Intravenous lipid emulsion interference in coagulation testing: an <i>ex vivo</i> analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Intravenous lipid emulsion is used in the rescue treatment of certain poisonings. A complication is interference with laboratory analyses. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of intravenous lipid emulsion on routine laboratory analysis of coagulation parameters ex vivo and determine if any of the analytical techniques remain reliable.Methods Samples were obtained from 19 healthy volunteers and divided in triplicate. One sample served as a control, and the other two were diluted to simulate the treatment of an average adult with Intralipid® 20 per cent Fresenius Kabi 100 mL (dilution-1) or 500 mL (dilution-2). Coagulation tests performed were prothrombin time, activated prothrombin time, D-dimer concentration and fibrinogen. Coagulation testing was performed by three techniques. Test-1 was performed on a Sysmex CN6000 analyzer. Test-2 was performed with a manual mechanical endpoint method using the semi-automated Stago KC4 Delta. Test-3 involved high-speed centrifugation before repeat testing on the Sysmex CN6000 analyzer.Results For test-1, only nine (47 per cent) samples in dilution-1 could be analyzed for coagulation tests, and no coagulation tests could be analyzed for dilution-2 because of lipaemia. For test-2 and test-3, all samples could be analyzed, and all results of both testing methods fell within the limits of the laboratory reference range.Discussion Difficulties in laboratory analysis of patients having received intravenous lipid emulsion are due to multiple factors. Most automated coagulation analyzers use optical measurements, which can be unreliable in the presence of a high intravenous lipid concentration. By altering the lipaemia in the testing solution using high-speed centrifugation or by using manual mechanical endpoint detection, we were able to obtain reliable results. These findings are limited by the use of an ex vivo method and healthy volunteers.Conclusions This ex vivo model confirms that Intralipid® interferes with routine coagulation studies. It is important that clinicians are aware and inform their laboratories of its administration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".