Step-by-Step Interpretation of Renal Function Tests: A Comprehensive Guide for Postgraduates

 

Step-by-Step Interpretation of Renal Function Tests: A Comprehensive Guide for Postgraduate Physicians

Dr Neeraj Manikath ,claude.ai

Abstract

Renal function tests are essential tools in clinical practice for evaluating kidney health, diagnosing renal disorders, monitoring disease progression, and assessing treatment efficacy. This review provides a structured, evidence-based approach to interpreting renal function tests for postgraduate physicians. By following a systematic framework, clinicians can enhance diagnostic accuracy, optimize treatment decisions, and improve patient outcomes in managing kidney disorders. The review encompasses conventional markers of renal function along with novel biomarkers, incorporating clinical context and patient-specific factors in the interpretative process.

Introduction

Kidney function assessment remains a cornerstone of clinical medicine, influencing diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic decisions across medical specialties. Despite the routine nature of renal function tests, their interpretation requires nuanced understanding of renal physiology, pathophysiology, and test limitations. Inappropriate interpretation may lead to missed diagnoses, unnecessary investigations, or suboptimal management. This review aims to provide postgraduate physicians with a comprehensive, step-by-step approach to renal function test interpretation that integrates established knowledge with recent advances in the field.

Components of Standard Renal Function Tests

Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR) Markers

• Blood Urea Nitrogen (BUN): End product of protein metabolism
• Serum Creatinine: Derived from muscle creatine phosphate
• Cystatin C: Low molecular weight protein produced at constant rate by nucleated cells
• eGFR Equations: Mathematical estimations based on serum markers

Tubular Function Markers

• Urinalysis: pH, specific gravity, glucose, protein
• Fractional Excretion of Sodium (FENa): Reflects tubular sodium handling
• Fractional Excretion of Urea (FEUrea): Alternative to FENa in certain clinical scenarios

Electrolyte and Acid-Base Parameters

• Serum Electrolytes: Sodium, potassium, chloride, bicarbonate
• Anion Gap: Calculated measure reflecting unmeasured anions
• Arterial Blood Gas Analysis: Provides data on metabolic/respiratory components

Proteinuria Assessment

• Urine Dipstick: Semiquantitative screening tool
• Urine Protein-to-Creatinine Ratio (UPCR): Random sample quantification
• Urine Albumin-to-Creatinine Ratio (UACR): More sensitive for glomerular injury
• 24-hour Urine Collection: Gold standard for quantifying proteinuria

Step-by-Step Approach to Renal Function Test Interpretation

Step 1: Establish Clinical Context

Begin by evaluating:

• Patient demographics (age, sex, race/ethnicity)
• Medical history, especially conditions affecting kidney function
• Medication history, including nephrotoxic drugs
• Hydration status and hemodynamic parameters
• Recent procedures or interventions
• Presence of urinary symptoms

As emphasized by Levey et al. (2020), clinical context significantly improves the accuracy of renal function test interpretation and should be the foundation of assessment.

Step 2: Assess GFR and Its Trends

Evaluate Serum Creatinine

• Normal range: 0.7-1.2 mg/dL (62-106 μmol/L) for men; 0.5-1.0 mg/dL (44-88 μmol/L) for women
• Consider factors affecting creatinine independent of GFR:
  • Muscle mass (age, sex, race, nutritional status)
  • Dietary intake (meat consumption)
  • Medications affecting secretion (trimethoprim, cimetidine)

Calculate eGFR Using Appropriate Equation

• CKD-EPI Equation: Most accurate across wide range of GFRs
• MDRD Study Equation: Less accurate at higher GFRs
• Cockcroft-Gault: Useful for drug dosing but less accurate for GFR estimation

Consider Cystatin C-Based eGFR

• Less affected by muscle mass and nutritional status
• Provides complementary information to creatinine-based estimates
• Particularly useful in:
  • Elderly patients
  • Those with extreme body habitus
  • Conditions with altered muscle mass (amputation, malnutrition)

According to the KDIGO 2012 guidelines (updated in 2021), combining creatinine and cystatin C-based eGFR provides the most accurate estimation of true GFR.

Step 3: Categorize the Type of Kidney Dysfunction

Acute Kidney Injury (AKI)

• Characterized by rapid (hours to days) increase in serum creatinine
• KDIGO definition:
  • Increase in serum creatinine by ≥0.3 mg/dL within 48 hours, or
  • Increase in serum creatinine to ≥1.5 times baseline within 7 days, or
  • Urine volume <0.5 mL/kg/h for 6 hours

Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD)

• Abnormalities in kidney structure or function present for >3 months
• Staged based on GFR and albuminuria categories
• GFR categories:
  • G1: ≥90 mL/min/1.73m² (normal or increased)
  • G2: 60-89 mL/min/1.73m² (mildly decreased)
  • G3a: 45-59 mL/min/1.73m² (mildly to moderately decreased)
  • G3b: 30-44 mL/min/1.73m² (moderately to severely decreased)
  • G4: 15-29 mL/min/1.73m² (severely decreased)
  • G5: <15 mL/min/1.73m² (kidney failure)

Acute-on-Chronic Kidney Disease

• Acute deterioration superimposed on pre-existing CKD
• Requires baseline values for proper interpretation

Chawla et al. (2017) highlighted the importance of distinguishing between these categories as they have different diagnostic approaches, management strategies, and prognostic implications.

Step 4: Differentiate Pre-renal, Intrinsic, and Post-renal Causes in AKI

BUN-to-Creatinine Ratio

• 20:1 suggests pre-renal etiology (enhanced urea reabsorption)

• 10-15:1 typical of intrinsic renal disease
• <10:1 may indicate reduced urea production (severe liver disease, malnutrition)

Fractional Excretion of Sodium (FENa)

• Formula: (UNa × PCr) / (PNa × UCr) × 100
• <1% suggests pre-renal causes

• 2% suggests acute tubular necrosis or other intrinsic causes

• Limitations: affected by diuretics, chronic kidney disease, contrast nephropathy

Fractional Excretion of Urea (FEUrea)

• More reliable in diuretic use
• <35% suggests pre-renal etiology

• 50% suggests intrinsic renal disease

Urinary Indices

• Urine specific gravity: >1.020 in pre-renal, ~1.010 in intrinsic
• Urine sodium: <20 mEq/L in pre-renal, >40 mEq/L in intrinsic
• Urine osmolality: >500 mOsm/kg in pre-renal, <350 mOsm/kg in intrinsic

According to Perazella and Coca (2012), these indices should be interpreted collectively rather than in isolation, as each has limitations in specific clinical scenarios.

Step 5: Evaluate Proteinuria and Its Significance

Quantify Proteinuria

• UACR: Normal <30 mg/g; Microalbuminuria 30-300 mg/g; Macroalbuminuria >300 mg/g
• UPCR: Normal <150 mg/g; Nephrotic range >3500 mg/g
• 24-hour collection: Gold standard but prone to collection errors

Characterize Protein Type

• Albuminuria: Predominant in glomerular diseases
• Low molecular weight proteins (β2-microglobulin, retinol-binding protein): Elevated in tubular disorders
• Bence Jones protein: Present in multiple myeloma

Assess Pattern

• Persistent: Present on multiple occasions over ≥3 months
• Transient: May occur with fever, exercise, orthostatic conditions
• Orthostatic: Present in upright but not supine position

Glassock (2010) emphasized that proteinuria characterization provides valuable insights into the location and nature of kidney damage.

Step 6: Integrate Electrolyte and Acid-Base Disturbances

Sodium Disorders

• Hyponatremia: Consider renal sodium wasting, SIADH, or water retention states
• Hypernatremia: Evaluate water losses or sodium gain

Potassium Disorders

• Hypokalemia: May indicate tubular disorders, diuretic use
• Hyperkalemia: Common in reduced GFR, tubular dysfunction, or medications

Acid-Base Disturbances

• Metabolic acidosis: Calculate anion gap
  • High anion gap: Uremic acidosis, lactic acidosis, ketoacidosis
  • Normal anion gap: Renal tubular acidosis, diarrhea
• Metabolic alkalosis: May occur with vomiting, diuretic use
• Mixed disorders: Common in complex renal disease

Palmer and Clegg (2019) provide a comprehensive framework for integrating acid-base and electrolyte disorders in renal dysfunction assessment.

Step 7: Assess for Specific Renal Syndromes

Nephrotic Syndrome

• Proteinuria >3.5 g/24h
• Hypoalbuminemia
• Edema
• Hyperlipidemia

Nephritic Syndrome

• Hematuria
• Proteinuria (usually <3.5 g/24h)
• Hypertension
• Decreased GFR
• Oliguria

Rapidly Progressive Glomerulonephritis

• Rapidly declining renal function
• Active urinary sediment
• Evidence of glomerular inflammation

Tubulointerstitial Nephritis

• Sterile pyuria
• Mild proteinuria
• Evidence of tubular dysfunction
• Often drug-induced

Sterns et al. (2018) highlight that recognizing these syndromes guides further diagnostic workup and management decisions.

Step 8: Consider Novel Biomarkers When Appropriate

Early AKI Markers

• Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin (NGAL): Rises 2-4 hours after injury
• Kidney Injury Molecule-1 (KIM-1): Specific for proximal tubular injury
• Interleukin-18 (IL-18): Elevated in ischemic AKI

CKD Progression Markers

• Fibroblast Growth Factor 23 (FGF-23): Rises early in CKD
• Soluble Uromodulin: Reflects tubular mass and function
• Inflammatory markers: TNF-α, IL-6, MCP-1

According to Parikh et al. (2020), while these biomarkers hold promise, their clinical utility remains limited by standardization issues and need for further validation.

Step 9: Monitor and Reassess

Serial Measurements

• Establish trajectory of renal function
• Assess response to interventions
• Identify deterioration requiring escalation of care

Appropriate Testing Intervals

• Daily in acute settings or hospitalized patients
• Every 1-3 months in unstable CKD
• Every 6-12 months in stable CKD

Complementary Investigations

• Renal ultrasound for structural assessment
• Immunological studies for suspected glomerular disease
• Renal biopsy when etiology remains unclear

Levin et al. (2013) emphasize that longitudinal monitoring provides more valuable information than single measurements in assessing renal function.

Special Considerations

Age-Related Variations

• Physiological decline in GFR with aging (~0.75-1 mL/min/1.73m² annually after age 40)
• Reduced muscle mass affecting creatinine interpretation
• Lower tubular function affecting concentration and dilution
• Modified eGFR equations for elderly populations

Pregnancy-Related Changes

• Physiological increase in GFR (50% above pre-pregnancy values)
• Increased renal plasma flow
• Physiological glycosuria and mild proteinuria
• Altered normal ranges for standard parameters

Critical Illness

• Hypermetabolic states affecting creatinine generation
• Fluid shifts affecting concentration measurements
• Acute phase reactants influencing novel biomarkers
• Enhanced catabolism affecting urea generation

Shlipak et al. (2021) provide comprehensive guidelines for addressing these special populations when interpreting renal function tests.

Clinical Pearls and Pitfalls

Pearls

1. A single elevated creatinine should prompt review of previous values to distinguish acute from chronic disease
2. eGFR equations are less accurate at extremes of muscle mass and nutritional status
3. Cystatin C offers complementary information to creatinine, particularly in specific populations
4. FENa has limited utility in patients on diuretics; FEUrea is preferred in these scenarios
5. The 24-hour urine collection remains the gold standard for quantifying proteinuria but is prone to collection errors

Pitfalls

1. Overreliance on creatinine without considering non-GFR determinants
2. Misinterpreting a stable elevated creatinine as AKI in patients with CKD
3. Failure to adjust medication dosages in patients with reduced GFR
4. Incorrectly attributing all electrolyte abnormalities to kidney dysfunction
5. Neglecting dietary and medication factors that may influence test results

Inker et al. (2014) highlight these pearls and pitfalls as critical aspects of effective renal function test interpretation in clinical practice.

