Differences in coagulation-relevant parameters: Comparing cryoprecipitate and a human fibrinogen concentrate.

BACKGROUND: Variable fibrinogen content within cryoprecipitate makes accurate dosing challenging in patients with coagulopathic bleeding, in addition to pathogen transmission risks associated with its administration. Purified and standardized human fibrinogen concentrates (HFCs) represent reliable alternatives. Full cryoprecipitate characterization is required to inform selection of an appropriate fibrinogen source for supplementation therapy. METHODS: Extended biochemical comparison of pooled cryoprecipitate and HFC (Fibryga, Octapharma) was performed using commercially available assays to determine levels of variability in cryoprecipitate and HFC. In addition to standard procoagulant factors, measurements included activities of platelet-derived microparticles (PMPs) and plasminogen, and levels of fibrin degradation products. RESULTS: Cryoprecipitate contains lower fibrinogen levels than HFC (4.83 vs.19.73 g/L; p<0.001), translating to approximately half the amount of fibrinogen per standard cryoprecipitate dose (two pools, pre-pooled from five donations each) vs. HFC (2.14 vs. 3.95 g; p<0.001). Factor XIII (FXIII) levels were also lower in cryoprecipitate vs. HFC (192.17 vs. 328.33 IU/dL; p = 0.002). Levels of procoagulants in cryoprecipitate, such as von Willebrand Factor (VWF) and factor VIII (FVIII), were highly variable, as was PMP activity. A standard cryoprecipitate dose contains significantly higher levels of measured plasminogen and D-dimer fragments than a standard HFC dose. CONCLUSION: The tested HFC is a more reliable fibrinogen and FXIII source for accurate dosing compared with cryoprecipitate. Cryoprecipitate appears considerably less predictable for bleeding management due to wide variation in pro- and anticoagulation factors, the presence of PMPs, and the potential to elevate VWF and FVIII to prothrombotic levels.

Pilot study to evaluate hypercoagulation and inflammation using rotational thromboelastometry and calprotectin in COVID-19 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Abnormal coagulation and inflammation are hallmarks of SARs-COV-19. Stratifying affected patients on admission to hospital may help identify those who at are risk of developing severe disease early on. Rotational Thromboelastometry (ROTEM) is a point of care test that can be used to measure abnormal coagulation and calprotectin is a measure of inflammation. AIM: Assess if ROTEM can measure hypercoagulability on admission and identify those who will develop severe disease early on. Assess if calprotectin can measure inflammation and if there is a correlation with ROTEM and calprotectin. METHODS: COVID-19 patients were recruited on admission and ROTEM testing was undertaken daily for a period of 7 days. Additionally inflammatory marker calprotectin was also tested for the same period. RESULTS: 33 patients were recruited to the study out of which 13 were admitted to ITU and 20 were treated on the ward. ROTEM detected a hypercoagulable state on admission but did not stratify between those admitted to a ward or escalated to ITU. Calprotectin levels were raised but there was no statistical difference (p = 0.73) between patients admitted to a ward or escalated to ITU. Significant correlations were observed between FIBA5 (r = 0.62; p<0.00), FIBCFT (r = -0.57; p<0.00), FIBMCF (r = 0.64; p<0.00) and INMCF (r = 0.57; p<0.00) and calprotectin. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients were hypercoagulable on admission. The correlations between ROTEM and calprotectin underline the interactions between inflammation and coagulation.