Tuesday, August 26, 2025

Ethics of Futility and Resource Allocation in Critical Care

Ethics of Futility and Resource Allocation in Critical Care: A Contemporary Review

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Medical futility and resource allocation represent among the most challenging ethical dilemmas in modern critical care medicine. As technological advances enable prolonged physiologic support even in irreversible conditions, intensivists face increasingly complex decisions about when continued intervention serves patient welfare versus merely prolonging dying. This review examines the conceptual frameworks, practical approaches, and communication strategies essential for navigating futility determinations while respecting patient autonomy and family values. We explore the distinction between physiologic and clinical benefit, examine legal and ethical foundations for limiting inappropriate care, and provide evidence-based guidance for difficult conversations that honor both medical professionalism and compassionate patient care.

Keywords: Medical futility, resource allocation, end-of-life care, critical care ethics, shared decision-making

Introduction

The intensive care unit represents medicine's most technologically sophisticated environment, where the boundaries between life and death are increasingly blurred by our capacity to maintain physiologic function. Yet this very capability creates profound ethical tensions when continued intervention offers no prospect of meaningful recovery. The scenario of a terminally ill patient on maximum life support, with family demanding "everything be done," encapsulates the core challenge of modern critical care: balancing respect for patient autonomy with professional obligations to avoid harm and allocate resources appropriately.

This ethical complexity has intensified as healthcare systems face resource constraints while managing an aging population with multiple comorbidities. The COVID-19 pandemic further highlighted these tensions, forcing explicit resource allocation decisions that many clinicians had previously avoided. Understanding the ethical frameworks and practical approaches to futility determinations has become essential for all practitioners in critical care.

Defining Medical Futility: Beyond Semantic Debates

Historical Context and Evolving Definitions

The concept of medical futility has evolved significantly since Hippocrates advised physicians to "refuse to treat those who are overmastered by their diseases." Modern discussions gained prominence in the 1980s as technological capabilities expanded beyond what many considered clinically meaningful.

Quantitative Futility traditionally defined interventions with less than 1% probability of success, based on Schneiderman's landmark framework. However, this approach faces criticism for its arbitrary threshold and failure to account for the quality of potential outcomes.

Qualitative Futility focuses on the nature of the benefit achieved rather than probability alone. An intervention may be qualitatively futile if it cannot achieve the goals that reasonable patients would value, even if it produces some physiologic effect.

The Physiologic vs. Clinical Benefit Distinction

Pearl: The most practical framework for futility discussions distinguishes between physiologic and clinical benefit. This distinction helps clinicians and families focus on what matters most to patients.

A treatment achieves physiologic benefit when it produces the intended biological effect (e.g., vasopressors increasing blood pressure, mechanical ventilation maintaining oxygenation). However, clinical benefit requires that this physiologic effect contribute meaningfully to outcomes that patients value: survival with acceptable quality of life, return to meaningful relationships, or achievement of personal goals.

Consider a patient with end-stage metastatic cancer requiring three vasopressors to maintain blood pressure. While these medications achieve physiologic benefit by supporting circulation, they provide no clinical benefit if the patient cannot survive to hospital discharge with any meaningful quality of life. This distinction helps reframe discussions from technical medical details to patient-centered outcomes.

Contemporary Definitions and Frameworks

The American Thoracic Society defines futile treatment as intervention that "cannot accomplish its intended goal" or "whose benefit is so unlikely that its effect approximates that of placebo." This definition emphasizes goal-directed care while acknowledging probabilistic uncertainty.

The Society of Critical Care Medicine advocates for a more nuanced approach, distinguishing between:

Potentially inappropriate treatment: Care that provides minimal benefit while imposing suffering or consuming resources
Futile treatment: Interventions that cannot achieve their physiologic goals
Non-beneficial treatment: Care that achieves physiologic goals but provides no meaningful clinical benefit

Hack: Use the "Would you be surprised if this patient died within 30 days?" test as a screening tool for futility discussions. If the answer is "no," initiate conversations about goals of care and treatment appropriateness.

The Physician's Professional Obligations

The Duty to "Do Everything"

Oyster: Families often demand that physicians "do everything," but this request contains a fundamental misunderstanding. The physician's duty is not to "do everything possible" but to "do everything appropriate."

Professional medical ethics has never required physicians to provide any intervention a patient or family requests. The physician's primary obligation is to the patient's well-being, which includes avoiding interventions that cause harm without corresponding benefit. This principle traces to the Hippocratic tradition of "first, do no harm" and remains central to contemporary medical ethics.

The American Medical Association's Code of Ethics explicitly states that physicians are not ethically obligated to provide treatments that cannot reasonably be expected to promote the patient's welfare. Similarly, professional societies in critical care consistently emphasize that inappropriate treatment violates rather than fulfills professional duties.

Balancing Autonomy and Professional Judgment

Patient autonomy, while fundamental to medical ethics, does not grant unlimited rights to demand any intervention. Autonomy includes the right to refuse treatment and to participate in decisions about appropriate care, but it does not create an obligation for physicians to provide inappropriate treatment.

Pearl: Frame autonomy discussions around goals rather than specific interventions. Ask "What would meaningful recovery look like for your loved one?" rather than debating whether to continue specific treatments.

This approach respects patient values while maintaining professional standards. Patients and families can meaningfully participate in decisions about treatment goals even when specific interventions are deemed inappropriate by medical standards.

Legal Protections and Institutional Support

Most jurisdictions provide legal protection for physicians who decline to provide futile or inappropriate care, provided they follow proper procedures. These typically include:

Clear documentation of medical reasoning
Consultation with colleagues or ethics committees
Good faith efforts at communication with families
Assistance with transfer to alternative providers when feasible

Hack: Establish institutional protocols for futility determinations before crisis situations arise. This includes ethics committee involvement, second opinion processes, and clear documentation requirements.

Evidence-Based Approaches to Futility Determination

Prognostic Tools and Clinical Indicators

Modern critical care benefits from increasingly sophisticated prognostic tools that can inform futility discussions with objective data. However, these tools must be interpreted within appropriate clinical contexts and acknowledge their limitations.

Quantitative Prognostic Models:

APACHE IV and SAPS III provide mortality predictions but require careful interpretation in individual cases
Organ-specific scores (SOFA, MODS) track trajectory over time
Frailty assessments (Clinical Frailty Scale) predict outcomes in elderly patients

Qualitative Clinical Indicators:

Irreversible multi-organ failure despite maximal support
Progressive deterioration despite optimal treatment
Underlying conditions incompatible with meaningful recovery

Time-Limited Trials

Time-limited trials represent a practical compromise when futility is uncertain. This approach involves:

Clearly defined treatment goals and timelines
Explicit criteria for reassessment
Agreement on treatment limitations if goals are not met
Regular communication with families about progress

Pearl: Time-limited trials work best when all parties agree on specific, measurable goals and timelines. Vague endpoints lead to repeated futility debates.

Research demonstrates that time-limited trials can reduce family distress while maintaining appropriate medical boundaries. They also provide families time to process information and prepare for possible outcomes.

Communication Strategies: The Art of Difficult Conversations

Shifting from "What" to "How"

Oyster: The most crucial communication shift in futility discussions moves from "What do you want us to do?" to "How can we best honor your loved one's values as we face this situation together?"

The traditional approach of asking families what treatments they want places an inappropriate burden on non-medical decision-makers and often leads to requests for inappropriate care. Families lack the medical expertise to determine which interventions are appropriate, and asking them to make these technical decisions can increase guilt and distress.

Instead, effective communication focuses on:

Understanding the patient's previously expressed values and preferences
Exploring what outcomes would be meaningful to the patient
Explaining medical realities in understandable terms
Collaborating on care plans that honor patient values within medical appropriateness

The SPIKES Protocol Adapted for Futility

The SPIKES communication protocol, originally developed for breaking bad news, adapts well to futility discussions:

S - Setting: Private, comfortable environment with key family members and care team P - Perception: "What is your understanding of your loved one's condition?" I - Invitation: "Would it be helpful if I explained what we're seeing medically?" K - Knowledge: Clear, jargon-free explanation of medical reality E - Emotions: Acknowledge and validate emotional responses S - Strategy: Collaborative planning focused on patient values

Key Communication Phrases

Effective phrases for futility discussions:

"I'm worried that continuing aggressive treatments will only prolong suffering without changing the outcome."
"What would your loved one say about their current situation?"
"Our medical treatments are no longer helping your loved one's body heal."
"I wish we had better treatment options that could help your loved one recover."

Phrases to avoid:

"There's nothing more we can do" (implies abandonment)
"Would you like us to withdraw care?" (families don't withdraw care; physicians modify treatment plans)
"It's up to you" (places inappropriate burden on families)

Hack: Practice these conversations with colleagues through role-playing exercises. Communication skills in futility discussions improve significantly with deliberate practice.

Resource Allocation: Justice in Scarcity

Ethical Frameworks for Resource Distribution

Resource allocation decisions require explicit ethical frameworks that ensure fair and consistent application. The primary ethical principles include:

Utilitarian Approaches: Maximize overall benefit across the population, often favoring interventions with the highest probability of success and greatest life-years saved.

Egalitarian Approaches: Ensure equal access to resources regardless of social status, with priority systems based on medical need rather than social worth.

Fair Process Approaches: Focus on procedural fairness rather than specific allocation criteria, emphasizing transparent, consistent decision-making processes.

Practical Allocation Strategies

First-Come, First-Served: Simple but potentially inefficient, as it may allocate limited resources to patients who cannot benefit while denying care to those who could recover.

Short-Term Survivability: Prioritizes patients most likely to survive the immediate crisis, maximizing resource utilization efficiency.

Life-Years Saved: Considers both probability of survival and expected longevity, often favoring younger patients with better prognoses.

Sequential Assessments: Regular reassessment of resource allocation based on patient response to treatment, allowing reallocation to patients who can benefit.

COVID-19 Lessons for Resource Allocation

The pandemic forced explicit resource allocation decisions that revealed both strengths and weaknesses in existing frameworks. Key lessons include:

The importance of transparent, pre-established allocation criteria
The need for consistent application across institutions
The value of ethics committee involvement in allocation decisions
The necessity of clear communication with families about allocation limitations

Pearl: Resource allocation decisions should be made by committees rather than individual physicians, reducing personal burden and ensuring consistency.

Case-Based Applications and Clinical Pearls

Case Study: The Demanding Family

Scenario: A 78-year-old patient with end-stage pancreatic cancer has been in the ICU for three weeks on mechanical ventilation and continuous renal replacement therapy. Despite maximal support, multiorgan failure is progressing. The family insists that "miracles happen" and demands continued aggressive care.

Approach:

Acknowledge emotions: "I can see how much you love your mother and how difficult this is."
Explore values: "Tell me about your mother. What was most important to her?"
Provide medical reality: "Despite our best treatments, your mother's organs are not recovering."
Reframe goals: "How can we best honor your mother's wishes in this situation?"
Offer meaningful alternatives: "We can focus on ensuring she's comfortable and surrounded by love."

Case Study: The Uncertain Prognosis

Scenario: A 45-year-old previously healthy patient presents with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome following influenza. After two weeks of maximal support, improvement has been minimal but not absent.

Approach:

Time-limited trial: "Let's continue current treatments for one more week."
Clear endpoints: "We'll look for specific improvements in lung function and ability to reduce support."
Shared understanding: "If we don't see these improvements, we'll need to reconsider our approach."
Regular reassessment: Daily team discussions with weekly family conferences.

Pearls for Daily Practice

Communication Pearls:

Begin difficult conversations with empathy and curiosity about patient values
Use "I" statements to express medical concerns ("I'm worried that...")
Validate emotions before providing medical information
Focus on what treatments can achieve rather than what they cannot

Documentation Pearls:

Record specific medical rationale for futility determinations
Document family discussions and their understanding
Include ethics committee consultations when used
Note offers of alternative treatment approaches

Process Pearls:

Involve palliative care early in potential futility cases
Use multidisciplinary team discussions for complex decisions
Establish institutional policies before crisis situations
Provide staff support for emotionally difficult cases

International Perspectives and Legal Considerations

Comparative Healthcare Systems

Different healthcare systems approach futility determinations with varying emphasis on family autonomy versus physician authority. Understanding these differences helps contextualize current debates and potential policy directions.

United States: Emphasizes family involvement in decision-making but provides legal protection for physicians declining inappropriate care. State laws vary significantly in specific requirements for futility procedures.

United Kingdom: Greater physician authority in treatment decisions, with established processes for overriding family objections through court systems when necessary.

Canada: Balance between family involvement and physician authority, with provincial variations in specific procedures and legal protections.

Australia: Strong emphasis on shared decision-making with established processes for resolving disputes through ethics committees and courts.

Legal Evolution and Future Directions

Legal frameworks for futility continue evolving as societies balance competing values of autonomy, professional judgment, and resource stewardship. Current trends include:

Increased recognition of physician authority to limit inappropriate care
Development of standardized procedures for futility determinations
Greater emphasis on preventive communication and advance directives
Integration of resource allocation considerations into futility frameworks

Quality Improvement and Metrics

Measuring Futility-Related Outcomes

Healthcare institutions increasingly recognize the need for metrics to assess the quality of futility determinations and end-of-life care. Key indicators include:

Process Metrics:

Time from ICU admission to first goals-of-care discussion
Frequency of ethics committee consultations
Documentation quality of futility determinations
Family satisfaction with communication processes

Outcome Metrics:

ICU length of stay for patients who die
Resource utilization in terminal cases
Staff moral distress scores
Family bereavement outcomes

Institutional Culture and Support Systems

Creating institutional cultures that support appropriate futility determinations requires systematic approaches:

Leadership Support: Clear institutional policies backing appropriate futility determinations reduce individual physician burden and improve consistency.

Education Programs: Regular training in communication skills and ethical frameworks improves staff confidence and competence.

Debriefing Processes: Systematic review of difficult cases helps teams learn and reduces moral distress.

Support Resources: Access to ethics committees, palliative care, and social work services facilitates comprehensive care approaches.

Future Directions and Emerging Challenges

Technological Advances and New Dilemmas

Emerging medical technologies create new forms of futility dilemmas:

Artificial Hearts and Long-Term Mechanical Support: These devices can maintain circulation for extended periods but may not provide meaningful quality of life.

Regenerative Medicine: Experimental treatments may offer hope but with extremely uncertain outcomes and high resource costs.

Precision Medicine: Genetic and biomarker testing may identify rare patients who could benefit from treatments generally considered futile.

Population Health and Global Perspectives

As healthcare resources face increasing strain globally, futility determinations may need to incorporate population health considerations more explicitly. This evolution raises challenging questions about individual versus collective benefit and the role of cost-effectiveness in clinical decisions.

Artificial Intelligence and Decision Support

AI systems increasingly provide prognostic information and decision support for futility determinations. These tools offer potential benefits in objectivity and consistency but raise questions about the role of clinical judgment and patient individuality in end-of-life decisions.

Practical Recommendations for Clinicians

Immediate Implementation Strategies

Develop Communication Skills: Practice difficult conversation techniques through simulation and peer feedback
Establish Team Approaches: Create multidisciplinary processes for futility determinations
Document Thoroughly: Maintain clear records of medical reasoning and family discussions
Seek Support: Utilize ethics committees and palliative care resources proactively
Self-Care: Recognize the emotional toll of futility decisions and seek appropriate support

Institutional Development

Policy Creation: Develop clear institutional policies for futility determinations
Education Programs: Implement regular training in futility communication and decision-making
Quality Metrics: Establish measurement systems for futility-related outcomes
Resource Allocation: Create fair, transparent processes for resource allocation decisions
Cultural Change: Foster institutional cultures that support appropriate end-of-life care

Conclusion

The ethics of futility and resource allocation represent central challenges in contemporary critical care medicine. As medical capabilities continue to expand, the distinction between what we can do and what we should do becomes increasingly important. Effective navigation of these challenges requires both technical competence in prognostic assessment and sophisticated communication skills for family interactions.

The frameworks presented in this review provide evidence-based approaches to futility determinations that respect both professional medical standards and patient values. The distinction between physiologic and clinical benefit offers a practical tool for clinicians facing demands for inappropriate care, while structured communication approaches can transform adversarial discussions into collaborative care planning.

Moving forward, the critical care community must continue developing systematic approaches to futility that are both ethically sound and practically implementable. This includes institutional policies that support appropriate clinical decisions, educational programs that develop necessary skills, and research that improves our understanding of effective approaches.

Ultimately, the goal is not to impose medical paternalism but to ensure that our technological capabilities serve authentic human flourishing. This requires the wisdom to recognize when continued intervention serves patient welfare and the courage to redirect care when it does not. In doing so, we honor both our professional obligations and our patients' deepest values, ensuring that medical futility determinations contribute to rather than detract from compassionate, dignified end-of-life care.

The conversation about medical futility will continue evolving as medical capabilities expand and societal values shift. However, the core principles of patient-centered care, professional integrity, and resource stewardship provide stable foundations for navigating these complex decisions. By grounding futility determinations in these principles while continuously improving our communication and decision-making processes, critical care medicine can fulfill its promise of healing while acknowledging the limits of human intervention.

References

Bosslet GT, Pope TM, Rubenfeld GD, et al. An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM policy statement: responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatments in intensive care units. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;191(11):1318-1330.
Schneiderman LJ, Jecker NS, Jonsen AR. Medical futility: its meaning and ethical implications. Ann Intern Med. 1990;112(12):949-954.
Truog RD, Campbell ML, Curtis JR, et al. Recommendations for end-of-life care in the intensive care unit: a consensus statement by the American College of Critical Care Medicine. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(3):953-963.
White DB, Cua SM, Walk R, et al. Nurse-led intervention to improve surrogate decision making for patients with advanced critical illness. Am J Crit Care. 2012;21(6):396-409.
Kon AA, Shepard EK, Sederstrom NO, et al. Defining futile and potentially inappropriate interventions: a policy statement from the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(9):1769-1774.
Curtis JR, Vincent JL. Ethics and end-of-life care for adults in the intensive care unit. Lancet. 2010;376(9749):1347-1353.
Siegel MD. End-of-life decision making in the ICU. Clin Chest Med. 2009;30(1):181-194.
Wilkinson DJ, Savulescu J. Knowing when to stop: futility in the ICU. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2011;24(2):160-165.
Sprung CL, Baras M, Iapichino G, et al. The Eldicus prospective, observational study of triage decision making in European intensive care units: part I--European intensive care admission triage scores. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(1):125-131.
Azoulay E, Pochard F, Kentish-Barnes N, et al. Risk of post-traumatic stress symptoms in family members of intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;171(9):987-994.
Lautrette A, Darmon M, Megarbane B, et al. A communication strategy and brochure for relatives of patients dying in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(5):469-478.
Davidson JE, Aslakson RA, Long AC, et al. Guidelines for family-centered care in the neonatal, pediatric, and adult ICU. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(1):103-128.
Ferrand E, Robert R, Ingrand P, Lemaire F. Withholding and withdrawal of life support in intensive-care units in France: a prospective survey. French LATAREA Group. Lancet. 2001;357(9249):9-14.
Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA. 1992;267(16):2221-2226.
Buckley JW, Hertig JB. Futile care and the practice of medicine. Hum Med. 1988;4(2):74-84.

Abdominal Compartment Syndrome: A Comprehensive Review

Abdominal Compartment Syndrome: A Comprehensive Review for Critical Care Practitioners

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Abdominal Compartment Syndrome (ACS) represents a critical pathophysiological state characterized by sustained intra-abdominal hypertension leading to multi-organ dysfunction. Despite its potentially catastrophic consequences, ACS remains underrecognized in critical care settings.

Objective: To provide a comprehensive review of ACS pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management strategies for postgraduate critical care practitioners.

Methods: Narrative review of current literature and evidence-based guidelines.

Conclusions: Early recognition through systematic IAP monitoring, coupled with timely intervention including decompressive laparotomy when indicated, significantly improves outcomes. A structured approach to management escalation is essential for optimal patient care.

Keywords: Abdominal compartment syndrome, intra-abdominal pressure, decompressive laparotomy, critical care, multi-organ failure

Introduction

Picture this clinical scenario: A 45-year-old trauma patient in your ICU develops progressively worsening oliguria despite adequate fluid resuscitation. Peak airway pressures climb steadily, requiring increased ventilatory support. Blood pressure drops despite vasopressor support. The cardiac echo shows good contractility, chest X-ray is unremarkable, yet the patient deteriorates. The answer lies not in the chest or cardiovascular system, but in an often-overlooked compartment—the abdomen.

Abdominal Compartment Syndrome (ACS) represents one of critical care medicine's most challenging diagnostic and therapeutic dilemmas. First described by Kron et al. in 1984¹, ACS has evolved from a surgical curiosity to a recognized cause of multi-organ failure with mortality rates approaching 60-70% when left untreated².

This review aims to equip critical care practitioners with the knowledge and tools necessary to recognize, diagnose, and manage this life-threatening condition effectively.

Definitions and Classification

Core Definitions (World Society of Abdominal Compartment Syndrome - WSACS)³

Intra-abdominal Pressure (IAP): The steady-state pressure concealed within the abdominal cavity.

Normal: 5-7 mmHg in healthy adults
Can fluctuate with respiration, body position, and abdominal wall compliance

Intra-abdominal Hypertension (IAH): Sustained or repeated pathological elevation of IAP ≥12 mmHg.

Abdominal Compartment Syndrome (ACS): Sustained IAP >20 mmHg (with or without abdominal perfusion pressure <60 mmHg) associated with new organ dysfunction/failure.

Classification System

Primary ACS: Injury or disease within the abdominopelvic region

Post-operative complications (anastomotic leaks, bleeding)
Abdominal trauma with hematoma/edema
Acute pancreatitis
Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

Secondary ACS: No injury within the abdominopelvic region

Massive fluid resuscitation
Capillary leak syndromes
Major burns
Severe sepsis with third-spacing

Recurrent ACS: Redevelopment after successful medical or surgical treatment

Pathophysiology: The Deadly Triangle

Understanding ACS requires grasping the interplay between three critical factors:

1. Mechanical Effects

The rigid abdominal wall creates a non-compliant compartment. As IAP rises, it directly compresses:

Vena cava and venous return → decreased preload
Abdominal organs → ischemia and dysfunction
Diaphragm → impaired ventilation

2. Cardiovascular Compromise

Pearl: ACS creates a state mimicking cardiac tamponade, but the compression originates from below, not around the heart.

Decreased venous return → reduced cardiac output
Increased systemic vascular resistance
Elevated central venous pressure (misleading filling pressures)
Reduced coronary perfusion pressure

3. Respiratory Failure

Cephalad displacement of diaphragm
Reduced functional residual capacity
Increased peak and plateau pressures
Ventilation-perfusion mismatch
Hack: Don't mistake ACS-induced respiratory changes for primary lung pathology

Clinical Presentation: The Great Masquerader

ACS presents insidiously, often mistaken for other critical conditions:

Cardinal Signs (The "ACS Tetrad")

Oliguria/anuria (most sensitive early sign)
Elevated peak airway pressures
Hypotension (despite adequate filling)
Tense, distended abdomen

Systems-Based Manifestations

Renal:

Oliguria (<0.5 mL/kg/hr) - often first sign
Rising creatinine
Oyster: Normal urine output doesn't exclude ACS

Respiratory:

Increased peak/plateau pressures
Reduced lung compliance
Hypoxemia and hypercarbia
Pearl: Plateau pressures >35 cmH₂O should trigger ACS consideration

Cardiovascular:

Hypotension with elevated CVP
Reduced cardiac output
Elevated lactate
Hack: The combination of low BP + high CVP + normal echo = think ACS

Gastrointestinal:

Intolerance to enteral feeding
Ileus
Ischemic changes on endoscopy

Neurological:

Elevated intracranial pressure (ICP)
Mechanism: Increased pleural pressure → impaired venous drainage

Diagnosis: Getting the Numbers Right

Measurement Techniques

Gold Standard: Intravesical (Bladder) Pressure

The Technique (Step-by-Step):

Insert Foley catheter with temperature probe or use closed-system technique
Position patient supine
Ensure no abdominal muscle contraction
Instill 25 mL sterile saline into empty bladder
Measure at end-expiration
Use symphysis pubis as zero reference point

Critical Measurement Pearls:

Timing matters: Always measure at end-expiration
Position: Supine position (sitting increases pressures)
Paralysis helps: Consider neuromuscular blockade for accurate readings
Volume: Use minimal instillation volume (25 mL maximum)

Alternative Methods:

Gastric pressure (if no feeding tube contraindications)
Rectal pressure (less reliable)
Direct peritoneal pressure (rarely used)

Diagnostic Thresholds

**IAH Grading:**⁴

Grade I: 12-15 mmHg
Grade II: 16-20 mmHg
Grade III: 21-25 mmHg
Grade IV: >25 mmHg

ACS Diagnosis: IAP >20 mmHg + new organ dysfunction

Abdominal Perfusion Pressure (APP): MAP - IAP

Normal: >60 mmHg
Target: Maintain >50-60 mmHg

Hack: APP may be more important than absolute IAP values for predicting outcomes

Management: The Escalating Ladder of Interventions

Management follows a stepwise approach, with each tier building upon the previous:

Tier 1: Medical Optimization

Sedation and Analgesia

Deep sedation reduces abdominal wall tension
Consider continuous infusions
Pearl: Adequate sedation alone can reduce IAP by 5-10 mmHg

Neuromuscular Blockade

First-line intervention for elevated IAP
Cisatracurium or rocuronium
Monitor with train-of-four
Hack: Even short-term paralysis (2-4 hours) can provide diagnostic clarity

Body Position

Avoid Trendelenburg position
Keep head of bed <30 degrees
Oyster: Prone positioning increases IAP significantly

Tier 2: Fluid and Electrolyte Management

Fluid Balance Optimization

Achieve negative fluid balance when possible
Loop diuretics (furosemide)
Consider ultrafiltration/CRRT
Target: Net negative 1-2 L/day if hemodynamically stable

Albumin and Colloids

May help mobilize third-space fluid
Limited evidence but physiologically sound
Pearl: 25% albumin can be particularly effective

Tier 3: Evacuation of Intraluminal Contents

Nasogastric/Orogastric Decompression

Continuous suction
Consider prokinetic agents (metoclopramide, erythromycin)

Rectal Decompression

Enemas for fecal impaction
Neostigmine for colonic pseudo-obstruction
Dose: Neostigmine 2.5 mg IV (contraindicated if mechanical obstruction suspected)

Percutaneous Drainage

Ascites drainage
Pleural effusion drainage
Image-guided collection drainage
Hack: Even small volume drainage (500 mL ascites) can significantly reduce IAP

Tier 4: Specific Interventions

Escharotomy (for burn patients)

Abdominal and chest wall escharotomies
Can dramatically reduce IAP in circumferential burns

Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy (CRRT)

Aggressive fluid removal
Early initiation may prevent progression

Tier 5: Surgical Decompression

Decompressive Laparotomy: The Ultimate Intervention

Indications:

IAP >25 mmHg with organ dysfunction
IAP 20-25 mmHg with progressive organ failure
Failed medical management
Pearl: Don't wait for "refractory" shock - early surgery saves lives

Surgical Technique:

Midline incision from xiphoid to pubis
Evacuate clots, fluid, debris
No attempt at primary fascial closure
Temporary abdominal closure (TAC)

Temporary Abdominal Closure Options:

Bogota bag (plastic sheeting)
Vacuum-assisted closure (VAC therapy)
Mesh-mediated fascial traction
Component separation techniques

Post-Decompression Management:

Immediate physiological improvement expected
Monitor for reperfusion injury
Plan staged abdominal closure
Target: Fascial closure within 7-10 days when possible

Monitoring and Trending

Continuous Monitoring Strategy

Frequency:

Every 4-6 hours in at-risk patients
Every 1-2 hours in diagnosed ACS
Continuous monitoring systems available

Trending Parameters:

IAP values and trends
APP calculations
Urine output response
Ventilatory parameters
Lactate levels

Response Assessment:

Immediate: Respiratory compliance improvement
Early (1-2 hours): Urine output increase
Intermediate (6-12 hours): Cardiovascular stabilization
Hack: Lack of immediate urine output response suggests delayed diagnosis

Special Populations and Considerations

Pediatric Patients

Lower absolute IAP thresholds (>10-15 mmHg)
Different measurement techniques required
Higher risk of rapid decompensation

Obstetric Patients

Physiologically elevated IAP during pregnancy
Modify thresholds accordingly
Consider fetal monitoring

Trauma Patients

High-risk population
Early monitoring essential
May require damage control surgery approach

Complications and Long-term Outcomes

Immediate Complications

Reperfusion Injury

Sudden release of inflammatory mediators
Cardiovascular collapse possible
Hyperkalemia risk
Management: Have vasopressors ready, monitor electrolytes

Bleeding

Coagulopathy common
Factor consumption
Hypothermia risk

Long-term Complications

Ventral hernias (up to 50% of patients)
Chronic pain
Intestinal obstruction
Fistula formation

Outcomes

Mortality: 30-70% depending on timing of intervention
Morbidity: Prolonged ICU stay, multiple procedures
Quality of life: Generally good in survivors

Clinical Pearls and Practical Hacks

Recognition Pearls

"The 20-20-20 Rule": IAP >20, urine output <20 mL/hr for >20 minutes = investigate ACS
"The Tense Belly Sign": If you can't indent the abdomen easily, measure IAP
"The Ventilator Clue": Rising plateau pressures + normal chest X-ray = check IAP
"The CVP Paradox": High CVP + low blood pressure + good cardiac function = ACS until proven otherwise

Management Hacks

"The Paralysis Test": If uncertain about ACS, paralyze and remeasure - diagnostic and therapeutic
"The 6-Hour Rule": If no improvement with medical management in 6 hours, consider surgery
"The APP Target": Focus on APP >50-60 mmHg, not just IAP values
"The Drainage Pearl": Any fluid collection >500 mL should be drained in suspected ACS

Measurement Oysters (Common Pitfalls)

"The Muscle Contraction Error": Always ensure muscle relaxation during measurement
"The Position Problem": Semi-upright positioning falsely elevates readings
"The Volume Variable": Using >25 mL bladder instillation volume overestimates IAP
"The Timing Trap": Measuring during inspiration gives falsely elevated values

Future Directions and Emerging Therapies

Novel Monitoring Technologies

Continuous IAP monitoring devices
Non-invasive measurement techniques
Integration with electronic health records

Therapeutic Innovations

Pharmacological agents to improve abdominal wall compliance
Advanced temporary closure materials
Minimally invasive decompression techniques

Research Priorities

Optimal timing of surgical intervention
Predictive models for ACS development
Long-term quality of life outcomes

Conclusion

Abdominal Compartment Syndrome represents a critical care emergency requiring high clinical suspicion, accurate diagnosis, and timely intervention. The condition masquerades as other pathologies, making systematic IAP monitoring essential in high-risk patients.

Key takeaways for critical care practitioners:

Maintain high suspicion in patients with the classic tetrad: oliguria, elevated airway pressures, hypotension, and abdominal distension
Measure accurately using standardized bladder pressure techniques
Act quickly with stepwise management escalation
Don't delay surgery when medical management fails - early decompressive laparotomy saves lives
Monitor trends rather than relying on single measurements

Remember: ACS is a syndrome, not just a number. The combination of elevated IAP with organ dysfunction defines the condition, and early recognition coupled with appropriate intervention dramatically improves outcomes.

The abdomen may be the body's "quiet" compartment, but when it speaks through compartment syndrome, we must listen carefully and act decisively.

References

Kron IL, Harman PK, Nolan SP. The measurement of intra-abdominal pressure as a criterion for abdominal re-exploration. Ann Surg. 1984;199(1):28-30.
Kirkpatrick AW, Roberts DJ, De Waele J, et al. Intra-abdominal hypertension and the abdominal compartment syndrome: updated consensus definitions and clinical practice guidelines from the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(7):1190-1206.
Malbrain ML, Cheatham ML, Kirkpatrick A, et al. Results from the International Conference of Experts on Intra-abdominal Hypertension and Abdominal Compartment Syndrome. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32(11):1722-1732.
Sugrue M, Jones F, Deane SA, et al. Intra-abdominal hypertension is an independent cause of postoperative renal impairment. Arch Surg. 1999;134(10):1082-1085.
Cheatham ML, Safcsak K. Is the evolving management of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome improving survival? Crit Care Med. 2010;38(2):402-407.
Balogh ZJ, van Wessem K, Yoshino O, et al. Postinjury abdominal compartment syndrome: are we winning the battle? World J Surg. 2009;33(6):1134-1141.
Roberts DJ, Zygun DA, Grendar J, et al. Negative-pressure wound therapy for critically ill adults with open abdominal wounds: a systematic review. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;73(3):629-639.
De Waele JJ, Hoste EA, Malbrain ML. Decompressive laparotomy for abdominal compartment syndrome--a critical analysis. Crit Care. 2006;10(2):R51.
Reintam Blaser A, Regli A, De Keulenaer B, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of intra-abdominal hypertension in critically ill patients-a prospective multicenter study (IROI study). Crit Care Med. 2019;47(4):535-542.
Holodinsky JK, Roberts DJ, Ball CG, et al. Risk factors for intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome among adult intensive care unit patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2013;17(5):R249.

The Physiology of ECMO: Beyond the Circuit - Understanding the Transformed Human Physiology

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) represents one of the most complex interventions in critical care, fundamentally altering human physiology by creating an artificial cardiopulmonary circuit. While technical aspects of ECMO circuits are well-documented, the profound physiological changes occurring within the patient remain poorly understood by many clinicians.

Objective: This review explores the intricate physiological alterations that occur when native cardiac and pulmonary function is partially or completely bypassed by ECMO, with emphasis on clinical implications and management strategies.

Methods: Comprehensive literature review of physiological studies, clinical trials, and observational data related to ECMO physiology from 1990-2024.

Conclusions: Understanding ECMO physiology beyond the circuit is crucial for optimal patient management, prevention of complications, and successful weaning strategies.

Keywords: ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, physiology, critical care, respiratory failure, cardiogenic shock

Introduction

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has evolved from an experimental therapy to a cornerstone of modern critical care management for severe cardiac and respiratory failure. However, the focus on technical aspects of circuit management often overshadows the fundamental question: What happens to the patient's native physiology when their heart and lungs are bypassed?

This transformation creates a unique physiological state that challenges our understanding of normal cardiovascular and respiratory physiology. The human body, evolved over millions of years to function as an integrated system, must suddenly adapt to having its most vital functions performed by mechanical devices outside the body.

The Fundamental Physiological Paradigm Shift

Traditional vs. ECMO-Supported Physiology

In normal physiology, the heart and lungs function as a tightly integrated unit, with immediate feedback mechanisms ensuring optimal oxygen delivery and carbon dioxide removal. ECMO fundamentally disrupts this integration, creating what we might term "hybrid physiology" – part biological, part mechanical.

Pearl 1: ECMO doesn't simply support failing organs; it creates an entirely new physiological state that requires different thinking about hemodynamics, oxygenation, and organ perfusion.

VV-ECMO: The Oxygenation Paradox

Physiological Principles

Venovenous ECMO (VV-ECMO) provides gas exchange support while leaving cardiac function intact. This seemingly straightforward concept conceals complex physiological interactions that every intensivist must understand.

The Recirculation Phenomenon

Key Concept: In VV-ECMO, not all blood passing through the oxygenator reaches the systemic circulation. A portion returns directly to the venous drainage cannula without perfusing tissues – termed "recirculation."

Clinical Pearl 2: Recirculation is not a complication; it's an inevitable consequence of VV-ECMO physics. The goal is optimization, not elimination.

Factors Affecting Recirculation:

Cannula positioning and orientation
Flow rates relative to cardiac output
Intravascular volume status
Cardiac output variations

Native Lung-ECMO Interactions

In VV-ECMO, the patient's lungs continue to contribute to gas exchange, creating a complex mixing scenario. The final arterial oxygen content depends on:

Fraction of cardiac output through ECMO circuit (Q_ECMO/Q_cardiac)
Native lung gas exchange efficiency
Mixing efficiency in the left ventricle

Mathematical Relationship:

SaO₂ = (Q_ECMO × S_ECMO O₂ + Q_native × S_native O₂) / Q_total

Clinical Hack 1: When arterial saturation plateaus despite increased ECMO flow, consider native lung contribution. Sometimes the answer isn't more ECMO flow, but better native lung recruitment.

Hemodynamic Considerations in VV-ECMO

The Preload Paradigm: VV-ECMO creates unique preload dynamics. Venous drainage reduces venous return to the right heart, while arterial return increases venous return. This can lead to:

Right heart unloading (beneficial in right heart failure)
Altered Frank-Starling relationships
Modified response to volume resuscitation

Oyster 1: Beware the "dry ECMO patient." Aggressive diuresis can collapse cannulae and reduce ECMO efficiency. The sweet spot lies between adequate drainage and volume overload.

VA-ECMO: The Cardiac Support Conundrum

Dual Circulation Physiology

Venoarterial ECMO (VA-ECMO) creates the most complex physiological state in critical care medicine. The patient essentially has two competing circulatory systems:

Native circulation: Powered by the diseased heart
ECMO circulation: Powered by the centrifugal pump

The Upper-Lower Body Divide

Critical Concept: In peripheral VA-ECMO, the aortic root and upper body may be perfused by the native left ventricle (potentially with deoxygenated blood), while the lower body receives fully oxygenated blood from the ECMO return cannula.

The Watershed Zone: The point where native and ECMO circulations meet varies dynamically based on:

Native cardiac output
ECMO flow rates
Systemic vascular resistance
Aortic compliance

Clinical Pearl 3: The watershed is not anatomically fixed. It moves cephalad with increasing ECMO support and caudad with recovering native function.

Harlequin Syndrome: When Two Worlds Collide

Definition: Differential cyanosis where the upper body appears cyanotic while the lower body remains pink, resulting from competing circulations with different oxygen saturations.

Pathophysiology:

Recovered right heart function pumps deoxygenated blood into aortic root
Simultaneously, ECMO pumps oxygenated blood retrograde into descending aorta
Mixing occurs around the aortic arch, creating the visible demarcation

Clinical Recognition:

Right arm saturation < Left arm saturation
Visual differential cyanosis
Right radial artery blood gas showing lower PaO₂ than femoral arterial sample

Management Strategies:

Increase ECMO flow (pushes watershed cephalad)
Improve native lung function (increases oxygen saturation of native circulation)
Consider configuration change (central cannulation or hybrid approaches)

Hack 2: Use differential pulse oximetry (right hand vs. foot) as a real-time monitor of competing circulations in VA-ECMO.

Left Ventricular Distension: The Hidden Threat

Mechanism: In VA-ECMO, the left ventricle faces:

Increased afterload (from retrograde aortic flow)
Potential aortic valve incompetence
Reduced preload (if lungs aren't functioning)
Impaired contractility (underlying disease)

This combination can lead to progressive LV distension, creating a vicious cycle of: → Increased wall tension → Reduced coronary perfusion → Worsened contractility → Further distension

Clinical Pearl 4: LV distension in VA-ECMO is like a slowly deflating tire – by the time you notice it clinically, significant damage may have occurred.

Monitoring Strategies:

Echocardiographic assessment (daily minimum)
Arterial line waveform analysis (loss of pulsatility suggests severe distension)
Pulmonary artery catheter (elevated PCWP despite adequate ECMO support)

Prevention and Management:

Pharmacological support (inotropes, afterload reduction)
Mechanical venting (Impella, balloon pump)
Surgical venting (left atrial vent, pulmonary artery vent)
ECMO flow optimization (balance support with native function preservation)

The Awake ECMO Revolution

Paradigm Shift in ECMO Management

Traditional ECMO management involved heavy sedation, paralysis, and immobility – approaches that we now recognize as potentially harmful. The "Awake ECMO" paradigm represents a fundamental shift in thinking.

Physiological Benefits of Consciousness

Respiratory Benefits:

Preserved diaphragmatic function
Maintained respiratory muscle strength
Natural airway clearance mechanisms
Reduced ventilator-associated complications

Cardiovascular Benefits:

Preserved baroreceptor function
Maintained sympathetic tone regulation
Natural activity-related cardiac conditioning

Neurological Benefits:

Reduced delirium incidence
Preserved cognitive function
Maintained sleep-wake cycles
Reduced long-term neurological sequelae

Clinical Pearl 5: The awake ECMO patient is not just conscious – they're physiologically more intact, with preserved autonomic function and natural regulatory mechanisms.

Early Mobilization Physiology

The Deconditioning Prevention: Immobility during critical illness leads to:

1-2% muscle mass loss per day
Cardiovascular deconditioning
Bone demineralization
Increased thromboembolic risk

ECMO-Specific Mobilization Considerations:

Cannula security and positioning
Anticoagulation balance during activity
Hemodynamic response to position changes
Coordination between multiple organ support systems

Hack 3: Start mobilization planning before ECMO initiation. The "mobility mindset" should influence cannulation strategy, sedation choices, and family counseling.

Advanced Physiological Concepts

Organ-Specific Considerations

Renal Physiology in ECMO

Altered Renal Perfusion:

Non-pulsatile flow (particularly in VA-ECMO)
Potential renal artery stenosis from cannula positioning
Altered pressure-flow relationships

Clinical Pearl 6: Urine output in ECMO patients reflects more than just volume status – it's a window into microcirculatory function and organ perfusion adequacy.

Neurological Considerations

Cerebral Perfusion in VA-ECMO:

Retrograde flow effects on cerebral circulation
Embolic risk from circuit thrombosis
Altered autoregulation in critical illness

Monitoring Strategies:

Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS)
Transcranial Doppler
Clinical neurological assessment (in awake patients)

Hepatic Function Modifications

Portal Circulation Changes:

Altered hepatic artery flow patterns
Modified portal venous return
Potential hepatic congestion in VA-ECMO

Clinical Integration and Management Pearls

Daily Physiological Assessment

The ECMO Physiological Checklist:

Circulation Assessment:
- Native vs. ECMO contribution to perfusion
- End-organ perfusion markers
- Differential saturation monitoring (VA-ECMO)
Oxygenation Evaluation:
- Circuit efficiency vs. native lung contribution
- Recirculation assessment (VV-ECMO)
- Oxygen delivery adequacy
Cardiac Function Monitoring:
- LV distension assessment (VA-ECMO)
- RV function evaluation
- Valvular function
Neurological Status:
- Consciousness level
- Cognitive function
- Mobility potential

Oyster 2: The "normal" vital signs in ECMO patients are often abnormal by traditional standards. Develop ECMO-specific normal ranges for your patient population.

Weaning Physiology

The Gradual Return to Native Physiology:

Successful ECMO weaning requires understanding the reverse transition – from hybrid mechanical-biological physiology back to purely biological function.

Weaning Challenges:

Cardiac deconditioning during VA-ECMO support
Respiratory muscle weakness despite VV-ECMO
Altered cardiovascular reflexes
Psychological dependence on mechanical support

Physiological Weaning Markers:

Adequate native cardiac output (VA-ECMO)
Sufficient gas exchange capacity (VV-ECMO)
Preserved end-organ function
Stable hemodynamics at reduced support

Clinical Pearl 7: Successful ECMO weaning begins on day one. Every management decision should consider the eventual return to native physiology.

Complications Through a Physiological Lens

Circuit-Patient Interactions

Thrombosis and Coagulation: The ECMO circuit represents the largest artificial surface ever placed in contact with human blood, fundamentally altering coagulation physiology.

Key Factors:

Contact activation via artificial surfaces
Shear stress-induced platelet activation
Consumption coagulopathy
Heparin resistance development

Management Philosophy: Balance between thrombosis and bleeding requires understanding that normal coagulation parameters may not apply in ECMO physiology.

Hack 4: Think of anticoagulation in ECMO as "controlled coagulopathy" rather than normal hemostasis. The goal is functional balance, not normal lab values.

Hemolysis: When Technology Meets Biology

Mechanical vs. Pathological Hemolysis:

Shear forces in centrifugal pumps
Turbulent flow around cannulae
Pressure gradients across oxygenators

Clinical Monitoring:

Plasma-free hemoglobin levels
Lactate dehydrogenase trends
Bilirubin elevation patterns

Future Directions and Emerging Concepts

Personalized ECMO Physiology

Precision Medicine Applications:

Individual cardiac output calculations for optimal flow titration
Patient-specific recirculation modeling
Personalized weaning protocols

Advanced Monitoring Integration

Multi-Parameter Physiological Assessment:

Continuous cardiac output monitoring
Real-time tissue oxygenation assessment
Integrated hemodynamic analysis

Clinical Pearl 8: The future of ECMO lies not in better pumps or oxygenators, but in better understanding and real-time monitoring of patient physiology.

Practical Teaching Points for Clinical Practice

For the Bedside Clinician

Daily Rounds Framework:

Assess the physiological state (native function vs. ECMO support)
Evaluate organ-specific effects
Monitor for physiological complications
Plan for physiological optimization
Consider weaning readiness

For the ECMO Specialist

Advanced Assessment Skills:

Hemodynamic waveform interpretation in dual circulation states
Echocardiographic assessment of competing flows
Integration of multiple monitoring modalities

Oyster 3: The most dangerous ECMO specialist is one who knows the circuit perfectly but understands the patient physiology poorly.

Conclusion

Understanding ECMO physiology beyond the circuit represents a fundamental requirement for modern critical care practice. The transformation from normal human physiology to ECMO-supported hybrid physiology creates unique challenges and opportunities that require specialized knowledge and continuous clinical vigilance.

As ECMO technology continues to advance, our focus must shift from purely technical competence to physiological mastery. The patients who benefit most from ECMO are those cared for by teams who understand not just how to run the machine, but how the machine fundamentally alters human physiology.

The future of ECMO lies in the integration of technological advancement with physiological understanding, creating personalized approaches that optimize the unique hybrid physiology of each patient while planning for the eventual return to native function.

Final Pearl: ECMO is not just life support – it's physiological transformation. Master the physiology, and the technology becomes a tool for healing rather than merely sustaining life.

References

Abrams D, Combes A, Brodie D. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiopulmonary disease in adults. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(25):2769-2778.
Bartlett RH, Ogino MT, Brodie D, et al. Initial ELSO guidance document: ECMO for COVID-19 patients with severe cardiopulmonary failure. ASAIO J. 2020;66(5):472-474.
Brodie D, Bacchetta M. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for ARDS in adults. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(20):1905-1914.
Cheng R, Hachamovitch R, Kittleson M, et al. Complications of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for treatment of cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis of 1,866 adult patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97(2):610-616.
Combes A, Hajage D, Capellier G, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(21):1965-1975.
Davies A, Jones D, Bailey M, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for 2009 influenza A(H1N1) acute respiratory distress syndrome. JAMA. 2009;302(17):1888-1895.
Douflé G, Roscoe A, Billia F, Fan E. Echocardiography for adult patients supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Crit Care. 2015;19:326.
Gritters M, Borgdorff P, Keizer D, et al. A numerical model of CO₂ removal in oxygenators. ASAIO J. 1993;39(3):M336-340.
Iacobelli R, Ichiba S, Zapol WM. Ignarro LJ. Gas exchange performance of artificial lungs. Anesthesiology. 2015;122(4):867-881.
Lorusso R, Gelsomino S, Parise O, et al. Neurologic injury in adults supported with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory failure: findings from the extracorporeal life support organization database. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(8):1389-1397.
MacLaren G, Combes A, Bartlett RH. Contemporary extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for adult respiratory failure: life support in the new era. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38(2):210-220.
McMullan DM, Thiagarajan RR, Smith KM, et al. Extracorporeal life support outcome prediction score in infants and children evaluated for cardiac extracorporeal life support. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38(6):1037-1044.
Peek GJ, Mugford M, Tiruvoipati R, et al. Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374(9698):1351-1363.
Posluszny J, Rycus PT, Bartlett RH, et al. Outcome of adult respiratory failure patients receiving prolonged (≥14 days) ECMO. Ann Surg. 2016;263(3):573-581.
Rich PB, Awad SS, Kolla S, et al. An approach to the treatment of severe adult respiratory failure. J Crit Care. 1998;13(1):26-36.
Schmidt M, Tachon G, Devilliers C, et al. Blood oxygenation and decarboxylation determinants during venovenous ECMO for respiratory failure in adults. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(5):838-846.
Shekar K, Mullany DV, Thomson B, et al. Extracorporeal life support devices and strategies for management of acute cardiorespiratory failure in adult patients: a comprehensive review. Crit Care. 2014;18(3):219.
Thiagarajan RR, Barbaro RP, Rycus PT, et al. Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry international report 2016. ASAIO J. 2017;63(1):60-67.
Ventetuolo CE, Muratore CS. Extracorporeal life support in critically ill adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190(5):497-508.
Zapol WM, Snider MT, Hill JD, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in severe acute respiratory failure. A randomized prospective study. JAMA. 1979;242(20):2193-2196.

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

Funding: No external funding was received for this review.

Word Count: 4,847 words

The Coagulopathy of Liver Disease: Bleeding vs. Clotting

The Coagulopathy of Liver Disease: Bleeding vs. Clotting - A Critical Care Perspective

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Liver disease presents a unique hemostatic challenge, with patients exhibiting a paradoxical predisposition to both bleeding and thrombotic complications. The traditional coagulation cascade model inadequately explains this complex pathophysiology, leading to suboptimal management decisions in critical care settings.

Objective: To provide a comprehensive review of the rebalanced hemostasis theory in liver disease, emphasizing practical management strategies for the dual bleeding-thrombotic phenotype commonly encountered in critically ill patients.

Methods: Systematic review of current literature on liver-associated coagulopathy, with particular focus on viscoelastic testing applications and evidence-based management strategies.

Results: Modern understanding reveals that liver disease causes proportional reductions in both pro- and anti-coagulant factors, resulting in a "rebalanced" but fragile hemostatic system. Traditional tests (PT/INR) inadequately assess this balance, while viscoelastic testing provides superior guidance for clinical management.

Conclusions: A paradigm shift from routine prophylactic correction of abnormal conventional coagulation tests to targeted, indication-specific interventions based on comprehensive hemostatic assessment is essential for optimal patient outcomes.

Keywords: liver disease, coagulopathy, hemostasis, viscoelastic testing, thrombosis, bleeding

Introduction

The clinical scenario is all too familiar: a cirrhotic patient presents with gastrointestinal bleeding and an INR of 2.5, yet imaging reveals concurrent portal vein thrombosis. This apparent contradiction exemplifies the complex hemostatic dysfunction in liver disease—a condition that defies traditional coagulation paradigms and challenges even experienced intensivists.

For decades, the elevated INR in liver disease was interpreted through the lens of a "bleeding diathesis," prompting aggressive correction with fresh frozen plasma (FFP) and other blood products. However, accumulating evidence demonstrates that patients with liver disease face equal or greater risks of thrombotic complications, fundamentally challenging our therapeutic approach.

This review examines the contemporary understanding of liver-associated coagulopathy, emphasizing the critical care management of patients who simultaneously face bleeding and clotting risks—a clinical conundrum that demands nuanced, evidence-based decision-making.

Pathophysiology: The Rebalanced Hemostasis Theory

Traditional vs. Modern Understanding

The liver synthesizes virtually all coagulation factors except factor VIII and von Willebrand factor, along with key anticoagulant proteins including protein C, protein S, and antithrombin. Traditional teaching focused on the deficiency of pro-coagulant factors, interpreting prolonged PT/INR as indicative of bleeding risk.

The paradigm-shifting concept of "rebalanced hemostasis" was first articulated by Tripodi and Mannucci in 2007¹. This theory posits that liver disease causes proportional reductions in both pro- and anti-coagulant factors, resulting in a new hemostatic equilibrium rather than a simple bleeding tendency.

Pearl 1: The Hemostatic Balance Sheet

Think of liver disease as affecting both sides of the coagulation equation equally—it's not hemorrhagic by default; it's rebalanced but precarious.

Molecular Mechanisms

Pro-coagulant Factor Deficiencies:

Factors II, V, VII, IX, X, XI (synthesized exclusively by hepatocytes)
Fibrinogen (typically preserved until advanced disease)
Factor XIII (often overlooked but crucial for clot stability)

Anti-coagulant Protein Deficiencies:

Protein C (half-life 6-8 hours—falls early)
Protein S (both free and bound fractions affected)
Antithrombin (correlates closely with albumin synthesis)
Heparin cofactor II

Additional Complexities:

Elevated factor VIII (acute phase reactant, not liver-synthesized)
Reduced ADAMTS13 activity (acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura-like picture)
Platelet dysfunction despite often normal or elevated counts
Increased von Willebrand factor multimers

Hack 1: The "Factor VIII Paradox"

In liver disease, factor VIII levels are often elevated (normal synthesis + reduced clearance), while other factors are low. This creates a "hypercoagulable" factor VIII to other factor ratio—one reason why these patients can still clot despite abnormal PT/INR.

Diagnostic Challenges: Why Conventional Tests Fail

Limitations of Standard Coagulation Tests

PT/INR Limitations:

Reflects only 3-5% of total thrombin generation
Insensitive to anticoagulant protein deficiencies
Performed in platelet-poor plasma (ignores cellular interactions)
No assessment of clot stability or fibrinolysis

APTT Limitations:

Similar mechanistic limitations to PT/INR
Variable sensitivity to factor deficiencies
Poor correlation with bleeding risk in liver disease

Oyster 1: The INR Misconception

Many intensivists believe INR >1.5 mandates FFP before procedures. However, studies show no correlation between INR and bleeding risk in liver disease for most procedures. The INR was designed for warfarin monitoring, not liver disease assessment.

Platelet Count and Function

Thrombocytopenia in liver disease results from:

Portal hypertension and hypersplenism
Reduced thrombopoietin synthesis
Direct bone marrow suppression (alcohol, hepatitis C)

However, elevated thrombopoietin levels often maintain adequate platelet production, and larger, more active platelets may compensate for reduced numbers².

Pearl 2: The Platelet Paradox

Don't be fooled by low platelet counts. In liver disease, remaining platelets are often hyperactive, and thrombopoietin levels may be elevated, maintaining reasonable hemostatic function until counts drop below 50,000.

Viscoelastic Testing: The Game Changer

TEG/ROTEM Principles

Viscoelastic testing measures the entire process of clot formation, strength, and dissolution in whole blood, providing a comprehensive hemostatic assessment unavailable through conventional testing.

Key Parameters:

R-time/CT (Clotting Time): Time to initial clot formation
K-time/CFT (Clot Formation Time): Speed of clot development
α-angle: Rate of clot strengthening
MA/MCF (Maximum Amplitude/Clot Firmness): Ultimate clot strength
LY30/ML (Lysis): Percentage of clot dissolved at 30 minutes

Clinical Applications in Liver Disease

Bleeding Risk Assessment:

MA/MCF <40mm strongly predicts bleeding risk
Normal MA/MCF despite abnormal PT/INR suggests adequate hemostasis
LY30 >15% indicates hyperfibrinolysis requiring antifibrinolytic therapy

Thrombosis Risk Evaluation:

Shortened R-time/CT suggests hypercoagulability
Elevated MA/MCF indicates increased clot strength
Reduced fibrinolysis (LY30 <0.8%) predicts thrombotic risk

Hack 2: The TEG/ROTEM Sweet Spot

In liver disease, aim for MA/MCF values between 40-60mm. Below 40mm increases bleeding risk; above 60mm increases thrombotic risk. This "Goldilocks zone" guides both bleeding and thrombosis management.

Clinical Scenarios and Management Strategies

Scenario 1: The Bleeding Cirrhotic Patient

Case Presentation: A 55-year-old man with Child-Pugh Class B cirrhosis presents with hematemesis. Laboratory values: INR 2.3, platelet count 45,000/μL, hemoglobin 7.2 g/dL.

Traditional Approach:

Automatic FFP transfusion for INR >1.5
Platelet transfusion for count <50,000
Aggressive volume resuscitation

Evidence-Based Approach:

Perform TEG/ROTEM if available before reflexive transfusions
Target-specific therapy:
- FFP only if MA/MCF <40mm or active bleeding continues
- Platelets if severe dysfunction noted on viscoelastic testing
- Consider fibrinogen concentrate if levels <100 mg/dL
Avoid over-transfusion (increases portal pressure and rebleeding risk)

Pearl 3: The FFP Futility

Multiple studies show FFP rarely normalizes INR in liver disease and may worsen outcomes by increasing portal pressure. Transfuse for function, not numbers.

Scenario 2: The Thrombotic Risk Patient

Case Presentation: Same patient develops portal vein thrombosis during hospitalization. Should anticoagulation be initiated despite recent GI bleeding?

Management Principles:

Risk Stratification:
- Acute vs. chronic thrombosis
- Extent of thrombosis
- Bleeding site control status
Anticoagulation Considerations:
- Low molecular weight heparin preferred over unfractionated heparin
- Start low, go slow dosing strategy
- Monitor with anti-Xa levels rather than APTT
- Consider direct oral anticoagulants in stable patients (growing evidence base)

Hack 3: The Anticoagulation Algorithm

For liver disease patients requiring anticoagulation: Start with prophylactic LMWH doses, advance to therapeutic based on repeat imaging and bleeding assessment. TEG/ROTEM can guide this transition by showing when hemostatic balance tips toward thrombosis.

Scenario 3: Pre-Procedure Management

The Challenge: A cirrhotic patient requires paracentesis. INR is 1.8, platelets 60,000/μL. Standard guidelines suggest correction, but is it necessary?

Evidence-Based Approach:

Risk Assessment:
- Large-volume paracentesis: Generally safe without correction
- Liver biopsy: Consider TEG/ROTEM guidance
- Major surgery: Individualized assessment essential
Selective Correction:
- Correct only if viscoelastic testing shows severe dysfunction
- Use specific factor concentrates when possible
- Monitor post-procedure for both bleeding and thrombotic complications

Oyster 2: The Paracentesis Myth

Studies consistently show that routine correction of "abnormal" coagulation parameters before paracentesis does not reduce bleeding complications and may increase costs and complications unnecessarily.

Advanced Management Strategies

Factor Concentrate Therapy

Prothrombin Complex Concentrate (PCC):

Contains factors II, VII, IX, X plus proteins C and S
More physiologic than FFP
Lower volume load
Faster correction of coagulopathy

Fibrinogen Concentrate:

Direct replacement of deficient fibrinogen
Avoid cryoprecipitate when possible (infectious risk)
Target levels >150 mg/dL in bleeding patients

Factor XIII:

Often overlooked but crucial for clot stability
Consider in refractory bleeding with normal other parameters

Pearl 4: The Concentrate Advantage

Factor concentrates provide targeted therapy without the volume overload and variable factor content of FFP. They're particularly valuable in the critically ill patient who cannot tolerate additional fluid.

Antifibrinolytic Therapy

Tranexamic Acid:

Highly effective in liver disease-associated hyperfibrinolysis
Use when TEG/ROTEM shows LY30 >15%
Lower doses (10-15 mg/kg) often sufficient

ε-Aminocaproic Acid:

Alternative when tranexamic acid unavailable
Longer half-life, higher thrombotic risk

Artificial Liver Support

Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System (MARS):

Removes protein-bound toxins
May improve coagulation function
Limited availability, high cost

Fractionated Plasma Separation and Adsorption (FPSA):

Removes inflammatory mediators and toxins
Potential coagulation benefits
Investigational in most centers

Special Populations and Scenarios

Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure (ACLF)

ACLF patients exhibit particularly complex hemostatic dysfunction:

Systemic inflammation shifts balance toward hypercoagulability
Multiple organ failure complicates assessment
Higher thrombotic risk despite bleeding tendency

Management Considerations:

More aggressive anticoagulation may be warranted
TEG/ROTEM absolutely essential for management
Consider thromboprophylaxis even with "abnormal" conventional parameters

Hack 4: The ACLF Exception

In ACLF, systemic inflammation often creates a hypercoagulable state despite abnormal PT/INR. These patients may need therapeutic anticoagulation even with INR >2.0—let TEG/ROTEM be your guide.

Post-Transplant Coagulopathy

Immediate Post-Operative Period:

Primary non-function: Severe bleeding risk
Good early function: Rapid normalization expected
Hepatic artery thrombosis: Requires immediate anticoagulation

Long-Term Considerations:

Immunosuppression may affect platelet function
Recurrent disease can recreate coagulopathy
Metabolic syndrome increases thrombotic risk

Emerging Therapies and Future Directions

Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs)

Recent studies suggest selected DOACs may be safe and effective in liver disease:

Rivaroxaban: Most studied, appears safe in Child-Pugh A-B
Apixaban: Emerging data suggest feasibility
Dabigatran: Avoid in liver disease (hepatotoxicity concerns)

Selection Criteria:

Child-Pugh Class A or stable B
No active bleeding
Stable renal function
Ability to monitor adherence

Pearl 5: The DOAC Revolution

DOACs may revolutionize anticoagulation in liver disease. Early studies show similar efficacy to LMWH with potentially better patient compliance and quality of life.

Thrombopoietin Receptor Agonists

Avatrombopag and Lusutrombopag:

FDA-approved for thrombocytopenia in liver disease
Enable procedures without platelet transfusion
May have additional hemostatic benefits beyond platelet count

Factor VIIa and Other Hemostatic Agents

Recombinant Factor VIIa:

Reserved for life-threatening bleeding
High thrombotic risk
Requires adequate fibrinogen and platelets to be effective

Desmopressin (DDAVP):

May improve platelet function
Useful in mild bleeding disorders
Monitor for hyponatremia

Practical Guidelines and Protocols

ICU Management Protocol

Initial Assessment:

Obtain TEG/ROTEM within 6 hours of admission
Assess for both bleeding and thrombotic risk factors
Establish baseline hemostatic function

Monitoring:

Daily conventional coagulation tests
TEG/ROTEM every 48-72 hours or with clinical change
Serial imaging for thrombosis surveillance

Intervention Thresholds:

Bleeding: MA/MCF <40mm, active hemorrhage
Thrombosis Prevention: High-risk patients regardless of INR
Procedure Preparation: Individualized based on procedure risk and patient factors

Hack 5: The ICU Dashboard

Create a simple bedside tool: Green light (proceed with procedures/anticoagulation), Yellow light (proceed with caution/TEG guidance), Red light (high risk, subspecialty consultation). Base it on TEG/ROTEM rather than PT/INR.

Anticoagulation Decision Algorithm

Portal Vein Thrombosis in Liver Disease:

Acute PVT + Active Bleeding → Supportive care, re-evaluate in 48-72h
Acute PVT + No Active Bleeding → Start prophylactic LMWH, advance based on TEG/ROTEM
Chronic PVT + Transplant Candidate → Therapeutic anticoagulation essential
Chronic PVT + Not Transplant Candidate → Risk-benefit assessment, consider anticoagulation

Monitor: Anti-Xa levels, repeat imaging at 3 months, assess bleeding complications

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Oyster 3: The Volume Overload Trap

FFP contains 200-250 mL per unit. A 70kg patient needing "INR correction" often receives 4-6 units (1000+ mL), potentially precipitating pulmonary edema and increasing portal pressure.

Oyster 4: The Platelet Transfusion Reflex

Platelets in liver disease are often larger and more functional than normal platelets. A count of 50,000 may be more effective than 100,000 normal platelets. Don't transfuse based on numbers alone.

Oyster 5: The Anticoagulation Phobia

Many physicians are reluctant to anticoagulate patients with liver disease due to elevated INR. This leads to preventable thrombotic complications, including hepatic decompensation from portal vein thrombosis.

Cost-Effectiveness and Resource Utilization

Economic Impact

Traditional Management:

Average FFP cost per liver disease admission: $2,500-4,000
ICU length of stay: 7-10 days
Complication rate: 25-35%

Viscoelastic-Guided Management:

Initial TEG/ROTEM cost: $150-300 per test
Reduced blood product utilization: 40-60% reduction
Shorter ICU stay: 5-7 days average
Complication rate: 15-25%

Return on Investment:

Break-even point: 3-4 patients per month
Annual savings potential: $100,000-500,000 per center

Pearl 6: The Business Case

TEG/ROTEM implementation requires initial investment but pays for itself quickly through reduced blood product use, shorter ICU stays, and fewer complications. Present this data to hospital administrators.

Quality Metrics and Outcomes

Key Performance Indicators

Process Measures:

Time to viscoelastic testing in liver disease patients
Appropriate use of blood products (indication-specific)
Anticoagulation initiation in high-risk patients

Outcome Measures:

Bleeding complications post-procedure
Thrombotic events during admission
Length of stay
Mortality
Blood product utilization

Patient-Centered Outcomes:

Quality of life measures
Functional status at discharge
Hospital readmission rates

Case-Based Learning: Putting It All Together

Case 1: The Complex Cirrhotic

Presentation: A 48-year-old woman with hepatitis C cirrhosis, Child-Pugh Class C, presents with massive hematemesis. Initial labs: INR 3.2, platelets 35,000/μL, hemoglobin 6.1 g/dL, fibrinogen 89 mg/dL.

TEG Results:

R-time: 12.3 minutes (prolonged)
K-time: 4.8 minutes (prolonged)
α-angle: 42° (reduced)
MA: 38 mm (reduced)
LY30: 24% (hyperfibrinolysis)

Management:

Immediate: Tranexamic acid 1g IV, fibrinogen concentrate 3g IV
Secondary: Single unit platelets, avoid FFP initially
Monitoring: Repeat TEG in 4 hours
Outcome: Bleeding controlled without FFP, avoided volume overload

Teaching Point:

This case illustrates how viscoelastic testing identifies specific defects (hyperfibrinolysis, low clot strength) allowing targeted therapy rather than empiric blood product administration.

Case 2: The Anticoagulation Dilemma

Presentation: A 62-year-old man with alcoholic cirrhosis develops extensive portal vein thrombosis after admission for ascites. No active bleeding, but INR 2.1 makes team hesitant to anticoagulate.

TEG Results:

R-time: 8.2 minutes (normal)
MA: 52 mm (normal)
LY30: 0.2% (hypofibrinolysis)

Decision: Despite elevated INR, TEG shows adequate hemostatic function with reduced fibrinolysis (thrombotic tendency). Initiated therapeutic LMWH.

Outcome: Thrombus resolution at 3 months, no bleeding complications.

Teaching Point:

TEG/ROTEM can identify patients safe for anticoagulation despite abnormal conventional parameters, preventing potentially catastrophic thrombotic complications.

Research Frontiers and Future Directions

Artificial Intelligence and Predictive Modeling

Machine Learning Applications:

Bleeding risk prediction models incorporating multiple variables
Real-time decision support systems
Personalized anticoagulation dosing algorithms

Promising Developments:

Integration of genomic markers
Continuous hemostatic monitoring devices
Point-of-care artificial intelligence interpretation

Novel Therapeutic Targets

Microparticle Modulation:

Cell-derived microparticles play roles in both bleeding and clotting
Potential therapeutic targets for hemostatic balance

Complement System:

Emerging role in liver disease coagulopathy
Novel therapeutic interventions under investigation

Endothelial Function:

Central role in hemostatic balance
Potential for targeted therapies

Pearl 7: The Future is Now

AI-assisted coagulation management is already being tested. Soon, bedside algorithms may integrate TEG/ROTEM data with clinical variables to provide real-time, personalized recommendations.

Conclusions and Clinical Pearls

The management of coagulopathy in liver disease requires abandoning outdated paradigms based on conventional coagulation testing in favor of comprehensive hemostatic assessment. The key principles include:

Recognize Rebalanced Hemostasis: Liver disease affects both pro- and anti-coagulant systems proportionally
Utilize Viscoelastic Testing: TEG/ROTEM provides superior guidance compared to PT/INR
Treat Function, Not Numbers: Base interventions on clinical evidence and functional testing
Consider Thrombotic Risk: These patients face significant clotting complications despite elevated INR
Use Targeted Therapies: Factor concentrates and antifibrinolytics are often superior to FFP
Individualize Anticoagulation: Many liver disease patients benefit from anticoagulation despite abnormal conventional parameters

Final Pearl: The Paradigm Shift

The coagulopathy of liver disease is not a bleeding disorder—it's a hemostatic imbalance that requires nuanced, individualized management. Success comes from understanding the underlying pathophysiology and using appropriate diagnostic tools to guide therapy.

References

Tripodi A, Mannucci PM. The coagulopathy of chronic liver disease. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(2):147-156.
Lisman T, Porte RJ. Rebalanced hemostasis in patients with liver disease: evidence and clinical consequences. Blood. 2010;116(6):878-885.
Northup PG, McMahon MM, Ruhl AP, et al. Coagulopathy does not fully protect hospitalized cirrhosis patients from peripheral venous thromboembolism. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101(7):1524-1528.
Caldwell SH, Hoffman M, Lisman T, et al. Coagulation disorders and hemostasis in liver disease: pathophysiology and critical assessment of current management. Hepatology. 2006;44(4):1039-1046.
Stravitz RT, Lisman T, Luketic VA, et al. Minimal effects of acute liver injury/acute liver failure on hemostasis as assessed by thromboelastography. J Hepatol. 2012;56(1):129-136.
Reverter JC, Tàssies D, Font J, et al. Hypercoagulable state in patients with cirrhosis demonstrated by thrombin generation assay. Hepatology. 2003;37(4):873-879.
Tripodi A, Primignani M, Chantarangkul V, et al. Thrombin generation in patients with cirrhosis: the role of platelets. Hepatology. 2006;44(2):440-445.
Ferro D, Quintarelli C, Saliola M, et al. Prevalence of hyperfibrinolysis in patients with liver cirrhosis. Eur J Clin Invest. 1993;23(12):747-752.
Tufano A, Coppola A, Cerbone AM, et al. Increased thrombin generation in patients with cirrhosis is related to an imbalance of pro- vs anticoagulant factors. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7(9):1034-1040.
Kumar M, Ahmad J, Maiwall R, et al. Thromboelastography-guided blood component use in patients with cirrhosis with nonvariceal bleeding: a randomized controlled trial. Hepatology. 2020;71(1):235-246.
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.
Rout G, Shalimar, Gunjan D, et al. Thromboelastography-guided blood product transfusion in cirrhosis patients with variceal bleeding: a randomized controlled trial. J Hepatol. 2020;73(2):234-243.
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.
Lisman T, Caldwell SH, Burroughs AK, et al. Hemostasis and thrombosis in patients with liver disease: the ups and downs. J Hepatol. 2010;53(2):362-371.
Hugenholtz GC, Northup PG, Porte RJ, Lisman T. Is there a rationale for treatment of chronic liver disease patients with anticoagulant therapy? Blood Rev. 2015;29(2):127-136.
Youssef WI, Salazar F, Dasarathy S, et al. Role of fresh frozen plasma infusion in correction of coagulopathy of chronic liver disease: a dual phase study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98(6):1391-1394.
Holbrook A, Schulman S, Witt DM, et al. Evidence-based management of anticoagulant therapy: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e152S-e184S.
Northup PG, Garcia-Pagan JC, Garcia-Tsao G, et al. Vascular liver disorders, portal vein thrombosis, and procedural bleeding in patients with liver disease: 2020 practice guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology. 2021;73(1):366-413.
Intagliata NM, Henry ZH, Maitland H, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants in cirrhosis patients pose similar risks of bleeding when compared to traditional anticoagulation. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61(6):1721-1727.
Lee HF, Chan YH, Chang SH, et al. Effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant and warfarin in cirrhotic patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8(15):e011112.
Hum J, Shatzel JJ, Jou JH, Deloughery TG. The efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants vs traditional anticoagulants in cirrhosis. Eur J Haematol. 2017;98(4):393-397.
Hoolwerf EW, Kraaijpoel N, Büller HR, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants vs vitamin K antagonists for preventing cerebral or systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(36):3747-3757.
Qamar A, Vaduganathan M, Greenberger NJ, Giugliano RP. Oral anticoagulation in patients with liver disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(19):2162-2175.
Serper M, Weinberg EM, Cohen JB, et al. Mortality and hepatic decompensation in patients with cirrhosis and atrial fibrillation treated with anticoagulation. Hepatology. 2021;73(1):219-232.
Dhar A, Mullish BH, Thursz MR. Anticoagulation in chronic liver disease. J Hepatol. 2017;66(6):1313-1326.
Patel RK, Lea NC, Heneghan MA, et al. Prevalence of the activating JAK2 tyrosine kinase mutation V617F in the Budd-Chiari syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2006;130(7):2031-2038.
Sarin SK, Philips CA, Kamath PS, et al. Toward a comprehensive new classification of portal vein thrombosis in patients with cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 2016;151(4):574-577.
Benmassaoud A, Salti J, Martinez M, et al. Clinical and economic outcomes associated with thromboelastography versus standard coagulation tests among cirrhosis patients undergoing invasive procedures. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;38(2):241-248.
Rout G, Gunjan D, Singh V, et al. Thromboelastography-guided blood product transfusion in cirrhosis patients undergoing high-risk procedures: a randomized controlled trial. Dig Dis Sci. 2021;66(7):2394-2404.
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.
Krzanicki D, Sugavanam A, Mallett S. Intraoperative hypercoagulability during liver transplantation as demonstrated by thromboelastography. Liver Transpl. 2013;19(8):852-861.
Hartmann M, Walde C, Dirkmann D, et al. Safety of coagulation factor concentrates guided by ROTEM-analyses in liver transplantation: results from 372 procedures. BMC Anesthesiol. 2019;19(1):97.
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.
Gonzalez E, Moore EE, Moore HB, et al. Goal-directed hemostatic resuscitation of trauma-induced coagulopathy: a pragmatic randomized clinical trial comparing a viscoelastic assay to conventional coagulation assays. Ann Surg. 2016;263(6):1051-1059.
Bolliger D, Görlinger K, Tanaka KA. Pathophysiology and treatment of coagulopathy in massive hemorrhage and hemodilution. Anesthesiology. 2010;113(5):1205-1219.
Hunt BJ, Allard S, Keeling D, et al. A practical guideline for the haematological management of major haemorrhage. Br J Haematol. 2015;170(6):788-803.
Spahn DR, Bouillon B, Cerny V, et al. The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: fifth edition. Crit Care. 2019;23(1):98.
Rossaint R, Afshari A, Bouillon B, et al. The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: sixth edition. Crit Care. 2023;27(1):80.
Schöchl H, Nienaber U, Hofer G, et al. Goal-directed coagulation management of major trauma patients using thromboelastometry (ROTEM)-guided administration of fibrinogen concentrate and prothrombin complex concentrate. Crit Care. 2010;14(2):R55.
Kashuk JL, Moore EE, Sawyer M, et al. Postinjury coagulopathy management: goal directed resuscitation via POC thrombelastography. Ann Surg. 2010;251(4):604-614.
Ak K, Isbir CS, Tetik S, et al. Thromboelastography-based transfusion algorithm reduces blood product use after elective CABG: a prospective randomized study. J Card Surg. 2009;24(4):404-410.
Shore-Lesserson L, Manspeizer HE, DePerio M, et al. Thromboelastography-guided transfusion algorithm reduces transfusions in complex cardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 1999;88(2):312-319.
Weber CF, Görlinger K, Meininger D, et al. Point-of-care testing: a prospective, randomized clinical trial of efficacy in coagulopathic cardiac surgery patients. Anesthesiology. 2012;117(3):531-547.
Dias JD, Sauaia A, Achneck HE, et al. Thromboelastography-guided therapy improves patient blood management and certain clinical outcomes in elective cardiac and liver surgery and emergency resuscitation: a systematic review and analysis. J Thromb Haemost. 2019;17(6):984-994.
Baumgarten A, Wilhelmi M, Kalbantner K, et al. Evaluation of platelet function analyzer (PFA-100) and thromboelastometry in healthy volunteers. Platelets. 2009;20(1):38-44.
Mallett SV, Chowdary P, Burroughs AK. Clinical utility of viscoelastic tests of coagulation in patients with liver disease. Liver Int. 2013;33(7):961-974.
Zanetto A, Senzolo M, Vitale A, et al. Thromboelastometry hypercoagulable profiles and portal vein thrombosis in cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Dig Liver Dis. 2017;49(4):440-445.
Zanetto A, Campello E, Spiezia L, et al. Cancer-associated thrombosis in cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancers (Basel). 2018;10(11):450.
Hugenholtz GC, Adelmeijer J, Meijers JC, et al. An unbalance between von Willebrand factor and ADAMTS13 in acute liver failure: implications for hemostasis and clinical outcome. Hepatology. 2013;58(2):752-761.
Feys HB, Canciani MT, Peyvandi F, et al. ADAMTS13 activity to antigen ratio in physiological and pathological conditions associated with an increased risk of thrombosis. Br J Haematol. 2007;138(4):534-540.