Recent Advances and Future Directions

Biomarker Panels

• Combinations of biomarkers showing superior performance to individual tests
• Machine learning approaches to integrate multiple parameters
• Point-of-care testing development for rapid assessment

Imaging-Based GFR Measurement

• MRI-based techniques for non-invasive GFR determination
• Nuclear medicine approaches with reduced radiation exposure
• Ultrasound elastography for fibrosis assessment

Genetic and Molecular Diagnostics

• Genetic testing for hereditary kidney diseases
• RNA sequencing of urinary sediment
• Proteomics and metabolomics for personalized assessment

According to Zuk and Bonventre (2016), these advances promise to transform renal function assessment from a limited set of tests to a comprehensive, personalized panel tailored to specific clinical scenarios.

Conclusion

Interpretation of renal function tests requires a systematic approach that integrates conventional markers with clinical context, patient-specific factors, and when appropriate, novel biomarkers. By following the step-by-step framework outlined in this review, postgraduate physicians can enhance their diagnostic accuracy, optimize management decisions, and improve patient outcomes in renal disorders. As the field continues to evolve, maintaining a critical approach to test interpretation while embracing emerging technologies will ensure optimal kidney care delivery.

References

1. Levey AS, Eckardt KU, Dorman NM, et al. Nomenclature for kidney function and disease: report of a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Consensus Conference. Kidney Int. 2020;97(6):1117-1129.

2. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease. Kidney Int Suppl. 2013;3(1):1-150.

3. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for Acute Kidney Injury. Kidney Int Suppl. 2012;2(1):1-138.

4. Chawla LS, Bellomo R, Bihorac A, et al. Acute kidney disease and renal recovery: consensus report of the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) 16 Workgroup. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2017;13(4):241-257.

5. Perazella MA, Coca SG. Traditional urinary biomarkers in the assessment of hospital-acquired AKI. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(1):167-174.

6. Glassock RJ. Is the presence of microalbuminuria a relevant marker of kidney disease? Curr Hypertens Rep. 2010;12(5):364-368.

7. Palmer BF, Clegg DJ. Electrolyte and acid-base disturbances in patients with diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(6):548-559.

8. Sterns RH, Emmett M, Forman JP. Urine anion and osmolal gaps in metabolic acidosis. UpToDate. 2018.

9. Parikh CR, Moledina DG, Coca SG, et al. Application of new acute kidney injury biomarkers in human randomized controlled trials. Kidney Int. 2016;89(6):1372-1379.

10. Levin A, Stevens PE, Bilous RW, et al. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work Group. KDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int Suppl. 2013;3(1):1-150.

11. Shlipak MG, Tummalapalli SL, Boulware LE, et al. The case for early identification and intervention of chronic kidney disease: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference. Kidney Int. 2021;99(1):34-47.

12. Inker LA, Astor BC, Fox CH, et al. KDOQI US commentary on the 2012 KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of CKD. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014;63(5):713-735.

13. Zuk A, Bonventre JV. Acute kidney injury. Annu Rev Med. 2016;67:293-307.

14. Inker LA, Schmid CH, Tighiouart H, et al. Estimating glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine and cystatin C. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(1):20-29.

15. Webster AC, Nagler EV, Morton RL, Masson P. Chronic kidney disease. Lancet. 2017;389(10075):1238-1252.

16. Ronco C, Bellomo R, Kellum JA. Acute kidney injury. Lancet. 2019;394(10212):1949-1964.

17. Levey AS, Inker LA. GFR as the "Gold Standard": Estimated, Measured, and True. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;67(1):9-12.

18. Delanaye P, Cavalier E, Pottel H. Serum Creatinine: Not So Simple! Nephron. 2017;136(4):302-308.

19. Ferguson TW, Komenda P, Tangri N. Cystatin C as a biomarker for estimating glomerular filtration rate. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2015;24(3):295-300.

20. Grams ME, Sang Y, Levey AS, et al. Kidney-Failure Risk Projection for the Living Kidney-Donor Candidate. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(5):411-421.

Step-by-Step Interpretation of Liver Function Tests

 

Step-by-Step Interpretation of Liver Function Tests: A Comprehensive Guide for Physicians

Dr Neeraj Manikatgh ,claude.ai

Abstract

Liver function tests (LFTs) are among the most commonly ordered laboratory investigations in clinical practice. Despite their ubiquity, interpretation of these tests requires a systematic approach and comprehensive understanding of liver pathophysiology. This review presents a structured, evidence-based framework for LFT interpretation that allows for efficient diagnosis and management of liver disorders. By following a step-by-step approach, clinicians can maximize the diagnostic utility of these tests while minimizing unnecessary additional investigations.

Introduction

Liver function tests represent a panel of blood tests that provide information about the state of a patient's liver. Despite their name, LFTs do not directly measure the liver's capacity to function but rather reflect patterns of liver injury, cholestasis, or synthetic function. The appropriate interpretation of these tests demands a methodical approach that considers clinical context, pattern recognition, and knowledge of common liver pathologies.

Components of Standard Liver Function Tests

Markers of Hepatocellular Injury

• Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT): Predominantly found in hepatocytes; more specific for liver damage
• Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST): Present in liver, cardiac muscle, skeletal muscle, kidneys, and brain

Markers of Cholestasis

• Alkaline Phosphatase (ALP): Present in liver, bone, intestine, and placenta
• Gamma-Glutamyl Transferase (GGT): Present in hepatobiliary tissue, renal tubules, pancreas, and intestine
• Total and Direct Bilirubin: End product of heme metabolism

Markers of Synthetic Function

• Albumin: Reflects the synthetic capacity of the liver
• Prothrombin Time (PT)/International Normalized Ratio (INR): Measures clotting factors synthesized by the liver

Step-by-Step Approach to LFT Interpretation

Step 1: Establish Clinical Context

Begin by evaluating the patient's:

• Medical history, including known liver disease
• Medication use, including prescription, over-the-counter, and herbal supplements
• Alcohol consumption
• Risk factors for viral hepatitis
• Family history of liver disease
• Presence of comorbidities that may affect the liver

This context is crucial for proper test interpretation, as noted by Giannini et al. (2005), who demonstrated that clinical context significantly improves diagnostic accuracy when interpreting LFTs.

Step 2: Determine the Pattern of Abnormality

Hepatocellular Pattern

• Predominant elevation of aminotransferases (ALT, AST)
• AST:ALT ratio may provide additional diagnostic information:
  • Ratio <1: Typical of viral hepatitis, medication-induced liver injury
  • Ratio >2: Suggestive of alcoholic liver disease
  • Ratio >1: May indicate advanced fibrosis in chronic liver diseases

Cholestatic Pattern

• Predominant elevation of ALP and GGT
• May be accompanied by hyperbilirubinemia
• Suggests impairment of bile formation or bile flow

Mixed Pattern

• Elevations in both aminotransferases and cholestatic enzymes
• Common in certain drug-induced liver injuries and infiltrative diseases

Isolated Hyperbilirubinemia

• Predominant elevation of bilirubin with minimal abnormalities in other LFTs
• May indicate hemolysis, Gilbert syndrome, or other causes of pre-hepatic jaundice

Kwo et al. (2017) emphasize that pattern recognition represents the cornerstone of efficient LFT interpretation and guides subsequent diagnostic pathways.

Step 3: Assess the Severity of Abnormalities

Mild Elevation

• ALT/AST <5x upper limit of normal (ULN)
• ALP <3x ULN
• Often seen in chronic liver diseases or early stages of acute liver injury

Moderate Elevation

• ALT/AST 5-15x ULN
• ALP 3-10x ULN
• May indicate progressive liver disease or significant cholestasis

Severe Elevation

• ALT/AST >15x ULN
• ALP >10x ULN
• Suggests acute and severe liver injury

According to Limdi and Hyde (2003), the degree of LFT elevation correlates with the severity of liver injury but not necessarily with prognosis, which depends on the underlying etiology and the liver's synthetic function.

Step 4: Evaluate Synthetic Function

• Albumin levels <3.5 g/dL suggest impaired synthetic function
• Prolonged PT/elevated INR indicates compromised production of clotting factors
• These parameters are particularly important in assessing the severity and prognosis of chronic liver diseases

Kamath and Kim (2007) demonstrated that synthetic function parameters are stronger predictors of clinical outcomes than markers of liver injury.

Step 5: Consider Common Diagnostic Possibilities Based on Pattern

Hepatocellular Pattern

• Viral hepatitis (A, B, C, E, EBV, CMV)
• Drug-induced liver injury
• Alcoholic hepatitis
• Autoimmune hepatitis
• Ischemic hepatitis
• Acute biliary obstruction (early phase)
• Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)

Cholestatic Pattern

• Biliary obstruction (stones, strictures, malignancy)
• Primary biliary cholangitis
• Primary sclerosing cholangitis
• Drug-induced cholestasis
• Infiltrative liver diseases
• Sepsis-associated cholestasis

Mixed Pattern

• Certain drug-induced liver injuries
• Alcoholic hepatitis
• Infiltrative liver diseases (amyloidosis, sarcoidosis)
• Vascular disorders of the liver

Bjornsson (2016) provides a comprehensive framework for considering diagnostic possibilities based on LFT patterns, emphasizing the importance of systematic evaluation.

Step 6: Initiate Targeted Further Investigations

For Hepatocellular Pattern

• Viral hepatitis serologies (HAV, HBV, HCV, HEV)
• Autoimmune markers (ANA, ASMA, anti-LKM)
• Ceruloplasmin (Wilson's disease)
• Iron studies (hemochromatosis)
• Alpha-1 antitrypsin levels
• Abdominal ultrasound

For Cholestatic Pattern

• Abdominal ultrasound (first-line imaging)
• MRCP or ERCP
• Anti-mitochondrial antibody (primary biliary cholangitis)
• ANCA (primary sclerosing cholangitis)
• CT scan or MRI for suspected malignancy

For Isolated Hyperbilirubinemia

• Fractionated bilirubin (direct vs. indirect)
• Complete blood count with peripheral smear
• Reticulocyte count
• Haptoglobin (if hemolysis suspected)
• Genetic testing for Gilbert syndrome if appropriate

Pratt and Kaplan (2000) emphasize that targeted investigations based on pattern recognition optimize diagnostic efficiency and reduce unnecessary testing.

Step 7: Monitor and Reassess

• Determine appropriate intervals for follow-up testing
• Assess response to interventions or elimination of potential causative factors
• Consider liver biopsy if diagnosis remains unclear after non-invasive evaluations
• Evaluate for progression or resolution of abnormalities

According to Green and Flamm (2002), serial monitoring of LFTs provides valuable information regarding disease progression and response to therapy.

Special Considerations

Age-Related Variations

• Neonatal hyperbilirubinemia
• Age-related changes in baseline LFT values
• Different normal ranges for children and elderly

Pregnancy-Related Changes

• Physiological changes in LFTs during normal pregnancy
• Pregnancy-specific liver disorders (HELLP syndrome, acute fatty liver of pregnancy, intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy)

Critical Illness

• Hypoxic hepatitis
• Sepsis-induced cholestasis
• Drug effects in intensive care settings

Chalasani et al. (2014) provide comprehensive guidelines for addressing these special populations when interpreting LFTs.

Clinical Pearls and Pitfalls

Pearls

1. Mild, persistent LFT elevations (1-2x ULN) often represent chronic liver diseases and merit evaluation
2. A normal ALT does not exclude significant liver disease, particularly in advanced cirrhosis
3. GGT elevation in isolation is sensitive but not specific for liver disease
4. Albumin and PT/INR are the most valuable prognostic indicators in chronic liver disease
5. ALP elevations should be confirmed as hepatic in origin by concurrent GGT elevation

Pitfalls

1. Overreliance on AST:ALT ratio without considering clinical context
2. Failure to consider non-hepatic sources of enzyme elevations
3. Missing hemolysis as a cause of indirect hyperbilirubinemia
4. Prematurely attributing abnormalities to known chronic liver disease
5. Not considering medications as potential causes of LFT abnormalities

Dufour et al. (2000) highlight these pearls and pitfalls as critical aspects of effective LFT interpretation in clinical practice.

