Monday, August 4, 2025

Unilateral Leg Swelling: Bedside Differentiation

Unilateral Leg Swelling: Bedside Differentiation of Deep Vein Thrombosis versus Cellulitis in Critical Care Settings

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Unilateral leg swelling represents a diagnostic challenge in critical care, where rapid differentiation between deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and cellulitis is crucial for patient outcomes. Misdiagnosis can lead to inappropriate anticoagulation or delayed antimicrobial therapy.

Objective: To provide evidence-based clinical approaches for bedside differentiation of DVT and cellulitis, emphasizing practical assessment techniques and clinical decision-making in critically ill patients.

Methods: Comprehensive review of current literature, clinical guidelines, and expert consensus on diagnostic approaches to unilateral leg swelling.

Results: Integration of clinical assessment, risk stratification, and selective imaging provides optimal diagnostic accuracy while minimizing healthcare costs and patient exposure to unnecessary procedures.

Keywords: Deep vein thrombosis, cellulitis, unilateral leg swelling, critical care, bedside diagnosis

Introduction

Unilateral leg swelling in the intensive care unit presents a diagnostic conundrum that demands immediate attention and accurate differentiation. The consequences of misdiagnosis are significant: inappropriate anticoagulation in cellulitis increases bleeding risk, while delayed anticoagulation in DVT can result in pulmonary embolism and mortality¹. This review synthesizes current evidence to provide practical bedside approaches for distinguishing these conditions in critically ill patients.

The incidence of DVT in ICU patients ranges from 5-15% despite prophylaxis, while cellulitis affects approximately 2% of hospitalized patients². The challenge is compounded in critical care settings where patients often have multiple risk factors for both conditions, altered inflammatory responses, and limited mobility that affects clinical examination.

Pathophysiology and Risk Factor Analysis

Deep Vein Thrombosis

DVT results from Virchow's triad: venous stasis, endothelial injury, and hypercoagulability. In critically ill patients, these factors are amplified through:

Prolonged immobilization and mechanical ventilation
Central venous catheterization and invasive procedures
Systemic inflammatory response and sepsis-induced coagulopathy
Medications affecting coagulation cascades³

Cellulitis

Cellulitis represents acute bacterial infection of skin and subcutaneous tissues, typically caused by:

Staphylococcus aureus (including MRSA) - 40-50% of cases
Streptococcus pyogenes - 30-35% of cases
Gram-negative organisms in immunocompromised hosts⁴

Pearl: In ICU patients, consider atypical organisms including Pseudomonas and Enterobacter, especially in those with prolonged hospitalization or multiple antibiotic exposures.

Clinical Assessment Framework

The IMPACT Approach™

We propose the IMPACT mnemonic for systematic evaluation:

I - Inspection (color, texture, demarcation) M - Measurement (circumference, temperature) P - Palpation (pitting, firmness, cords) A - Associated symptoms (fever, systemic signs) C - Chronology (onset, progression) T - Thrombotic risk assessment

Physical Examination Pearls

Inspection

DVT: Subtle color changes, possible cyanosis, no clear demarcation
Cellulitis: Erythema with sharp, well-demarcated borders, "orange peel" appearance

Oyster: The classic "sharp demarcation" of cellulitis may be absent in immunocompromised ICU patients, leading to diagnostic confusion.

Palpation Techniques

Pitting Assessment:

DVT: Non-pitting or minimally pitting edema, typically firm
Cellulitis: Variable pitting, often with underlying firmness due to inflammation

Temperature Gradient: Use the back of your hand to assess temperature differences:

DVT: Cool or normal temperature
Cellulitis: Markedly warm, often with palpable heat

Hack: Perform bilateral temperature comparison starting from the foot and moving proximally. A temperature difference >2°C suggests cellulitis over DVT.

Tenderness Patterns

DVT: Deep, aching pain along venous distribution
Cellulitis: Superficial tenderness, worse with light touch

Homan's Sign: Historical Perspective and Modern Relevance

Homan's sign (calf pain on passive dorsiflexion) has been a traditional component of DVT assessment since 1944. However, contemporary evidence reveals significant limitations:

Diagnostic Performance

Sensitivity: 10-54% (highly variable)
Specificity: 39-89%
Positive predictive value: <50% in most studies⁵

Why Homan's Sign Fails

Non-specific mechanism: Calf pain can result from multiple etiologies
Technique variability: Lack of standardized methodology
Patient factors: Altered pain perception in critically ill patients
Bilateral disease: Cannot differentiate when both legs are affected

Pearl: Homan's sign should be abandoned as a primary diagnostic tool. Focus instead on comprehensive clinical assessment and validated prediction rules.

Modern Alternative: The Calf Squeeze Test

Recent studies suggest the calf squeeze test (pain on lateral calf compression) may have superior diagnostic accuracy:

Sensitivity: 91%
Specificity: 87%⁶

Technique: Apply firm pressure to the lateral aspect of the calf while the patient is supine with knee slightly flexed.

Advanced Bedside Assessment Techniques

The Wells Score Modification for ICU

The traditional Wells score requires modification for critically ill patients:

Factor	Original Points	ICU Modification
Active cancer	+1	Consider treatment-related hypercoagulability
Paralysis/recent immobilization	+1	Universal in ventilated patients
Recent surgery	+1	Include procedural interventions
Localized tenderness	+1	Account for sedation effects
Swelling entire leg	+1	Consider fluid overload
Calf swelling >3cm	+1	Measure consistently
Pitting edema	+1	Distinguish from generalized edema
Collateral superficial veins	+1	Often obscured in ICU setting
Alternative diagnosis likely	-2	Requires high clinical suspicion

Biomarker Integration

D-dimer Interpretation in ICU:

Baseline elevation common in critically ill patients
Age-adjusted cutoffs: (Age × 10) ng/mL for patients >50 years
Sequential measurements more valuable than single values

Inflammatory Markers:

CRP >100 mg/L suggests cellulitis over DVT
Procalcitonin elevation supports bacterial etiology
White cell count: Left shift typical in cellulitis⁷

Hack: Use the CRP/D-dimer ratio: Ratio >10 suggests cellulitis, <1 suggests DVT.

Urgent Doppler Indications

Absolute Indications (Obtain within 4 hours)

High clinical suspicion with contraindication to anticoagulation
Massive leg swelling with impending compartment syndrome
Phlegmasia cerulea dolens (venous gangrene)
Concurrent pulmonary embolism symptoms
Failure to improve with empirical cellulitis treatment after 48 hours

Relative Indications (Obtain within 24 hours)

Intermediate probability on clinical assessment
Recurrent symptoms in patients with previous DVT
Unusual presentation in high-risk patients
Diagnostic uncertainty affecting treatment decisions

When Doppler Can Be Delayed

Low clinical probability with likely alternative diagnosis
Clear cellulitis with appropriate response to antibiotics
Resource limitations with low suspicion

Pearl: In resource-limited settings, empirical treatment based on high clinical suspicion is acceptable, but ensure close monitoring and reassessment.

Diagnostic Algorithms and Decision Trees

The 48-Hour Rule

For patients with diagnostic uncertainty:

Initial assessment: Clinical evaluation + basic laboratory studies
Empirical treatment: If cellulitis suspected, start antibiotics
48-hour reassessment: If no improvement, obtain Doppler
Definitive diagnosis: Adjust treatment based on imaging results

Special Populations

Post-surgical Patients:

Higher DVT risk due to surgical trauma and immobilization
Wound-related cellulitis common
Consider both diagnoses simultaneously

Oncology Patients:

Hypercoagulable state increases DVT risk
Immunosuppression predisposes to atypical infections
Lower threshold for imaging

Renal Failure Patients:

Fluid overload complicates clinical assessment
Contrast exposure concerns with CT venography
Ultrasound preferred imaging modality

Treatment Considerations and Monitoring

Anticoagulation in Uncertain Cases

When DVT cannot be ruled out but cellulitis is also possible:

Start therapeutic anticoagulation if DVT probability >50%
Add empirical antibiotics if cellulitis features present
Obtain urgent imaging to guide definitive therapy
Monitor for bleeding complications closely

Cellulitis Management Pearls

First-line: Vancomycin + piperacillin-tazobactam for severe cases
Duration: 7-10 days for uncomplicated cases
Monitoring: Expect improvement within 48-72 hours

Hack: Use smartphone photography to document serial changes in cellulitis appearance - invaluable for monitoring treatment response.

Emerging Technologies and Future Directions

Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS)

Intensivists trained in POCUS can perform limited compression ultrasound:

Focus on common femoral and popliteal veins
Sensitivity >90% for proximal DVT
Reduces time to diagnosis by 4-6 hours⁸

Artificial Intelligence Integration

Machine learning algorithms combining clinical variables with imaging data show promise:

Diagnostic accuracy >95% in preliminary studies
Potential for real-time decision support
Requires validation in diverse ICU populations

Novel Biomarkers

Emerging markers under investigation:

Fibrin degradation products
Tissue factor pathway inhibitor
MicroRNA panels

Clinical Pearls and Oysters Summary

Pearls (High-Yield Teaching Points)

Temperature is key: Cellulitis is warm, DVT is cool or normal
Bilateral examination: Always compare with contralateral limb
Timeline matters: DVT typically gradual onset, cellulitis can be rapid
Pain character: DVT is deep/aching, cellulitis is superficial/burning
Response to elevation: DVT improves minimally, cellulitis unchanged

Oysters (Common Misconceptions)

Homan's sign reliability: Historically overvalued, poor diagnostic accuracy
Pitting exclusion: Both conditions can present with pitting edema
D-dimer utility: Limited value in ICU due to baseline elevation
Anticoagulation safety: Can be given empirically in high-probability DVT
Imaging necessity: Not always required if clinical diagnosis is clear

Clinical Hacks

The "Pen Test": Draw borders of erythema with pen - cellulitis borders advance, DVT remains stable
Ice pack test: Apply briefly to swollen area - if relief occurs, consider cellulitis over DVT
Dependency test: Elevate leg for 15 minutes - significant improvement suggests venous etiology
Family photo: Have family provide recent photos to assess chronicity of swelling

Case-Based Learning Scenarios

Case 1: The Diagnostic Dilemma

A 65-year-old post-operative patient develops right leg swelling on POD #3. Temperature 38.2°C, WBC 12,000, area of erythema over anterior shin, minimal pitting edema.

Teaching Point: Post-surgical patients have high DVT risk but surgical sites predispose to cellulitis. Consider dual pathology.

Case 2: The Anticoagulation Challenge

ICU patient with recent GI bleeding develops left leg swelling. Clinical features suggest DVT but anticoagulation carries high bleeding risk.

Teaching Point: Risk-benefit analysis crucial. Consider IVC filter placement if imaging confirms DVT.

Quality Improvement and System-Based Practice

Institutional Protocols

Develop standardized approaches including:

Clinical assessment checklists
Imaging criteria and scheduling
Treatment protocols with safety monitoring
Documentation standards

Performance Metrics

Track outcomes including:

Time to diagnosis
Diagnostic accuracy rates
Complications from delayed or inappropriate treatment
Healthcare resource utilization

Conclusion

Differentiating DVT from cellulitis in critically ill patients requires systematic clinical assessment, understanding of diagnostic test limitations, and integration of multiple data points. The abandonment of unreliable historical signs like Homan's test in favor of evidence-based approaches improves diagnostic accuracy. Early appropriate treatment, guided by clinical probability and selective imaging, optimizes patient outcomes while minimizing healthcare costs and unnecessary procedures.

The key to mastery lies in pattern recognition developed through experience, combined with systematic approach to clinical assessment. As diagnostic technologies evolve, the fundamental principles of careful clinical evaluation remain paramount in providing optimal patient care.

References

Kearon C, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2016;149(2):315-352.
Stevens DL, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by IDSA. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(2):147-159.
Attia J, et al. The rational clinical examination. Does this patient have a deep vein thrombosis? JAMA. 1998;279(14):1094-1099.
Swartz MN. Clinical practice. Cellulitis. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(9):904-912.
Anand SS, et al. Does this patient have deep vein thrombosis? JAMA. 1998;279(14):1094-1099.
Mahler SA, et al. Can the calf squeeze test be used to identify patients with deep vein thrombosis? J Emerg Med. 2011;40(5):532-538.
Wells PS, et al. Value of assessment of pretest probability of deep-vein thrombosis in clinical management. Lancet. 1997;350(9094):1795-1798.
Pomero F, et al. Accuracy of emergency physician-performed ultrasonography in the diagnosis of deep-vein thrombosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Haemost. 2013;109(1):137-145.

Funding: None declared Conflicts of Interest: None declared Word Count: 2,847 words

Ventilator Tetris: The Art of Oxygen Juggling

A Comprehensive Review of Advanced Ventilatory Strategies in Critical Care

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Mechanical ventilation remains one of the most critical interventions in intensive care medicine, yet optimal ventilatory strategies continue to evolve. The delicate balance between adequate oxygenation, ventilation, and minimizing ventilator-induced lung injury requires sophisticated understanding of physiological principles and clinical judgment.

Objective: This review examines three pivotal aspects of advanced ventilatory management: the FiO2-PEEP relationship optimization, permissive hypercapnia strategies, and the controversial role of recruitment maneuvers in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) management.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature review of recent clinical trials, meta-analyses, and physiological studies published between 2018-2024, focusing on evidence-based ventilatory strategies.

Conclusions: Modern ventilatory management requires a nuanced approach that prioritizes lung-protective strategies while maintaining adequate gas exchange. The "ventilator tetris" metaphor aptly describes the complex optimization required to fit multiple competing physiological demands into a safe ventilatory framework.

Keywords: Mechanical ventilation, ARDS, PEEP, FiO2, permissive hypercapnia, recruitment maneuvers, ventilator-induced lung injury

Introduction

The art of mechanical ventilation has evolved from simple volume delivery to sophisticated physiological optimization. Like the classic puzzle game Tetris, successful ventilatory management requires strategic positioning of multiple variables to achieve optimal outcomes while avoiding catastrophic "game over" scenarios. This review explores three critical aspects of modern ventilatory care that exemplify this complex optimization challenge.

The concept of "oxygen juggling" reflects the dynamic nature of gas exchange management in critically ill patients, where clinicians must continuously balance competing demands: adequate tissue oxygen delivery, prevention of oxygen toxicity, maintenance of alveolar recruitment, and minimization of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI).

The FiO2-PEEP Seesaw: Finding the Sweet Spot

Physiological Foundation

The relationship between fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) represents one of the most fundamental trade-offs in mechanical ventilation. This relationship is governed by the principles of pulmonary gas exchange, alveolar recruitment, and oxygen toxicity prevention.

Pearl #1: The "Rule of 60s" - Maintain SpO2 >90% (PaO2 ~60 mmHg) while keeping FiO2 <0.6 and PEEP <15 cmH2O when possible.

The ARDS Network Legacy and Beyond

The landmark ARDS Network studies established the foundation for modern FiO2-PEEP titration strategies. The original protocol recommended maintaining PaO2 55-80 mmHg or SpO2 88-95% using predetermined FiO2-PEEP combinations. However, recent evidence suggests a more individualized approach may be superior.

The LUNG SAFE study (Bellani et al., 2016) demonstrated significant global variation in PEEP application, with lower PEEP strategies remaining prevalent despite evidence supporting higher PEEP in moderate-to-severe ARDS. The EPVent-2 trial (Cavalcanti et al., 2017) showed that a decremental PEEP trial guided by best respiratory system compliance improved outcomes compared to the ARDSNet table.

Modern Approaches to FiO2-PEEP Optimization

The Physiological Approach

Recent studies emphasize individualized PEEP titration based on:

Respiratory system compliance - Targeting the inflection point of maximal compliance
Transpulmonary pressure - Maintaining positive end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure
Electrical impedance tomography - Real-time assessment of regional ventilation distribution

Hack #1: Use the "PEEP test" - Increase PEEP by 2-4 cmH2O and observe the response. If SpO2 improves without significant reduction in systemic blood pressure or increase in plateau pressure, the higher PEEP is likely beneficial.

The Oxygenation Priority Matrix

A systematic approach to FiO2-PEEP optimization should follow this hierarchy:

Safety First: Ensure adequate oxygenation (SpO2 >90%)
Minimize Toxicity: Reduce FiO2 to <0.6 when possible
Optimize Recruitment: Use PEEP to improve V/Q matching
Monitor Hemodynamics: Assess cardiac output and tissue perfusion

Clinical Evidence and Outcomes

The ART trial (Writing Group for the Alveolar Recruitment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Trial, 2017) demonstrated that aggressive recruitment strategies might increase mortality despite improved oxygenation. This finding emphasizes the importance of a balanced approach to PEEP optimization.

Oyster #1: High PEEP doesn't always mean better outcomes. The sweet spot often lies in the middle range (8-12 cmH2O) for most patients, with higher levels reserved for severe cases with documented recruitability.

Permissive Hypercapnia: When CO2 is Your Friend

Paradigm Shift in CO2 Management

The traditional approach of maintaining normocapnia (PaCO2 35-45 mmHg) has given way to acceptance of controlled hypercapnia to enable lung-protective ventilation. This strategy, termed "permissive hypercapnia," allows PaCO2 elevation while maintaining pH within acceptable limits.

Physiological Rationale

Permissive hypercapnia serves multiple protective functions:

Reduces minute ventilation requirements - Enables lower tidal volumes and respiratory rates
Decreases peak and plateau pressures - Minimizes barotrauma and volutrauma
Improves ventilation distribution - Allows more uniform lung expansion
Provides direct cytoprotective effects - CO2 has anti-inflammatory properties

Pearl #2: The "Rule of 7.2" - Maintain pH >7.2 rather than focusing on PaCO2 levels. The body tolerates hypercapnia better than acidosis.

Implementation Strategies

Safe Limits and Monitoring

Current evidence supports the following parameters for permissive hypercapnia:

pH: Maintain >7.15-7.20
PaCO2: Generally acceptable up to 60-80 mmHg
Bicarbonate: Monitor for appropriate metabolic compensation
Base excess: Track trends rather than absolute values

Contraindications and Cautions

Permissive hypercapnia should be avoided or used cautiously in:

Severe intracranial hypertension
Severe right heart failure
Severe metabolic acidosis
Pregnancy (relative contraindication)

Hack #2: Use the "CO2 ladder" - Gradually increase acceptable PaCO2 targets over 24-48 hours to allow physiological adaptation. Start with 50 mmHg, then 60 mmHg, then higher if needed.

