ReviewAnnals of intensive care2025
Utility of fibrinolysis enhanced viscoelastic assays to evaluate fibrinolysis disorders in critically ill adults with severe infection: a scoping review.
Review in Annals of intensive care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional fibrinolysis in older adults: clinical relevance and implications for personalised anticoagulation.GeroScience · 2026Review
- Reference Intervals for ROTEM-tPA: Whole-Blood Fibrinolysis Assessment in Healthy Adults.TH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcutely infected critically ill patients develop coagulopathies and perturbations to the fibrinolysis system that manifest as immunothrombosis. Whole blood viscoelastic testing, using an exogenous fibrinolytic agent to enhance fibrinolysis (FE-VET) can assess both processes of coagulation and fibrinolysis at the bedside. This scoping review aimed to illustrate clinical applicability, knowledge gaps and unmet needs for this emerging technology.
methodsA systematic search of bibliographic databases and the grey literature was performed between the 10th October 2024 and the 14th January 2025 using a pre-published protocol and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guideline for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Studies reporting FE-VET to investigate fibrinolysis in acutely infected patients admitted to the intensive care unit were assessed, including associations with disease severity and clinical outcomes.
resultsThe search identified 297 studies with 24 included in this review. Fifteen studies were observational (12 prospective, 3 retrospective), 4 case reports and series, 2 validation studies, 2 letters, and 1 poster abstract. No randomised controlled trials were identified. Most studies used varying concentrations of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) to enhance fibrinolysis, with FE-VET performed at a single time point and the lysis time to achieve 50% reduction of maximum clot firmness being the most frequently reported variable. Fibrinolysis resistance was the prevailing state reported in acute sepsis or COVID-19 infections and associated with increased disease severity and worse clinical outcomes.
conclusionViscoelastic testing using a fibrinolysis enhancing agent demonstrated a spectrum of fibrinolysis resistance in acutely infected critically ill patients, associated with increased disease severity and mortality. Standardisation of the concentrations of fibrinolysis enhancing agents and the reporting of clot lysis parameters across testing devices are needed to establish reference values. This would improve future clinical studies of fibrinolysis, including trials of fibrinolytic therapies using a personalised medicine approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.