Approach to a bleeding patient

 

Demystifying Coagulopathy in Medical ICU: A Comprehensive Review

Dr Neeraj Manikath,Claude.ai

Abstract

Coagulopathy in critically ill patients represents a complex pathophysiological state that significantly impacts morbidity and mortality. Traditional understanding of hemostatic derangements as either bleeding or thrombotic disorders has evolved toward recognition of a dynamic, multifaceted process involving simultaneous activation of procoagulant and anticoagulant pathways. This review provides a contemporary framework for understanding, diagnosing, and managing coagulopathy in the medical intensive care unit (MICU). We examine the pathophysiology of critical illness-associated coagulopathy, discuss modern diagnostic approaches including viscoelastic testing, and outline evidence-based management strategies. Special attention is given to sepsis-induced coagulopathy, COVID-19-associated coagulopathy, liver failure, renal dysfunction, and drug-induced coagulation disorders. By integrating recent advances in the field, this review aims to equip critical care clinicians with practical knowledge to effectively address coagulation disorders in diverse MICU populations.

Keywords: Coagulopathy; Critical Care; Sepsis; Thrombosis; Bleeding; Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation; Viscoelastic Testing

Introduction

Coagulation disorders are frequently encountered in critically ill patients, with up to 60% of intensive care unit (ICU) patients exhibiting some degree of coagulopathy during their admission.[1] The consequences of these disorders span the entire hemostatic spectrum—from life-threatening hemorrhage to pathological thrombosis—and contribute significantly to organ dysfunction and mortality.[2,3] Despite its prevalence and impact, coagulopathy remains one of the most challenging aspects of critical care medicine, often misunderstood and suboptimally managed.

Traditional paradigms viewed coagulation primarily as a cascade of enzymatic reactions culminating in fibrin formation. However, contemporary understanding recognizes coagulation as a complex interplay between cellular and plasma components, endothelial function, inflammatory processes, and multiple regulatory mechanisms.[4] Critical illness disrupts this delicate balance, often resulting in a paradoxical state where both bleeding and thrombotic risks are simultaneously elevated.[5]

The medical ICU presents unique coagulation challenges compared to surgical or trauma settings. Patients typically develop coagulopathy from complex medical conditions such as sepsis, liver failure, renal dysfunction, or as consequences of therapeutic interventions.[6] These patients often have multiple comorbidities and receive numerous medications that further complicate the hemostatic picture. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted novel mechanisms of coagulopathy that challenge our conventional understanding and management approaches.[7]

This review aims to demystify coagulopathy in the medical ICU by:

1. Elucidating the pathophysiology of critical illness-associated coagulopathy
2. Evaluating traditional and emerging diagnostic approaches
3. Providing evidence-based management strategies for specific clinical scenarios
4. Discussing special considerations for common MICU populations

By integrating recent advances with established principles, we hope to provide critical care clinicians with a practical framework for understanding and managing these complex patients.

Pathophysiology of Critical Illness-Associated Coagulopathy

The Modern View of Hemostasis

The traditional cascade model of coagulation has been supplanted by the cell-based model, which recognizes three overlapping phases: initiation, amplification, and propagation.[8] This model emphasizes the crucial role of cellular elements—particularly activated platelets and tissue factor-bearing cells—as surfaces upon which coagulation reactions occur. Rather than functioning as independent cascades, the intrinsic and extrinsic pathways operate in concert, with significant cross-talk between them.[9]

Critical illness disrupts multiple components of this system simultaneously:

1. Endothelial dysfunction: The endothelium transitions from an anticoagulant surface to a procoagulant phenotype through expression of tissue factor, release of von Willebrand factor (vWF), and shedding of endogenous anticoagulants like thrombomodulin.[10]

2. Platelet dysfunction: Critical illness affects both platelet number and function, with thrombocytopenia occurring in up to 50% of ICU patients.[11] Even when counts remain normal, platelet function is often impaired through multiple mechanisms including endothelial interaction, inflammatory mediators, and drug effects.[12]

3. Dysregulated thrombin generation: Thrombin, the central enzyme in coagulation, exhibits both procoagulant (fibrin generation) and anticoagulant (protein C activation) functions. In critical illness, this regulation becomes unbalanced, often favoring procoagulant activity.[13]

4. Fibrinolytic system impairment: The fibrinolytic response in critical illness varies widely, from excessive activation causing hyperfibrinolysis to complete suppression (fibrinolytic shutdown).[14] This variation contributes to the heterogeneity of clinical presentations.

