TY - JOUR
T1 - Emergency medicine misconceptions
T2 - Utility of routine coagulation panels in the emergency department setting
AU - Long, Brit
AU - Long, Drew A.
AU - Koyfman, Alex
N1 - Funding Information:
BL, DL, and AK conceived the idea for this manuscript and contributed substantially to the writing and editing of the review. This manuscript did not utilize any grants, and it has not been presented in abstract form. This clinical review has not been published, it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, including electronically without the written consent of the copyright-holder. No funding was utilized for this review. This review does not reflect the views or opinions of the U.S. government, Department of Defense, U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, or SAUSHEC EM Residency Program.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020
PY - 2020/6
Y1 - 2020/6
N2 - Background: Coagulation panels are ordered for a variety of conditions in the emergency department (ED). Objective: This narrative review evaluates specific conditions for which a coagulation panel is commonly ordered but has limited utility in medical decision-making. Discussion: Coagulation panels consist of partial thromboplastin time (PTT) or activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), prothrombin time (PT), and international normalized ratio (INR). These tests evaluate the coagulation pathway which leads to formation of a fibrin clot. The coagulation panel can monitor warfarin and heparin therapy, evaluate for vitamin K deficiency, evaluate for malnutrition or severe systemic disease, and assess hemostatic function in the setting of bleeding. The utility of coagulation testing in chest pain evaluation, routine perioperative assessment, prior to initiation of anticoagulation, and as screening for admitted patients is low, with little to no change in patient management based on results of these panels. Coagulation testing should be considered in systemically ill patients, those with a prior history of bleeding or family history of bleeding, patients on anticoagulation, or patients with active hemorrhage and signs of bleeding. Thromboelastography and rotational thromboelastometry offer more reliable measures of coagulation function. Conclusions: Little utility for coagulation assessment is present for the evaluation of chest pain, routine perioperative assessment, initiation of anticoagulation, and screening for admitted patients. However, coagulation panel assessment should be considered in patients with hemorrhage, patients on anticoagulation, and personal history or family history of bleeding.
AB - Background: Coagulation panels are ordered for a variety of conditions in the emergency department (ED). Objective: This narrative review evaluates specific conditions for which a coagulation panel is commonly ordered but has limited utility in medical decision-making. Discussion: Coagulation panels consist of partial thromboplastin time (PTT) or activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), prothrombin time (PT), and international normalized ratio (INR). These tests evaluate the coagulation pathway which leads to formation of a fibrin clot. The coagulation panel can monitor warfarin and heparin therapy, evaluate for vitamin K deficiency, evaluate for malnutrition or severe systemic disease, and assess hemostatic function in the setting of bleeding. The utility of coagulation testing in chest pain evaluation, routine perioperative assessment, prior to initiation of anticoagulation, and as screening for admitted patients is low, with little to no change in patient management based on results of these panels. Coagulation testing should be considered in systemically ill patients, those with a prior history of bleeding or family history of bleeding, patients on anticoagulation, or patients with active hemorrhage and signs of bleeding. Thromboelastography and rotational thromboelastometry offer more reliable measures of coagulation function. Conclusions: Little utility for coagulation assessment is present for the evaluation of chest pain, routine perioperative assessment, initiation of anticoagulation, and screening for admitted patients. However, coagulation panel assessment should be considered in patients with hemorrhage, patients on anticoagulation, and personal history or family history of bleeding.
KW - Anticoagulation
KW - Bleeding
KW - Chest pain
KW - Coagulation
KW - Coagulation panel
KW - Hemophilia
KW - Hemorrhage
KW - Laboratory
KW - Perioperative
KW - Preadmission
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85078841509&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85078841509&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.01.057
DO - 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.01.057
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32029342
AN - SCOPUS:85078841509
SN - 0735-6757
VL - 38
SP - 1226
EP - 1232
JO - American Journal of Emergency Medicine
JF - American Journal of Emergency Medicine
IS - 6
ER -