Comparison between the Fibrinogen Clauss Assay and the TEG6S Citrated Functional Fibrinogen in Cardiac Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the correlation between fibrinogen levels measured by the TEG6s citrated functional fibrinogen (CFF) assay and the standard Clauss method across three phases of cardiac surgery involving cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), and to assess the potential of CFF for timely clinical decision-making and bleeding prediction. DESIGN: A prospective observational study. SETTING: A single tertiary academic center specializing in cardiac surgery. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty adult patients (≥18 years) scheduled for elective cardiac surgery requiring CPB. INTERVENTIONS: Arterial blood samples were collected at three intraoperative time points: (1) baseline (pre-CPB), (2) during CPB at rewarming (core temperature ≥36°C), and (3) 5 minutes post-protamine administration. Each sample was analyzed using both the TEG6s CFF and Clauss fibrinogen assays. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 60 paired measurements were obtained. The primary outcome was the correlation between the TEG6s CFF and Clauss fibrinogen values across surgical phases. A strong correlation was observed at baseline (Spearman's ρ = high, p < 0.01), which significantly weakened during rewarming (p < 0.05), and partially recovered post-protamine. Turnaround times for CFF were significantly faster than for Clauss across all phases. However, CFF values alone did not reliably predict major postoperative bleeding (defined as ≥500 mL chest tube output in 24 hours), and neither assay showed statistically significant differences between bleeding and nonbleeding groups. CONCLUSION: The TEG6s CFF assay demonstrates a strong correlation with Clauss fibrinogen levels before CPB, but this relationship weakens during CPB and remains moderate post-protamine administration. Despite limitations during high-heparin states, the TEG6s offers significantly faster results, suggesting utility for real-time intraoperative decision-making. However, CFF values alone are insufficient to predict postoperative bleeding. Further large-scale studies are needed to validate the integration of TEG6s into transfusion algorithms in cardiac surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".