5. Acute phase response: Inflammatory states increase fibrinogen and other procoagulant factors while decreasing natural anticoagulants like antithrombin and protein C.[15]

Inflammation-Coagulation Crosstalk

The intimate relationship between inflammation and coagulation represents one of the most important paradigm shifts in our understanding of critical illness-associated coagulopathy.[16] This bidirectional relationship, often termed "thromboinflammation," explains many of the hemostatic derangements observed in conditions like sepsis and COVID-19.[17]

Key mediators in this crosstalk include:

• Cytokines: Proinflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6) induce tissue factor expression, downregulate natural anticoagulants, and impair fibrinolysis.[18]

• Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs): These structures, released during NETosis, provide a scaffold for thrombus formation and are increasingly recognized as important contributors to pathological thrombosis in critical illness.[19]

• Damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs): Released from damaged cells, DAMPs activate both inflammatory and coagulation pathways through pattern recognition receptors.[20]

• Complement activation: The complement system interacts with coagulation at multiple levels, enhancing procoagulant responses and contributing to microvascular thrombosis.[21]

Understanding these interactions explains why purely anticoagulant strategies often fail in critical illness and supports approaches that address both inflammatory and coagulation components simultaneously.

From Localized Response to Systemic Dysfunction

In health, coagulation remains a localized process, tightly regulated by endogenous anticoagulants (antithrombin, protein C system, tissue factor pathway inhibitor) and confined to sites of vascular injury.[22] In critical illness, this localization fails, resulting in systemic activation with two potential phenotypes:

1. Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC): Characterized by widespread microvascular thrombosis, consumption of coagulation factors, and secondary fibrinolysis leading to bleeding.[23] The International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) DIC score helps standardize diagnosis, though limitations exist in capturing the dynamic nature of the condition.[24]

2. Hypercoagulable states: Some critically ill patients exhibit predominantly prothrombotic phenotypes without significant consumption or bleeding risk. This pattern has been particularly evident in COVID-19 and certain inflammatory conditions.[25]

The factors determining which phenotype predominates remain incompletely understood but likely involve pathogen virulence factors, host genetic predisposition, comorbidities, and timing of therapeutic interventions.[26]

Diagnostic Approaches to Coagulopathy

Limitations of Conventional Testing

Conventional coagulation tests (CCTs)—prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), platelet count, and fibrinogen—have significant limitations in critically ill patients:[27]

1. They primarily measure time to initial fibrin formation, missing subsequent steps including clot strength, stability, and lysis.

2. They are plasma-based assays performed at standardized temperatures, removing the contributions of cellular elements and failing to reflect in vivo conditions.

3. They have slow turnaround times, limiting their utility in rapidly evolving clinical scenarios.

4. They were originally developed to monitor anticoagulant therapy or identify specific factor deficiencies, not to assess global hemostatic function in complex critical illness.

5. They correlate poorly with clinical bleeding risk in many ICU scenarios.[28]

Despite these limitations, CCTs remain widely used and provide valuable information, particularly when interpreted in clinical context and as part of a comprehensive assessment.

Viscoelastic Hemostatic Assays

Viscoelastic hemostatic assays (VHAs), including thromboelastography (TEG) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM), offer a more comprehensive assessment of coagulation by measuring the viscoelastic properties of whole blood as it clots.[29] These tests provide information on:

• Clot initiation time
• Rate of clot formation
• Maximum clot strength
• Clot stability and fibrinolysis

VHAs have several advantages in the ICU setting:[30]

1. They provide a global assessment of hemostasis, capturing interactions between cellular and plasma components.

2. They can be performed at the bedside with rapid results (within 10-20 minutes for initial parameters).

3. They detect hyperfibrinolysis, which is often missed by conventional testing.

4. They guide targeted component therapy, potentially reducing unnecessary blood product transfusion.

5. They help differentiate various coagulopathies, informing specific interventions.

Evidence supporting VHA-guided management in MICU patients continues to evolve. While strongest in cardiac surgery and trauma, emerging data suggest benefits in sepsis, liver disease, and other medical conditions.[31,32] Implementation barriers include equipment costs, need for training, and ongoing quality control, though these are increasingly offset by newer automated systems with improved standardization.

Emerging Biomarkers

Several biomarkers offer additional insights into coagulopathy beyond conventional and viscoelastic testing:[33]

• Prothrombin fragment 1+2 and thrombin-antithrombin complexes: Markers of thrombin generation that may predict thrombotic complications.

• D-dimer: While nonspecific, trending values provide useful information about coagulation activation and fibrinolysis.

• Soluble thrombomodulin and protein C activity: Reflect endothelial dysfunction and impairment of natural anticoagulant pathways.

• Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1): Elevated levels indicate fibrinolytic suppression and correlate with organ dysfunction in sepsis.[34]

• Cell-free DNA and citrullinated histone H3: Markers of NETosis associated with thromboinflammation and adverse outcomes.[35]

The optimal panel of tests likely varies by clinical scenario, and further research is needed to establish which combinations provide the most useful prognostic and therapeutic guidance.

Integrated Diagnostic Approach

An ideal diagnostic strategy integrates clinical assessment, conventional tests, VHAs, and selected biomarkers:[36]

1. Initial evaluation with history, physical examination, and basic labs including CBC, PT/INR, aPTT, fibrinogen, and D-dimer.

