Comparison of a viscoelastic point‐of‐care coagulation monitor with thromboelastography in sick dogs with hemostatic abnormalities

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundViscoelastic coagulation monitor (VCM‐Vet) is a point‐of‐care device that has been used to characterize hemostatic abnormalities in sick pets but has not been validated in veterinary patients.ObjectivesWe aimed to compare VCM‐Vet and thromboelastography (TEG) in sick dogs with suspected disorders of hemostasis.MethodsDuplicate VCM‐Vet tests using untreated native blood performed concurrently on two VCM‐Vet machines, and simultaneous TEG tests were performed (one citrated native (CN), and one activated with tissue factor (TF) at a 1:3600 dilution). Each VCM‐Vet result was compared with both TF‐activated and CN TEG.ResultsFifty‐three dogs were enrolled. Eleven cases displayed apparent hyperfibrinolysis. Spearman correlation coefficients for individual VCM‐Vet devices and CN and TF TEG were obtained between R and CT values and ranged from 0.21 to 0.27, CFT and K (r = 0.60–0.67), angles (r = 0.51–0.62), and MCF and MA (r = 0.85–0.87). Comparison of the two VCM‐Vet devices displayed positive correlations for all clot formation parameters with Lin's concordance correlation coefficients of 0.75–0.95. Variable lysis parameter agreement existed between the VCM‐Vet devices and VCM‐Vet and TEG. When samples were classified as hypercoagulable or coagulopathic, VCM‐Vet had a low positive predictive value (17–33%) for the detection of hypercoagulable states and a moderate negative predictive value (64–74%) for the detection of coagulopathy as defined by TEG.ConclusionsVCM‐Vet and TEG had variable correlations in clot formation values and a strong correlation for final clot strength. More information is needed to make conclusions about the lysis parameters. Artifact in the fibrinolysis portion of the test can confound the interpretation of VCM‐Vet results.