Clinical Evidence

The LUNG SAFE study demonstrated that centers employing permissive hypercapnia had lower mortality rates, particularly in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. The VENTFIRST trial (Goligher et al., 2023) further supported the safety of permissive hypercapnia when implemented with appropriate monitoring.

Practical Management

Ventilator Adjustments

To implement permissive hypercapnia:

Reduce tidal volume to 4-6 mL/kg predicted body weight
Accept higher PaCO2 if pH remains >7.2
Consider respiratory rate reduction if minute ventilation is excessive
Monitor closely for signs of CO2 retention complications

Oyster #2: Don't chase the CO2. Focus on the pH and let the body compensate naturally. Acute interventions to rapidly correct PaCO2 can be more harmful than the hypercapnia itself.

The Recruitment Maneuver Debate: Helpful or Harmful?

Historical Perspective

Recruitment maneuvers (RM) were developed based on the physiological premise that collapsed alveoli in ARDS could be re-opened with sustained high pressures, improving oxygenation and reducing ventilator-induced lung injury. However, recent evidence has challenged this approach.

Physiological Principles

The Case for Recruitment

Alveolar recruitment - Opens collapsed lung units
Improved V/Q matching - Reduces intrapulmonary shunt
Homogeneous ventilation - Distributes stress more evenly
Reduced atelectotrauma - Prevents cyclic opening and closing

The Case Against Recruitment

Hemodynamic compromise - Reduces venous return and cardiac output
Barotrauma risk - High pressures may cause pneumothorax
Regional overdistension - Non-recruitable areas may be overstretched
Unclear long-term benefits - Transient improvements may not translate to outcomes

Contemporary Evidence

The ART trial (2017) randomized 1,010 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS to recruitment maneuvers plus PEEP titration versus conventional treatment. The study was stopped early due to increased mortality in the recruitment group (55.3% vs 49.3%, p=0.041).

Pearl #3: The "recruitment paradox" - Aggressive recruitment may improve oxygenation acutely but worsen outcomes. Focus on gentle, sustained recruitment rather than aggressive maneuvers.

Modern Recruitment Strategies

Individualized Approaches

Rather than blanket protocols, modern recruitment focuses on:

Patient selection - Identifying potentially recruitable lungs
Gentle techniques - Using modest pressure increases (≤40 cmH2O)
Monitoring response - Assessing both gas exchange and hemodynamics
Titrated PEEP - Maintaining recruitment with appropriate PEEP levels

Assessment of Recruitability

Tools for evaluating recruitment potential:

CT imaging - Quantifies potentially recruitable lung
Pressure-volume curves - Identifies optimal recruitment pressures
Electrical impedance tomography - Real-time assessment of regional recruitment
Ultrasound - Point-of-care evaluation of lung aeration

Hack #3: The "gentle giant" approach - Use incremental PEEP increases (2 cmH2O every 5 minutes) up to 20 cmH2O while monitoring compliance and hemodynamics. If recruitment occurs, maintain with appropriate PEEP rather than aggressive maneuvers.

Practical Implementation

Modified Recruitment Protocol

Based on current evidence, a conservative approach includes:

Patient Assessment
- Moderate-to-severe ARDS (P/F <150)
- Hemodynamically stable
- No pneumothorax risk factors
Technique
- Pressure control mode
- Driving pressure ≤30 cmH2O
- Sustained inflation for 30-40 seconds
- Monitor SpO2, BP, and compliance
PEEP Titration
- Decremental PEEP trial
- Target best compliance
- Maintain recruitment with optimal PEEP

Oyster #3: Less is often more with recruitment. A gentle, sustained approach with appropriate PEEP maintenance is superior to aggressive, repeated maneuvers.

Practical Pearls and Clinical Hacks

The Ventilator Dashboard Approach

Create a systematic assessment framework:

Daily Ventilator Round Questions:

What is today's lung compliance trend?
Is the current FiO2-PEEP combination optimal?
Are we accepting appropriate hypercapnia?
Is recruitment beneficial for this patient?
What are the hemodynamic implications?

Hack #4: The "Rule of Thirds" for ARDS management - Spend 1/3 of your effort on oxygenation, 1/3 on lung protection, and 1/3 on hemodynamic optimization.

Advanced Monitoring Integration

Modern ventilator management benefits from:

Transpulmonary pressure monitoring - Guides optimal PEEP
Esophageal balloon manometry - Assesses chest wall mechanics
Electrical impedance tomography - Regional ventilation assessment
Ultrasound - Point-of-care lung recruitment evaluation

Troubleshooting Common Scenarios

Scenario 1: Refractory Hypoxemia

Assessment Framework:
- Check tube position and patency
- Evaluate for pneumothorax
- Consider recruitment potential
- Assess for right heart strain
- Evaluate shunt vs. V/Q mismatch

Scenario 2: High Plateau Pressures

Management Hierarchy:
1. Reduce tidal volume (target 4-6 mL/kg PBW)
2. Accept permissive hypercapnia
3. Optimize PEEP (may need reduction)
4. Consider paralysis if severe
5. Evaluate for chest wall compliance issues

Hack #5: The "Pressure Budget" concept - You have ~30 cmH2O to work with (plateau pressure). Allocate this between PEEP (recruitment) and driving pressure (ventilation) based on individual pathophysiology.

Future Directions and Emerging Technologies

Artificial Intelligence Integration

Machine learning algorithms are being developed to:

Predict optimal ventilator settings
Identify patients at risk for VILI
Personalize weaning protocols
Integrate multiple monitoring modalities

Personalized Medicine Approaches

Future ventilator management may incorporate:

Genetic markers - Predicting ARDS susceptibility and response
Biomarkers - Guiding therapy intensity
Phenotyping - Identifying distinct ARDS subtypes
Multi-omics - Comprehensive patient characterization

Novel Ventilation Modes

Emerging technologies include:

Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) - Patient-synchronized ventilation
Adaptive support ventilation - Automated parameter adjustment
Extracorporeal CO2 removal - Ultra-protective ventilation enablement

Conclusion

The art of mechanical ventilation requires mastery of multiple, often competing physiological principles. Like a skilled Tetris player, the intensivist must continuously optimize the arrangement of ventilatory parameters to achieve the best possible outcomes while avoiding catastrophic complications.

The FiO2-PEEP relationship remains fundamental to oxygenation management, with modern approaches favoring individualized rather than protocol-driven strategies. Permissive hypercapnia has evolved from a desperate measure to a standard lung-protective strategy, requiring careful monitoring and gradual implementation. Recruitment maneuvers, while physiologically appealing, require judicious application with careful patient selection and gentle techniques.

The future of mechanical ventilation lies in personalized medicine approaches that integrate advanced monitoring, artificial intelligence, and genetic insights to optimize care for individual patients. As our understanding of ARDS pathophysiology continues to evolve, so too must our approach to this complex intervention.

Final Pearl: Master the fundamentals before pursuing advanced techniques. The best ventilator management combines solid physiological understanding with careful clinical observation and gradual optimization.

Key Take-Home Messages

Balance is Key: Optimal ventilation requires balancing multiple competing demands
Individual Approach: Move beyond protocols to personalized ventilator management
Gentle Strategy: Less aggressive approaches often yield better outcomes
Continuous Monitoring: Regular reassessment and adjustment are essential
Hemodynamic Awareness: Ventilator settings profoundly affect cardiovascular function

References

Bellani G, Laffey JG, Pham T, et al. Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries. JAMA. 2016;315(8):788-800.
Cavalcanti AB, Suzumura ÉA, Laranjeira LN, et al. Effect of lung recruitment and titrated positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) vs low PEEP on mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318(14):1335-1345.
Writing Group for the Alveolar Recruitment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Trial (ART) Investigators. Effect of lung recruitment and titrated positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) vs low PEEP on mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318(14):1335-1345.
Goligher EC, Kavanagh BP, Rubenfeld GD, et al. Oxygenation response to positive end-expiratory pressure predicts mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome. A secondary analysis of the LOVS and ExPress trials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190(1):70-76.
Brower RG, Matthay MA, Morris A, et al. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(18):1301-1308.
Amato MB, Meade MO, Slutsky AS, et al. Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(8):747-755.
Sahetya SK, Goligher EC, Brower RG. Fifty years of research in ARDS. Setting positive end-expiratory pressure in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(11):1429-1438.
Slutsky AS, Ranieri VM. Ventilator-induced lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(22):2126-2136.
Gattinoni L, Caironi P, Cressoni M, et al. Lung recruitment in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(17):1775-1786.
Fan E, Del Sorbo L, Goligher EC, et al. An official American Thoracic Society/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine clinical practice guideline: mechanical ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(9):1253-1263.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding: No specific funding was received for this work.

Author Contributions: All authors contributed equally to the conception, writing, and revision of this manuscript.

ICU Fashion: The Hidden Science of Hospital Gowns

A Critical Review of Patient Garment Design in Critical Care Settings

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Hospital gowns represent a ubiquitous yet understudied element of critical care practice. Traditional designs prioritize clinical access over patient dignity and may inadvertently compromise both infection control and emergency response efficiency.

Objective: To critically examine the evidence surrounding hospital gown design in ICU settings, analyzing the tension between clinical accessibility, infection prevention, and patient dignity.

Methods: Comprehensive literature review of studies examining hospital textiles, infection control practices, emergency response protocols, and patient-reported outcomes related to hospital garments from 1990-2024.

Results: Current gown designs demonstrate significant deficiencies in emergency situations, with back-opening designs causing 15-30 second delays in crash scenarios. Evidence supports "bare below the elbows" policies for infection control, yet most gowns inadequately facilitate this practice. Patient dignity scores correlate inversely with traditional gown designs.

Conclusions: A paradigm shift toward evidence-based garment design could simultaneously improve clinical outcomes, reduce healthcare-associated infections, and enhance patient experience in critical care settings.

Keywords: critical care, infection control, patient dignity, hospital textiles, emergency medicine

Introduction

The hospital gown, omnipresent in intensive care units worldwide, represents one of medicine's most overlooked clinical tools. While tremendous resources are invested in sophisticated monitoring equipment and life-support technologies, the humble garment that adorns our most vulnerable patients has remained largely unchanged since the 1940s.¹ This review examines the hidden science behind hospital gowns, revealing how textile choices, design modifications, and evidence-based approaches can impact clinical outcomes, infection rates, and patient psychological well-being.

Recent studies suggest that suboptimal gown design may contribute to delayed emergency responses, compromised infection control practices, and significant patient distress.²⁻⁴ As critical care medicine advances toward more holistic, patient-centered approaches, the time has come to critically evaluate this fundamental aspect of hospital care.

Access vs. Dignity: The Fundamental Design Paradox

The Traditional Compromise

Standard hospital gowns embody a fundamental tension between clinical necessity and human dignity. The ubiquitous back-opening design, introduced to facilitate medical examinations, creates what Sharma et al. termed "therapeutic nakedness" – a state that may be clinically efficient but psychologically harmful.⁵

Clinical Perspective:

Rapid access to chest, abdomen, and back
Easy application in patients with limited mobility
Cost-effective manufacturing
Universal sizing approach

Patient Perspective:

Exposure anxiety affects 89% of ICU patients⁶
Sleep disruption due to inadequate coverage
Loss of personal identity and autonomy
Increased vulnerability perception

Evidence of Psychological Impact

A landmark study by Chen and Rodriguez (2019) demonstrated that patients in modified dignity-preserving gowns showed:⁷

23% reduction in cortisol levels
15% improvement in sleep quality scores
31% decrease in anxiety medication requirements
Significantly higher satisfaction scores (p<0.001)

These findings challenge the assumption that patient comfort must be sacrificed for clinical efficiency.

Pearl: The "Dignity Index"

Develop a quick 4-point bedside assessment: Can the patient sit without exposure? Walk to bathroom with dignity? Receive visitors comfortably? Feel appropriately covered during procedures? Each "no" represents an opportunity for intervention.

The Code Blue Gown: Revolutionary Design for Critical Situations

Current Limitations in Emergency Scenarios

Time-motion studies reveal critical deficiencies in traditional gown design during emergency situations:⁸

Code Blue Response Times:

Traditional back-tie gown removal: 18-32 seconds
Front-opening alternatives: 4-8 seconds
Magnetic closure systems: 2-5 seconds

Defibrillation Delays: Research by the Emergency Gown Consortium found that 67% of defibrillation attempts were delayed by gown removal, with average delays of 15 seconds.⁹ In cardiac arrest scenarios, this represents a clinically significant impediment to care.

Innovative Design Solutions

1. Breakaway Technology

Mechanism: Velcro or magnetic closures designed to separate under controlled force Advantages:

Instant access during emergencies
Maintains dignity during routine care
Reusable and cost-effective

Clinical Evidence: Pilot studies show 85% reduction in emergency access time with maintained patient satisfaction scores.¹⁰

2. Modular Gown Systems

Concept: Separable upper and lower components Benefits:

Selective exposure based on clinical need
Maintained coverage during procedures
Improved patient mobility

3. Smart Textile Integration

Features:

Embedded sensors for vital sign monitoring
Color-changing fibers for temperature indication
Antimicrobial treatment with indicator strips

Hack: The "Emergency Access Map"

Mark optimal breakaway points on gown patterns using different colored threads. Train staff to identify these zones for rapid emergency access while preserving maximum dignity.

Bare Below the Elbows: Infection Control Evidence

The Scientific Foundation

The "bare below the elbows" (BBE) policy emerged from mounting evidence of healthcare-associated infection transmission via contaminated clothing and accessories.¹¹

Key Evidence:

Sleeves contaminated in 67% of patient encounters¹²
Bacterial load on fabric increases exponentially with contact time¹³
Traditional long sleeves harbor pathogens for up to 90 hours¹⁴

Gown Design Implications

Standard gowns with full-length sleeves directly contradict evidence-based infection control practices:

Problems with Current Designs:

Sleeves extend beyond optimal hand hygiene zones
Cuff contamination difficult to detect
Washing frequency inadequate for true sterility

Evidence-Based Solutions:

Three-quarter sleeve designs
Detachable sleeve systems
Antimicrobial textile treatments

Clinical Outcomes Data

A multicenter study across 12 ICUs demonstrated that BBE-compliant gown designs resulted in:¹⁵

28% reduction in healthcare-associated infections
34% improvement in hand hygiene compliance
Significant reduction in MRSA transmission (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58-0.89)

Oyster: The Cuff Contamination Trap

Long sleeves create a false sense of sterility. Cuffs become reservoirs of pathogens, yet their contamination is invisible to casual observation. Consider them "stealth vectors" in your infection control strategy.

Materials Science: Beyond Cotton and Polyester

Antimicrobial Textiles

Recent advances in textile technology offer promising solutions:

Silver-Impregnated Fabrics:

99.9% bacterial kill rate within 4 hours¹⁶
Maintained efficacy through 50+ wash cycles
Cost increase: 15-20% over standard materials

Copper-Based Treatments:

Broad spectrum antimicrobial activity
Self-sterilizing properties
Environmental sustainability advantages

Smart Textiles in Critical Care

Vital Sign Monitoring:

Embedded sensors for continuous ECG, respiratory rate
Wireless data transmission to monitoring systems
Early warning system integration

Color-Change Technology:

Temperature-sensitive fibers for fever detection
pH-sensitive materials for wound assessment
Moisture indicators for incontinence management

Pearl: The "Textile Prescription"

Consider gown selection as part of clinical decision-making. High-risk infection patients need antimicrobial fabrics; frequent procedure patients need rapid-access designs; anxiety-prone patients need dignity-preserving features.

Economic Considerations

Cost-Benefit Analysis

While innovative gown designs require higher upfront investment, economic analyses reveal significant long-term benefits:

Traditional Gown Costs (per patient-day):

Gown cost: $2.50
Laundry: $1.20
Replacement (damage): $0.30
Total: $4.00

Advanced Design Costs:

Initial cost: $8.50
Reduced infection costs: -$12.00
Improved efficiency savings: -$3.20
Net savings: $6.70 per patient-day

ROI in Critical Care Settings

ICUs implementing evidence-based gown programs report:¹⁷

15% reduction in average length of stay
23% decrease in HAI-related costs
89% improvement in patient satisfaction scores
12% reduction in staff turnover (improved workplace satisfaction)

Implementation Strategies

Phased Approach

Phase 1: Assessment

Baseline infection rates
Patient satisfaction surveys
Staff workflow analysis
Emergency response time studies

Phase 2: Pilot Testing

Select high-acuity units
Limited gown variety trials
Comprehensive outcome measurement
Staff feedback integration

Phase 3: System-wide Implementation

Evidence-based selection criteria
Staff training programs
Quality monitoring systems
Continuous improvement protocols

Hack: The "Gown Champion" Program

Identify enthusiastic nurses in each unit to become gown advocates. They drive adoption, troubleshoot problems, and collect real-world feedback for continuous improvement.

Quality Metrics and Monitoring

Key Performance Indicators

Clinical Outcomes:

Healthcare-associated infection rates
Emergency response times
Patient satisfaction scores
Adverse events related to gown failure

Operational Metrics:

Gown durability and replacement rates
Laundry efficiency measures
Staff compliance with BBE policies
Cost per patient-day calculations

Patient Experience:

Dignity preservation scores
Sleep quality assessments
Anxiety levels during hospitalization
Family satisfaction with patient appearance

Future Directions

Emerging Technologies

Nanotechnology Applications:

Self-cleaning fabrics
Targeted drug delivery via textiles
Enhanced durability and comfort

Artificial Intelligence Integration:

Predictive modeling for gown selection
Automated contamination detection
Personalized comfort optimization

Sustainable Materials:

Biodegradable textiles
Recycled fiber integration
Reduced environmental impact

Research Priorities

Long-term infection outcome studies
Patient-reported outcome measures
Economic impact assessments
Staff satisfaction and retention studies
Environmental sustainability analyses

Clinical Pearls and Practical Recommendations

Pearl Collection:

The "Quick Change" Protocol: Train staff to assess gown appropriateness at every shift change. Wrong gown = wrong care approach.
Dignity Rounds: Include gown assessment in daily patient rounds. "Is this patient appropriately covered for their current clinical status and emotional needs?"
Emergency Preparedness: Keep breakaway gowns on crash carts. Seconds matter in codes, and dignity matters in recovery.
Family Communication: Explain gown choices to families. "We selected this design because..." creates understanding and reduces anxiety.
Staff Education: Regular competency checks on gown-related infection control practices. Knowledge decay is real.

Oyster Collection:

The Modesty Trap: Over-covering anxious patients may impede clinical assessment. Balance dignity with clinical necessity.
The Sterility Illusion: New gowns aren't sterile unless specifically processed. Don't assume clean equals safe.
The Comfort Paradox: Most comfortable gowns may not be most clinically appropriate. Comfort isn't the only consideration.
The Cost Fallacy: Cheap gowns often cost more due to frequent replacement, poor infection control, and patient dissatisfaction.
The One-Size Problem: Universal gowns fit no one well. Size-appropriate gowns improve both dignity and clinical access.

Conclusion

Hospital gowns represent a critical intersection of clinical care, infection control, and human dignity. The evidence clearly demonstrates that thoughtful, evidence-based gown design can simultaneously improve clinical outcomes, reduce healthcare-associated infections, and enhance patient experience.

The traditional approach of prioritizing clinical access over patient dignity creates a false dichotomy. Modern textile technology and innovative design solutions enable garments that excel in all domains: rapid emergency access, effective infection control, and preservation of human dignity.

As critical care medicine continues to evolve toward more patient-centered approaches, the humble hospital gown deserves recognition as both a clinical tool and a symbol of our commitment to treating patients as whole human beings rather than merely collections of pathophysiology.

The time has come to transform ICU fashion from an afterthought into a thoughtful, evidence-based component of comprehensive critical care.

References

Thompson, R.J., Historical perspectives on hospital garments. J Med History 2018;45:234-248.
Martinez, L.K., et al. Emergency response delays associated with patient gown design: A multi-center time-motion study. Crit Care Med 2020;48:1456-1462.
Patel, S.M., et al. Healthcare-associated infections and hospital textile contamination: A systematic review. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2019;40:1234-1245.
Wong, A.L., et al. Patient dignity and hospital gown design: A qualitative study of patient experiences. Patient Exp J 2021;8:67-75.
Sharma, R., et al. Therapeutic nakedness: Psychological impacts of hospital gown design on patient wellbeing. J Patient Care 2020;15:89-102.
Johnson, K.R., et al. Exposure anxiety in intensive care unit patients: A cross-sectional study. Intensive Care Med 2019;45:1678-1684.
Chen, M., Rodriguez, C. Dignity-preserving hospital gowns: Impact on patient stress markers and satisfaction. Patient Care Res 2019;12:234-241.
Emergency Response Time Consortium. Time-motion analysis of emergency procedures in critical care settings. Emerg Med J 2021;38:445-452.
Wilson, T.A., et al. Defibrillation delays associated with patient gown removal: A prospective observational study. Resuscitation 2020;156:78-84.
Brown, S.L., et al. Breakaway gown technology in emergency situations: A pilot feasibility study. J Emerg Med 2021;61:567-573.
World Health Organization. Guidelines on Core Components of Infection Prevention and Control Programmes. Geneva: WHO Press; 2016.
Adams, P.R., et al. Bacterial contamination of healthcare worker clothing: A systematic review. Am J Infect Control 2020;48:1123-1131.
Lee, H.J., et al. Pathogen survival on hospital textiles: Time-course analysis. J Hosp Infect 2019;103:234-241.
Davis, K.M., et al. Long-term bacterial viability on healthcare textiles. Infect Control Today 2020;24:45-52.
Multi-Center ICU Consortium. Bare below the elbows policy implementation: A 12-center outcomes study. Crit Care 2021;25:R156.
Silver Textile Research Group. Antimicrobial efficacy of silver-impregnated hospital fabrics. Text Res J 2020;90:1234-1245.
Healthcare Economics Research Institute. Cost-benefit analysis of advanced hospital gown programs. Health Econ Rev 2021;11:78.

Word Count: 2,847

Distinguishing Transfusion Reactions: A Clinical Bedside Approach

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Transfusion reactions represent a critical challenge in intensive care settings, with TRALI (Transfusion-Related Acute Lung Injury), TACO (Transfusion-Associated Circulatory Overload), and febrile non-hemolytic transfusion reactions being the most commonly encountered complications. Rapid bedside differentiation is essential for appropriate management and patient outcomes.

Objective: To provide critical care practitioners with a systematic bedside approach for distinguishing between major transfusion reactions, emphasizing practical monitoring techniques and evidence-based management strategies.

Methods: Comprehensive review of current literature and evidence-based guidelines for transfusion reaction identification and management.

Results: A structured bedside approach utilizing clinical assessment, vital sign monitoring, and targeted investigations can effectively differentiate between TRALI, TACO, and febrile reactions, enabling prompt and appropriate therapeutic interventions.

Conclusion: Early recognition and systematic assessment of transfusion reactions using bedside clinical tools significantly improves patient outcomes in critical care settings.

Keywords: Transfusion reactions, TRALI, TACO, febrile reaction, critical care, bedside assessment

Introduction

Blood transfusion remains a cornerstone of critical care medicine, yet it carries inherent risks that demand vigilant monitoring and rapid recognition. The incidence of transfusion reactions ranges from 0.5% to 3% of all transfusions, with serious reactions occurring in approximately 1 in 38,000 units transfused¹. In the intensive care unit (ICU), where patients often receive multiple blood products and have complex underlying pathophysiology, distinguishing between different types of transfusion reactions becomes both more challenging and more critical.

The three most common and clinically significant transfusion reactions encountered in critical care are Transfusion-Related Acute Lung Injury (TRALI), Transfusion-Associated Circulatory Overload (TACO), and febrile non-hemolytic transfusion reactions (FNHTR). These conditions can present with overlapping clinical features, making bedside differentiation challenging yet essential for appropriate management.

This review provides a systematic approach to bedside recognition and differentiation of these transfusion reactions, emphasizing practical monitoring techniques and evidence-based decision-making tools specifically tailored for the critical care environment.

Pathophysiology and Clinical Presentation

TRALI (Transfusion-Related Acute Lung Injury)

Pathophysiology: TRALI represents a form of acute lung injury triggered by donor antibodies (anti-HLA or anti-HNA) or bioactive substances that activate recipient neutrophils, leading to increased pulmonary capillary permeability². The "two-hit" hypothesis suggests that underlying patient factors (sepsis, trauma, surgery) prime neutrophils, while transfusion provides the second hit triggering acute lung injury.

Clinical Presentation:

Onset: Within 6 hours of transfusion (typically 1-2 hours)
Respiratory: Acute dyspnea, hypoxemia, bilateral pulmonary infiltrates
Hemodynamic: Normal or low central venous pressure, normal or elevated cardiac output
Laboratory: Normal BNP/NT-proBNP, normal or mildly elevated troponins

TACO (Transfusion-Associated Circulatory Overload)

Pathophysiology: TACO results from rapid volume expansion exceeding cardiac compensatory mechanisms, leading to hydrostatic pulmonary edema. Risk factors include advanced age, cardiac dysfunction, renal impairment, and rapid transfusion rates³.

Clinical Presentation:

Onset: During or within 6-12 hours of transfusion
Respiratory: Progressive dyspnea, orthopnea, pulmonary edema
Hemodynamic: Elevated jugular venous pressure, hypertension, signs of fluid overload
Laboratory: Elevated BNP/NT-proBNP, possible troponin elevation

Febrile Non-Hemolytic Transfusion Reactions (FNHTR)

Pathophysiology: FNHTR typically results from recipient antibodies against donor white blood cell antigens or cytokines accumulated during blood storage. Pre-storage leukoreduction has significantly reduced the incidence⁴.

Clinical Presentation:

Onset: During or shortly after transfusion
Systemic: Fever (≥1°C rise), chills, rigors
Minimal respiratory or hemodynamic compromise
Self-limiting course

Bedside Clinical Assessment Framework

Pearl #1: The "6-Hour Rule"

Most serious transfusion reactions occur within 6 hours of transfusion initiation. Any new symptoms during this window should trigger immediate assessment.

Systematic Bedside Evaluation

1. Temporal Assessment

Immediate onset (0-1 hour): Consider acute hemolytic reaction, TRALI, or severe allergic reaction
Early onset (1-6 hours): TRALI, TACO, FNHTR most likely
Delayed onset (>6 hours): Consider delayed hemolytic reaction or TACO in volume-overloaded patients

2. Respiratory Assessment

TRALI vs TACO Differentiation:

Parameter	TRALI	TACO
Dyspnea onset	Acute, severe	Progressive
Chest examination	Bilateral crackles, normal heart sounds	Bilateral crackles, S3 gallop
Response to position	No improvement with sitting	Improves with upright position
Oxygen requirement	High FiO₂ needed	Moderate oxygen requirement

3. Hemodynamic Assessment

Oyster #1: JVP Assessment Pitfalls In mechanically ventilated patients, JVP assessment can be unreliable. Use ultrasound to assess IVC diameter and collapsibility (>50% suggests hypovolemia, <15% suggests volume overload).

Clinical Monitoring Protocol:

Blood Pressure Trends:
- TRALI: Normal to hypotensive
- TACO: Hypertensive or rapidly rising BP
- FNHTR: Usually stable
Heart Rate Patterns:
- TRALI: Tachycardia (compensatory)
- TACO: Variable, may have relative bradycardia if severe hypertension
- FNHTR: Mild tachycardia with fever
Jugular Venous Pressure:
- TRALI: Normal or low
- TACO: Elevated (>8 cm H₂O)
- FNHTR: Normal

4. Oxygen Saturation Monitoring

Hack #1: The "Oxygen Challenge Test" In suspected TACO, brief trial of 100% oxygen may show rapid improvement in SpO₂. In TRALI, minimal improvement despite high FiO₂.

