Home > Journals > Minerva Anestesiologica > Past Issues > Minerva Anestesiologica 2022 September;88(9) > Minerva Anestesiologica 2022 September;88(9):680-9



Publishing options
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as



Minerva Anestesiologica 2022 September;88(9):680-9

DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.22.16119-5


language: English

Comparison of coagulation monitoring using ROTEM and Sonoclot devices in cardiac surgery: a single-center prospective observational study

Michael VANDENHEUVEL 1 , Carla VAN GOMPEL 1, Korneel VANDEWIELE 2, Pieter M. DE KESEL 3, Piet WYFFELS 1,
Filip DE SOMER 2, Katrien M. DEVREESE 3, 4, Patrick F. WOUTERS 1

1 Department of Anesthesia, University Hospital of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium; 2 Department of Perfusion, University Hospital of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium; 3 Department of Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium; 4 Department of Diagnostic Sciences, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium

BACKGROUND: Viscoelastic tests (VETs) are recommended during cardiac surgery to monitor coagulation status and guide transfusion. We compared the results of two VETs, the Sonoclot Analyzer and the ROTEM Sigma. Agreement between viscoelastic tests’ subdiagnoses and overall diagnosis severity was assessed. Correlations with conventional coagulation tests (CCT) and the discriminatory potential of numerical VET outputs for transfusion thresholds was determined.
METHODS: Single-center, prospective observational study in a tertiary academic center. In fifty adult patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery, parallel Sonoclot, ROTEM and CCT analysis was performed before heparin, or after protamine or coagulation product administration. All patients completed the study, resulting in 139 data points.
RESULTS: Agreement on the severity of coagulation disorders was acceptable (83%), but poor (27%) on the differentiation of the underlying causes. Correlations between ROTEM parameters and CCT were good (postprotamine: FIBTEM A5 (r2=0.90 vs. fibrinogen) and EXTEM-FIBTEM A5 difference (r2=0.81 vs. platelet count). Sonoclot correlated less (Clot Rate (r2=0.25 vs. fibrinogen) and Platelet Function (r2=0.43 vs. platelet count). This was reflected in the discriminatory potential of these parameters as found by linear mixed modelling. We suggest clinically useful grey zones for VET cutoff interpretation.
CONCLUSIONS: ROTEM and Sonoclot accord well on the detection of severity of coagulation dysfunction, but not on the diagnosis of the underlying cause. ROTEM correlated more closely with CCT then Sonoclot. We propose a testing strategy that could lead to a cost-effective approach to the bleeding cardiac surgery patient.

KEY WORDS: Blood coagulation tests; Blood platelets; Cardiopulmonary bypass; Fibrinogen; Point-of-care testing

top of page