Coagulation Management of Critically Bleeding Patients With Viscoelastic Testing Presented as a 3D-Animated Blood Clot (The Visual Clot): Randomized Controlled High-Fidelity Simulation Study.
Visual Clot
avatar technology
coagulation management
high-fidelity simulation
point-of-care testing
thrombelastography
user-centered design
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 10 2023
12 10 2023
Historique:
received:
28
10
2022
accepted:
07
09
2023
revised:
23
02
2023
medline:
30
10
2023
pubmed:
12
10
2023
entrez:
12
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Guidelines recommend using viscoelastic coagulation tests to guide coagulation management, but interpreting the results remains challenging. Visual Clot, a 3D animated blood clot, facilitates interpretation through a user-centered and situation awareness-oriented design. This study aims to compare the effects of Visual Clot versus conventional viscoelastic test results (rotational thrombelastometry [ROTEM] temograms) on the coagulation management performance of anesthesia teams in critical bleeding situations. We conducted a prospective, randomized, high-fidelity simulation study in which anesthesia teams (consisting of a senior anesthesiologist, a resident anesthesiologist, and an anesthesia nurse) managed perioperative bleeding scenarios. Teams had either Visual Clot or ROTEM temograms available to perform targeted coagulation management. We analyzed the 15-minute simulations with post hoc video analysis. The primary outcome was correct targeted coagulation therapy. Secondary outcomes were time to targeted coagulation therapy, confidence, and workload. In addition, we have conducted a qualitative survey on user acceptance of Visual Clot. We used Poisson regression, Cox regression, and mixed logistic regression models, adjusted for various potential confounders, to analyze the data. We analyzed 59 simulations. Teams using Visual Clot were more likely to deliver the overall targeted coagulation therapy correctly (rate ratio 1.56, 95% CI 1.00-2.47; P=.05) and administer the first targeted coagulation product faster (hazard ratio 2.58, 95% CI 1.37-4.85; P=.003). In addition, participants showed higher decision confidence with Visual Clot (odds ratio 3.60, 95% CI 1.49-8.71; P=.005). We found no difference in workload (coefficient -0.03, 95% CI -3.08 to 2.88; P=.99). Using Visual Clot led to a more accurate and faster-targeted coagulation therapy than using ROTEM temograms. We suggest that relevant viscoelastic test manufacturers consider augmenting their complex result presentation with intuitive, easy-to-understand visualization to ease users' burden from unnecessary cognitive load and enhance patient care.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Guidelines recommend using viscoelastic coagulation tests to guide coagulation management, but interpreting the results remains challenging. Visual Clot, a 3D animated blood clot, facilitates interpretation through a user-centered and situation awareness-oriented design.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to compare the effects of Visual Clot versus conventional viscoelastic test results (rotational thrombelastometry [ROTEM] temograms) on the coagulation management performance of anesthesia teams in critical bleeding situations.
METHODS
We conducted a prospective, randomized, high-fidelity simulation study in which anesthesia teams (consisting of a senior anesthesiologist, a resident anesthesiologist, and an anesthesia nurse) managed perioperative bleeding scenarios. Teams had either Visual Clot or ROTEM temograms available to perform targeted coagulation management. We analyzed the 15-minute simulations with post hoc video analysis. The primary outcome was correct targeted coagulation therapy. Secondary outcomes were time to targeted coagulation therapy, confidence, and workload. In addition, we have conducted a qualitative survey on user acceptance of Visual Clot. We used Poisson regression, Cox regression, and mixed logistic regression models, adjusted for various potential confounders, to analyze the data.
RESULTS
We analyzed 59 simulations. Teams using Visual Clot were more likely to deliver the overall targeted coagulation therapy correctly (rate ratio 1.56, 95% CI 1.00-2.47; P=.05) and administer the first targeted coagulation product faster (hazard ratio 2.58, 95% CI 1.37-4.85; P=.003). In addition, participants showed higher decision confidence with Visual Clot (odds ratio 3.60, 95% CI 1.49-8.71; P=.005). We found no difference in workload (coefficient -0.03, 95% CI -3.08 to 2.88; P=.99).
CONCLUSIONS
Using Visual Clot led to a more accurate and faster-targeted coagulation therapy than using ROTEM temograms. We suggest that relevant viscoelastic test manufacturers consider augmenting their complex result presentation with intuitive, easy-to-understand visualization to ease users' burden from unnecessary cognitive load and enhance patient care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37824182
pii: v25i1e43895
doi: 10.2196/43895
pmc: PMC10603564
doi:
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e43895Informations de copyright
©Clara Castellucci, Amos Malorgio, Alexandra Dinah Budowski, Samira Akbas, Michaela Kolbe, Bastian Grande, Julia Braun, Christoph B Noethiger, Donat R Spahn, David Werner Tscholl, Tadzio Raoul Roche. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 12.10.2023.
Références
J Med Internet Res. 2021 May 3;23(5):e27124
pubmed: 33843602
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018 Jul 1;54(1):4-9
pubmed: 29757369
Simul Healthc. 2014 Dec;9(6):339-49
pubmed: 25188485
Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 Jul 29;12(8):
pubmed: 36010187
Anesthesiology. 2012 Sep;117(3):531-47
pubmed: 22914710
Crit Care. 2019 Mar 27;23(1):98
pubmed: 30917843
Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2020;257:223-256
pubmed: 31897610
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017 Jun;34(6):332-395
pubmed: 28459785
Br J Anaesth. 2012 Jan;108(1):36-41
pubmed: 22086509
Anaesthesia. 2020 Aug;75(8):1059-1069
pubmed: 32030729
Anesthesiology. 2017 Mar;126(3):472-481
pubmed: 28079566
JMIR Serious Games. 2020 Dec 4;8(4):e19036
pubmed: 33172834
JMIR Res Protoc. 2016 Jan 05;5(1):e4
pubmed: 26732090
J Crit Care. 2008 Jun;23(2):188-96
pubmed: 18538211
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2017 Dec;30(6):755-760
pubmed: 28968283
Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 May 19;12(5):
pubmed: 35626425
BMC Anesthesiol. 2021 Feb 10;21(1):43
pubmed: 33568050
Adv Simul (Lond). 2016 Jul 25;1:25
pubmed: 29449994
BMJ. 2005 Mar 5;330(7490):493-4
pubmed: 15746111
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 22;(8):CD007871
pubmed: 27552162
Can J Surg. 2013 Jun;56(3):207-13
pubmed: 23706850
N Engl J Med. 2013 Jan 17;368(3):246-53
pubmed: 23323901
Resuscitation. 2021 Aug;165:1-7
pubmed: 34107333
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Sep 7;22(9):e19472
pubmed: 32780712