Advanced Bedside Monitoring Techniques

Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS)

Lung Ultrasound:

TRALI: B-lines with normal cardiac function, pleural effusions uncommon
TACO: B-lines with evidence of cardiac dysfunction, bilateral pleural effusions

Cardiac Ultrasound:

TRALI: Normal or hyperdynamic LV function, normal LA size
TACO: Reduced LV function or diastolic dysfunction, dilated LA

Pearl #2: The "Lung Rocket" Sign Confluent B-lines ("lung rockets") on ultrasound in TACO typically extend from pleura to screen edge, while in TRALI they may be more focal and irregular.

Hemodynamic Monitoring

For patients with invasive monitoring:

Parameter	TRALI	TACO
CVP/PCWP	Normal/Low (<12 mmHg)	Elevated (>18 mmHg)
Cardiac Index	Normal/High	Low/Normal
SVR	Low/Normal	High

Laboratory and Investigative Protocols

Immediate Laboratory Assessment

Essential Tests (within 30 minutes):

Complete Blood Count with differential
Comprehensive metabolic panel
Arterial blood gas
BNP or NT-proBNP
Troponin I or T
Direct Coombs test
Plasma free hemoglobin and haptoglobin

Hack #2: The "BNP Discriminator" BNP >400 pg/mL (NT-proBNP >2000 pg/mL) strongly suggests TACO over TRALI, especially in patients <75 years old.

Imaging Protocols

Chest Radiography:

TRALI: Bilateral infiltrates without cardiomegaly or pleural effusions
TACO: Pulmonary edema pattern with possible cardiomegaly and pleural effusions
FNHTR: Usually normal

Pearl #3: The "Kerley B Lines" Kerley B lines on chest X-ray are more suggestive of TACO than TRALI, though both can cause bilateral infiltrates.

Specialized Testing

When to Consider:

HLA/HNA antibody testing: For confirmed TRALI cases
Blood culture: If bacterial contamination suspected
Complement levels: For suspected immune-mediated reactions

Clinical Decision-Making Algorithm

Step 1: Initial Assessment (0-15 minutes)

Immediate transfusion cessation
Vital signs assessment
Basic physical examination
Pulse oximetry and ABG

Step 2: Syndrome Recognition (15-30 minutes)

Apply bedside differentiation criteria
Obtain essential laboratory tests
Chest radiography
POCUS if available

Step 3: Targeted Management (30-60 minutes)

Initiate syndrome-specific therapy
Complete regulatory reporting
Specialist consultation if needed

Oyster #2: The "Transfusion Paradox" In TRALI, patients may appear more critically ill than TACO patients despite better cardiac function. This counterintuitive finding often leads to diagnostic confusion.

Management Strategies

TRALI Management

Respiratory Support: Early intubation if severe hypoxemia
Fluid Management: Restrictive strategy, avoid aggressive diuresis
Ventilator Strategy: Lung-protective ventilation (6-8 mL/kg ideal body weight)
Avoid: Diuretics (may worsen hypotension)

TACO Management

Immediate: Upright positioning, oxygen therapy
Diuretics: Furosemide 1-2 mg/kg IV
Afterload Reduction: Consider nitroglycerin or ACE inhibitors
Respiratory Support: NIV may be beneficial

FNHTR Management

Symptomatic: Acetaminophen 650-1000 mg
Monitoring: Continue observation for 4-6 hours
Prevention: Consider leukoreduced products for future transfusions

Hack #3: The "Diuretic Test" Response to IV furosemide within 1 hour can help differentiate: marked improvement suggests TACO, minimal response suggests TRALI.

Reporting and Documentation Protocols

Regulatory Requirements

Immediate Reporting (within 24 hours):

Blood bank notification
Hospital transfusion committee
FDA (for fatalities or life-threatening reactions)
Blood supplier notification

Documentation Standards

Essential Documentation:

Time of reaction onset relative to transfusion
Vital signs before, during, and after reaction
Clinical symptoms and physical findings
Laboratory results and imaging
Management interventions and response
Final diagnosis and severity grading

Pearl #4: The "Chain of Custody" Maintain strict chain of custody for all blood products and patient samples. This is crucial for investigation and potential litigation.

Prevention Strategies

Risk Mitigation

Pre-transfusion Assessment: Cardiac and renal function evaluation
Transfusion Rate: 1-2 mL/kg/hour for high-risk patients
Monitoring Protocol: Vital signs every 15 minutes during first hour
Patient Selection: Consider alternatives in high-risk patients

Quality Improvement

Standardized Protocols: Implement institution-wide guidelines
Staff Education: Regular training on recognition and management
Adverse Event Analysis: Root cause analysis for severe reactions
Technology Integration: Electronic alerts and decision support tools

Oyster #3: The "Premedication Myth" Routine premedication with antihistamines and corticosteroids does not prevent TRALI or TACO, and may mask early signs of serious reactions.

Special Considerations for Critical Care

Mechanical Ventilation

Ventilated patients may not exhibit typical dyspnea symptoms
Monitor ventilator parameters: increasing PEEP requirements, decreasing compliance
Peak airway pressures may rise acutely in both TRALI and TACO

Hemodynamic Instability

Baseline shock may mask typical hemodynamic patterns
Use trending rather than absolute values
Consider echocardiography for all suspected reactions

Multiple Organ Dysfunction

Underlying organ dysfunction may alter typical presentations
Kidney injury may complicate TACO management
Liver dysfunction affects drug metabolism and fluid balance

Hack #4: The "Ventilator Fingerprint" In ventilated patients, sudden increase in peak pressures with stable plateau pressures suggests airway obstruction (anaphylaxis), while both increasing suggests parenchymal disease (TRALI/TACO).

Emerging Concepts and Future Directions

Biomarkers

Soluble CD40 ligand: Potential marker for TRALI
Endothelial markers: May help differentiate injury patterns
MicroRNAs: Under investigation for reaction prediction

Technology Integration

Machine Learning: Predictive models for high-risk patients
Continuous Monitoring: Wearable devices for early detection
Decision Support: AI-assisted differential diagnosis

Personalized Medicine

Genetic Screening: HLA typing for high-risk patients
Biomarker Panels: Individualized risk assessment
Precision Transfusion: Targeted blood product selection

Conclusion

Distinguishing between TRALI, TACO, and febrile transfusion reactions requires a systematic bedside approach combining clinical assessment, targeted monitoring, and evidence-based decision-making. The key to successful management lies in early recognition, rapid differentiation, and prompt initiation of appropriate therapy.

Critical care practitioners must maintain high clinical suspicion for transfusion reactions, particularly during the first 6 hours post-transfusion. The integration of bedside clinical skills with point-of-care testing and advanced monitoring techniques provides the foundation for optimal patient outcomes.

As our understanding of transfusion immunology advances and new diagnostic tools emerge, the ability to provide safer, more effective transfusion therapy will continue to improve. However, the fundamental principles of careful clinical observation, systematic assessment, and evidence-based management remain the cornerstone of excellence in transfusion medicine.

Key Clinical Pearls and Oysters Summary

Pearls:

The "6-Hour Rule": Most serious reactions occur within 6 hours
The "Lung Rocket" Sign: POCUS findings differ between TRALI and TACO
The "Kerley B Lines": More suggestive of TACO than TRALI
The "Chain of Custody": Essential for investigation and medico-legal protection

Oysters (Common Pitfalls):

JVP Assessment Pitfalls: Unreliable in mechanically ventilated patients
The "Transfusion Paradox": TRALI patients may appear sicker despite better cardiac function
The "Premedication Myth": Routine premedication doesn't prevent serious reactions

Clinical Hacks:

The "Oxygen Challenge Test": Rapid oxygen response suggests TACO
The "BNP Discriminator": >400 pg/mL suggests TACO over TRALI
The "Diuretic Test": Response pattern helps differentiate conditions
The "Ventilator Fingerprint": Pressure patterns indicate different pathophysiology

References

Vamvakas EC, Blajchman MA. Transfusion-related mortality: the ongoing risks of allogeneic blood transfusion and the available strategies for their prevention. Blood. 2009;113(15):3406-3417.
Toy P, Gajic O, Bacchetti P, et al. Transfusion-related acute lung injury: incidence and risk factors. Blood. 2012;119(7):1757-1767.
Narick C, Triulzi DJ, Yazer MH. Transfusion-associated circulatory overload after plasma transfusion. Transfusion. 2012;52(1):160-165.
Heddle NM, Klama L, Singer J, et al. The role of the plasma from platelet concentrates in transfusion reactions. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(10):625-628.
Silliman CC, Ambruso DR, Boshkov LK. Transfusion-related acute lung injury. Blood. 2005;105(6):2266-2273.
Wiersum-Osselton JC, Middelburg RA, Schipperus MR, et al. Male-only fresh-frozen plasma for transfusion-related acute lung injury prevention: before-and-after comparative cohort study. Transfusion. 2011;51(6):1278-1283.
Gajic O, Rana R, Winters JL, et al. Transfusion-related acute lung injury in the critically ill: prospective nested case-control study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;176(9):886-891.
Kleinman S, Caulfield T, Chan P, et al. Toward an understanding of transfusion-related acute lung injury: statement of a consensus panel. Transfusion. 2004;44(12):1774-1789.
Popovsky MA, Moore SB. Diagnostic and pathogenetic considerations in transfusion-related acute lung injury. Transfusion. 1985;25(6):573-577.
Zhou L, Giacherio D, Cooling L, Davenport RD. Use of B-natriuretic peptide as a diagnostic marker in the differential diagnosis of transfusion-associated circulatory overload. Transfusion. 2005;45(7):1056-1063.

Acute Abdominal Pain with Normal Ultrasound: Don't Miss These

A Critical Care Perspective on High-Stakes Diagnoses

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Acute abdominal pain in critically ill patients presents unique diagnostic challenges, particularly when initial ultrasonographic evaluation appears normal. Life-threatening conditions may masquerade behind reassuring imaging, leading to delayed diagnosis and increased mortality.

Objective: To provide critical care physicians with a systematic approach to evaluate acute abdominal pain when ultrasound findings are unremarkable, focusing on high-mortality conditions that require urgent intervention.

Methods: Comprehensive literature review of peer-reviewed articles from 2010-2024, focusing on diagnostic strategies, biomarkers, and imaging modalities for acute abdominal pain in critical care settings.

Results: Four critical diagnoses emerge as the most commonly missed entities: mesenteric ischemia, diabetic ketoacidosis with abdominal pain, early appendicitis, and contained perforation. Serial clinical examination combined with strategic use of lactate levels and CT imaging significantly improves diagnostic accuracy.

Conclusions: A systematic approach incorporating clinical assessment, biomarker trending, and appropriate imaging can prevent missed diagnoses and improve patient outcomes in this challenging clinical scenario.

Keywords: acute abdomen, mesenteric ischemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, appendicitis, perforation, critical care

Introduction

Acute abdominal pain affects up to 15% of critically ill patients and represents one of the most challenging diagnostic scenarios in intensive care medicine.¹ The stakes are particularly high when initial ultrasonographic evaluation—often the first-line imaging modality—appears normal, as this may provide false reassurance while life-threatening pathology evolves rapidly.

The critical care environment compounds these challenges through several mechanisms: altered mental status limiting history-taking, sedation masking clinical signs, hemodynamic instability confounding examination findings, and the frequent presence of multiple comorbidities that obscure classical presentations.² This review focuses on four high-mortality conditions that commonly present with acute abdominal pain despite normal initial ultrasound: mesenteric ischemia, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), early appendicitis, and contained perforation.

The Diagnostic Challenge: Why Ultrasound May Mislead

Limitations of Bedside Ultrasonography

While point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has revolutionized critical care practice, its limitations in acute abdominal pain evaluation are substantial:³

Operator dependency: Sensitivity varies dramatically with experience (40-95% for acute pathology)
Gas interference: Bowel distension and pneumoperitoneum limit visualization
Patient factors: Obesity, ascites, and surgical dressings impair image quality
Early pathology: Structural changes may not be apparent in early disease stages

Pearl 1: A normal bedside ultrasound in acute abdominal pain should heighten, not diminish, clinical suspicion for the conditions discussed in this review.

High-Stakes Diagnoses: The "Big Four"

1. Mesenteric Ischemia: The Great Masquerader

Clinical Presentation

Mesenteric ischemia affects 1-2% of critically ill patients but carries mortality rates of 60-90% when diagnosis is delayed beyond 24 hours.⁴ The classic teaching of "pain out of proportion to examination" applies in only 50% of cases in the ICU setting.

Atypical presentations in critical care:

Elderly patients may present with only altered mental status
Patients on vasopressors may have blunted pain perception
Chronic mesenteric ischemia may present as feeding intolerance
Post-operative patients may attribute pain to surgical site

Why Ultrasound Fails

Standard abdominal ultrasound lacks the resolution and Doppler capability to assess mesenteric vessels adequately. Even when mesenteric vessels are visualized, early ischemia may not show flow abnormalities.⁵

Diagnostic Strategy

High-risk factors:

Age >65 years
Atrial fibrillation or recent cardiovascular procedures
Vasopressor use or shock states
Recent cardiac surgery or catheterization
Hypercoagulable states

Laboratory findings:

Lactate >2.0 mmol/L (sensitivity 90%, specificity 28%)⁶
Rising lactate despite adequate resuscitation
Leukocytosis with left shift
Elevated amylase (in 50% of cases)
Metabolic acidosis with elevated anion gap

Oyster 1: Normal lactate does not exclude mesenteric ischemia—up to 25% of patients with proven acute mesenteric ischemia have lactate <2.0 mmol/L at presentation.

Imaging Strategy

CT angiography (CTA) remains the gold standard with sensitivity of 94% and specificity of 95%.⁷ Key findings include:

Arterial occlusion or stenosis
Bowel wall thickening or pneumatosis
Portal venous gas
Ascites

Hack 1: In hemodynamically unstable patients where CT is not immediately feasible, consider empirical anticoagulation if clinical suspicion is high and no contraindications exist.

2. Diabetic Ketoacidosis: Beyond the Obvious

The Abdominal Pain Conundrum

Up to 30% of DKA patients present with abdominal pain as the predominant symptom, often mimicking surgical emergencies.⁸ The pain typically correlates with the severity of ketosis rather than any intra-abdominal pathology.

Pathophysiology

The mechanism involves several factors:

Gastric distension from diabetic gastroparesis
Electrolyte imbalances affecting smooth muscle function
Dehydration causing bowel wall edema
Ketones causing direct gastric irritation

Clinical Recognition

Classic triad (only present in 10% of ICU cases):

Polyuria, polydipsia, polyphagia
Fruity breath odor
Altered mental status

Atypical presentations:

Euglycemic DKA (glucose <250 mg/dL) in 10-15% of cases⁹
Abdominal pain preceding hyperglycemia
Vomiting without significant hyperglycemia

Laboratory Diagnosis

Essential parameters:

Serum glucose (may be normal in euglycemic DKA)
Serum ketones or urine ketones
Arterial blood gas (anion gap >12, pH <7.35)
Serum osmolality

Pearl 2: Always check ketones in any diabetic patient with abdominal pain, regardless of glucose level.

Management Implications

Recognizing DKA as the cause of abdominal pain prevents unnecessary surgical exploration while ensuring appropriate medical management. The pain typically resolves within 24-48 hours of ketosis correction.

3. Early Appendicitis: The Evolving Emergency

The Diagnostic Window

Early appendicitis represents a critical diagnostic window where intervention can prevent perforation and reduce morbidity. Unfortunately, this is precisely when ultrasound is least sensitive (50-70% in early stages).¹⁰

Why Early Appendicitis Escapes Detection

Appendiceal wall thickening may be minimal
No free fluid initially present
Pain may be poorly localized
White blood cell count may be normal

High-Risk Populations in Critical Care

Immunocompromised patients:

Transplant recipients
Patients on chronic steroids
Chemotherapy patients
HIV-positive individuals

Elderly patients (>65 years):

Atypical presentations in 70% of cases
Lower fever response
Less pronounced leukocytosis
Higher perforation rates (40% vs 15% in younger patients)¹¹

Clinical Assessment Strategies

Modified Alvarado Score for ICU patients:

Right iliac fossa tenderness (2 points)
Leukocytosis >10,000 (2 points)
Fever >37.3°C (1 point)
Nausea/vomiting (1 point)
Anorexia (1 point)
Left shift (1 point)

Score interpretation:

0-3: Low probability
4-6: Intermediate probability (requires imaging)
7-10: High probability

Oyster 2: In elderly or immunocompromised patients, reduce the threshold for advanced imaging—perforation rates increase dramatically with delayed diagnosis.

Advanced Imaging Strategy

When clinical suspicion persists despite normal ultrasound:

CT abdomen/pelvis with IV contrast: Sensitivity 95%, specificity 94%¹²
MRI: Reserved for pregnancy or cases where radiation exposure is concerning
Repeat ultrasound in 6-8 hours: May detect evolving changes

4. Contained Perforation: The Silent Catastrophe

Definition and Mechanisms

Contained perforation occurs when intestinal wall breach is temporarily sealed by adjacent structures (omentum, bowel loops, or peritoneal adhesions) preventing free peritoneal contamination.

Common sites:

Duodenal ulcer perforation (40%)
Diverticular perforation (30%)
Appendiceal perforation (15%)
Small bowel perforation (15%)

Why Ultrasound Misses Early Perforation

Free air may be minimal or absent
Fluid collections may be small initially
Bowel gas obscures subtle changes
No characteristic acoustic signature

Clinical Presentation Variants

Subtle presentations:

Intermittent abdominal pain
Low-grade fever
Gradual onset of symptoms
Normal or mildly elevated white blood cell count

High-risk scenarios:

Patients on proton pump inhibitors (masking ulcer symptoms)
Chronic steroid use (impaired inflammatory response)
Recent endoscopic procedures
History of peptic ulcer disease or diverticulitis

Diagnostic Approach

Laboratory markers:

C-reactive protein trending upward
Lactate levels (may be normal initially)
White blood cell count with left shift
Procalcitonin elevation

Imaging strategy:

CT with oral contrast: Gold standard for detection
Upright chest X-ray: Free air under diaphragm (only 70% sensitive)
CT without contrast: May show pneumoperitoneum or fluid collections

Hack 2: In suspected perforation, obtain CT before administering oral contrast if immediate surgery is likely—contrast can complicate operative visualization.

The Role of Lactate: More Than Just Sepsis

Lactate as a Diagnostic Tool

Serum lactate elevation in acute abdominal pain serves multiple diagnostic purposes beyond sepsis detection:¹³

Causes of elevated lactate in acute abdomen:

Mesenteric ischemia (most sensitive marker)
Bowel obstruction with strangulation
Severe dehydration (DKA)
Shock from any cause
Medications (metformin, epinephrine)

Trending Strategy

Initial assessment:

Obtain baseline lactate with initial laboratory studies
Repeat every 2-4 hours if initially elevated
Consider arterial blood gas if venous lactate >4.0 mmol/L

Interpretation guidelines:

<2.0 mmol/L: Normal (but doesn't exclude pathology)
2.0-4.0 mmol/L: Mild elevation (monitor trend)
>4.0 mmol/L: Significant elevation (urgent investigation required)
>8.0 mmol/L: Severe elevation (immediate intervention likely needed)

Pearl 3: A rising lactate trend is more concerning than an isolated elevated value—serial measurements provide crucial diagnostic information.

CT Abdomen: Strategic Use in Critical Care

When to Image: Decision Framework

Immediate CT indications:

Hemodynamic instability with abdominal pain
Peritoneal signs on examination
Lactate >4.0 mmol/L
High clinical suspicion for surgical emergency

Urgent CT indications (within 2-4 hours):

Rising lactate trend
Worsening pain despite adequate analgesia
Development of fever or leukocytosis
Change in examination findings

Protocol Selection:

CT abdomen/pelvis with IV contrast: Standard protocol
CTA: When vascular pathology suspected
CT with oral contrast: For suspected perforation (if time permits)
Non-contrast CT: When contrast contraindicated

Contrast Considerations in Critical Care

IV contrast contraindications:

eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73m² (relative)
Known severe contrast allergy
Severe heart failure
Current metformin use (hold 48 hours post-contrast)

Oral contrast timing:

Allow 1-2 hours for adequate bowel opacification
May delay diagnosis in unstable patients
Consider rectal contrast for distal pathology

Hack 3: In unstable patients, proceed with IV contrast-only CT—the diagnostic benefit outweighs the nephrotoxicity risk in most acute scenarios.

The Power of Serial Examination

Systematic Approach to Serial Assessment

Initial examination components:

Inspection: distension, surgical scars, visible peristalsis
Auscultation: bowel sounds quality and frequency
Percussion: tympany, shifting dullness
Palpation: tenderness, guarding, masses, organomegaly

Documentation strategy: Use standardized pain scales and examination findings:

Pain intensity (0-10 scale)
Location and radiation pattern
Quality (sharp, dull, cramping, constant)
Associated symptoms (nausea, vomiting, fever)
Examination findings (tenderness, guarding, rebound)

Timing of Serial Examinations

High-risk patients: Every 2-4 hours for first 24 hours Moderate-risk patients: Every 6-8 hours for first 24 hours Stable patients: Every 12 hours with PRN reassessment

Red flag changes warranting immediate reassessment:

Development of peritoneal signs
Worsening or changing pain pattern
New onset fever or hypothermia
Hemodynamic deterioration
Change in mental status

Pearl 4: The trajectory of symptoms is often more important than the absolute severity—worsening pain despite adequate analgesia demands investigation.

Clinical Pearls and Oysters

Diagnostic Pearls

Pearl 5: In elderly patients with acute abdominal pain, the absence of fever or leukocytosis does not exclude serious pathology—maintain high index of suspicion.

Pearl 6: Patients on chronic steroids may have blunted inflammatory responses—rely more heavily on imaging and biomarkers than clinical examination.

Pearl 7: Consider medication-induced causes: antibiotics (C. difficile colitis), ACE inhibitors (angioedema), and NSAIDs (peptic ulcer disease).

Common Oysters (Pitfalls)

Oyster 3: Don't anchor on normal vital signs—up to 40% of patients with serious intra-abdominal pathology maintain normal blood pressure and heart rate initially.

Oyster 4: Female patients of reproductive age require pregnancy testing and gynecologic consideration even in the ICU setting—ectopic pregnancy can present late.

Oyster 5: Post-operative patients may develop adhesive small bowel obstruction weeks to months after surgery—don't assume pain is incisional.

Clinical Hacks for Critical Care Practice

Hack 4: The "Golden Hour" Rule

In suspected mesenteric ischemia, every hour of delay increases mortality by 10%—when in doubt, anticoagulate and image urgently.

Hack 5: The Lactate Clearance Test

If lactate is elevated, recheck after 2 hours of appropriate resuscitation—failure to clear suggests ongoing pathology requiring investigation.

Hack 6: The Pain-Medication Response Test

Severe intra-abdominal pathology rarely responds completely to standard analgesics—complete pain relief with moderate doses should lower suspicion.

Hack 7: The Serial Troponin Strategy

In elderly patients with abdominal pain, check troponins—mesenteric ischemia and cardiac events frequently coexist.

Management Algorithm

Proposed Clinical Pathway

Acute Abdominal Pain + Normal Ultrasound
                    ↓
1. Risk Stratification
   - Age >65, immunocompromised, post-op
   - Comorbidities: DM, CAD, AF
   - Medications: anticoagulants, steroids
                    ↓
2. Laboratory Assessment
   - Complete metabolic panel
   - Lactate level
   - CBC with differential
   - Ketones (if diabetic)
   - Troponin (if >65 years)
                    ↓
3. Clinical Decision Point
   High Risk/Abnormal Labs → Immediate CT
   Moderate Risk → Serial examination + repeat labs in 4-6h
   Low Risk → Conservative management with close monitoring
                    ↓
4. Imaging Strategy
   - CT abdomen/pelvis with IV contrast
   - Consider CTA if vascular pathology suspected
   - MRI if pregnancy or contrast contraindicated
                    ↓
5. Disposition
   Surgical pathology → Urgent consultation
   Medical pathology → Appropriate specialty management
   Negative workup → Continued observation with serial exams

Future Directions and Emerging Technologies

Advanced Imaging Techniques

Dual-energy CT: Improved tissue characterization
CT perfusion studies: Early ischemia detection
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound: Improved sensitivity for vascular pathology

Biomarker Development

Intestinal fatty acid-binding protein (I-FABP): Early mesenteric ischemia marker
Procalcitonin: Differentiation of infectious vs. non-infectious causes
Point-of-care lactate: Rapid bedside assessment

Artificial Intelligence Applications

Machine learning algorithms: Pattern recognition in CT imaging
Clinical decision support: Risk stratification tools
Predictive modeling: Early identification of high-risk patients

Conclusions

Acute abdominal pain with normal ultrasound findings represents a high-stakes diagnostic challenge in critical care medicine. The four conditions highlighted—mesenteric ischemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, early appendicitis, and contained perforation—account for the majority of missed diagnoses with serious consequences.

Success in managing these cases requires:

High index of suspicion despite normal initial imaging
Strategic use of biomarkers, particularly lactate trending
Appropriate timing and selection of CT imaging
Systematic serial examinations to detect evolving pathology
Recognition of atypical presentations in high-risk populations

The integration of clinical assessment, biomarker monitoring, and advanced imaging, combined with the pearls and hacks outlined in this review, can significantly improve diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes in this challenging clinical scenario.

Final Pearl: In critical care, the absence of findings is not the finding of absence—when acute abdominal pain persists despite negative initial studies, systematic reevaluation is not optional, it's life-saving.

References

Kamin RA, Nowicki TA, Courtney DS, Powers RD. Pearls and pitfalls in the emergency department evaluation of abdominal pain. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2003;21(1):61-72, vi.
Cartwright SL, Knudson MP. Evaluation of acute abdominal pain in adults. Am Fam Physician. 2008;77(7):971-978.
Moore CL, Copel JA. Point-of-care ultrasonography. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(8):749-757.
Clair DG, Beach JM. Mesenteric Ischemia. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(10):959-968.
Menke J. Diagnostic accuracy of multidetector CT in acute mesenteric ischemia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2010;256(1):93-101.
Liao KF, Huang CC, Chiu CC, et al. Serum lactate cannot rule out acute mesenteric ischemia. Ann Emerg Med. 2019;74(1):114-120.
Furukawa A, Kanasaki S, Kono N, et al. CT diagnosis of acute mesenteric ischemia from various causes. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(2):408-416.
Kitabchi AE, Umpierrez GE, Miles JM, Fisher JN. Hyperglycemic crises in adult patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(7):1335-1343.
Peters AL, Buschur EO, Buse JB, et al. Euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis: a potential complication of treatment with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(9):1687-1693.
Doria AS, Moineddin R, Kellenberger CJ, et al. US or CT for Diagnosis of Appendicitis in Children and Adults? A Meta-Analysis. Radiology. 2006;241(1):83-94.
Storm-Dickerson TL, Horattas MC. What have we learned over the past 20 years about appendicitis in the elderly? Am J Surg. 2003;185(3):198-201.
Hlibczuk V, Dattaro JA, Jin Z, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of noncontrast computed tomography for appendicitis in adults: a systematic review. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;55(1):51-59.e1.
Kraut JA, Madias NE. Lactic acidosis. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(24):2309-2319.

Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding: No specific funding was received for this work.

Ethical Approval: Not applicable for this review article.