exTEM (55 + or - 28 seconds, P < 0.001). The K time of the kaoTEG (78 + or - 18s) was not different from that of the inTEM (75 + or - 52 seconds, P = 0.60) but was longer than the K time of the exTEM (61 + or - 24 seconds, P < 0.003). The MA of the kaoTEG (71 + or - 6.5 mm) was larger than the MA of the inTEM (67 + or - 5.2 mm, P < 0.02) and almost similar to that of the exTEM (69 + or - 6.3 mm). The alpha of the kaoTEG (72 degrees + or - 4.1 degrees ) was not significantly different from that of both the inTEM (76 degrees + or - 7 degrees ) and the exTEM (79 degrees + or - 4.5 degrees ). The variability for MA and alpha was <10%. The repeatability of the R and K times was poor in both devices, whereas the repeatability of the MA and alpha was sufficient for clinical purposes. CONCLUSIONS: The TEG and RoTEM measurements demonstrated a close correlation for the MA, but the alpha did not for the R and K variables. The kaoTEG had the best agreement with the exTEM measurement. Therefore TEG and RoTEM measurements are not completely interchangeable, and the clinical interpretation of thromboelastograhic data should be used with caution.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181e368bc

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A10 values in ROTEM tests reliably predict maximum clot firmness.

    “A10 values in ROTEM tests have been shown to reliably predict maximum clot firmness.36”

    From Point-of-Care Testing: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients (2012) · cites this paper as [36]

    The retrieved passages are bibliographic metadata rather than findings about clot measurements (indexed section labeled Abstract, no page). Searches for A10, ten-minute clot amplitude, and prediction of maximum clot firmness found no passage addressing the claim in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Venema, L. F., Post, W. J., Hendriks, H. G., Huet, R. C., de Wolf, J. T., & de Vries, A. J.
Affiliations
University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
  • Venema, Lieneke F.
  • Hendriks, Herman G.
  • Huet, Rolf C.
Venue
Anesthesia & Analgesia
Published
2010-08
Volume
111
Issue
2
Pages
339-344
ISSN
0003-2999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2018688990
Cited by
92
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 13
FWCI
7.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Anesthesia & Analgesia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Trauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Biochemistry › Blood transfusion and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Hemostasis and retained surgical items
Keywords
thromboelastography, TEG, rotational thromboelastometry, device interchangeability, coagulation monitoring, cardiac surgery, clotting time, reaction time (chemistry), peak amplitude, repeatability, bleeding risk, perioperative coagulation management, Bland-Altman analysis
MeSH terms
Aged, Algorithms, Coronary Artery Bypass, Blood Coagulation, Blood Transfusion, Equipment Design, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Thrombelastography, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Blood Loss, Surgical, Point-of-Care Systems, Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review