Hemostasis, coagulation and thrombin in venoarterial and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: the HECTIC study.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support has a high incidence of both bleeding and thrombotic complications. Despite clear differences in patient characteristics and pathologies between veno-venous (VV) and veno-arterial (VA) ECMO support, anticoagulation practices are often the same across modalities. Moreover, there is very little data on their respective coagulation profiles and comparisons of thrombin generation in these patients. This study compares the coagulation profile and thrombin generation between patients supported with either VV and VA ECMO. A prospective cohort study of patients undergoing VA and VV ECMO at an Intensive care department of a university hospital and ECMO referral centre. In addition to routine coagulation testing and heparin monitoring per unit protocol, thromboelastography (TEG), multiplate aggregometry (MEA), calibrated automated thrombinography (CAT) and von-Willebrand's activity (antigen and activity ratio) were sampled second-daily for 1 week, then weekly thereafter. VA patients had significantly lower platelets counts, fibrinogen, anti-thrombin and clot strength with higher d-dimer levels than VV patients, consistent with a more pronounced consumptive coagulopathy. Thrombin generation was higher in VA than VV patients, and the heparin dose required to suppress thrombin generation was lower in VA patients. There were no significant differences in total bleeding or thrombotic event rates between VV and VA patients when adjusted for days on extracorporeal support. VA patients received a lower median daily heparin dose 8500 IU [IQR 2500-24000] versus VV 28,800 IU [IQR 17,300-40,800.00]; < 0.001. Twenty-eight patients (72%) survived to hospital discharge; comprising 53% of VA patients and 77% of VV patients. Significant differences between the coagulation profiles of VA and VV patients exist, and anticoagulation strategies for patients of these modalities should be different. Further research into the development of tailored anticoagulation strategies that include the mode of ECMO support need to be completed.

Loss of AZGP1 as a Superior Predictor of Relapse in Margin-Positive Localized Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Positive surgical margins (PSMs) in localized prostate cancer (PC) confer a two- to three-fold increased risk of biochemical relapse (BR). Absent/weak AZGP1 expression and Gleason grade ≥4 at the margin are each independent predictors of BR in patients with PSMs. Our study aimed to determine whether the biomarkers AZGP1 expression and Gleason grade at the site of a PSM are significant independent markers of biochemical and clinical relapse (CR) when modeled together and whether one of these biomarkers may be superior in its capacity to predict outcome. METHODS: A cohort of 275 consecutive patients with margin-positive localized PC following surgery were assessed for Gleason grade and AZGP1 expression at the PSM. BR-free survival was the primary end-point, while CR-free survival and PC-specific death were secondary endpoints. Kaplan-Meier Analysis and Cox Proportional Hazards Modeling were performed. RESULTS: Absent AZGP1 expression was significantly associated with increased risk of BR (P = 0.001) and PC-specific death (P = 0.02). Gleason grade ≥4 at PSM was associated with BR (P = 0.02), CR (P = 0.003), and PC-specific death (P = 0.004). On multivariable analysis, absent AZGP1 expression remained an independent predictor of BR (HR 2.4, 95%CI 1.5-3.9, P < 0.001) when modeled with Gleason grade at margin (HR 1.3, 95%CI 0.9-1.9, P = 0.16), preoperative PSA (P = 0.002), seminal vesicle involvement (P = 0.002), extraprostatic extension (P = 0.001), Gleason score (P = 0.01), adjuvant treatment (P = 0.75), linear length of the involved margin (P = 0.001) and margin number (P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Absent AZGP1 expression is an independent predictor of BR in margin-positive localized PC and is associated with increased PC-specific mortality in a Phase II study. Absent AZGP1 expression was superior to Gleason grade at PSM in predicting relapse and should be incorporated into subsequent clinical trials of post-operative radiotherapy in men with margin-positive PC. Prostate 76:1491-1500, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.