Fibrinolytic assays in bleeding of unknown cause: Improvement in diagnostic yield

INTRODUCTION: Analysis of fibrinolytic disorders is challenging and may potentially lead to underdiagnosis of patients with an increased bleeding tendency. AIM: To compare clinical characteristics, laboratory measurements, and treatment modalities in a monocenter cohort of patients in whom fibrinolytic studies were performed. METHODS: Retrospective study of patients in whom fibrinolytic studies were performed between January 2016 and February 2020 in the Hemophilia Treatment Center, Nijmegen‐Eindhoven‐Maastricht, the Netherlands. Plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 (PAI‐1) antigen and activity level, α2‐antiplasmin activity, tissue plasminogen activator, and euglobulin clot lysis time (ECLT) before and after venous compression were determined in all patients. Data of bleeding assessment tool (BAT) score, clinical characteristics, results of primary and secondary hemostasis assays, and general treatment plans were collected. RESULTS: In total, 160 patients were included: 97 (61%) without and 63 (39%) with a laboratory‐based fibrinolytic disorder. Mean BAT score did not differ between the groups (9.3 vs 9.8, respectively). The presumptive fibrinolytic disorders were distributed as follows: 34 patients had an increased ECLT ratio or low baseline ECLT, 25 patients had low PAI‐1 antigen and activity level, and four patients had both. The majority of these patients were treated with tranexamic acid monotherapy (60%) with only 40% additional treatment options, whereas 80% of patients without a presumptive fibrinolytic disorder had multiple treatment modalities. DISCUSSION: Analysis of fibrinolytic disorders in selected patients has a high diagnostic yield. General incorporation of fibrinolytic analysis in the diagnostic workup of patients with bleeding of unknown cause can improve diagnosis and management of their bleeding episodes.