
doi: 10.1186/cc5712
We read with great interest the recent report by Gonano et al. [1] describing the effects of antithrombin versus placebo in the coagulation profile of a group of patients with severe sepsis. However, we thought that several important issues needed to be addressed in regards to hypercoagulability and thrombelastography (TEG). First, hypercoagulability was not clearly defined in the study. Second, neither Coagulation Index (CI) nor Thrombodynamic Potential Index (an alternative TEG index of hypercoagulability) [2] were calculated or reported. Third, conventional studies of hypercoagulability were not performed in parallel. Fourth, Table 2 in the paper shows that some patients had low fibrinogen, platelets, and prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time with a probably 'hypocoagulable' thrombelastogram (CI lower than -3) profile. Contrary to the authors' statements, there are previously described studies of hypercoagulability in sepsis using TEG. A decade ago, Grant and Hadley [3] described the coagulation changes of 27 neonates with sepsis and found a 'hypocoagulability' profile in 85% of the neonates studied. These findings are also supported in animal data for which our lab has shown similar hypocoagulable patterns in a porcine model of sepsis using TEG [4]. Hypercoagulability is defined in thromboelastography as a CI greater than +3 [2]. This means that patients with reaction time (r), coagulation time (k), alpha angle, or maximum amplitude on the 'hypercoagulable side' may still fall within a normal CI range and not meet criteria to be called 'hypercoagulable'. We believe that it would have been of great interest if the authors had provided the actual CI values, as well as the percentage of patients with hypercoagulable and hypocoagulable profiles.
Letter
Letter
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 4 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
