2012 Cheat Sheet

Miquel Vélez MT (ASCP), Immuno Reference Laboratory, asks what should be considered as a panic value, a high PT value or the INR ? If it is the PT value, what value should be considered as a panic?

George recommends the INR , as the PT in seconds varies in sensitivity from lot to lot. Also, it appears from our May, 2012 Quick Question survey that most choose the INR of 4.0 as their call-back value.

Miquel Vélez also sees some low factor VIII activity results, as low as 0.3%. In those instances he was told to dilute the sample 1:2, and retest. On those retests he gets the same results, should we report the result as it is or with a less than something value?
George maintains that operators typically perform the factor VIII assay on three or four dilutions. They prepare a primary dilution of 1:10 and further dilute by (for example) 1:2, 1:4, and 1:8, making the final dilutions 1:10, 1:20, 1:40, and 1:80. They assay all four dilutions and multiply the initial assay results by the dilution factors, 1, 2, 4, and 8, and check for parallel results. Most operators consider results that match within ±10% to be parallel. Non-parallel results indicate a plasma inhibitor, which requires follow-up. Most automated coagulometers are programmed to perform factor VIII (and other factor) assays at these or similar dilutions and to provide the necessary computations.
Further, most operators re-assay plasmas that yield results <10% or perhaps <5% for greater sensitivity, using established laboratory protocol. For the re-assay, they typically prepare a 1:5 dilution in place of the standard 1:10, then divide the initial assay result by 2 for a final result. Many instruments are programmed to do this reflexively, providing accurate results in severe hemophilia A; such results help to guide therapy. They could also conceivably perform the assay at 1:2 and divide the initial assay result by 5, though the accuracy suffers as the dilution factor rises.
Clinically, a factor VIII activity level <1% is classified as severe hemophilia A. Levels from 1–5% are moderate, and 5–30% are mild. These categories help define the treatment approach to hemophilia symptoms. There is little clinical reason for providing greater sensitivity when the result is <1%, as the treatment would be unchanged, thus most operators report 1% or <1%, but not fractional results.

This post brought three responses:
From Dave McGlasson, June 28: In 2009 George and I presented a paper, McGlasson DL, Fritsma GA. Comparison of two chromogenic FVIII activity assays to a standard clot-based FVIII activity assay. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis 2009; Volume 7, Supplement 2: Abstract PP-WE-235 at ISTH in Boston where we compared results of two chromogenic and clottable results for comparing FVIII methodologies using a high curve and low curve for determining levels of FVIII. Dave quoted the abstract and concluded that, when dealing with very low levels of FVIII , using a low range curve might help quantitate low levels with more accuracy.
And then, a July 6 response from “japgi”: I’d like to get some information on this clinical situation- If a patient with an uncharacterized bleeding disorder has been transfused plasma or cryoprecipitate in an emergency setting, how soon afterwards can one do a coagulation screen to avoid the results from getting compromised by the transfused factors?
And third, also on July 6 from “mfranco”: You say there is no clinical reason for providing greater sensitivity when the result is <1%. We currently report <0.25% because our curve reads that low. Is this something we should consider changing? And, a second question if I may. When we run factor assays, we have found that 1:10, 1:20 and 1:40 show parallelism or results that do not agree within 15%. We currently re-dilute those with FVIII DP 1:2 and re-run 1:10, 1:20 and 1:40. Sometimes these results then agree with each other. Other times they agree with one of the original dilutions. We are having a hard time discerning if these are true parallelisms or poor recovery from different dilutions. Any insight?

Rebecca Jones asks, “When patients go to general surgery, how much platelet inhibition is acceptable for procedures to be performed? We have been doing a calculation giving surgeons percent inhibition, but are being asked to switch to the PRU.

George presumed Rebecca uses the VerifyNow P2Y12 cartridge for monitoring Plavix before and after surgery and reporting the result in PRUs. Your surgeons should understand result is qualitative, indicating only that the assay is positive or negative for Plavix’s antiplatelet effect. They should not interpret either aggregometry results or the PRU results as indicating a degree of antiplatelet effect, they should just think “all or nothing.” Reference given.

ASCLS Consumer Web Forum, from a primary care physician: “Does delayed fibrinolysis in a known FVL mutation patient reduce the value of a negative D-dimer test?”