Conclusion

Interpretation of liver function tests requires a systematic approach that integrates clinical context, pattern recognition, severity assessment, and targeted follow-up investigations. By following the step-by-step framework outlined in this review, clinicians can efficiently diagnose and manage liver disorders while avoiding diagnostic pitfalls. It is essential to remember that LFTs represent only one component of liver assessment and should be interpreted alongside clinical examination, imaging studies, and when necessary, liver biopsy.

References

1. Bjornsson ES. Drug-induced liver injury: an overview over the most critical compounds. Arch Toxicol. 2016;90(9):2085-2109.

2. Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, et al. The diagnosis and management of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: practice guideline by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, American College of Gastroenterology, and the American Gastroenterological Association. Hepatology. 2014;55(6):2005-2023.

3. Dufour DR, Lott JA, Nolte FS, et al. Diagnosis and monitoring of hepatic injury. I. Performance characteristics of laboratory tests. Clin Chem. 2000;46(12):2027-2049.

4. Giannini EG, Testa R, Savarino V. Liver enzyme alteration: a guide for clinicians. CMAJ. 2005;172(3):367-379.

5. Green RM, Flamm S. AGA technical review on the evaluation of liver chemistry tests. Gastroenterology. 2002;123(4):1367-1384.

6. Kamath PS, Kim WR. The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD). Hepatology. 2007;45(3):797-805.

7. Kwo PY, Cohen SM, Lim JK. ACG Clinical Guideline: Evaluation of Abnormal Liver Chemistries. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(1):18-35.

8. Limdi JK, Hyde GM. Evaluation of abnormal liver function tests. Postgrad Med J. 2003;79(932):307-312.

9. Pratt DS, Kaplan MM. Evaluation of abnormal liver-enzyme results in asymptomatic patients. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(17):1266-1271.

10. Rockey DC, Caldwell SH, Goodman ZD, et al. Liver biopsy. Hepatology. 2009;49(3):1017-1044.

11. Saha B, Mahtab MA. Hepatology: A Clinical Textbook. 8th ed. Norderstedt: Flying Publisher; 2020.

12. Lala V, Goyal A, Bansal P, et al. Liver Function Tests. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2023.

13. Newsome PN, Cramb R, Davison SM, et al. Guidelines on the management of abnormal liver blood tests. Gut. 2018;67(1):6-19.

14. Prati D, Taioli E, Zanella A, et al. Updated definitions of healthy ranges for serum alanine aminotransferase levels. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(1):1-10.

15. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on non-invasive tests for evaluation of liver disease severity and prognosis. J Hepatol. 2021;75(3):659-689.

Clinical Applications of Transcranial Doppler

 

Clinical Applications of Transcranial Doppler in the Intensive Care Unit

Dr Neeraj Manikath ,claude.ai

Abstract

Transcranial Doppler (TCD) ultrasonography has emerged as a valuable non-invasive bedside monitoring tool in the intensive care unit (ICU). This review examines the diverse applications of TCD in critical care settings, focusing on its utility in neurological assessment, cerebrovascular disease monitoring, and management guidance. TCD provides real-time information about cerebral hemodynamics that complements other neuromonitoring techniques, often influencing clinical decision-making in critically ill patients. This article discusses the practical applications, interpretation guidelines, limitations, and emerging uses of TCD in modern ICU practice, with emphasis on evidence-based clinical integration.

Introduction

The management of critically ill patients in the ICU, particularly those with neurological conditions, requires continuous and accurate assessment of cerebral perfusion and hemodynamics. Since its introduction by Aaslid in 1982, Transcranial Doppler (TCD) ultrasonography has evolved into an indispensable bedside monitoring tool for neurocritical care. As a non-invasive, repeatable, and relatively inexpensive technique, TCD offers real-time assessment of cerebral blood flow velocities and provides crucial information about cerebrovascular physiology.

In the dynamic environment of the ICU, TCD serves multiple purposes: detecting vasospasm, evaluating cerebral autoregulation, monitoring intracranial pressure (ICP), assessing cerebral perfusion, screening for embolic events, and supporting brain death determination. The integration of TCD into routine ICU practice enables more comprehensive neurological monitoring and can guide therapeutic interventions in various clinical scenarios.

This review examines the current applications, interpretation principles, and practical considerations of TCD in the ICU setting, with particular emphasis on how this technology can enhance patient care and influence management decisions.

Technical Principles

TCD utilizes ultrasound waves (typically 2 MHz frequency) to penetrate the skull through relatively thin bone areas known as acoustic windows. The Doppler effect allows measurement of blood flow velocities in the major cerebral arteries of the Circle of Willis and its branches. The primary acoustic windows include:

1. Transtemporal window: Accessing the middle cerebral artery (MCA), anterior cerebral artery (ACA), and posterior cerebral artery (PCA)
2. Transforaminal (suboccipital) window: Accessing the vertebral arteries (VA) and basilar artery (BA)
3. Transorbital window: Accessing the ophthalmic artery and carotid siphon
4. Submandibular window: Accessing the distal internal carotid artery (ICA)

Standard TCD parameters include:

• Mean flow velocity (MFV)
• Peak systolic velocity (PSV)
• End diastolic velocity (EDV)
• Pulsatility index (PI) = (PSV-EDV)/MFV
• Resistance index (RI) = (PSV-EDV)/PSV

The interpretation of these parameters in various clinical contexts forms the basis for TCD's diagnostic and monitoring applications in the ICU.

Clinical Applications in the ICU

1. Subarachnoid Hemorrhage and Vasospasm Detection

Cerebral vasospasm remains a significant cause of delayed cerebral ischemia and poor outcomes in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). TCD provides a reliable, non-invasive method for early detection and monitoring of vasospasm.

Key TCD findings in vasospasm:

• Elevated flow velocities, particularly in the MCA (>120 cm/s suggests vasospasm)
• Lindegaard ratio (MCA MFV/extracranial ICA MFV) >3 differentiates vasospasm from hyperemia
• Lindegaard ratio >6 indicates severe vasospasm

Serial TCD examinations allow tracking of vasospasm development, progression, and response to treatment. Studies show TCD has a sensitivity of 67-89% and specificity of 89-100% for MCA vasospasm when compared to digital subtraction angiography.

The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines recommend TCD for monitoring of vasospasm after SAH (Class IIa, Level of Evidence B). Daily TCD monitoring typically begins within 48 hours of aneurysm rupture and continues through the highest risk period (days 4-14).

Clinical impact:

• Earlier detection of vasospasm before clinical symptoms develop
• Guiding hypertensive therapy, hemodilution, or endovascular interventions
• Monitoring treatment effectiveness
• Potentially reducing the need for repeated angiography

2. Intracranial Pressure Monitoring

While invasive ICP monitoring remains the gold standard, TCD provides a non-invasive alternative for estimating and tracking intracranial pressure changes through analysis of flow velocity waveforms.

Key TCD findings in elevated ICP:

• Increased pulsatility index (PI >1.2)
• Decreased diastolic flow velocities
• With progressive ICP elevation: reverberating flow pattern (equal systolic and diastolic components in opposite directions)
• In extreme cases: systolic spikes pattern (brief systolic flow followed by zero flow in diastole)

The relationship between PI and ICP is not perfectly linear but can be valuable for trend monitoring. Recent studies have explored mathematical models combining TCD parameters to estimate ICP, with promising results showing correlations of 0.80-0.94 with invasive measurements.

Clinical impact:

• Non-invasive screening for raised ICP
• Trending ICP changes in patients with or without invasive monitors
• Reducing the need for invasive monitoring in selected patients
• Particular utility in settings where invasive monitoring is unavailable or contraindicated

3. Cerebral Autoregulation Assessment

Cerebral autoregulation—the physiological mechanism that maintains relatively constant cerebral blood flow despite changes in cerebral perfusion pressure—is often impaired in critically ill patients. TCD enables assessment of both static and dynamic cerebral autoregulation.

Static autoregulation assessment:

• Observing changes in flow velocities in response to induced or spontaneous blood pressure variations
• Correlation coefficient between mean arterial pressure and flow velocity indicates autoregulation status

Dynamic autoregulation assessment:

• Transient hyperemic response test: brief carotid compression followed by reactive hyperemia
• Thigh cuff deflation test: sudden release of inflated thigh cuffs causes blood pressure drop
• Transfer function analysis of spontaneous oscillations in blood pressure and flow velocity

Clinical impact:

• Determining optimal cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) targets
• Guiding individualized blood pressure management
• Predicting risk of secondary brain injury
• Optimizing therapy in traumatic brain injury and stroke patients

4. Traumatic Brain Injury Management

TCD    provides valuable information in the multimodal monitoring approach to traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients.

Key applications in TBI:

• Early detection of post-traumatic vasospasm (occurs in up to 40% of severe TBI)
• Monitoring cerebral hemodynamic changes after decompressive craniectomy
• Assessing cerebrovascular reactivity to CO2
• Evaluating cerebral perfusion in relation to CPP
• Detecting critical closing pressure (the arterial pressure at which cerebral blood flow ceases)

Clinical impact:

• Guiding CPP-targeted therapy
• Optimizing ventilation parameters
• Identifying patients at risk for secondary ischemic injury
• Evaluating the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions

5. Brain Death Determination

TCD serves as a valuable confirmatory test in brain death determination, providing evidence of cerebral circulatory arrest.

TCD patterns consistent with brain death:

• Oscillating flow pattern (reverberating flow): equal forward flow in systole and reversed flow in diastole
• Systolic spikes pattern: brief systolic spikes (<200 ms) with no diastolic flow
• Absence of intracranial flow in multiple acoustic windows despite patent extracranial circulation

According to the American Academy of Neurology guidelines, the sensitivity of TCD for brain death determination is approximately 91-99%, with specificity approaching 100% when strict criteria are applied.

Clinical impact:

• Non-invasive confirmation of brain death
• Particularly useful when clinical examination is limited (e.g., severe facial trauma)
• Reducing the need for contrast angiography or nuclear medicine studies
• Facilitating timely decisions regarding organ donation

6. Ischemic Stroke Evaluation and Management

In acute ischemic stroke, TCD provides valuable information about occlusion site, collateral flow, and recanalization status.

Applications in ischemic stroke:

• Identification of intracranial vessel occlusion
• Monitoring during and after thrombolysis or thrombectomy
• Detection of reocclusion
• Assessment of collateral circulation
• Identification of the stroke mechanism (large vessel vs. small vessel disease)
• Continuous monitoring for microembolic signals

Clinical impact:

• Supporting selection of patients for revascularization therapies
• Real-time monitoring of recanalization during thrombolysis (CLOTBUST trial)
• Potential sonothrombolysis effect of TCD itself
• Identification of patients at high risk for stroke recurrence

7. Right-to-Left Shunt Detection

TCD with bubble study (contrast-enhanced TCD) is highly sensitive for detecting right-to-left shunts, particularly patent foramen ovale (PFO).

Technique:

• Intravenous injection of agitated saline
• Simultaneous monitoring of MCA for microembolic signals
• Classification based on timing and number of microbubbles detected
• Valsalva maneuver to enhance sensitivity

The sensitivity of contrast-enhanced TCD for PFO detection ranges from 89-100%, comparable to or exceeding that of transesophageal echocardiography in some studies.

Clinical impact:

• Non-invasive screening for cardiac shunts in cryptogenic stroke
• Bedside assessment in ventilated patients
• Quantifying shunt size
• Evaluating the effectiveness of PFO closure

8. Monitoring During Cardiopulmonary Bypass and ECMO

TCD provides continuous assessment of cerebral perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Applications during extracorporeal support:

• Detecting cerebral hypoperfusion or hyperperfusion
• Monitoring for microemboli
• Guiding flow rate adjustments
• Assessing cerebral autoregulation status

Clinical impact:

• Optimizing flow parameters to maintain adequate cerebral perfusion
• Immediate detection of cerebral hypoperfusion events
• Reducing neurological complications
• Guiding weaning strategies

9. Carbon Dioxide Reactivity Testing

Cerebrovascular reactivity to changes in arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO2) can be assessed using TCD to evaluate the vasodilatory capacity of cerebral vessels.

Technique:

• Measuring flow velocities at baseline
• Inducing hypercapnia (breath-holding or CO2 inhalation) or hypocapnia (hyperventilation)
• Calculating the percent change in flow velocity per mmHg change in end-tidal CO2

Clinical impact:

• Evaluating cerebrovascular reserve capacity
• Predicting risk of ischemic complications in carotid stenosis
• Guiding optimal ventilation strategies in TBI
• Assessing vasomotor reactivity in various cerebrovascular conditions

10. Neurocritical Care Syndrome Monitoring

TCD plays a role in monitoring and managing various neurocritical care syndromes.

Applications include:

• Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES): Monitoring cerebral hemodynamics during blood pressure management
• Cerebral venous thrombosis: Assessing collateral venous drainage patterns
• Bacterial meningitis: Monitoring for vasospasm and hyperemia
• Hepatic encephalopathy: Evaluating cerebral blood flow changes
• Status epilepticus: Detecting ictal hyperperfusion

Clinical impact:

• Supporting diagnosis of neurocritical care syndromes
• Guiding targeted therapies
• Monitoring disease progression and treatment response
• Contributing to prognostic assessment

Practical Implementation in the ICU

Integration with Multimodal Monitoring

TCD is most valuable when integrated with other monitoring modalities in the ICU:

• Intracranial pressure monitoring
• Brain tissue oxygen monitoring
• Cerebral microdialysis
• Continuous EEG
• Near-infrared spectroscopy

The combination of these techniques provides a more comprehensive understanding of cerebral physiology and pathology, enabling more informed clinical decision-making.

Structured Examination Protocol

A standardized TCD examination protocol in the ICU should include:

1. Bilateral MCA examination (primary monitoring vessels)
2. Additional vessels as clinically indicated (ACA, PCA, BA, VA)
3. Systematic documentation of all measured parameters
4. Comparison with previous examinations to detect trends
5. Clear reporting of abnormal findings and their clinical significance

Training Requirements

Effective TCD implementation requires adequate training:

• Initial theoretical training (10-15 hours)
• Hands-on training under supervision (25-50 examinations)
• Competency assessment by experienced practitioners
• Regular skill maintenance (minimum 25-50 examinations annually)
• Periodic quality assurance reviews

Professional societies such as the American Society of Neuroimaging and the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine offer training guidelines and certification pathways.

Challenges and Limitations

Several factors may limit TCD utility in the ICU:

• Inadequate acoustic windows (found in approximately 10-20% of patients)
• Operator dependence and variability
• Time constraints in acute settings
• Technical challenges in positioning critically ill patients
• Interference from other equipment
• Anatomical variations in the Circle of Willis

Modern technological advances, including transcranial color-coded duplex sonography, power motion Doppler, and robotic TCD systems, are addressing some of these limitations.

Future Directions

Technological Advances

Recent and upcoming advances in TCD technology include:

• Robotic TCD systems for continuous monitoring
• Automated vessel identification and waveform analysis
• Integration with artificial intelligence for interpretation
• Fusion imaging with CT/MRI data
• Wearable devices for prolonged monitoring
• 3D reconstruction of cerebral vasculature

Emerging Clinical Applications

Promising emerging applications of TCD in the ICU include:

• Neurocritical care prognostication models incorporating TCD data
• Personalized cerebral perfusion pressure targets based on autoregulation status
• TCD-guided optimization of ECMO and mechanical circulatory support
• Integration with brain-computer interfaces for consciousness assessment
• Combined use with functional near-infrared spectroscopy for neurocognitive monitoring
• Prediction of neurological recovery after cardiac arrest

Research Priorities

Key research areas to advance TCD use in the ICU include:

• Validation of non-invasive ICP estimation algorithms
• Development of automated continuous monitoring systems
• Standardization of interpretation criteria across different patient populations
• Integration of TCD data into multimodal prediction models
• Establishment of TCD-guided treatment protocols
• Evidence-based approaches to individualized hemodynamic management

Conclusion

Transcranial Doppler ultrasonography offers a unique combination of advantages for neurological monitoring in the ICU: non-invasiveness, real-time assessment, repeatability, and bedside availability. Its diverse applications span from vasospasm detection to brain death determination, providing critical information that influences patient management and potentially improves outcomes.

Despite certain limitations, TCD remains an invaluable tool in the multimodal monitoring arsenal of modern neurocritical care. As technology continues to advance and evidence accumulates, TCD's role in the ICU is likely to expand further, particularly in personalized approaches to cerebral hemodynamic management.

The successful implementation of TCD in ICU practice requires structured training, standardized protocols, and integration with other monitoring modalities. When these conditions are met, TCD contributes significantly to enhancing the quality of care for critically ill patients with neurological conditions.

References

Aaslid R, Markwalder TM, Nornes H. Noninvasive transcranial Doppler ultrasound recording of flow velocity in basal cerebral arteries. J Neurosurg. 1982;57(6):769-774.

Alexandrov AV, Sloan MA, Wong LK, et al. Practice standards for transcranial Doppler ultrasound: part I—test performance. J Neuroimaging. 2007;17(1):11-18.

Billard V, Gouvea Filho JA, Blayau C, et al. Transcranial Doppler in adult cardiac surgery: a narrative review. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2022;36(9):3483-3493.

Cardim D, Robba C, Bohdanowicz M, et al. Non-invasive monitoring of intracranial pressure using transcranial Doppler ultrasonography: is it possible? Neurocrit Care. 2016;25(3):473-491.

Connolly ES Jr, Rabinstein AA, Carhuapoma JR, et al. Guidelines for the management of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2012;43(6):1711-1737.

Devlin JW, Skrobik Y, Gélinas C, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of pain, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adult patients in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(9):e825-e873.

Filer M, Khan N. Intensive care unit noninvasive neuromonitoring: TCD, NIRS, EEG and beyond. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2023;29(2):140-148.

Kincaid MS. Transcranial Doppler ultrasonography: a diagnostic tool of increasing utility. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2008;21(5):552-559.

Lau VI, Arntfield RT. Point-of-care transcranial Doppler by intensivists. Crit Ultrasound J. 2017;9(1):21.

Naqvi J, Yap KH, Ahmad G, Ghosh J. Transcranial Doppler ultrasound: a review of the physical principles and major applications in critical care. Int J Vasc Med. 2013;2013:629378.

Purkayastha S, Sorond F. Transcranial Doppler ultrasound: technique and application. Semin Neurol. 2012;32(4):411-420.

Rasulo FA, Bertuetti R, Robba C, et al. The accuracy of transcranial Doppler in excluding intracranial hypertension following acute brain injury: a multicenter prospective pilot study. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):44.

Robba C, Cardim D, Sekhon M, Budohoski K, Czosnyka M. Transcranial Doppler: a stethoscope for the brain-neurocritical care use. J Neurosci Res. 2018;96(4):720-730.

Sharma VK, Tsivgoulis G, Lao AY, Alexandrov AV. Role of transcranial Doppler ultrasonography in evaluation of patients with cerebrovascular disease. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2007;7(1):8-20.

Sloan MA, Alexandrov AV, Tegeler CH, et al. Assessment: transcranial Doppler ultrasonography: report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2004;62(9):1468-1481.

Tsivgoulis G, Alexandrov AV, Sloan MA. Advances in transcranial Doppler ultrasonography. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2009;9(1):46-54.

White H, Venkatesh B. Applications of transcranial Doppler in the ICU: a review. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(3):380-391.

Wijman CA, Babikian VL, Matjucha IC, et al. Cerebral microembolism in patients with stroke or TIA attributable to large-artery atherosclerosis. Cerebrovasc Dis. 1998;8(5):280-285.

Transcranial Doppler Ultrasonography in the ICU

 

Transcranial Doppler Ultrasonography in the ICU: A Practical Guide for Critical Care Physicians

Dr Neeraj Manikath ,Claude.ai

Abstract

Transcranial Doppler (TCD) ultrasonography is a non-invasive, bedside tool that provides real-time assessment of cerebral hemodynamics in critically ill patients. Despite its clinical utility in various neurological conditions commonly encountered in the intensive care unit (ICU), TCD remains underutilized due to perceived technical challenges and training barriers. This review provides a comprehensive, step-by-step approach to TCD implementation in the ICU setting, focusing on practical aspects of training, equipment familiarization, examination techniques, and interpretation of findings. We outline an evidence-based structured curriculum for physicians seeking to incorporate TCD into their critical care practice, with emphasis on hands-on skill development. Implementation of these training recommendations may enhance the diagnostic capabilities of ICU physicians and contribute to improved neurological monitoring and outcomes in critically ill patients.

Introduction

Transcranial Doppler (TCD) ultrasonography has evolved as an invaluable bedside monitoring tool in neurocritical care since its introduction by Aaslid in 1982 (Aaslid et al., 1982). This non-invasive technique provides real-time assessment of cerebral blood flow velocities, enabling detection of cerebral vasospasm, assessment of cerebral autoregulation, monitoring of intracranial pressure (ICP), evaluation of cerebral perfusion, and detection of cerebral circulatory arrest (Purkayastha & Sorond, 2012).

Despite its clinical utility, TCD remains underutilized in many ICU settings primarily due to perceived technical complexity and inadequate training opportunities (Lau et al., 2020). The learning curve for TCD is steeper than for other point-of-care ultrasonography applications, requiring structured training and supervised practice (Marinoni et al., 1997).

This review outlines a practical approach to TCD training for ICU physicians, with a focus on hands-on skill development, competency assessment, and clinical implementation. The goal is to provide a framework that can be adapted to various training environments, promoting wider adoption of this valuable diagnostic tool in critical care.

Basic Principles of Transcranial Doppler

Physics and Hemodynamic Principles

TCD utilizes the Doppler effect to measure blood flow velocities in cerebral vessels. When ultrasound waves encounter moving red blood cells, the reflected frequency shifts proportionally to the velocity of blood flow (Naqvi et al., 2013). The Doppler equation relates this frequency shift to blood flow velocity:

V = (Fd × c) / (2 × F0 × cos θ)

Where:

• V = blood flow velocity
• Fd = Doppler shift frequency
• c = speed of sound in tissue
• F0 = transmitted frequency
• θ = angle between the ultrasound beam and blood flow direction

TCD typically employs lower frequencies (1-2 MHz) than conventional ultrasound to enhance penetration through the skull (Alexandrov et al., 2012).

Equipment Overview

The essential components of a TCD system include:

1. Ultrasound machine with Doppler capability
2. Low-frequency (2 MHz) probe
3. Display system showing:
   • Spectral waveform analysis
   • Mean flow velocity (MFV)
   • Peak systolic velocity (PSV)
   • End diastolic velocity (EDV)
   • Pulsatility index (PI)
   • Resistance index (RI)

Modern systems may include M-mode capabilities and power motion Doppler (PMD) technology, which provides real-time flow direction and intensity display (Alexandrov et al., 2007).

Step-by-Step Training Program for ICU Physicians

Phase 1: Theoretical Foundation (1-2 days)

Step 1: Anatomy Review

Trainees should master cerebrovascular anatomy with special emphasis on:

1. Circle of Willis components and variations
2. Major cerebral arteries and their segments:
   • Middle cerebral artery (MCA)
   • Anterior cerebral artery (ACA)
   • Posterior cerebral artery (PCA)
   • Vertebral artery (VA)
   • Basilar artery (BA)
3. Acoustic windows:
   • Transtemporal window
   • Transorbital window
   • Transforaminal (suboccipital) window
   • Submandibular window

Teaching tools: 3D anatomical models, angiographic images, and correlation with CT/MRI angiography.

