Abstract
Purpose We tested the hypothesis that addition of biomarkers of multimorbidity and biological ageing would improve the predictive accuracy of point-of-care viscoelastometry or laboratory tests of coagulation for clinically important bleeding following cardiac surgery.
Methods The analyses included 2437 participants in the Coagulation and Platelet laboratory Testing in Cardiac surgery (COPTIC study) with complete clinical, TEG®5000 Thromboelastography, ROTEM®, Multiplate® aggregometry, full blood count, laboratory reference tests of coagulopathy, and biomarkers of biological ageing and multimorbidity. Models with different biomarkers to predict the composite primary outcome, Clinically Important Bleeding, was developed using logistic regression and internally validated using 10-fold cross-validation. Discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility of the models were assessed comprehensively.
Results For the primary outcome, the AUROC for the best predictive model using TEG/ROTEM with other biomarkers was 0.694 (0.612–0.775). The best predictive model included laboratory reference tests of coagulation, full blood count results, and biomarkers of multimorbidity and ageing, AUROC=0.701 (0.620–0.781), although clinical utility was not superior to using laboratory reference tests alone. Discrimination was higher for components of the primary outcome; large volume (≥4 units) red cell transfusion 0.754 (0.602–0.903), and large volume procoagulant transfusion 0.723 (0.590–0.857), but not for excess loss in drains/re-sternotomy 0.701 (0.613–0.788). Calibration was generally good among the models.
Conclusion Diagnostic tests for bleeding following cardiac surgery demonstrate moderate discrimination, although this was influenced by the definition of bleeding. Small improvements in discrimination with inclusion of additional disease biomarkers, with similar calibration and clinical utility.
Take-home message
1. Current diagnostic tests demonstrate moderate predictive accuracy for excessive bleeding following cardiac surgery. In this study, addition of biomarkers of multimorbidity and biological ageing improved discrimination but not clinical utility.
2. Existing clinical definitions of bleeding represent heterogeneous phenotypes, presenting a barrier to research investigating the disease processes.
Take-home messageImportant abbreviations used in this paper:
CIB – Clinically Important Bleeding
CCB – Clinical Concern about Bleeding
AUROC – Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve
Competing Interest Statement
GJM declares a financial relationship with Pharmacosmos. Other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Clinical Trial
ISRCTN20630689
Funding Statement
GJM, WL, HA, YL, and MW are funded by British Heart Foundation CH/12/1/29419. The COPTIC Study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR, ref: RP-PG-0407-10384). RG is funded by the Leicester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (ref: NIHR203327), and the biomarker assays were part funded by this grant, along with the British Heart Foundation Leicester Accelerator Award AA/18/3/34220, and British Heart Foundation Grant RG/17/9/32812. LG is funded by NHS Blood and Transplant. The funders have no role in data collection, analysis, interpretation of findings, writing the manuscript, or the decision to submit and publish this article.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The UK Human Research Authority ethics approved this study (Ref: 21/NW/0157).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
For potential collaborators, please contact the chief investigator to discuss.