2. Risk stratification using validated scores (ISTH DIC score, IMPROVE bleeding risk score) to guide further testing and prophylactic strategies.

3. Functional assessment with VHAs when available, particularly in complex cases or when conventional tests yield discordant results.

4. Serial monitoring to capture the dynamic nature of critical illness-associated coagulopathy and evaluate therapeutic responses.

5. Selected biomarkers based on clinical suspicion and available resources.

This multimodal approach supports personalized management strategies that address the specific hemostatic derangements in individual patients.

Management Strategies for Specific Clinical Scenarios

Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy and DIC

Sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) represents a spectrum ranging from subtle hemostatic activation to fulminant DIC.[37] Management principles include:

1. Source control and antimicrobial therapy: Addressing the underlying infection remains the cornerstone of treatment, as hemostatic derangements often resolve with effective source control.[38]

2. Supportive care: Maintaining adequate tissue perfusion, oxygenation, and metabolic homeostasis supports endogenous regulatory mechanisms.

3. Blood component therapy: Should be guided by clinical bleeding and laboratory parameters rather than prophylactically administered.[39] Recommendations include:

   • Platelet transfusion when counts fall below 20-30 × 10^9/L with bleeding risk or below 10-15 × 10^9/L even without bleeding
   • Fresh frozen plasma for active bleeding with prolonged coagulation times
   • Fibrinogen replacement (cryoprecipitate or concentrate) when levels fall below 1.5 g/L with bleeding

4. Anticoagulation: Despite the procoagulant nature of SIC, therapeutic anticoagulation remains controversial except in cases of established thrombosis. Prophylactic anticoagulation should be maintained unless contraindicated by severe thrombocytopenia or active bleeding.[40]

5. Adjunctive therapies: Several approaches have shown promise but require further validation:

   • Recombinant thrombomodulin has demonstrated potential benefits in phase 2 trials, though a recent phase 3 trial did not meet its primary endpoint.[41]
   • Antithrombin supplementation may benefit selected patients with severe DIC and antithrombin deficiency.[42]
   • Targeting NETs with DNase shows promise in preclinical models but lacks clinical validation.[43]

COVID-19-Associated Coagulopathy

COVID-19 has highlighted unique aspects of critical illness-associated coagulopathy, characterized by prominent thromboinflammation with relatively preserved fibrinogen and platelet counts despite markedly elevated D-dimer levels.[44,45] Management considerations include:

1. Thromboprophylaxis: Standard prophylactic dosing appears inadequate in many COVID-19 patients, though results from trials comparing standard versus intermediate or therapeutic dosing have been mixed.[46] Current evidence supports:

   • At minimum, standard VTE prophylaxis for all hospitalized patients
   • Consideration of intermediate-dose prophylaxis in high-risk patients with multiple prothrombotic factors
   • Therapeutic anticoagulation primarily for confirmed thrombosis or as part of clinical trials

2. Antiplatelet therapy: Emerging evidence suggests potential benefits of adding antiplatelet agents, particularly in patients with elevated inflammatory markers, though routine use awaits further validation.[47]

3. Extended thromboprophylaxis: Consider post-discharge prophylaxis for 2-6 weeks in high-risk patients, particularly those with elevated D-dimer at discharge.[48]

4. Monitoring: Serial assessment of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and platelet counts helps identify patients at highest thrombotic risk and guide therapy intensification.

5. Special considerations: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and renal replacement therapy create additional hemostatic challenges in COVID-19 patients, often requiring individualized anticoagulation protocols.[49]

Liver Failure-Associated Coagulopathy

Liver dysfunction creates a complex and often misunderstood coagulopathy characterized by concurrent reductions in both pro- and anticoagulant factors, resulting in a precarious "rebalanced hemostasis" that can tilt toward either bleeding or thrombosis.[50] Management approaches include:

1. Reframing the paradigm: Avoiding the assumption that elevated INR necessarily indicates bleeding risk, as these patients often maintain adequate thrombin generation.[51]

2. VHA-guided assessment: TEG/ROTEM provide more accurate assessment of in vivo hemostasis in liver disease than conventional tests.[52]

3. Restrictive transfusion strategy: Prophylactic correction of laboratory abnormalities without bleeding should be avoided, as it may increase thrombotic risk and provide minimal bleeding protection.[53]

4. Thromboprophylaxis: Should not be withheld based solely on elevated INR, as patients with liver disease remain at risk for VTE.[54]

5. Targeted interventions for specific deficiencies:

   • Fibrinogen supplementation when levels fall below 1.0-1.5 g/L with bleeding
   • Vitamin K for nutritional deficiency
   • Desmopressin for uremic platelet dysfunction in those with concomitant renal impairment
   • Tranexamic acid for procedures with high bleeding risk, especially with evidence of hyperfibrinolysis[55]

Renal Dysfunction and Uremic Coagulopathy

Renal dysfunction contributes to bleeding risk through multiple mechanisms including platelet dysfunction, abnormal platelet-vessel wall interactions, and altered coagulation factor clearance.[56] Management strategies include:

1. Dialysis optimization: Regular dialysis improves uremic platelet dysfunction and represents first-line therapy for stable patients.[57]

2. Desmopressin (DDAVP): Enhances platelet adhesion and is effective for short-term hemostasis during procedures or acute bleeding (0.3 μg/kg).[58]

3. Conjugated estrogens: Provide longer-duration improvement in platelet function (0.6 mg/kg daily for 5 days) but with delayed onset of action.[59]

4. Optimization of erythropoiesis: Maintaining hemoglobin >8 g/dL improves platelet function through improved rheology and increased adenosine diphosphate release.[60]

5. Cryoprecipitate or factor concentrates: Reserved for severe bleeding not responsive to other measures.

6. Anticoagulation considerations: Renal dysfunction alters the pharmacokinetics of many anticoagulants, necessitating dose adjustments and careful monitoring.[61]

Drug-Induced Coagulation Disorders

ICU patients receive multiple medications affecting hemostasis, creating complex drug-drug interactions and unpredictable effects.[62] Key considerations include:

1. Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) reversal:

   • Idarucizumab for dabigatran[63]
   • Andexanet alfa for factor Xa inhibitors[64]
   • Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) as an alternative when specific reversal agents are unavailable[65]

2. Unfractionated heparin management:

   • Protamine sulfate dosing: 1 mg neutralizes approximately 100 units of heparin
   • Reduced effectiveness against low molecular weight heparins (approximately 60% neutralization)[66]

3. Antiplatelet effects:

   • Platelet transfusion effectiveness varies by agent (more effective for aspirin than P2Y12 inhibitors)
   • Desmopressin may partially ameliorate platelet dysfunction
   • Novel reversal strategies (PB2452 for ticagrelor) are in development[67]

4. Drug-induced thrombocytopenia:

   • Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia requires immediate heparin cessation and alternative anticoagulation
   • Many commonly used ICU medications can cause thrombocytopenia through immune or non-immune mechanisms[68]

5. Antimicrobial effects: Many antimicrobials interfere with vitamin K metabolism (certain cephalosporins) or platelet function (penicillins at high doses), effects that are amplified in critically ill patients.[69]

Special Considerations in MICU Populations

Extracorporeal Therapies

Extracorporeal circuits, including ECMO, continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), and therapeutic plasma exchange, create unique hemostatic challenges requiring specialized approaches:[70]

1. Circuit-specific considerations:

   • ECMO typically requires therapeutic anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin (target aPTT 60-80 seconds or anti-Xa 0.3-0.7 IU/mL) or direct thrombin inhibitors in cases of heparin contraindication.[71]
   • CRRT can often be maintained with regional citrate anticoagulation, reducing systemic bleeding risk while maintaining circuit patency.[72]

2. Monitoring challenges:

   • Heparin monitoring may be affected by high levels of acute phase reactants
   • Anti-Xa levels provide more reliable assessment of heparin effect than aPTT in many critically ill patients
   • VHAs can help assess global hemostasis but may be affected by circuit anticoagulation[73]

3. Combined circuit strategies: Patients requiring multiple extracorporeal therapies (e.g., ECMO plus CRRT) present complex anticoagulation challenges often requiring individualized protocols and multidisciplinary input.[74]

Massive Transfusion and Blood Conservation

Massive transfusion, defined as replacement of >50% of blood volume within 3 hours or >10 units of PRBCs in 24 hours, requires coordinated resuscitation to avoid worsening coagulopathy:[75]

1. Balanced component therapy: Targeting ratios approximating whole blood (PRBC:FFP:platelets of 1:1:1) improves outcomes compared to PRBC-predominant strategies in traumatic hemorrhage, though evidence specifically in medical patients is more limited.[76]

2. Hemostatic resuscitation: Early administration of tranexamic acid (within 3 hours of bleeding onset), fibrinogen supplementation, and factor concentrates may reduce total blood product requirements.[77]

3. Blood conservation strategies:

   • Restrictive transfusion thresholds (Hb 7 g/dL for most critically ill patients)
   • Minimizing phlebotomy volume and frequency
   • Cell salvage techniques when appropriate
   • Microsampling technologies for laboratory testing[78]

4. Hypocalcemia prevention: Massive transfusion of citrated blood products causes calcium chelation. Ionized calcium should be monitored and supplemented to maintain levels >1.0 mmol/L.[79]

Thromboprophylaxis in Complex MICU Patients

Critically ill medical patients face competing bleeding and thrombotic risks, requiring nuanced thromboprophylaxis approaches:[80]

1. Risk stratification: Tools such as the IMPROVE VTE and IMPROVE Bleeding Risk Scores help balance competing risks, though their validation in diverse ICU populations remains incomplete.[81]

2. Mechanical prophylaxis: Sequential compression devices provide some protection when pharmacologic prophylaxis is contraindicated but are less effective as monotherapy.[82]

3. Special populations:

   • Obesity: Consider weight-based dosing or anti-Xa monitoring
   • Renal dysfunction: Avoid LMWH with GFR <30 mL/min or use with anti-Xa monitoring
   • Liver dysfunction: Standard prophylaxis can generally be used despite elevated INR if platelet count >50,000/μL[83]

4. Duration considerations: Extended thromboprophylaxis post-discharge should be considered for high-risk patients, particularly with COVID-19, active cancer, or persistent immobility.[84]

Future Directions

The field of critical illness-associated coagulopathy continues to evolve rapidly, with several promising areas of investigation:

1. Precision diagnostics:

   • Thrombin generation assays and other global coagulation tests may provide more comprehensive hemostatic assessment.[85]
   • Machine learning algorithms integrating multiple biomarkers show promise for personalized risk stratification.[86]
   • Point-of-care molecular testing may allow rapid identification of genetic polymorphisms affecting coagulation and drug metabolism.[87]

2. Targeted therapeutics:

   • NET-targeting therapies including DNase and neutrophil inhibitors are being investigated for thromboinflammatory conditions.[88]
   • Novel anticoagulants with reduced bleeding risk through selective factor inhibition or context-sensitive activation.[89]
   • Engineered proteins combining anticoagulant and cytoprotective properties, such as modified thrombomodulin variants.[90]

3. Personalized approaches:

   • Pharmacogenomic-guided anticoagulation may optimize efficacy while minimizing bleeding risk.[91]
   • Host response patterns may allow identification of patient subpopulations most likely to benefit from specific interventions.[92]
   • Integration of omics data with clinical parameters to create precision medicine algorithms for coagulopathy management.[93]

Conclusion

Coagulopathy in the medical ICU represents a complex, dynamic process requiring integrated understanding of modern hemostatic principles. By moving beyond the traditional dichotomy of "bleeding versus clotting" toward a nuanced appreciation of simultaneous dysregulation across multiple hemostatic pathways, clinicians can develop more effective diagnostic and management strategies. The emergence of COVID-19-associated coagulopathy has accelerated research in this field, highlighting the interconnections between inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and coagulation.

Optimal management requires:

1. Recognition of the dynamic nature of critical illness-associated coagulopathy
2. Integration of clinical assessment with conventional and advanced laboratory testing
3. Individualized approaches considering specific underlying conditions
4. Balance between thrombotic and bleeding risks
5. Targeted interventions addressing specific hemostatic derangements

As our understanding evolves, management will increasingly shift from reactive correction of laboratory abnormalities toward proactive, pathway-specific interventions guided by comprehensive hemostatic assessment. This approach promises to improve outcomes in this challenging aspect of critical care medicine.

References

1. Levi M, Opal SM. Coagulation abnormalities in critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2006;10(4):222. doi:10.1186/cc4975

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

3. Simmons J, Pittet JF. The coagulopathy of acute sepsis. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2015;28(2):227-236. doi:10.1097/ACO.0000000000000163

4. Hoffman M, Monroe DM. A cell-based model of hemostasis. Thromb Haemost. 2001;85(6):958-965. doi:10.1055/s-0037-1615947

5. Iba T, Levy JH. Inflammation and thrombosis: roles of neutrophils, platelets and endothelial cells and their interactions in thrombus formation during sepsis. J Thromb Haemost. 2018;16(2):231-241. doi:10.1111/jth.13911

6. Crowther MA, Cook DJ, Meade MO, et al. Thrombocytopenia in medical-surgical critically ill patients: prevalence, incidence, and risk factors. J Crit Care. 2005;20(4):348-353. doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2005.09.008

7. Connors JM, Levy JH. COVID-19 and its implications for thrombosis and anticoagulation. Blood. 2020;135(23):2033-2040. doi:10.1182/blood.2020006000

8. Monroe DM, Hoffman M. What does it take to make the perfect clot? Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2006;26(1):41-48. doi:10.1161/01.ATV.0000193624.28251.83

9. Smith SA, Travers RJ, Morrissey JH. How it all starts: Initiation of the clotting cascade. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 2015;50(4):326-336. doi:10.3109/10409238.2015.1050550

10. Iba T, Levy JH. Derangement of the endothelial glycocalyx in sepsis. J Thromb Haemost. 2019;17(2):283-294. doi:10.1111/jth.14371

11. Zarychanski R, Houston DS. Assessing thrombocytopenia in the intensive care unit: the past, present, and future. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2017;2017(1):660-666. doi:10.1182/asheducation-2017.1.660

12. Thomas MR, Storey RF. The role of platelets in inflammation. Thromb Haemost. 2015;114(3):449-458. doi:10.1160/TH14-12-1067

13. Gando S, Levi M, Toh CH. Disseminated intravascular coagulation. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016;2:16037. doi:10.1038/nrdp.2016.37

14. Moore HB, Moore EE, Liras IN, et al. Acute fibrinolysis shutdown after injury occurs frequently and increases mortality: a multicenter evaluation of 2,540 severely injured patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222(4):347-355. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.01.006

15. Esmon CT. The interactions between inflammation and coagulation. Br J Haematol. 2005;131(4):417-430. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2141.2005.05753.x

16. Foley JH, Conway EM. Cross talk pathways between coagulation and inflammation. Circ Res. 2016;118(9):1392-1408. doi:10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.306853

17. Jackson SP, Darbousset R, Schoenwaelder SM. Thromboinflammation: challenges of therapeutically targeting coagulation and other host defense mechanisms. Blood. 2019;133(9):906-918. doi:10.1182/blood-2018-11-882993

18. Stouthard JM, Levi M, Hack CE, et al. Interleukin-6 stimulates coagulation, not fibrinolysis, in humans. Thromb Haemost. 1996;76(5):738-742. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1650653

19. Martinod K, Wagner DD. Thrombosis: tangled up in NETs. Blood. 2014;123(18):2768-2776. doi:10.1182/blood-2013-10-463646

20. McDonald B, Davis RP, Kim SJ, et al. Platelets and neutrophil extracellular traps collaborate to promote intravascular coagulation during sepsis in mice. Blood. 2017;129(10):1357-1367. doi:10.1182/blood-2016-09-741298

21. Markiewski MM, Nilsson B, Ekdahl KN, Mollnes TE, Lambris JD. Complement and coagulation: strangers or partners in crime? Trends Immunol. 2007;28(4):184-192. doi:10.1016/j.it.2007.02.006

22. Dahlbäck B. Blood coagulation and its regulation by anticoagulant pathways: genetic pathogenesis of bleeding and thrombotic diseases. J Intern Med. 2005;257(3):209-223. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2796.2004.01444.x

23. Taylor FB Jr, Toh CH, Hoots WK, Wada H, Levi M. 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

24. 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

25. Iba T, Levy JH, Connors JM, Warkentin TE, Thachil J, Levi M. The unique characteristics of COVID-19 coagulopathy. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):360. doi:10.1186/s13054-020-03077-0

26. Semeraro N, Ammollo CT, Semeraro F, Colucci M. Sepsis-associated disseminated intravascular coagulation and thromboembolic disease. Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis. 2010;2(3):e2010024. doi:10.4084/MJHID.2010.024

27. Harahsheh Y, Ho KM. Use of viscoelastic tests to predict clinical thromboembolic events: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Haematol. 2018;100(2):113-123. doi:10.1111/ejh.12992

28. Segal JB, Dzik WH; Transfusion Medicine/Hemostasis Clinical Trials Network. Paucity of studies to support that abnormal coagulation test results predict bleeding in the setting of invasive procedures: a systematic review. Transfusion. 2005;45(9):1413-1425. doi:10.1111/j.1537-2995.2005.00546.x

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

30. 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

31. Müller MC, Meijers JC, Vroom MB, Juffermans NP. Utility of thromboelastography and/or thromboelastometry in adults with sepsis: a systematic review. Crit Care. 2014;18(1):R30. doi:10.1186/cc13721

32. Veigas PV, Callum J, Rizoli S, Nascimento B, da Luz LT. A systematic review on the rotational thrombelastometry (ROTEM) values for the diagnosis of coagulopathy, prediction and guidance of blood transfusion and prediction of mortality in trauma patients. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016;24(1):114. doi:10.1186/s13049-016-0308-2

33. Toh CH, Hoots WK; SSC on Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation of the ISTH. The scoring system of the Scientific and Standardisation Committee on Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis: a 5-year overview. J Thromb Haemost. 2007;5(3):604-606. doi:10.1111/j.1538-7836.2007.02313.x

34. Koyama K, Madoiwa S, Nunomiya S, et al. Combination of thrombin-antithrombin complex, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, and protein C activity for early identification of severe coagulopathy in initial phase of sepsis: a prospective observational study. Crit Care. 2014;18(1):R13. doi:10.1186/cc13190

35. Fuchs TA, Brill A, Duerschmied D, et al. Extracellular DNA traps promote thrombosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(36):15880-15885. doi:10.1073/pnas.1005743107

36. Walsh M, Moore EE, Moore HB, et al. Use of viscoelastography in malignancy-associated coagulopathy and thrombosis: a review. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2019;45(4):354-372. doi:10.1055/s-0039-1687890

37. Iba T, Nisio MD, Levy JH, Kitamura N, Thachil J. 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

38. Warren BL, Eid A, Singer P, et al. Caring for the critically ill patient. High-dose antithrombin III in severe sepsis: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2001;286(15):1869-1878. doi:10.1001/jama.286.15.1869

39. 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

40. Deng Y, He L, Yang J, Wang J. Serum antithrombin III and D-dimer levels as potential biomarkers for early sepsis-induced coagulopathy. Clin Lab. 2020;66(12). doi:10.7754/Clin.Lab.2020.200414

41. Vincent JL, Francois B, Zabolotskikh I, et al. Effect of a recombinant human soluble thrombomodulin on mortality in patients with sepsis-associated coagulopathy: the SCARLET randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;321(20):1993-2002. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.5358

42. Allingstrup M, Wetterslev J, Ravn FB, Møller AM, Afshari A. Antithrombin III for critically ill patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2016(2):CD005370. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005370.pub3

43. Porto BN, Stein RT. Neutrophil extracellular traps in pulmonary diseases: too much of a good thing? Front Immunol. 2016;7:311. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2016.00311

44. Helms J, Tacquard C, Severac F, et al. High risk of thrombosis in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(6):1089-1098. doi:10.1007/s00134-020-06062-x

45. Iba T, Levy JH, Levi M, Thachil J. Coagulopathy in COVID-19. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18(9):2103-2109. doi:10.1111/jth.14975

46. ATTACC Investigators; ACTIV-4a Investigators; REMAP-CAP Investigators, et al. Therapeutic anticoagulation with heparin in noncritically ill patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(9):790-802. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2105911

47. Chow JH, Khanna AK, Kethireddy S, et al. Aspirin use is associated with decreased mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and in-hospital mortality in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Anesth Analg. 2021;132(4):930-941. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000005292

48. Spyropoulos AC, Levy JH, Ageno W, et al. Scientific and Standardization Committee communication: Clinical guidance on the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18(8):1859-1865. doi:10.1111/jth.14929

49. Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO): ELSO COVID-19 Interim Guidelines - ECMO for COVID-19 patients with severe cardiopulmonary failure. 2020. Available at: https://www.elso.org/Portals/0/Files/pdf/ELSO%20COVID%20Guidelines%20-%20May%202020.pdf. Accessed January 15, 2025.

50. 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

51. Mallett SV. Clinical utility of viscoelastic tests of coagulation (TEG/ROTEM) in patients with liver disease and during liver transplantation. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2015;41(5):527-537. doi:10.1055/s-0035-1550434

52. 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

53. Intagliata NM, Argo CK, Stine JG, Lisman T, Caldwell SH, Violi F; Faculty of the 7th International Coagulation in Liver Disease Conference. Concepts and controversies in haemostasis and thrombosis associated with liver disease: Proceedings of the 7th International Coagulation in Liver Disease Conference. Thromb Haemost. 2018;118(8):1491-1506. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1666861

54. Senzolo M, Sartori MT, Lisman T. Should we give thromboprophylaxis to patients with liver cirrhosis and coagulopathy? HPB (Oxford). 2009;11(6):459-464. doi:10.1111/j.1477-2574.2009.00079.x

55. Drolz A, Horvatits T, Roedl K, et al. Coagulation parameters and major bleeding in critically ill patients with cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2016;64(2):556-568. doi:10.1002/hep.28628

56. Escolar G, Díaz-Ricart M, Cases A. Uremic platelet dysfunction: past and present. Curr Hematol Rep. 2005;4(5):359-367.

57. Kaw D, Malhotra D. Platelet dysfunction and end-stage renal disease. Semin Dial. 2006;19(4):317-322. doi:10.1111/j.1525-139X.2006.00179.x

58. Mannucci PM. Desmopressin (DDAVP) in the treatment of bleeding disorders: the first 20 years. Blood. 1997;90(7):2515-2521. doi:10.1182/blood.V90.7.2515

59. Livio M, Mannucci PM, Viganò G, et al. Conjugated estrogens for the management of bleeding associated with renal failure. N Engl J Med. 1986;315(12):731-735. doi:10.1056/NEJM198609183151204

60. Valeri CR, Cassidy G, Pivacek LE, et al. Anemia-induced increase in the bleeding time: implications for treatment of nonsurgical blood loss. Transfusion. 2001;41(8):977-983. doi:10.1046/j.1537-2995.2001.41080977.x

61. Grand'Maison A, Charest AF, Geerts WH. Anticoagulant use in patients with chronic renal impairment. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2005;5(5):291-305. doi:10.2165/00129784-200505050-00002

62. Sié P. Spotlight on drug-induced coagulation disorders. Drugs. 2020;80(3):251-253. doi:10.1007/s40265-020-01260-9

63. Pollack CV Jr, Reilly PA, van Ryn J, et al. Idarucizumab for dabigatran reversal - full cohort analysis. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(5):431-441. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1707278

64. Connolly SJ, Crowther M, Eikelboom JW, et al. Full study report of andexanet alfa for bleeding associated with factor Xa inhibitors. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(14):1326-1335. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1814051

65. Schulman S, Gross PL, Ritchie B, et al. Prothrombin complex concentrate for major bleeding on factor Xa inhibitors: a prospective cohort study. Thromb Haemost. 2018;118(5):842-851. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1636541