George’s initial response: Researchers (referenced) found, “Patients with FVL mutation displayed higher levels of D-dimer and fibrinogen-fibrin degradation products in plasma after 24 hours. Patients with FVL generate higher levels of soluble fibrin, which may serve as cofactor in tissue plasminogen activator-induced plasminogen activation, leading to a more sustained activation of fibrinolysis with production of more fibrinogen- and fibrin-degradation products.” George concluded that a negative D-dimer in a FVL patient remains effective in ruling out VTE.

The questioner wrote in follow-up: “I have more than a professional interest in FVL , as I am a 70-YO FVL heterozygous patient with a past history of 3 major DVTs and 1 PE 28 years ago. I have been on Coumadin for 28 years. Two recent episodes of potential DVTs were ruled out with negative D-dimer quantitative tests. However I now absolutely have a moderate superficial lower leg thrombophlebitis, and 2 negative D-dimer tests performed on day 2 and 6, with another planned for day 11. I realize that both my age (old), and my Coumadin use may reduce the value of the D-dimer test. FVL persons have an exaggerated risk of DVT and PE. Therefore we make up a larger percentage of persons who may need and receive D-dimer testing than the percentage of FVL in the population. Thank you for continuing your search for the answer to my question.

A PubMed search led to this statement: “In a geriatric population, conventional ELISA D-dimer is a good marker to exclude PE but, due to the co-morbid conditions, only a few patients presented with D-dimer values less than 500 ng/mL.

George received four expert follow-up comments:

From Dr Emmanuel J Favaloro: I would suspect it feasible that it would slow the development, but a positive D-dimer would eventuate, and in the time course of development, a DVT should show up as a positive D-dimer in FVL positive patients to a similar level as that in FVL negative patients. I suspect it would be difficult to show a statistical difference in D-dimer levels post DVT/PE in FVL positive vs negative patients—the number of patients required would be far too large.

From Dave McGlasson: One of the issues I could see as a problem with the D-dimer comparison is the issue of age and what is considered normal with different age groups and whether normal specimens are collected on in-patient populations and out-patient subjects.

From Dorothy M. (Adcock) Funk, MD: I wonder if the clot burden in a superficial thrombophlebitis is sufficient to always cause the D-dimer to elevate above a given cut off? I think not. This of course also depends on the age of the clot compared to when testing was performed. Further, D-dimer is not FDA approved to exclude superficial thrombosis.

From John Olson, MD: Production of D-dimer from fresh clots falls off after about 2 weeks so the duration of the thrombus is also a consideration. Whether superficial phlebitis will elevate the D-dimer is a function of the amount of fresh clot there is to lyse, thus I expect the dimer response would be variable.

July 8 comment from the questioner: Thank you and your four experts for your thoughtful comments. At day 11 the D-Dimer Quantitative remains negative, and the superficial thrombosis (estimated volume 10-20 cc) has not propagated (INR 1.8 on day one, 3.1 on day 11), and is resolving on appropriate care (soaks, increased Coumadin, and reasonable activities). I continue to question the value of a negative D-dimer Quantitative test in FVL patients.

And finally, a July 12 comment from “Jlow:” The use of D-dimer assays to exclude VTE is well established, although this is not the case with all D-dimer assays since many manufacturers seem to rely on comparisons with the “gold standard” Vidas assay. The 2011 CLSI guideline H59-A is helpful in determining whether your D-dimer assay can be used for ‘exclusion of VTE ” together with a clinical risk score or is an “aid to diagnosis of VTE .” There is nowhere near the same amount of data for D-dimer to be used to rule out superficial thrombosis because the appropriate cutoffs have not been established.

From Maria E. Martinez, Orlando: Our laboratory would like to start offering the Bethesda titer. We currently do special coagulation tests for several hospitals and clinics. I was wondering if there is a procedure you are willing to share.

George replies there is a generalized protocol in the Esoterix Coagulation Handbook, 2002. Here’s their protocol:

“Serial dilutions are made of patient plasma with veronal buffered saline, then mixed 1:1 with normal plasma containing 100% factor VIII activity and are then incubated for 2 hours. A partial thromboplastin time (PTT )-based factor assay using factor-depleted plasma is then performed on the incubated mixtures. Results are compared to those of incubated normal plasma. One Bethesda unit is defined as the inverse of the dilution that neutralizes 0.5 (50%) of the factor being assayed.”

For a specific step-wise protocol, you may wish to contact the company whose coagulometer you are using, as the methods are instrument-specific. They are likely to provide the method in their manual or accompanying materials, and will provide assistance in setting up your assay.

