Diagnostic utility of bleeding assessment tools in congenital fibrinogen deficiencies

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe assessment of clinical history is crucial before referring a patient for further laboratory testing. Bleeding assessment tools (BAT) are developed to standardize clinical evaluation. A small number of patients with congenital fibrinogen deficiencies (CFDs) have been evaluated with these tools without definitive results.AimsWe compared the adequacy of the ISTH‐BAT and the European network of rare bleeding disorders bleeding score system (EN‐RBD‐BSS) to identify patients with CFDs. The correlation between the two BATs and fibrinogen levels and patient clinical grade severity was further analyzed.MethodsWe included 100 Iranian patients with CFDs. Routine coagulation and fibrinogen‐specific tests (fibrinogen antigen [Fg:Ag] and activity [Fg:C]) were performed. The ISTH‐BAT and EN‐RBD‐BSS were used to assess the bleeding score (BS) of all patients.ResultsThe ISTH‐BAT and EN‐RBD‐BSS median (range) were 4 (0–16) and 2.21 (−1.49 to 6.71), with a statistically significant moderate correlation between the two systems (r = .597, P < .001). In patients with quantitative deficiencies (afibrinogenemia and hypofibrinogenemia), the correlation between Fg:C and the ISTH‐BAT was moderately negative (r = −.4, P < .001), while the correlation between Fg:C and the EN‐RBD‐BSS was weakly negative (r = −.38, P < .001). Overall, 70% and 72% of patients with fibrinogen deficiencies were correctly identified by both the ISTH‐BAT and EN‐RBD‐BSS, respectively.ConclusionThese results suggest that in addition to the ISTH‐BAT, the EN‐RBD‐BSS may also be useful in identifying CFD patients. We found a significant level of sensitivity for detecting fibrinogen deficiency in the two BATs, and bleeding severity classification correctly identified severity grades in almost two‐thirds of patients.