Evaluation of a point-of-care coagulation analyzer for measurement of prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and activated clotting time in dogs

Laura W. Tseng Sections of Critical Care, Department of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6010.

Search for other papers by Laura W. Tseng in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
,
Dez Hughes Section of Critical Care, Department of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6010.

Search for other papers by Dez Hughes in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BVSc
, and
Urs Giger Section of Medical Genetics, Department of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6010.

Search for other papers by Urs Giger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate a point-of-care coagulation analyzer (PCCA) in dogs with coagulopathies and healthy dogs.

Animals—27 healthy and 32 diseased dogs with and without evidence of bleeding.

Procedure—Prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and activated clotting time (ACT) were determined, using a PCCA and standard methods.

Results—Using the PCCA, mean (± SD) PT of citrated whole blood (CWB) from healthy dogs was 14.5 ± 1.2 seconds, whereas PT of nonanticoagulated whole blood (NAWB) was 10.4 ± 0.5 seconds. Activated partial thromboplastin time using CWB was 86.4 ± 6.9 seconds, whereas aPTT was 71.2 ± 6.7 seconds using NAWB. Reference ranges for PT and aPTT using CWB were 12.2 to 16.8 seconds and 72.5 to 100.3 seconds, respectively. Activated clotting time in NAWB was 71 ± 11.8 seconds. Agreement with standard PT and aPTT methods using citrated plasma was good (overall agreement was 93% for PT and 87.5% for aPTT in CWB). Comparing CWB by the PCCA and conventional coagulation methods using citrated plasma, sensitivity and specificity were 85.7 and 95.5% for PT and 100 and 82.9% for aPTT, respectively. Overall agreement between the PCCA using NAWB and the clinical laboratory was 73% for PT and 88% for aPTT. Using NAWB for the PCCA and citrated plasma for conventional methods, sensitivity and specificity was 85.7 and 68.4% for PT and 86.7 and 88.9% for aPTT, respectively.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The PCCA detected intrinsic, extrinsic, and common pathway abnormalities in a similar fashion to clinical laboratory tests. (Am J Vet Res 2001;62:1455–1460)

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate a point-of-care coagulation analyzer (PCCA) in dogs with coagulopathies and healthy dogs.

Animals—27 healthy and 32 diseased dogs with and without evidence of bleeding.

Procedure—Prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and activated clotting time (ACT) were determined, using a PCCA and standard methods.

Results—Using the PCCA, mean (± SD) PT of citrated whole blood (CWB) from healthy dogs was 14.5 ± 1.2 seconds, whereas PT of nonanticoagulated whole blood (NAWB) was 10.4 ± 0.5 seconds. Activated partial thromboplastin time using CWB was 86.4 ± 6.9 seconds, whereas aPTT was 71.2 ± 6.7 seconds using NAWB. Reference ranges for PT and aPTT using CWB were 12.2 to 16.8 seconds and 72.5 to 100.3 seconds, respectively. Activated clotting time in NAWB was 71 ± 11.8 seconds. Agreement with standard PT and aPTT methods using citrated plasma was good (overall agreement was 93% for PT and 87.5% for aPTT in CWB). Comparing CWB by the PCCA and conventional coagulation methods using citrated plasma, sensitivity and specificity were 85.7 and 95.5% for PT and 100 and 82.9% for aPTT, respectively. Overall agreement between the PCCA using NAWB and the clinical laboratory was 73% for PT and 88% for aPTT. Using NAWB for the PCCA and citrated plasma for conventional methods, sensitivity and specificity was 85.7 and 68.4% for PT and 86.7 and 88.9% for aPTT, respectively.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The PCCA detected intrinsic, extrinsic, and common pathway abnormalities in a similar fashion to clinical laboratory tests. (Am J Vet Res 2001;62:1455–1460)

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 92 0 0
Full Text Views 1614 1240 144
PDF Downloads 475 223 13
Advertisement