Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 29, 2025
Eye Tracking During A Complex Aviation Task For Insights Into Information Processing
Published on: April 4, 2025
Investigation and validation of the TEG6s during rotary wing aeromedical flight
James Bardes1, Daniel Grabo, Aaron Shmookler
1From the Division of Trauma, Surgical Critical Care and Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery (J.B., D.G., A.W.), Department of Pathology, Anatomy, and Laboratory Medicine (A.S.), School of Medicine, and Department of Epidemiology (S.W.), School of Public Health, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia.
Introduction:
To improve rural and austere trauma care, hospital-based testing performed at the point of injury may shorten the time lapsed from injury to intervention. This study aimed to evaluate the use of the TEG6s device (Haemonetics(R), Clinton, PA) in a rotary wing aircraft. Prior attempts suffered from limitation related to lack of vibration mitigation.
Methods:
This was an investigator-initiated, industry-supported study. Haemonetics provided a TEG6s analyzer. The device underwent a standard validation. It was secured in place on the aircraft using shipping foam for vibration mitigation. Donors provided two tubes of sample blood in one sitting. Paired studies were performed on the aircraft during level flight and in the hospital, using the Global Hemostasis with Lysis Cartridge(Haemonetics (R), Clinton, PA). Both normal and presumed pathologic samples were tested in separate phases. Paired t tests were performed.
Results:
For normal donors, the mean R for laboratory compared with the aircraft was 6.2 minutes versus 7.2 minutes ( p = 0.025). The mean ± SD Citrated Rapid TEG Maximum Amplitude (CRT MA) was 59.3 ± 5.6 mm and 55.9 ± 7.3 mm ( p < 0.001) for laboratory and aircraft ( p < 0.001). Among normal donors, R was within normal range for 17 of 18 laboratory tests and 18 of 18 aircraft tests ( p > 0.99). During the testing of pathologic samples, the mean R time was 14.8 minutes for laboratory samples and 12.6 minutes for aircraft ( p = 0.02). Aircraft samples were classified as abnormal in 78% of samples; this was not significantly different than laboratory samples ( p = 0.5).
Conclusion:
The use of the TEG6s for inflight viscoelastic testing appears promising. While statistically significant differences are seen in some results, these values are not considered clinically significant. Classifying samples as normal or abnormal demonstrated a higher correlation. Future studies should focus on longer flight times to evaluate for LY30, takeoff, and landing effects. Overall, this study suggests that TEG6s can be used in a prehospital environment, and further study is warranted.
Level Of Evidence:
Diagnostic Tests or Criteria; Level III.