Step 2: Understanding TCD Parameters

Trainees should understand the significance of:

1. Normal and abnormal flow velocity ranges for each cerebral vessel
2. Pulsatility index (PI) = (PSV-EDV)/MFV
3. Resistance index (RI) = (PSV-EDV)/PSV
4. Lindegaard ratio = MCA MFV/extracranial ICA MFV
5. Normal values and pathological thresholds (Table 1)

Table 1: Normal TCD Parameters in Adults

Vessel	Mean Flow Velocity (cm/s)	Pulsatility Index
MCA	55 ± 12	0.89 ± 0.24
ACA	50 ± 11	0.84 ± 0.27
PCA	40 ± 10	0.83 ± 0.23
VA	38 ± 10	0.87 ± 0.24
BA	41 ± 10	0.86 ± 0.24

Data adapted from Alexandrov (2013)

Phase 2: Hands-on Training (3-5 days)

Step 3: Equipment Familiarization

1. System setup and operation:

   • Machine controls and presets
   • Probe selection and handling
   • Display settings optimization
   • Recording and documentation procedures

2. Quality assurance:

   • Depth, gain, and power adjustments
   • Sample volume positioning
   • Angle correction considerations
   • Artifact identification and elimination

Practical exercise: Have trainees set up the machine with appropriate settings for different examination scenarios.

Step 4: Mastering Acoustic Windows

Transtemporal Window Technique:

1. Position the patient supine or in lateral decubitus position
2. Identify the transtemporal window above the zygomatic arch, anterior to the tragus
3. Apply ultrasound gel liberally
4. Place the probe flat against the skin with slight anterior angulation
5. Start at a depth of 50-55 mm to identify the MCA
6. Adjust depth, gain, and angle to optimize signal
7. Identify the bifurcation of MCA and ACA (Y-shaped)
8. Follow the MCA laterally at depths of 30-55 mm
9. Follow the ACA medially at depths of 60-75 mm
10. Rotate the probe posteriorly to identify the PCA at depths of 55-75 mm

Transforaminal Window Technique:

1. Position the patient's head flexed forward
2. Place the probe suboccipitally, directed toward the foramen magnum
3. Start at a depth of 70-80 mm to identify the vertebral arteries
4. Follow the vertebral arteries medially to locate the basilar artery at depths of 80-120 mm
5. Verify flow direction (away from probe in vertebral arteries, toward probe in basilar artery)

Transorbital Window Technique:

1. Reduce ultrasound power output to ≤10% (FDA safety requirement)
2. Place the probe gently on the closed eyelid with gel
3. Direct the probe slightly medially and upward
4. Identify the ophthalmic artery at depths of 40-50 mm
5. Identify the carotid siphon at depths of 60-80 mm

Submandibular Window Technique:

1. Position the probe below the angle of the mandible
2. Direct the probe slightly upward and medially
3. Identify the distal internal carotid artery at depths of 40-60 mm

Practical exercise: Have trainees practice each window on healthy volunteers under supervision, with progression from easiest (transtemporal) to more challenging windows.

Step 5: Vessel Identification and Differentiation

Teach trainees to identify vessels based on:

1. Depth of insonation
2. Flow direction relative to the probe
3. Response to compression maneuvers
4. Spectral waveform characteristics
5. Mean flow velocity ranges

Reference table for vessel identification:

Vessel	Window	Depth (mm)	Flow Direction	MFV (cm/s)
MCA	Transtemporal	30-55	Toward	55 ± 12
ACA	Transtemporal	60-75	Away	50 ± 11
PCA	Transtemporal	55-75	Variable	40 ± 10
VA	Transforaminal	60-90	Away	38 ± 10
BA	Transforaminal	80-120	Toward	41 ± 10
OA	Transorbital	40-50	Toward	20 ± 5
ICA	Submandibular	40-60	Toward	41 ± 15

Adapted from Sharma et al. (2020)

Practical exercise: Perform supervised examinations where trainees must correctly identify vessels based on their characteristics without prior information about probe positioning.

Phase 3: Advanced Techniques and Clinical Applications (2-3 days)

Step 6: Complete Examination Protocol

Train physicians to perform a systematic TCD examination following this sequence:

1. Right transtemporal window: MCA, ACA, PCA
2. Left transtemporal window: MCA, ACA, PCA
3. Transforaminal window: vertebral arteries, basilar artery
4. Transorbital windows: ophthalmic arteries, carotid siphons
5. Submandibular windows: distal ICAs

For each vessel, document:

• Mean flow velocity
• Peak systolic velocity
• End diastolic velocity
• Pulsatility index
• Depth of insonation
• Any abnormal waveform patterns

Practical exercise: Have trainees perform and document complete examinations on volunteers within a time limit (30-45 minutes initially, progressing to 15-20 minutes).

Step 7: Clinical Applications in the ICU

Train physicians to perform and interpret TCD studies for specific ICU indications:

Vasospasm Detection:

1. Daily monitoring of flow velocities in SAH patients
2. Calculate Lindegaard ratio (MCA MFV/extracranial ICA MFV)
3. Interpretation:
   • MCA MFV >120 cm/s suggests vasospasm
   • Lindegaard ratio >3 differentiates vasospasm from hyperemia
   • Lindegaard ratio >6 indicates severe vasospasm

Brain Death Assessment:

1. Identify cerebral circulatory arrest patterns:
   • Reverberating flow (systolic peaks with flow reversal)
   • Small systolic spikes (<200 ms duration, <10 cm/s PSV)
   • Absent diastolic flow
   • Complete absence of flow in multiple acoustic windows

ICP Monitoring:

1. Calculate pulsatility index (PI)
2. Correlation: PI >1.2 suggests elevated ICP
3. Monitor trends rather than absolute values

Cerebral Autoregulation Assessment:

1. Static method: observe flow velocity changes with blood pressure fluctuations
2. Dynamic method: transient hyperemic response test or thigh cuff deflation

Right-to-Left Shunt Detection:

1. Inject agitated saline IV
2. Monitor MCA for microembolic signals
3. Classify based on timing and quantity of signals

Practical exercise: Case-based learning with recorded or simulated pathological TCD findings.

Phase 4: Competency Assessment and Maintenance (Ongoing)

Step 8: Supervised Practice

1. Initially perform 25 complete examinations under direct supervision
2. Progress to indirect supervision for another 25 examinations
3. Review all studies with experienced sonographers or neurosonologists
4. Document findings, interpretation, and feedback

Step 9: Competency Evaluation

1. Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) format:

   • Equipment setup and operation
   • Window identification and optimization
   • Vessel identification and characterization
   • Complete examination protocol execution
   • Waveform interpretation
   • Clinical integration of findings

2. Knowledge assessment:

   • Written examination covering principles and interpretation
   • Case-based scenarios testing diagnostic reasoning

Step 10: Ongoing Quality Improvement

1. Regular peer review of studies (5-10% of examinations)
2. Correlation with other neuroimaging modalities
3. Periodic refresher training sessions
4. Participation in neurosonology workshops or courses
5. Consider certification through organizations like the American Society of Neuroimaging

Common Technical Challenges and Solutions

Inadequate Acoustic Windows

Challenge: Up to 20% of patients have inadequate transtemporal windows, particularly elderly females and certain ethnicities.

Solutions:

1. Try alternative probe positions within the temporal region
2. Use ultrasound gel liberally
3. Adjust depth and gain settings
4. Consider contrast-enhanced TCD for difficult windows
5. Rely on alternative windows when temporal windows are inadequate

Artifact Recognition

Challenge: Various artifacts can mimic pathological findings.

Solutions:

1. Recognize common artifacts:
   • Aliasing due to improper pulse repetition frequency settings
   • Mirror artifacts from adjacent vessels
   • Probe motion artifacts
   • Transmitted cardiac pulsations
2. Confirm findings by:
   • Repeating measurements
   • Using different probe angles
   • Performing compression maneuvers
   • Correlating with clinical context

Vessel Misidentification

Challenge: Incorrect vessel identification can lead to diagnostic errors.

Solutions:

1. Always confirm vessel identity using multiple criteria:
   • Depth
   • Flow direction
   • Response to compression maneuvers
   • Anatomical relationships to other vessels
2. When in doubt, map the entire Circle of Willis to establish anatomical context

Implementation in the ICU Setting

Equipment Considerations

1. Dedicated vs. shared ultrasound system
2. Portable vs. fixed equipment
3. Essential vs. optional features
4. Integration with other monitoring systems
5. Documentation and storage solutions

Workflow Integration

1. Establish clear indications for TCD examinations
2. Develop standardized reporting templates
3. Create protocol-driven monitoring schedules
4. Implement quality assurance procedures
5. Establish consultation pathways with neurology/radiology

Cost-Effectiveness Considerations

1. Initial investment in equipment and training
2. Reduced need for transport to radiology
3. Earlier detection of complications
4. Potential reduction in other diagnostic tests
5. Improved resource allocation based on timely information

Conclusion

Implementing a structured TCD training program for ICU physicians can enhance neurological monitoring capabilities at the bedside. The hands-on approach outlined in this review emphasizes progressive skill development, supervised practice, and competency assessment. By following these steps, critical care physicians can acquire and maintain the necessary skills to incorporate TCD into their daily practice, potentially improving patient care through enhanced neurological monitoring and earlier detection of cerebrovascular complications.

References

Aaslid, R., Markwalder, T. M., & Nornes, H. (1982). Noninvasive transcranial Doppler ultrasound recording of flow velocity in basal cerebral arteries. Journal of Neurosurgery, 57(6), 769-774.

Alexandrov, A. V. (2013). Cerebrovascular ultrasound in stroke prevention and treatment (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.

Alexandrov, A. V., Sloan, M. A., Tegeler, C. H., Newell, D. N., Lumsden, A., Garami, Z., Levy, C. R., Wong, L. K., Douville, C., Kaps, M., & Tsivgoulis, G. (2012). Practice standards for transcranial Doppler (TCD) ultrasound. Part II. Clinical indications and expected outcomes. Journal of Neuroimaging, 22(3), 215-224.

Alexandrov, A. V., Sloan, M. A., Wong, L. K., Douville, C., Razumovsky, A. Y., Koroshetz, W. J., Kaps, M., & Tegeler, C. H. (2007). Practice standards for transcranial Doppler ultrasound: part I—test performance. Journal of Neuroimaging, 17(1), 11-18.

Lau, V. I., Arntfield, R. T., Kingsbury, A., Wilcox, M. E., Tsang, J. L., Lee, Y., Dodek, P., Wong, H., Munro, J., Vadlamudi, K., & O'Brien, B. (2020). Barriers and facilitators for ultrasonography in critical care: a multicenter qualitative study. Critical Care Explorations, 2(11), e0247.

Marinoni, M., Ginanneschi, A., Forleo, P., & Amaducci, L. (1997). Technical limits in transcranial Doppler recording: inadequate acoustic windows. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 23(8), 1275-1277.

Naqvi, J., Yap, K. H., Ahmad, G., & Ghosh, J. (2013). Transcranial Doppler ultrasound: a review of the physical principles and major applications in critical care. International Journal of Vascular Medicine, 2013, 629378.

Purkayastha, S., & Sorond, F. (2012). Transcranial Doppler ultrasound: technique and application. Seminars in Neurology, 32(4), 411-420.

Sharma, V. K., Tsivgoulis, G., Lao, A. Y., Malkoff, M. D., & Alexandrov, A. V. (2020). Noninvasive detection of diffuse intracranial disease. Stroke, 51(3), e34-e50.

Sloan, M. A., Alexandrov, A. V., Tegeler, C. H., Spencer, M. P., Caplan, L. R., Feldmann, E., Wechsler, L. R., Newell, D. W., Gomez, C. R., Babikian, V. L., & Lefkowitz, D. (2004). Assessment: transcranial Doppler ultrasonography: report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology, 62(9), 1468-1481.

White, H., & Venkatesh, B. (2016). Applications of transcranial Doppler in the ICU: a review. Intensive Care Medicine, 42(3), 380-391.

Step-by-Step Interpretation of Serum Immunofixation Electrophoresis

 

Step-by-Step Interpretation of Serum Immunofixation Electrophoresis: A Comprehensive Guide for Physicians

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude.ai

Abstract

Serum immunofixation electrophoresis (IFE) is a critical laboratory technique for identifying and characterizing monoclonal gammopathies and other protein disorders. This review provides physicians with a detailed approach to interpreting IFE results, highlighting key patterns associated with various pathologies. Understanding the principles, methodology, and clinical correlation of IFE findings is essential for accurate diagnosis and management of patients with suspected plasma cell disorders, autoimmune conditions, and other protein abnormalities. This article presents a systematic approach to IFE interpretation along with common pitfalls and emerging technologies in the field.

Introduction

Serum immunofixation electrophoresis has become an indispensable tool in the diagnostic workup of monoclonal gammopathies, including multiple myeloma, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), Waldenström macroglobulinemia, and other plasma cell proliferative disorders. IFE offers superior sensitivity and specificity compared to traditional serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP) for detecting and characterizing monoclonal proteins, providing crucial information for diagnosis, prognostication, and monitoring treatment response.

Basic Principles and Methodology

Immunofixation electrophoresis combines the principles of electrophoresis with immunoprecipitation to identify specific immunoglobulin classes and light chains. The process involves:

1. Electrophoretic separation: Serum proteins are separated based on their electrophoretic mobility in an agarose gel
2. Immunofixation: Specific antisera against immunoglobulin heavy chains (IgG, IgA, IgM) and light chains (kappa, lambda) are applied to the gel
3. Visualization: After washing away unprecipitated proteins, the gel is stained to visualize the precipitin bands

Modern IFE panels typically include lanes for:

• Serum protein electrophoresis (reference lane)
• IgG immunofixation
• IgA immunofixation
• IgM immunofixation
• Kappa light chain immunofixation
• Lambda light chain immunofixation

Some laboratories also include antisera against IgD and IgE when clinically indicated.

Systematic Approach to IFE Interpretation

Step 1: Evaluate the SPEP Lane

Begin by examining the serum protein electrophoresis reference lane for:

• Overall protein pattern
• Presence of discrete bands or spikes
• Hypogammaglobulinemia or hypergammaglobulinemia
• Location of abnormalities (gamma, beta, alpha-2, alpha-1, or albumin regions)

Step 2: Examine Immunoglobulin-Specific Lanes

For each immunoglobulin lane (IgG, IgA, IgM):

• Look for discrete bands that align with abnormalities in the SPEP lane
• Note the position (migration pattern) of any bands
• Compare intensity and width of bands between lanes

Step 3: Evaluate Light Chain Lanes

For kappa and lambda light chain lanes:

• Identify any discrete bands
• Determine if they align with heavy chain bands
• Assess for free light chains (bands present in light chain lanes but not corresponding to heavy chain bands)

Step 4: Identify Monoclonal Proteins

A monoclonal protein is characterized by:

• A discrete band in one heavy chain lane (IgG, IgA, or IgM)
• A corresponding band in either kappa or lambda light chain lane (rarely both)
• Alignment of these bands with an abnormality in the SPEP lane

Step 5: Interpret the Pattern

Based on findings from steps 1-4, classify the pattern:

• Monoclonal gammopathy: Single discrete band in one heavy chain lane and one light chain lane
• Biclonal gammopathy: Two distinct monoclonal proteins
• Light chain disease: Band in light chain lane without corresponding heavy chain band
• Oligoclonal pattern: Multiple small bands in different lanes
• Polyclonal gammopathy: Diffuse increase across multiple immunoglobulin classes
• Hypogammaglobulinemia: Reduced immunoglobulin concentration
• Normal pattern: No discrete bands, appropriate distribution of immunoglobulins

Clinical Correlation and Pattern Recognition

Monoclonal Gammopathies

IgG Monoclonal Gammopathy

• Most common monoclonal protein
• Typically presents as a discrete band in gamma region
• Associated with MGUS, multiple myeloma, and lymphoproliferative disorders

IgA Monoclonal Gammopathy

• Often presents as a broad band in beta-gamma region
• May form polymers that migrate differently
• Can be associated with IgA myeloma and MGUS

IgM Monoclonal Gammopathy

• Usually migrates in beta region
• Associated with Waldenström macroglobulinemia, IgM MGUS, and some lymphomas

Light Chain Disease

• Free light chains without detectable heavy chains
• Often associated with light chain myeloma, AL amyloidosis
• May be subtle or absent on SPEP due to rapid renal clearance

Biclonal Gammopathy

• Two distinct monoclonal proteins
• May involve the same heavy chain class with different light chains or different heavy chains
• Can represent two distinct plasma cell clones or a single clone producing two different immunoglobulins

Non-Monoclonal Patterns

Polyclonal Gammopathy

• Diffuse increase across multiple immunoglobulin classes
• Often seen in chronic inflammation, infection, liver disease

Oligoclonal Bands

• Multiple small bands in different lanes
• May be seen in autoimmune disorders, post-treatment states, or immune reconstitution

Hypogammaglobulinemia

• Reduced immunoglobulin concentration
• Seen in immunodeficiency states, some hematologic malignancies

Pitfalls and Challenges in IFE Interpretation

Technical Artifacts

• Gel artifacts: Can mimic bands or obscure true abnormalities
• Protein precipitation: Can occur with cryoglobulins or extremely high protein concentrations
• Prozone effect: In very high concentrations of monoclonal proteins, antigen excess can lead to false negatives

Analytical Challenges

• Heavy chain disease: Absence of light chains can be confused with technical errors
• IgD and IgE monoclonal proteins: Missed unless specific antisera are used
• Restricted migration: Some monoclonal proteins migrate outside typical regions
• Post-treatment changes: Oligoclonal patterns may emerge during immune reconstitution after therapy

Clinical Interpretation Challenges

• Small monoclonal bands: May be clinically insignificant or represent early disease
• Multiple myeloma variants: Non-secretory or oligosecretory myeloma may have minimal or absent monoclonal proteins
• Distinction between MGUS and malignancy: Cannot be made by IFE alone

Advanced and Complementary Techniques

Serum Free Light Chain Assay

• Quantifies free kappa and lambda light chains
• Provides kappa/lambda ratio
• Particularly useful for light chain diseases, oligosecretory myeloma, and AL amyloidosis
• More sensitive than IFE for detecting small amounts of free light chains

Heavy/Light Chain Assay

• Measures specific heavy/light chain pairs (e.g., IgG kappa, IgG lambda)
• Useful for monitoring response in cases with background polyclonal gammopathy

Mass Spectrometry

• Emerging technique for more sensitive detection of monoclonal proteins
• Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight (MALDI-TOF) and other techniques can identify monoclonal proteins missed by conventional methods

Urine Immunofixation

• Complementary to serum IFE
• Essential for detecting Bence Jones proteinuria
• Particularly important in light chain disorders

Clinical Applications and Case Scenarios

Diagnostic Applications

• Screening for monoclonal gammopathies: In patients with unexplained anemia, elevated ESR, hypercalcemia, renal insufficiency
• Characterization of monoclonal proteins: Determining immunoglobulin class and light chain type
• Monitoring known monoclonal gammopathies: Detecting changes in size or type of monoclonal protein

Monitoring Response to Therapy

• Complete response: Disappearance of monoclonal protein
• Partial response: Reduction in monoclonal protein concentration
• Stable disease: No significant change in monoclonal protein
• Progressive disease: Increase in monoclonal protein concentration

Special Situations

• Oligosecretory/non-secretory myeloma: Minimal or absent monoclonal protein on IFE despite disease
• Heavy chain disease: Absence of light chains
• Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder: May show oligoclonal or monoclonal patterns

Conclusion

Immunofixation electrophoresis remains a cornerstone in the diagnosis and monitoring of monoclonal gammopathies and related disorders. A systematic approach to IFE interpretation, combined with awareness of potential pitfalls and integration with clinical findings and complementary techniques, is essential for accurate diagnosis and optimal patient management. Emerging technologies may further enhance the sensitivity and specificity of monoclonal protein detection, but a thorough understanding of IFE patterns and their clinical correlations will remain fundamentally important for physicians involved in the care of patients with plasma cell disorders.

References

1. Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV. Monoclonal gammopathies of undetermined significance. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2020;34(4):739-751. doi:10.1016/j.hoc.2020.03.001

2. Katzmann JA, Kyle RA, Benson J, et al. Screening panels for detection of monoclonal gammopathies. Clin Chem. 2009;55(8):1517-1522. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2009.126664

3. Willrich MA, Katzmann JA. Laboratory testing requirements for diagnosis and follow-up of multiple myeloma and related plasma cell dyscrasias. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2016;54(6):907-919. doi:10.1515/cclm-2015-0580

4. Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(12):e538-e548. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70442-5

5. Tate J, Mollee P, Johnson R. Monoclonal gammopathies - clinical and laboratory issues. Clin Biochem Rev. 2009;30(3):89-91.

6. Dimopoulos M, Kyle R, Fermand JP, et al. Consensus recommendations for standard investigative workup: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 3. Blood. 2011;117(18):4701-4705. doi:10.1182/blood-2010-10-299529

7. Dispenzieri A, Kyle R, Merlini G, et al. International Myeloma Working Group guidelines for serum-free light chain analysis in multiple myeloma and related disorders. Leukemia. 2009;23(2):215-224. doi:10.1038/leu.2008.307

8. Murray DL, Puig N, Kristinsson S, et al. Mass spectrometry for the evaluation of monoclonal proteins in multiple myeloma and related disorders: an International Myeloma Working Group Mass Spectrometry Committee Report. Blood Cancer J. 2021;11(2):24. doi:10.1038/s41408-021-00414-6

9. Berenson JR, Anderson KC, Audell RA, et al. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance: a consensus statement. Br J Haematol. 2010;150(1):28-38. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2141.2010.08207.x

10. Caers J, Garderet L, Kortüm KM, et al. European Myeloma Network recommendations on tools for the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple myeloma: what to use and when. Haematologica. 2018;103(11):1772-1784. doi:10.3324/haematol.2018.189159

11. Mills JR, Kohlhagen MC, Dasari S, et al. Comprehensive assessment of M-proteins using nanobody enrichment coupled to MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. Clin Chem. 2016;62(10):1334-1344. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2016.257352

12. Jenner E. Serum free light chains in clinical laboratory diagnostics. Clin Chim Acta. 2014;427:15-20. doi:10.1016/j.cca.2013.11.013

13. Willrich MAV, Murray DL, Kyle RA. Laboratory testing for monoclonal gammopathies: Focus on monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and smoldering multiple myeloma. Clin Biochem. 2018;51:38-47. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.05.001

14. Graziani MS, Merlini G. Serum free light chain analysis in the diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma and related conditions. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2014;14(1):55-66. doi:10.1586/14737159.2014.864557

15. Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):e328-e346. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6

16. Bradwell AR, Carr-Smith HD, Mead GP, et al. Highly sensitive, automated immunoassay for immunoglobulin free light chains in serum and urine. Clin Chem. 2001;47(4):673-680. doi:10.1093/clinchem/47.4.673

17. O'Connell TX, Horita TJ, Kasravi B. Understanding and interpreting serum protein electrophoresis. Am Fam Physician. 2005;71(1):105-112.

