CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT04744701Updated Feb 9, 2021

A Comparison of Laboratory Versus Point of Care (Bedside) APTT Testing

An observational study in Critical Care and Child, sponsored by University of Leeds. Completed at 1 site in United Kingdom. Open to participants aged Up to 15 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-02-09.

Sponsored by University of Leeds · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
48
Ages
Up to 15 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The overall aim of the study is to determine whether point-of-care (bedside) Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (APTT) testing would be better than laboratory APTT testing in the PICU population (restricted to children under 16 years of age).

Read the detailed description

The overall aim of the study is to determine whether point-of-care (bedside) Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (APTT) testing would be better than laboratory APTT testing in the PICU population (restricted to children under 16 years of age). To do this the investigators need to compare both forms of testing in the following areas:

  1. Accuracy - using laboratory results as our control the investigators want to ascertain how reliable Point-of-care (bedside) testing with the Hemochron Signature Elite is by comparing paired samples. The Hemochron Signature Elite Whole Blood Microcoagulation System is a battery-operated, hand-held instrument that performs individual point-of-care coagulation tests, including APTT, on fresh or citrated whole blood. The Hemochron Signature Elite instrument is CE marked and complies with multiple safety standard requirements and directives. The investigators know that the Hemochron Signature Elite is not 100% accurate compared to the laboratory but the degree of inaccuracy, particularly in the paediatric population is not clear, if within acceptable \& predictable limits the investigators would still be able to use this in clinical practice.
  2. Time efficiency - in view of the fact the Hemochron Signature Elite is on PICU, results from this will be almost immediately available. The investigators then want to measure exactly how long it takes from the moment the laboratory sample is taken for the results to be available.
  3. Cost-effectiveness - the investigators want to compare the costs of these two types of testing in detail, including costs for the Hemochron Signature Elite machine, Hemochron Signature Elite cuvettes, laboratory Clotting Screen bottles, laboratory Clotting Screen analysis, and maintaining the two different types of equipment. The investigators will also take into account any other regular costs (e.g. porters to take samples to the laboratory when the pod system is down). The investigators plan on seeking assistance from senior paediatric colleagues with more experience of health economics in doing a costs minimisation analysis
02

Conditions studied

  • Critical Care
  • Child

Keywords

  • Thromboplastin
03

In context

Lead sponsor

University of Leeds is the lead sponsor of 200 studies on the registry; 25 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Up to 15 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

Patients admitted to Paediatric Intensive Care Unit under the age of 16 years

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients admitted to Paediatric Intensive Care Unit under the age of 16 years

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

-

05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
48 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No

Interventions

  • Diagnostic testHemochron Signature Elite Whole Blood Microcoagulation System

    Bedside test of Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Accuracy of APTT result (measured in seconds) provided by Hemochron Signature Elite compared to standard laboratory APTT value as gold standard (measured in seconds) on paired samples, using Pearson Correlation

    APTT measured on fresh whole blood using Hemochron Signature Elite, the device converts this to a plasma equivalent value for clinical use, reported in seconds. The gold standard laboratory assay in our Trust uses ACL Top 750 Analyser, with APTT reported in seconds. Pearson Correlation Co-efficient will be used to determine level of agreement.

    Time frame: 6 hours

Secondary outcomes

  1. Mean time efficiency of Hemochron Signature Elite to provide APTT result (measured in minutes till APTT result being available), compared to the mean time taken (in minutes) for the standard laboratory measure of APTT result to become available.

    Investigators will calculate the mean time difference between results being obtained using Hemochron Signature Elite point of care (bedside) testing using the time recorded on the data collection sheet and comparing this with the mean time the results were released by the standard hospital laboratory which is stated on the hospital results server. The laboratory staff will be blinded to ensure the timings are a genuine reflection of standard care within the hospital. Time taken for each method of APTT measurement will be measured from the moment the samples are obtained from participants until the result becomes available. Mean time taken by each method across all participants will be compared.

    Time frame: 6 hours

  2. Cost effectiveness (in £ GBP) of Hemochron Signature Elite point of care APTT testing compared to standard laboratory measurement of APTT. This will be reported as overall mean cost (in £ GBP) to provide 1 APTT result using each system, for comparison.

    Costs will be determined by combining the fixed costs such as the costs of analyzers, quality control testing, cuvettes and sampling equipment with the variable costs such as utilisation of porters to transport samples when the air-tube system is not working. Costs related to the Hemochron Signature Elite will be as per the manufacturer's price list. The cost of routine laboratory testing will be obtained from the Hospital pathology services management team

    Time frame: 1 day

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Leeds Children's Hospital
    Leeds, West Yorkshire LS1 3EX, United Kingdom
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Feb 9, 2021, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04744701
Lead sponsor
University of Leeds
Responsible party
Dr Tim Lee (Consultant in Paediatric Respiratory Medicine, University of Leeds) — Principal investigator
First posted
Feb 9, 2021
Start date
Feb 10, 2020
Primary completion
Apr 1, 2020
Completion
Apr 1, 2020
Last update
Feb 9, 2021

Study contacts

Tim Lee, MD, PhD
principal investigator · University of Leeds

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion