Skip to main content
Log in

Labordiagnostik in der Intensivmedizin

Laboratory testing in intensive care medicine

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Medizinische Klinik - Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die sorgfältige Anamneseerhebung und die klinische Untersuchung bleiben nach wie vor die wichtigsten diagnostischen Säulen. In der Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin werden zahlreiche Laborparameter erhoben. Die Rate an übermäßigen Laboranordnungen während der Patientenaufnahme beträgt fast 50 %. Oft sind die anamnestischen Angaben unzureichend, um eine gezielte Labordiagnostik vorzunehmen. Die Sorge, etwas zu übersehen, führt auch zu einer erweiterten Diagnostik. Zur Vereinfachung der Behandlungsabläufe werden oft a priori festgelegte Laborprofile benutzt, die symptombezogen angeordnet sind. Zahlreiche Laborparameter sind bei kritisch kranken Patienten außerhalb des Normbereichs. Allerdings wird der Normbereich anhand der Daten gesunder Personen definiert, der jedoch eine klare Unterscheidung zwischen Stressadaptation und klinisch relevanten korrekturbedürftigen Störungen nicht erlaubt. Die pathophysiologischen Veränderungen in vielen Körperregionen infolge der akuten Schädigung, der Reaktion des Organismus und auch der Therapiemaßnahmen führen zu Veränderungen zahlreicher Laborparameter. Ziellose Laborentnahmen tragen zur iatrogenen Anämie und zum Kostenanstieg bei. Außerdem werden die Ergebnisse solcher Entnahmen entweder kaum wahrgenommen oder können im schlimmsten Fall weitere unnötige diagnostische Schritte bzw. eine nicht gerechtfertigte Therapiemaßnahme verursachen. Die Point-of-Care-Labordiagnostik zur Einschätzung der zellulären Homöostase, die die Blutgasanalyse, ein Blutbild sowie die Bestimmung der Serumelektrolyte und des Serumlaktats beinhaltet, sowie die Laborparameter zur Berechnung der intensivmedizinisch relevanten Scores sind einheitlich erforderlich. Darüber hinaus sollte jedoch die Labordiagnostik bezogen auf konkrete klinische Fragestellung klug gewählt werden.

Abstract

Despite the tremendous technological developments in medicine, careful history-taking and clinical examination remain the cornerstones of diagnostics. Numerous laboratory tests are ordered in intensive care and emergency medicine. The rate of overutilization of these tests during initial patient admission is almost 50%. Patient history may be frequently insufficient for conducting targeted laboratory testing, and concern about not overlooking a pathology also contributes to laboratory test overutilization. On the other hand, laboratory test profiles are frequently defined a priori to simplify the management process. However, these profiles are commonly based on symptoms rather than on a suspected diagnosis. Several laboratory variables are outside the normal range in critically ill patients. However, normal ranges are defined on the basis of data from healthy subjects, and these do not allow for a clear distinction between stress adaptation and clinically relevant changes that require correction. Pathophysiological changes due to the acute injury in critically ill patients and the reaction of the organism to the injury or even to the treatment itself can lead to changes in laboratory values. Untargeted laboratory tests contribute to iatrogenic anemia and increased costs. The results of such tests are either hardly noticed or, in the worst case, lead to further unnecessary diagnostic steps and unjustified therapeutic measures. Point-of-care laboratory tests, including blood gas analysis, blood count, serum electrolytes, and lactate, to assess the patient’s homeostatic state and laboratory data for the relevant critical care scores are uniformly required. Beyond that, every laboratory test should be chosen wisely based on a concrete clinical question.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1

Literatur

  1. Vrijsen BEL, Naaktgeboren CA, Vos LM et al (2020) Inappropriate laboratory testing in internal medicine inpatients: prevalence, causes and interventions. Ann Med Surg 51:48–53

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Tyler PD, Du H, Feng M et al (2018) Assessment of intensive care unit laboratory values that differ from reference ranges and association with patient mortality and length of stay. JAMA Netw Open 1:e184521