18. Merlini G, Stone MJ. Dangerous small B-cell clones. Blood. 2006;108(8):2520-2530. doi:10.1182/blood-2006-03-001164

19. Kyle RA, Therneau TM, Rajkumar SV, et al. A long-term study of prognosis in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(8):564-569. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa01133202

20. Ludwig H, Miguel JS, Dimopoulos MA, et al. International Myeloma Working Group recommendations for global myeloma care. Leukemia. 2014;28(5):981-992. doi:10.1038/leu.2013.293

21. Dejoie T, Corre J, Caillon H, et al. Serum free light chains, not urine specimens, should be used to evaluate response in light-chain multiple myeloma. Blood. 2016;128(25):2941-2948. doi:10.1182/blood-2016-07-726778

22. Palladini G, Dispenzieri A, Gertz MA, et al. New criteria for response to treatment in immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis based on free light chain measurement and cardiac biomarkers: impact on survival outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(36):4541-4549. doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.37.7614

23. Katzmann JA, Willrich MA, Kohlhagen MC, et al. Monitoring IgA multiple myeloma: immunoglobulin heavy/light chain assays. Clin Chem. 2015;61(2):360-367. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2014.231985

24. Barnidge DR, Dasari S, Botz CM, et al. Using mass spectrometry to monitor monoclonal immunoglobulins in patients with a monoclonal gammopathy. J Proteome Res. 2014;13(3):1419-1427. doi:10.1021/pr400985k

25. Kohlhagen MC, Barnidge DR, Mills JR, et al. Screening method for M-proteins in serum using nanobody enrichment coupled to MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. Clin Chem. 2016;62(10):1345-1352. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2016.259499.

Interpretation of Coagulation Parameters in Critical Care

 

Judicious Interpretation of Coagulation Parameters in Critical Care: A Comprehensive Review

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude.ai

Abstract

Coagulation disorders are common in critically ill patients and significantly impact patient outcomes. Despite the availability of numerous laboratory tests to assess hemostasis, the interpretation of coagulation parameters in the critical care setting remains challenging. This review aims to provide a comprehensive framework for the judicious interpretation of coagulation parameters in critically ill patients. We discuss the limitations of conventional coagulation tests, the utility of viscoelastic testing, and emerging biomarkers. Special consideration is given to specific clinical scenarios including sepsis, trauma, liver disease, and extracorporeal therapies. Evidence-based approaches to guide clinical decision-making are presented, emphasizing the importance of context-specific interpretation and integration with clinical findings. A nuanced understanding of coagulation testing is essential for appropriate management of hemostatic disorders in the intensive care unit.

Keywords: Coagulation parameters; Critical care; Hemostasis; Viscoelastic testing; Sepsis-induced coagulopathy; Trauma-induced coagulopathy

1. Introduction

Coagulopathy is prevalent in critically ill patients, with up to 30-50% of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions demonstrating abnormal coagulation parameters.^1^ The hemostatic system in these patients is often in a precarious balance between bleeding and thrombosis, influenced by the underlying disease process, interventions, and organ dysfunction.^2^ Inappropriate interpretation of coagulation tests can lead to unnecessary transfusions, delayed interventions, or missed diagnoses, directly impacting patient outcomes.

Conventional coagulation tests (CCTs) such as prothrombin time (PT), international normalized ratio (INR), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), platelet count, and fibrinogen levels have been the cornerstone of coagulation assessment. However, these tests have significant limitations in the critical care context.^3^ They were primarily designed to monitor anticoagulant therapy and screen for congenital factor deficiencies rather than to assess the complex coagulopathies seen in critical illness.^4^

Recent advances in our understanding of hemostasis have led to the development of viscoelastic testing methods and specific biomarkers that provide more comprehensive assessment of coagulation status. This review aims to guide postgraduate physicians in the judicious interpretation of coagulation parameters in critical care, emphasizing the importance of integrating laboratory findings with clinical context.

2. Conventional Coagulation Tests: Strengths and Limitations

2.1 Prothrombin Time (PT) and International Normalized Ratio (INR)

PT measures the time required for plasma to clot after addition of tissue factor and calcium, assessing the extrinsic and common pathways of coagulation. It is sensitive to factors II, V, VII, X, and fibrinogen.^5^ The INR was developed to standardize PT results across laboratories for monitoring vitamin K antagonist therapy.

Strengths:

• Widely available and standardized

• Useful for monitoring vitamin K antagonist therapy

• Predictive of bleeding risk in certain populations (e.g., liver disease)

Limitations:

• Performed on platelet-poor plasma, ignoring cellular components of coagulation

• Represents only the initiation phase of coagulation

• Poor correlation with clinical bleeding in many critical care scenarios

• Affected by numerous factors including hypothermia, acidosis, and hemodilution

• Not sensitive to hypercoagulable states

2.2 Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (aPTT)

aPTT evaluates the intrinsic and common pathways, sensitive to factors II, V, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, and fibrinogen.^6^

Strengths:

• Useful for monitoring unfractionated heparin therapy

• Effective screening test for deficiencies in intrinsic pathway factors

• Detects lupus anticoagulant

Limitations:

• Significant inter-laboratory variability

• Poor predictor of clinical bleeding in critical illness

• Insensitive to mild factor deficiencies

• May be prolonged in conditions not associated with bleeding risk (e.g., factor XII deficiency)

2.3 Platelet Count

Strengths:

• Essential component of hemostasis assessment

• Well-established thresholds for interventions

• Predictive of bleeding risk when severely reduced

Limitations:

• Provides quantitative but not qualitative assessment

• Normal counts don't exclude platelet dysfunction

• Thresholds for prophylactic transfusion remain controversial in many scenarios

2.4 Fibrinogen

Strengths:

• Early marker of consumptive coagulopathy

• Critical factor in clot formation

• Well-established threshold for replacement (usually <1.5-2.0 g/L)

Limitations:

• As an acute phase reactant, may be elevated despite ongoing consumption

• Methods of measurement vary (Clauss method vs. derived fibrinogen)

• Optimal thresholds for replacement therapy remain debated

2.5 D-dimer

Strengths:

• High negative predictive value for venous thromboembolism

• Marker of coagulation activation and fibrinolysis

• Prognostic value in conditions like disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and sepsis

Limitations:

• Extremely low specificity in critical illness

• Elevated in numerous conditions including infection, inflammation, and malignancy

• Levels increase with age

• Various assays with different reference ranges

3. Viscoelastic Testing: Moving Beyond Conventional Parameters

Viscoelastic testing, including thromboelastography (TEG) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM), provides global assessment of hemostasis from clot formation through fibrinolysis.^7^

3.1 Principles and Parameters

Both TEG and ROTEM measure the viscoelastic properties of whole blood as it clots. Key parameters include:

• Clotting time (CT/R): Time to initial fibrin formation

• Clot formation time (CFT/K): Rate of clot strengthening

• Maximum clot firmness (MCF/MA): Maximum strength of the clot

• Lysis parameters: Measurement of clot breakdown over time

3.2 Clinical Applications

Strengths:

• Provides comprehensive assessment of hemostasis

• Whole blood analysis incorporating cellular components

• Rapid results allowing real-time decision making

• Differentiates between various coagulopathies (e.g., hypofibrinogenemia, platelet dysfunction, hyperfibrinolysis)

• Associated with reduced blood product utilization when used to guide transfusion^8^

Limitations:

• Requires specific equipment and training

• Limited standardization between centers

• Most validation studies in cardiac surgery and trauma

• May not detect antiplatelet effects or von Willebrand disease

• Performed at standard temperature (37°C), potentially missing effects of hypothermia

3.3 Evidence for Clinical Utility

Meta-analyses suggest that viscoelastic-guided therapy reduces transfusion requirements and potentially improves outcomes in cardiac surgery and trauma.^9,10^ A 2021 systematic review by Winearls et al. demonstrated that implementation of viscoelastic-guided algorithms was associated with a significant reduction in blood product utilization and mortality in trauma patients.^11^

4. Specialized Coagulation Parameters and Emerging Biomarkers

4.1 Factor Assays

Individual factor assays may be useful in specific scenarios:

• Factor VIII and von Willebrand factor (vWF) levels in suspected acquired von Willebrand syndrome

• Factor XIII in unexplained bleeding despite normal conventional tests

• Factors II, V, and VII in liver disease to assess synthetic function

4.2 Thrombin Generation Assays (TGA)

TGA measures the amount of thrombin generated over time, providing insight into both hypo- and hypercoagulable states.^12^

Clinical relevance:

• Detects hypercoagulability not apparent on conventional tests

• May predict thrombotic risk in various conditions

• Research tool with emerging clinical applications

4.3 Platelet Function Tests

Various methods assess platelet function, including:

• Platelet function analyzer (PFA)

• Light transmission aggregometry

• Impedance aggregometry (Multiplate)

• Flow cytometry for platelet activation markers

These tests are particularly relevant in patients on antiplatelet therapy or with suspected platelet dysfunction.

4.4 Markers of Endothelial Dysfunction

The endothelium plays a crucial role in hemostatic balance. Relevant markers include:

• Soluble thrombomodulin

• Von Willebrand factor antigen and activity

• Tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1)

4.5 Cell-Derived Microparticles

Microparticles from platelets, leukocytes, and endothelial cells contribute to both pro- and anticoagulant processes.^13^ Though primarily research tools currently, they may become important biomarkers in critical care.

5. Interpretation in Specific Critical Care Scenarios

5.1 Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy (SIC) and DIC

Sepsis triggers complex hemostatic changes ranging from subtle activation to overt DIC.^14^ The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) DIC score incorporates platelet count, fibrinogen, PT, and D-dimer.^15^

Key considerations:

• SIC often precedes overt DIC and carries significant prognostic implications

• Microvascular thrombosis may coexist with bleeding risk

• Conventional parameters may underestimate hypercoagulability

• Progressive thrombocytopenia and rising D-dimer suggest worsening DIC

• Viscoelastic testing may detect hypercoagulability and hyperfibrinolysis

• Antithrombin, protein C, and protein S are often depleted

Evidence-based approach: Iba et al. proposed the SIC score incorporating PT ratio/INR, platelet count, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score to identify sepsis patients who might benefit from anticoagulant therapy.^16^ The 2019 ISTH guidance document provides updated recommendations for DIC diagnosis and management.^17^

5.2 Trauma-Induced Coagulopathy (TIC)

TIC is a multifactorial condition involving tissue injury, shock, hemodilution, hypothermia, and acidosis.^18^

Key considerations:

• Early TIC is characterized by activation of protein C pathway leading to coagulopathy

• Hyperfibrinolysis is common and associated with poor outcomes

• Conventional tests often lag behind clinical coagulopathy

• Viscoelastic testing provides rapid assessment and guides transfusion

• Base deficit and lactate correlate with coagulopathy severity

• Fibrinogen depletes early and correlates with injury severity

Evidence-based approach: The CRASH-2 trial demonstrated mortality benefit with early tranexamic acid administration.^19^ The PROPPR trial suggested balanced transfusion ratios for massive hemorrhage.^20^ Several studies support viscoelastic-guided resuscitation in trauma.^21^

5.3 Liver Disease-Related Coagulopathy

Patients with liver disease have complex hemostatic alterations with simultaneous pro- and anticoagulant changes.^22^

Key considerations:

• Conventional tests overestimate bleeding risk

• PT/INR correlates with liver function but poorly with bleeding

• Decreased production of both pro- and anticoagulant factors creates a "rebalanced" hemostasis

• Thrombocytopenia commonly coexists with elevated vWF

• Decreased fibrinolytic inhibitor production may increase fibrinolysis

• Viscoelastic tests often show normal or hypercoagulable patterns despite elevated INR

Evidence-based approach: Tripodi et al. demonstrated that thrombin generation may be normal or increased in cirrhosis despite prolonged PT.^23^ The concept of "rebalanced hemostasis" has led to more restrictive transfusion strategies before procedures.^24^

5.4 Coagulopathy in Extracorporeal Therapies

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) induce complex hemostatic alterations.^25^

Key considerations:

• Contact activation of coagulation cascade and platelets

• Consumption of coagulation factors and platelets

• Circuit-induced mechanical hemolysis

• Anticoagulation management (usually heparin or citrate)

