Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
201,818 studies31 sourcesUpdated 50 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDEuropean Journal of Anaesthesiology Intensive Care

Activated clotting time in cardiac surgery, cardiological interventional procedures, vascular surgery, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and haemodialysis

Abstract

The activated clotting time (ACT) is a point-of-care test used to monitor unfractionated heparin (UFH) in acute care settings. Although widely recommended in cardiac surgery, interventional cardiology, vascular surgery, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and haemodialysis, important uncertainties remain regarding its use. Given the lack of interchangeability between ACT devices and consumables, clear information on targets and analytical systems is essential. We reviewed guideline documents published before November 1, 2025, as well as recommendations from major scientific societies, to assess ACT use, thresholds, and reported levels of evidence. Studies cited within these guidelines were also analysed, and the characteristics of ACT devices were compared with those currently available. A total of 24 guideline documents were identified, of which 17 specified ACT target values and only two mentioned the device or reagent used. The level of evidence was generally low or not graded. For example, during cardiopulmonary bypass, recommended ACT thresholds vary (e.g., 480 s without heparin-coated circuits or 400 s with the so-called maximal activation), without specification of the analytical system. Guidelines often rely on outdated studies using devices no longer available. Moreover, ACT analysers differ substantially in consumables, clot detection methods, blood volume, and reagents, which are rarely considered in recommendations. In conclusion, current guidelines provide limited guidance on ACT measurement despite significant inter-device variability. We recommend that future guidelines specify devices and consumables, or at least their sensitivity to UFH, to ensure reliable interpretation. Further studies are needed to optimise UFH monitoring in clinical practice.

Related

  1. Integrated or Parallel Configurations for Renal Replacement Therapy in Patients on VenoArterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation, a Single Center Retrospective Study
    Floriane L'Her, Adel Maamar, Benoit Painvin +6
    Journal of Intensive Care MedicinePeer-reviewedCC BY-NC 4.0Full textGeneral biologyHAL
  2. Individualized Or Conventional Transfusion Strategy During Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support (ICONE Study): Rationale and Design of a Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
    Mouhamed Djahoum Moussa, Osama Abou Arab, Julien Labreuche +11
    American Heart JournalPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral biologyCardiovascular medicineHAL
  3. The Impact of an Ex Vivo Pediatric Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Circuit on Sequestration of Antimicrobials
    Michele Cree, Mohd Hafiz Abdul-Aziz, Emma Haisz +7
    Critical Care ExplorationsPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full text1 citedGeneral biologyGeneral medicineHAL
  4. Long-Term Outcomes in Survivors of Fulminant Myocarditis Supported with Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation by Discharge Cardiac Function
    Maria Lambadaris, Julie Vishram-Nielsen, Takahiro Okumura +22
    Canadian Journal of Cardiology (CJC) : official journal of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS)Peer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral biologyEpidemiology & public healthHAL
  5. Comparison between regional citrate anticoagulation and systemic heparin anticoagulation in patients undergoing continuous renal replacement therapy and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A retrospective multicentric study
    Axel Hirwe, Edris Omar, Pierre-Grégoire Guinot +9
    Annals of Intensive CarePeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND2 citedGeneral biologyGeneral medicineHAL
BibTeX
@article{lasne2026activated,
  title = {{Activated clotting time in cardiac surgery, cardiological interventional procedures, vascular surgery, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and haemodialysis}},
  author = {Dominique Lasne and Caroline Deschamps and Thomas Lecompte and Isabelle Gouin-Thibault and Alexandre Mansour and Michaël Hardy and François Mullier},
  journal = {European Journal of Anaesthesiology Intensive Care},
  year = {2026},
  month = nov,
  doi = {10.1097/ea9.0000000000000142},
  url = {https://hal.science/hal-05850491v1},
  note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Activated clotting time in cardiac surgery, cardiological interventional procedures, vascular surgery, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and haemodialysis
AU  - Dominique Lasne
AU  - Caroline Deschamps
AU  - Thomas Lecompte
AU  - Isabelle Gouin-Thibault
AU  - Alexandre Mansour
AU  - Michaël Hardy
AU  - François Mullier
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/11/03
JO  - European Journal of Anaesthesiology Intensive Care
DO  - 10.1097/ea9.0000000000000142
UR  - https://hal.science/hal-05850491v1
AB  - The activated clotting time (ACT) is a point-of-care test used to monitor unfractionated heparin (UFH) in acute care settings. Although widely recommended in cardiac surgery, interventional cardiology, vascular surgery, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and haemodialysis, important uncertainties remain regarding its use. Given the lack of interchangeability between ACT devices and consumables, clear information on targets and analytical systems is essential. We reviewed guideline documents published before November 1, 2025, as well as recommendations from major scientific societies, to assess ACT use, thresholds, and reported levels of evidence. Studies cited within these guidelines were also analysed, and the characteristics of ACT devices were compared with those currently available. A total of 24 guideline documents were identified, of which 17 specified ACT target values and only two mentioned the device or reagent used. The level of evidence was generally low or not graded. For example, during cardiopulmonary bypass, recommended ACT thresholds vary (e.g., 480 s without heparin-coated circuits or 400 s with the so-called maximal activation), without specification of the analytical system. Guidelines often rely on outdated studies using devices no longer available. Moreover, ACT analysers differ substantially in consumables, clot detection methods, blood volume, and reagents, which are rarely considered in recommendations. In conclusion, current guidelines provide limited guidance on ACT measurement despite significant inter-device variability. We recommend that future guidelines specify devices and consumables, or at least their sensitivity to UFH, to ensure reliable interpretation. Further studies are needed to optimise UFH monitoring in clinical practice.
SN  - 2767-7206
ER  -