English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

OBJECTIVESThis study is a comparative analysis of measured activated clotting time (ACT) values by use of 5 different point-of-care (POC) ACT methods spanning the range detected during different clinical procedures at our institution.METHODSWe determined the correlation, imprecision, and differences in measured ACT values with use of 4 POC ACT methods compared with a reference ACT method in 41 venous whole blood samples collected from 25 adult patients undergoing interventional procedures. The POC ACT methods evaluated included the i-STAT with kaolin activator in prewarm mode, i-STAT with Celite activator in prewarm and nonprewarm modes, ACTPlus, and HMSPlus, which was designated the reference method. Each venous whole blood patient sample was tested in duplicate on each POC ACT test system (total n = 410 ACT measurements). Analyses of imprecision and differences in measured ACT values were stratified by moderate (100-299 s) and high (≥300 s) ACT ranges.RESULTSIn this study population, measured ACT values ranged from 100-835 s with use of the HMSPlus. All methods demonstrated good correlation (r ≥ 0.95) in ACT values compared to the reference method. Imprecision varied by method with ranges of 1.7%-2.7% CV in the moderate ACT range and 2.5%-4.8% CV in the high ACT range. ACTPlus and i-STAT-Celite-prewarm methods exhibited proportional differences in measured ACT values whereas the i-STAT-Celite-nonprewarm and i-STAT-kaolin-prewarm demonstrated constant differences in measured ACT values compared to HMSPlus.CONCLUSIONSACT values correlate well between POC methods. Imprecision and difference profiles vary by method; notably, imprecision exceeds systematic differences in the high ACT range and contributes to intermethod differences that are limitations worthy of consideration when contemplating a change in ACT methods.

Comparison of Point-of-Care Activated Clotting Time Methods in Different Clinical Settings in a Large Academic Medical Center