• Drug interactions and altered pharmacokinetics

• Need for frequent monitoring of both bleeding and thrombotic risk

Evidence-based approach: The ELSO guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for anticoagulation monitoring during ECMO.^26^ Viscoelastic testing has shown promise in guiding anticoagulation and predicting circuit thrombosis.^27^

5.5 COVID-19 Associated Coagulopathy

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted distinct patterns of coagulopathy in viral sepsis.^28^

Key considerations:

• Characterized by significant hypercoagulability despite modest changes in conventional tests

• Marked elevation in D-dimer with strong prognostic implications

• Endothelial dysfunction and neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) play central roles

• Higher thrombotic than bleeding risk in most patients

• Associated with microvascular thrombosis and elevated troponin

Evidence-based approach: Several large randomized trials have informed anticoagulation strategies in COVID-19.^29,30^ The INSPIRATION trial evaluated intermediate versus standard prophylactic anticoagulation doses.^31^ The ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP multiplatform trial demonstrated benefit of therapeutic anticoagulation in non-critically ill but not critically ill patients.^32^

6. Integrating Parameters into Clinical Decision-Making

6.1 Goal-Directed Algorithms

Several algorithms incorporate coagulation parameters to guide transfusion and hemostatic therapy:

• European guidelines on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: Emphasize early fibrinogen replacement and the use of viscoelastic testing^33^

• TARD algorithm: Focuses on Timing, Amount, Reason, and Drugs for transfusion decisions^34^

• Patient blood management (PBM): Multidisciplinary approach to minimize unnecessary transfusions^35^

6.2 Point-of-Care Testing

Point-of-care testing offers advantages in critical care settings:

• Reduced turnaround time

• Whole blood analysis

• Integration with clinical decision support

• Potentially reduced laboratory sample volume

However, quality control and standardization remain challenges.

6.3 Clinical Judgment and Pretest Probability

Laboratory parameters must always be interpreted in clinical context:

• Mechanism of injury or illness

• Time course of coagulopathy

• Concurrent medications

• Patient comorbidities

• Bleeding phenotype

The concept of "delta checking" (evaluating change over time) often provides more value than absolute values.

7. Pitfalls in Interpretation

Several common pitfalls affect coagulation test interpretation in critical care:

7.1 Preanalytical Variables

• Collection technique (excessive tourniquet time, hemolysis)

• Sample tube filling (especially for citrated samples)

• Transport delays

• Temperature effects

• Patient factors (intravenous fluids, circulating anticoagulants)

7.2 Misinterpretation of "Normal" Values

• Reference ranges typically derived from healthy populations

• "Normal" values may not be optimal in critical illness

• Different analyzers yield different "normal" ranges

• Age and gender effects on reference ranges

7.3 Failure to Consider Drug Effects

Numerous medications affect coagulation parameters:

• Anticoagulants (direct and indirect)

• Antibiotics (particularly beta-lactams, amphotericin)

• Antiplatelet agents

• Anti-inflammatory drugs

• Colloids (especially starches)

• Antifibrinolytics

7.4 Inappropriate Test Ordering

• "Shotgun" approach without clear clinical question

• Failure to repeat abnormal tests

• Inappropriate timing relative to interventions

• Overreliance on numeric values rather than trends

8. Future Directions

8.1 Global Assays of Hemostasis

Research continues on comprehensive hemostasis assessment:

• Standardized thrombin generation assays

• Flow-based coagulation models

• Microfluidic devices simulating vascular injury

• Platelet mapping technology

• Artificial intelligence-assisted interpretation

8.2 Precision Medicine Approaches

Individualized approaches to coagulation interpretation:

• Genomic and proteomic markers of coagulation risk

• Integration of multiple parameters into risk scores

• Machine learning algorithms for pattern recognition

• Dynamic models incorporating time-dependent changes

8.3 Biomarkers of Endothelial Function and Immune-Thrombosis Interactions

The role of inflammation-coagulation cross-talk:

• NETs and histones as mediators

• Damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs)

• Markers of glycocalyx degradation

• Extracellular vesicles and microparticles

9. Conclusion

Judicious interpretation of coagulation parameters in critical care requires understanding the limitations of conventional tests, appreciation of newer technologies, and consideration of the specific clinical context. Viscoelastic testing has emerged as a valuable complement to traditional parameters, particularly in trauma, cardiac surgery, and liver disease. An integrated approach combining laboratory data with clinical assessment remains the cornerstone of effective hemostatic management in critically ill patients.

As our understanding of the complex interplay between inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and coagulation advances, more sophisticated tools for hemostasis assessment will continue to evolve. The modern critical care physician must maintain a nuanced understanding of coagulation testing to optimize patient outcomes, avoid unnecessary interventions, and appropriately tailor hemostatic therapy to individual patient needs.

References

1. Walsh M, Moore EE, Moore HB, et al. Whole blood coagulation and platelet activation in the athlete: A comparison of marathon, triathlon and long distance cycling. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47(5):1161-1170. doi:10.1177/0363546519831389

2. Levi M, van der Poll T. Coagulation and sepsis. Thromb Res. 2017;149:38-44. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2016.11.007

3. Hunt BJ. Bleeding and coagulopathies in critical care. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(9):847-859. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1208626

4. Favaloro EJ, Lippi G. Preanalytical issues that may cause misdiagnosis in hemostasis testing. Int J Lab Hematol. 2019;41(2):170-179. doi:10.1111/ijlh.12947

5. Tripodi A. Thrombin generation assay and its application in the clinical laboratory. Clin Chem. 2016;62(5):699-707. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2015.248625

6. Bowbrick VA, Mikhailidis DP, Stansby G. Value of thromboelastography in the assessment of platelet function. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2003;9(2):137-142. doi:10.1177/107602960300900208

7. Whiting D, DiNardo JA. TEG and ROTEM: technology and clinical applications. Am J Hematol. 2014;89(2):228-232. doi:10.1002/ajh.23599

8. Bolliger D, Seeberger MD, Tanaka KA. Principles and practice of thromboelastography in clinical coagulation management and transfusion practice. Transfus Med Rev. 2012;26(1):1-13. doi:10.1016/j.tmrv.2011.07.005

9. Wikkelsø A, Wetterslev J, Møller AM, Afshari A. Thromboelastography (TEG) or thromboelastometry (ROTEM) to monitor haemostatic treatment versus usual care in adults or children with bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2016(8):CD007871. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007871.pub3

10. Gonzalez E, Moore EE, Moore HB, et al. Goal-directed hemostatic resuscitation of trauma-induced coagulopathy: a pragmatic randomized clinical trial comparing a viscoelastic assay to conventional coagulation assays. Ann Surg. 2016;263(6):1051-1059. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000001608

11. Winearls J, Mitra B, Reade MC. Haemotherapy algorithm for the management of trauma-induced coagulopathy: an Australian perspective. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2017;30(2):265-276. doi:10.1097/ACO.0000000000000447

12. Tripodi A. Thrombin generation assay and its application in the clinical laboratory. Clin Chem. 2016;62(5):699-707. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2015.248625

13. Nomura S, Shimizu M. Clinical significance of procoagulant microparticles. J Intensive Care. 2015;3(1):2. doi:10.1186/s40560-014-0066-z

14. Iba T, Levy JH, Raj A, Warkentin TE. Advance in the management of sepsis-induced coagulopathy and disseminated intravascular coagulation. J Clin Med. 2019;8(5):728. doi:10.3390/jcm8050728

15. Taylor FB Jr, Toh CH, Hoots WK, et al. Towards definition, clinical and laboratory criteria, and a scoring system for disseminated intravascular coagulation. Thromb Haemost. 2001;86(5):1327-1330. doi:10.1055/s-0037-1616068

16. Iba T, Nisio MD, Levy JH, et al. New criteria for sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) following the revised sepsis definition: a retrospective analysis of a nationwide survey. BMJ Open. 2017;7(9):e017046. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017046

17. Iba T, Levy JH, Warkentin TE, et al. Diagnosis and management of sepsis-induced coagulopathy and disseminated intravascular coagulation. J Thromb Haemost. 2019;17(11):1989-1994. doi:10.1111/jth.14578

18. Cap A, Hunt BJ. The pathogenesis of traumatic coagulopathy. Anaesthesia. 2015;70 Suppl 1:96-101. doi:10.1111/anae.12914

19. CRASH-2 trial collaborators. Effects of tranexamic acid on death, vascular occlusive events, and blood transfusion in trauma patients with significant haemorrhage (CRASH-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;376(9734):23-32. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60835-5

20. Holcomb JB, Tilley BC, Baraniuk S, et al. Transfusion of plasma, platelets, and red blood cells in a 1:1:1 vs a 1:1:2 ratio and mortality in patients with severe trauma: the PROPPR randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;313(5):471-482. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.12

21. Inaba K, Rizoli S, Veigas PV, et al. 2014 Consensus conference on viscoelastic test-based transfusion guidelines for early trauma resuscitation: Report of the panel. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015;78(6):1220-1229. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000000657

22. Lisman T, Porte RJ. Rebalanced hemostasis in patients with liver disease: evidence and clinical consequences. Blood. 2010;116(6):878-885. doi:10.1182/blood-2010-02-261891

23. Tripodi A, Primignani M, Chantarangkul V, et al. An imbalance of pro- vs anti-coagulation factors in plasma from patients with cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 2009;137(6):2105-2111. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2009.08.045

24. De Pietri L, Bianchini M, Montalti R, et al. Thrombelastography-guided blood product use before invasive procedures in cirrhosis with severe coagulopathy: A randomized, controlled trial. Hepatology. 2016;63(2):566-573. doi:10.1002/hep.28148

25. Kalbhenn J, Wittau N, Schmutz A, et al. Identification of acquired coagulation disorders and effects of target-controlled coagulation factor substitution on the incidence and severity of spontaneous intracranial bleeding during veno-venous ECMO therapy. Perfusion. 2015;30(8):675-682. doi:10.1177/0267659115579714

26. Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO). ELSO Anticoagulation Guideline. Ann Arbor, MI: ELSO; 2014.

27. Panigada M, Iapichino GE, Brioni M, et al. Thromboelastography-based anticoagulation management during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a safety and feasibility pilot study. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8(1):7. doi:10.1186/s13613-017-0352-8

28. Iba T, Levy JH, Connors JM, et al. The unique characteristics of COVID-19 coagulopathy. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):360. doi:10.1186/s13054-020-03077-0

29. Al-Samkari H, Karp Leaf RS, Dzik WH, et al. COVID-19 and coagulation: bleeding and thrombotic manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Blood. 2020;136(4):489-500. doi:10.1182/blood.2020006520

30. Levi M, Thachil J, Iba T, Levy JH. Coagulation abnormalities and thrombosis in patients with COVID-19. Lancet Haematol. 2020;7(6):e438-e440. doi:10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30145-9

31. INSPIRATION Investigators. Effect of intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation on thrombotic events, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation treatment, or mortality among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit: the INSPIRATION randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;325(16):1620-1630. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.4152

32. ATTACC Investigators; ACTIV-4a Investigators; REMAP-CAP Investigators. Therapeutic anticoagulation with heparin in critically ill patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(9):777-789. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2103417

33. Spahn DR, Bouillon B, Cerny V, et al. The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: fifth edition. Crit Care. 2019;23(1):98. doi:10.1186/s13054-019-2347-3

34. Görlinger K, Fries D, Dirkmann D, et al. Reduction of fresh frozen plasma requirements by perioperative point-of-care coagulation management with early calculated goal-directed therapy. Transfus Med Hemother. 2012;39(2):104-113. doi:10.1159/000337186

35. Meybohm P, Richards T, Isbister J, et al. Patient blood management bundles to facilitate implementation. Transfus Med Rev. 2017;31(1):62-71. doi:10.1016/j.tmrv.2016.05.012