Effect of venipuncture quality on thromboelastography

Authors

  • Brandi L. Garcia-Pereira DVM, DACVECC,

    Corresponding author
    • Departments of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Michael A. Scott DVM, PhD, DACVP,

    1. Pathobiology and Diagnostic Investigation, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Amy M. Koenigshof DVM, MS, DACVECC,

    1. Departments of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Andrew J. Brown MA, VetMB, DACVECC, MRCVS

    1. Departments of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing
    Search for more papers by this author

  • The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

  • Presented in abstract form at the International Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Society Meeting, San Antonio, TX, September 2010.

  • Dr. Brown's current address: VetsNow Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to

Dr. Brandi Garcia's current address: Emergency Animal Clinic, 2260 W. Glendale Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85021.

Email: Brandi.Garcia@eac-az.com

Abstract

Objective

To determine if the quality of venipuncture impacts thromboelastography (TEG) results and if an initial discard tube mitigates any effects of traumatic venipuncture.

Design

Prospective, observational study.

Setting

Veterinary teaching hospital.

Animals

Fifteen privately owned and research colony adult dogs.

Measurements

Samples were collected from each jugular vein using 1 of 2 venipuncture techniques per vein. The venipuncture technique was randomized to the vein as follows: (1) “clean” venipuncture (CV) from 1 jugular vein, and (2) suboptimal venipuncture (SOV) from the opposite jugular vein. CV was defined as a direct entry into the vein on the first attempt. SOV was defined as needle insertion adjacent to the vein with redirection at least once to enter the vein. Two consecutive samples were collected from each venipuncture without removal of the needle, yielding 4 samples: CV1, CV2, SOV1, and SOV2. TEG was performed on each blood sample and the TEG parameters R, K, α, and MA were recorded.

Results

Mean ± SD of R for the SOV1 group (4.1 ± 1.3 s) was significantly shorter than that of the CV1 group (5.7 ± 1.4 s) and the SOV2 group (5.5 ± 1.9 s), P< 0.05. There was no difference in R between CV1 and CV2 groups, or between SOV2 and either CV1 or CV2. There was no significant difference in α, K, or MA among groups.

Conclusions

Mild-to-moderate venipuncture trauma had little effect on TEG overall, but R was significantly affected. Poorer quality collection resulted in a more rapid initiation of clot formation. However, the effect was mild and mitigated by testing samples in a second collection tube after discard of an initial sample.

Ancillary