In a July 10 comment, Herb Crown, St Louis U, adds: The factor VIII Bethesda assay is certainly doable in your laboratory. What is needed is attention to detail and strong pipetting skills. I would spend some time looking over this link: http://www.practical-haemostasis.com/Factor%20Assays/inhibitor_assays.html. Once you have a handle on the principle, you may wish to look this link over: http://www.slm-hematology.com/uploads/media/Factor_VIII_Inhibitor_Assays...

From “Cristina:” Why should lipemic and hemolyzed coagulation sample for D-dimer be rejected? Is it only the D-dimer that is susceptible?

George suggests that lipemia is likely to cloud the final reaction solution, interfering with the results. On all instruments, the quantitative D-dimer is a photo-optical assay, thus you cannot trust the results when lipemia is present. Visible hemolysis not only may interfere in a photo-optical reading, it also implies the ex vivo activation of platelets and coagulation factors, rendering coagulation results invalid in electro-mechanical instruments as well as in photo-optical instruments.

In a July 12 comment, “Jlow” writes, “Plus red cells contain procoagulant phospholipid as well.”

July 18, Pam Owens: I also recommend the article George cited in an earlier post about heme binding factor VIII.

August 1, “Göran”: It is the combination of a photo-optical instrument with the relatively low concentration of D-dimer that creates a problem. In a normal sample, the D-dimer concentration is typically 50 ng/mL. For the immunoturbidimetric method that most D-dimer assays rely on, this is relatively low. For this reason, to get a response, a fairly large volume of sample is needed in the cuvette, so a large amount of lipids, hemoglobin or bilirubin will also be introduced if present. These substances absorb light at , for instance 405 nm, which is the wavelength traditionally used in coagulation instruments. Newer instrument typically also have higher wavelengths, 700 or even 800 nm. By using the newer D-dimer methods that are adapted for these higher wavelengths, many of the problems that come with lipids are avoided. The ex vivo activation of platelets and coagulation factors does not affect the D-dimer results, as such, as George has pointed out in a different thread.

From “japgi.” If a patient with an uncharacterized bleeding disorder has been transfused plasma or CRYO in an emergency setting, how soon afterwards can one do a coagulation screen to avoid the results from getting compromised by the transfused factors?

George answers that it depends upon the half-lives of each of the coagulation factors. For instance, factor VII deteriorates to half its original activity in 6 hours, factor VIII in 12, and factor IX’s half-life is 24 hours. Of course, you also need to know the starting point, which involves some guesswork based upon original factor activities available within the product and time of infusion. The most you can achieve with plasma or CRYO, without creating transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO), is 30% activity, so that could be considered your starting point. If your goal is to simply establish which of the factors is deficient, this maximum makes the task relatively easy.

July 25, “Jlow” asks, is it to see if the transfused product is correcting the abnormality in vitro? Do the coags straightway. Or is to determine what the patient’s baseline factor levels are, in which case you would assay when patient has recovered from the current bleeding crisis and whatever might have precipitated it. The latter would be performed much later than the time suggested by the factors’ half lives.

Our recent series of discussions and comments on the efficacy of D-dimer results in superficial thrombophlebitis for FVL patients has pointed us to a discussion of the value of screening unselected populations for APCRDr. Emmanual Favaloro (referenced) provides the American College of Medical Genetics current guidelines for directed FVL screens, and reminds readers that the guidelines do not recommend generalized screening. His article also records a trend towards increased FVL testing with a parallel drop in the percentage of positive results, suggesting that ordering patterns are becoming indiscriminate. His article is framed as a debate in Blood Transfusion, and will appear in the August 2012 issue (references).

Additionally, Dr. F employs a DRVVT-based assay for APCR , Siemens ProC Ac R, whose clinical characteristic he describes favorably (reference). Is anyone else using the DRVVT-based APCR assay?

Michael Suter monitored Plavix therapy using the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay kit. Accumetrics is in the process of changing form the reporting of percent inhibition to PRUs.

George spoke with Debra FeinbergStan Arachniewicz, and Dr. Jackie Coleman, of Accumetrics. They confirmed that since most recent clinical outcomes trials that employed the Accumetrics VerifyNow P2Y12 cartridge based their results on PRUs, it is necessary to change the reporting system. They have notified all their clients that they will support the current software only through August 27, 2012, and recommend local institutional make their changes as soon as possible. The cartridge design remains unchanged for the present, and the company recommends an upper PRU reference limit of 208 units.