66. Hirsh J, Warkentin TE, Shaughnessy SG, et al. Heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin: mechanisms of action, pharmacokinetics, dosing, monitoring, efficacy, and safety. Chest. 2001;119(1 Suppl):64S-94S. doi:10.1378/chest.119.1_suppl.64s

67. Bhatt DL, Pollack CV, Weitz JI, et al. Antibody-based ticagrelor reversal agent in healthy volunteers. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(19):1825-1833. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1901778

68. 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

69. Ghaswalla PK, Harpe SE, Tassone D, Slattum PW. Warfarin-antibiotic interactions in older adults of an outpatient anticoagulation clinic. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2012;10(6):352-360. doi:10.1016/j.amjopharm.2012.09.006

70. Brophy PD, Somers MJ, Baum MA, et al. Multi-centre evaluation of anticoagulation in patients receiving continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005;20(7):1416-1421. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfh817

71. Esper SA, Levy JH, Waters JH, Welsby IJ. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the adult: a review of anticoagulation monitoring and transfusion. Anesth Analg. 2014;118(4):731-743. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000000115

72. Oudemans-van Straaten HM, Bosman RJ, Koopmans M, et al. Citrate anticoagulation for continuous venovenous hemofiltration. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(2):545-552. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181953c5e

73. Koster A, Fischer T, Praus M, et al. Hemostatic activation and inflammatory response during cardiopulmonary bypass: impact of heparin management. Anesthesiology. 2002;97(4):837-841. doi:10.1097/00000542-200210000-00014

74. Protti A, L'Acqua C, Panigada M. The delicate balance between pro-(risk of thrombosis) and anti-(risk of bleeding) coagulation during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Ann Transl Med. 2016;4(7):139. doi:10.21037/atm.2016.03.06

75. 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

76. Innerhofer P, Fries D, Mittermayr M, et al. Reversal of trauma-induced coagulopathy using first-line coagulation factor concentrates or fresh frozen plasma (RETIC): a single-centre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised trial. Lancet Haematol. 2017;4(6):e258-e271. doi:10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30077-7

77. CRASH-2 trial collaborators, Shakur H, Roberts I, et al. 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

78. Vincent JL, Baron JF, Reinhart K, et al. Anemia and blood transfusion in critically ill patients. JAMA. 2002;288(12):1499-1507. doi:10.1001/jama.288.12.1499

79. Giancarelli A, Birrer KL, Alban RF, Hobbs BP, Liu-DeRyke X. Hypocalcemia in trauma patients receiving massive transfusion. J Surg Res. 2016;202(1):182-187. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2015.12.036

80. Kahn SR, Lim W, Dunn AS, et al. Prevention of VTE in nonsurgical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e195S-e226S. doi:10.1378/chest.11-2296

81. Decousus H, Tapson VF, Bergmann JF, et al. Factors at admission associated with bleeding risk in medical patients: findings from the IMPROVE investigators. Chest. 2011;139(1):69-79. doi:10.1378/chest.09-3081

82. Ho KM, Tan JA. Stratified meta-analysis of intermittent pneumatic compression of the lower limbs to prevent venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients. Circulation. 2013;128(9):1003-1020. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.002690

83. Spyropoulos AC. Emerging strategies in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients. Chest. 2005;128(2):958-969. doi:10.1378/chest.128.2.958

84. Cohen AT, Harrington RA, Goldhaber SZ, et al. Extended thromboprophylaxis with betrixaban in acutely ill medical patients. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(6):534-544. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1601747

85. 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

86. Fröhlich M, Lefering R, Probst C, et al. Epidemiology and risk factors of multiple-organ failure after multiple trauma: an analysis of 31,154 patients from the TraumaRegister DGU. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014;76(4):921-927. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000000199

87. Kimmel SE, French B, Kasner SE, et al. A pharmacogenetic versus a clinical algorithm for warfarin dosing. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(24):2283-2293. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1310669

88. Jorch SK, Kubes P. An emerging role for neutrophil extracellular traps in noninfectious disease. Nat Med. 2017;23(3):279-287. doi:10.1038/nm.4294

89. Wong PC, Pinto DJ, Zhang D. Preclinical discovery of apixaban, a direct and orally bioavailable factor Xa inhibitor. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2011;31(4):478-492. doi:10.1007/s11239-011-0551-3

90. Mosnier LO, Zlokovic BV, Griffin JH. The cytoprotective protein C pathway. Blood. 2007;109(8):3161-3172. doi:10.1182/blood-2006-09-003004

91. Pirmohamed M, Burnside G, Eriksson N, et al. A randomized trial of genotype-guided dosing of warfarin. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(24):2294-2303. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1311386

92. Shapiro NI, Schuetz P, Yano K, et al. The association of endothelial cell signaling, severity of illness, and organ dysfunction in sepsis. Crit Care. 2010;14(5):R182. doi:10.1186/cc9290

93. Davenport EE, Burnham KL, Radhakrishnan J, et al. Genomic landscape of the individual host response and outcomes in sepsis: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2016;4(4):259-271. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(16)00046-1