TEG 6 VS standard testing for postoperative bleeding.
Research type
Research Study
Full title
TEG 6 VS Standard Testing for Post Operative bleeding in Cardiac Surgery:a prospectve observational study.
IRAS ID
230216
Contact name
Seema Agarwal
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospitl
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 4 months, 1 days
Research summary
Heart surgery is often complicated by bleeding and over half of patients need to have blood transfusions.Blood can be given in different forms such as whole blood or part of blood and doctors usually try to give only the part of the blood that the patient needs by testing how the blood clots using different tests.One such machine called TEG6 uses modern technology and requires very little blood to provide rapid test results.These newer tests are routinely done in theatres and require both expertise and equipment to interpret the results of this test.However once patient goes to Intensive care unit(ICU),these specialised tests are not usually done because of lack of availability and expertise and only standard laboratory tests are done which do not tell doctors specifically which blood products are needed and take much longer time for the test results.
Aim-
The aim of this study is to assess if the novel instrument TEG6 can be used to assess clotting in patients coming to ICU after major cardiac study.Research question-
How does the use of TEG6 on ICU impact patient management in terms of time taken to actionable results,use of blood products and cost?The study will be conducted over a 12 week period in ICU with blood testing done by two methods namely standard laboratory tests(as is routinely done) and TEG6 ( for the study).This research is just an observational study which involves collecting an additional 1 milliliter ( equivalent to less than half a teaspoon of blood) to do blood tests using TEG 6 machine in addition to the normal tests.The results of this study do not affect management of care of the patient but is used for information and may improve quality of care in future.
REC name
London - London Bridge Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
17/LO/1481
Date of REC Opinion
4 Sep 2017
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion