Blood Res (2024) 59:19
Published online May 14, 2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/s44313-024-00018-6
© The Korean Society of Hematology
Correspondence to : *Jyoti Kotwal
drjyotikotwal@gmail.com
Part of the of data was presented as a poster at a national conference in 2022.
© The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Background Hemophilia A (HA) is an X-linked inherited bleeding disorder caused by reduced factor VIII (FVIII) levels. Approximately 10–15% of patients with severe HA (SHA) do not present with the anticipated bleeding pattern. Here, we assessed the phenotypic severity of hemophilia A using rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) and activated partial thromboplastin time-clot waveform analysis (APTT-CWA).
Methods Patients diagnosed with hemophilia A were enrolled. Clinical phenotype assignment was performed according to the published literature, and patients were classified into four phenotypic subgroups. The whole blood sample was first run on ROTEM in INTEM mode using platelet-poor plasma, APTT was run, and the APTT-CWA graph was simultaneously recorded.
Results A total of 66 patients were recruited for this study. Statistically significant differences were observed between the four phenotypically categorized groups using ROTEM and APTT-CWA. On comparing patients with mild/moderate-to-severe phenotypes (Group II) with SHA without inhibitors (Group IV), no significant difference was found for all parameters of ROTEM or APTT-CWA. The MCF, MA30, MAXV, and Alpha angle values using ROTEM were found to be the lowest in patients with SHA with inhibitors, which helped differentiate them from those with SHA without inhibitors. However, these two groups could not be differentiated using the APTT-CWA parameters.
Conclusion ROTEM can be used to distinguish patients with SHA with inhibitors from those with SHA without inhibitors using a combination of parameters with high sensitivity and specificity. However, APTT-CWA cannot be used to differentiate these patient groups.
Keywords: Hemophilia A, ROTEM, APTT-CWA , Phenotype severity, Bleeding disorder, Bethesda assay
Blood Res 2024; 59():
Published online May 14, 2024 https://doi.org/10.1007/s44313-024-00018-6
Copyright © The Korean Society of Hematology.
Deepika Gupta1, Vandana Arya1, Jasmita Dass2, Nitin Gupta1, Manas Kalra3, Anupam Sachdeva3 and Jyoti Kotwal1*
1Department of Hematology, Sir Gangaram Hospital, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi 110060, India. 2Department of Lab Hematology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. 3Department of Pediatric Hemato Oncology, Sir Gangaram Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Correspondence to:*Jyoti Kotwal
drjyotikotwal@gmail.com
Part of the of data was presented as a poster at a national conference in 2022.
© The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Background Hemophilia A (HA) is an X-linked inherited bleeding disorder caused by reduced factor VIII (FVIII) levels. Approximately 10–15% of patients with severe HA (SHA) do not present with the anticipated bleeding pattern. Here, we assessed the phenotypic severity of hemophilia A using rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) and activated partial thromboplastin time-clot waveform analysis (APTT-CWA).
Methods Patients diagnosed with hemophilia A were enrolled. Clinical phenotype assignment was performed according to the published literature, and patients were classified into four phenotypic subgroups. The whole blood sample was first run on ROTEM in INTEM mode using platelet-poor plasma, APTT was run, and the APTT-CWA graph was simultaneously recorded.
Results A total of 66 patients were recruited for this study. Statistically significant differences were observed between the four phenotypically categorized groups using ROTEM and APTT-CWA. On comparing patients with mild/moderate-to-severe phenotypes (Group II) with SHA without inhibitors (Group IV), no significant difference was found for all parameters of ROTEM or APTT-CWA. The MCF, MA30, MAXV, and Alpha angle values using ROTEM were found to be the lowest in patients with SHA with inhibitors, which helped differentiate them from those with SHA without inhibitors. However, these two groups could not be differentiated using the APTT-CWA parameters.
Conclusion ROTEM can be used to distinguish patients with SHA with inhibitors from those with SHA without inhibitors using a combination of parameters with high sensitivity and specificity. However, APTT-CWA cannot be used to differentiate these patient groups.
Keywords: Hemophilia A, ROTEM, APTT-CWA , Phenotype severity, Bleeding disorder, Bethesda assay
Baseline characteristics of patients with HA according to severity determined by a one-stage FVIII assay.
Character | Mild HA (n = 13) median (range) | Moderate HA (n = 18) median (range) | Severe HA (n = 35) median (range) |
---|---|---|---|
Age in years (median & range) | 21 (5–57) | 7 (1–20) | 8 (0.5–47) |
Age at diagnosis in years (median & range) | 5 (0.1–36) | 2 (0.1–12) | 0.6 (0.2–20) |
Bleeding | |||
Spontaneous/trauma joint bleeding [n (%)] | 4 (30.7) | 8 (44.4) | 34 (97.1) |
ICH [n (%)] | 1 (7.6) | 1 (5.5) | 7 (20) |
Muscle bleeds [n (%)] | 0 | 3 (16.6) | 4 (11.4) |
Surgical bleeding [n (%)] | 2 (15.3) | 2 (11.1) | 4 (11.4) |
Mucosal bleeding [n (%)] | 2 (15.2) | 12 (66.6) | 30 (85.7) |
No bleeding [n (%)] | 5 (38.46) | 1 (5.5) | 0 |
Factor VIII level (%) | 21.8 (5.70–29.8) | 3.35 (1.0–4.9) | 0.4 (0.0–0.9) |
Median (range) | |||
Bleeding severity as per Shima et al. [18] | |||
Severe (n) | 2 | 4 | 35 |
Non-severe (n) | 11 | 14 | 0 |
Distribution of clot waveform parameters between severe and non-severe HA and intergroup comparison between the phenotypic groups.
Parameters | Severe HA (SHA) [N = 30] median (range) | Non-Severe HA (non-SHA) [N = 24] median (range) | P-value | ||
1st derivative | 38.7 (15.62–134.6) | 116.3 (32.62–399.3) | < 0.0001 | ||
2nd derivative | 42.1 (10–385.2) | 227.4 (28.62–1238.5) | < 0.0001 | ||
Max2 | 13.95 (3.12–123.3) | 56.0 (7.7–529.8) | < 0.0001 | ||
Group I (n = 25) | Group II (n = 6) | Group III (n = 14) | Group IV (n = 21) | P-value | |
1st derivative | 132.05 (46.7–399.3) | 70.45 (32.6–84.9) | 36.35 (15.6–70.3) | 47.25 (24.4–134.6) | < 0.0001 |
2nd derivative | 271.0 (39.6–1238.5) | 97.5 (28.62–126.3) | 36.75 (10–105.9) | 49.05 (16.7–385.2) | < 0.0001 |
Max2 | 63.3 (7.72–529.8) | 30.75 (11.1–58.6) | 11.0 (3.1–25) | 16.25 (3.8–123.3) | < 0.0001 |
GROUPS | 1st derivative P-value | 2nd derivative P-value | MAX2 P-value | ||
Group I vs. II | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.025 | ||
Group I vs. III | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0002 | ||
Group I vs. IV | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | 0.001 | ||
Group II vs. III | 0.022 | 0.022 | 0.011 | ||
Group II vs. IV | 0.444 | 0.312 | 0.274 | ||
Group III vs. IV | 0.108 | 0.138 | 0.108 |
Distribution of ROTEM parameters between severe and non-severe HA and intergroup comparison between the phenotypic groups.
ROTEM (INTEM) | Severe HA (n = 35) median (range) | Non-severe HA (n = 31) median (range) | P-value | ||
CT | 727.0 (251–1852) | 343.0 (202–1084) | < 0.0001 | ||
CFT | 184.0 (69–1904) | 76.0 (38–271) | < 0.0001 | ||
MCF | 64.0 (27–81) | 68.0 (47–82) | 0.016 | ||
ALPHA ANGLE | 59.0 (0–76) | 75.0 (46–83) | < 0.0001 | ||
MA30 | 64.0 (19–82) | 68.0 (46–82) | 0.015 | ||
MAXV | 9.0 (2–37) | 17.0 (6–39) | 0.00001 | ||
MAXVT (seconds) | 852.0 (283–1952) | 368.0 (252–1299) | 0.00001 | ||
Group I (n = 25) | Group II (n = 6) | Group III (n = 14) | Group IV (n = 21) | P-value | |
CT | 310.0 (202–1084) | 542.0 (360–916) | 816.0 (502–1852) | 705.0 (251–1141) | < 0.0001 |
CFT | 74.0 (38–271) | 120.5 (58–223) | 451.0 (122–1904) | 137.0 (69–241) | < 0.0001 |
MCF | 68.0 (47–82) | 64.5 (52–82) | 53.5 (27–81) | 66.0 (54–72) | 0.019 |
α ANGLE | 75.0 (46–82) | 68.0 (51–83) | 41.5 (0–71) | 64.0 (48–76) | < 0.0001 |
MA30 | 68.0 (46–82) | 64.0 (52–82) | 44.0 (19–81) | 67.0 (54–75) | 0.0044 |
MAXV | 17 (6.0–39) | 14.5 (6.0–37) | 5 (2–16) | 10 (2.0–20) | < 0.0001 |
MAX VT | 368.0 (252–1299) | 645.0 (384–1011) | 877.0 (760–1952) | 883.0 (282–1339) | < 0.0001 |
Sung Eun Kim, Ji Yoon Kim, Jeong A Park, Chuhl Joo Lyu, Seung Min Hahn, Jung Woo Han and Young Shil Park
Blood Res 2024; 59():Valentina Perrone, Melania Leogrande, Maria Cappuccilli and Luca Degli Esposti
Blood Res 2024; 59():Young-Shil Park, Ki-Young Yoo, Sang Kyu Park, Taiju Hwang, Aeran Jung and Eun Jin Choi
Blood Res 2024; 59():