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson WG, Cimino JW, Ernecoff NC et al (2015) A multicenter study of key stakeholders’ perspectives on communicating with surrogates about prognosis in intensive care units. Ann Am Thorac Soc 12:142–152

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhi M, Ding EL, Theisen-Toupal J et al (2013) The landscape of inappropriate laboratory testing: a 15-year meta-analysis. Plos One 8:e78962

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Mikhaeil M, Day AG, Ilan R (2017) Non-essential blood tests in the intensive care unit: a prospective observational study. Can J Anaesth 64:290–295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Napolitano LM (2004) Scope of the problem: epidemiology of anemia and use of blood transfusions in critical care. Crit Care 8(Suppl 2):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ullman AJ, Keogh S, Coyer F et al (2016) ‘True blood’ the critical care story: an audit of blood sampling practice across three adult, paediatric and neonatal intensive care settings. Aust Crit Care 29:90–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jakacka N, Snarski E, Mekuria S (2016) Prevention of iatrogenic anemia in critical and neonatal care. Adv Clin Exp Med 25:191–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Whitehead NS, Williams LO, Meleth S et al (2019) Interventions to prevent iatrogenic anemia: a laboratory medicine best practices systematic review. Crit Care 23:278

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Bindraban RS, Ten Berg MJ, Naaktgeboren CA et al (2018) Reducing test utilization in hospital settings: a narrative review. Ann Lab Med 38:402–412

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Brooks GA (2018) The science and translation of lactate shuttle theory. Cell Metab 27:757–785

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Alatassi A, Habbal M, Tamim H et al (2018) Association between troponin‑I levels and outcome in critically ill patients admitted to non-cardiac intensive care unit with high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors. BMC Anesthesiol 18:54

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lim W, Qushmaq I, Devereaux PJ et al (2006) Elevated cardiac troponin measurements in critically ill patients. Arch Intern Med 166:2446–2454

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J et al (1996) The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med 22:707–710

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW et al (2016) The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA 315:801–810

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Picariello C, Lazzeri C, Chiostri M et al (2009) Procalcitonin in patients with acute coronary syndromes and cardiogenic shock submitted to percutaneous coronary intervention. Intern Emerg Med 4:403–408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rule JA, Hynan LS, Attar N et al (2015) Procalcitonin identifies cell injury, not bacterial infection, in acute liver failure. PLoS ONE 10:e138566

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W et al (2017) Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med 43:304–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Brunkhorst FM, Weigand MA, Pletz M et al (2020) S3 guideline sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and aftercare: summary of the strong recommendations. Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed 115:178–188

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Calandra T, Cohen J (2005) The international sepsis forum consensus conference on definitions of infection in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 33:1538–1548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Artis KA, Bordley J, Mohan V et al (2019) Data omission by physician trainees on ICU rounds. Crit Care Med 47:403–409

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Prat G, Lefèvre M, Nowak E et al (2009) Impact of clinical guidelines to improve appropriateness of laboratory tests and chest radiographs. Intensive Care Med 35:1047–1053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Foster M, Presseau J, Mccleary N et al (2020) Audit and feedback to improve laboratory test and transfusion ordering in critical care: a systematic review. Implement Sci 15:46

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Kleinpell RM, Farmer JC, Pastores SM (2018) Reducing unnecessary testing in the intensive care unit by choosing wisely. Acute Crit Care 33:1–6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Minerowicz C, Abel N, Hunter K et al (2015) Impact of weekly feedback on test ordering patterns. Am J Manag Care 21:763–768

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Harb R, Hajdasz D, Landry ML et al (2019) Improving laboratory test utilisation at the multihospital Yale New Haven Health System. BMJ Open Qual 8:e689

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Cismondi F, Celi LA, Fialho AS et al (2013) Reducing unnecessary lab testing in the ICU with artificial intelligence. Int J Med Inform 82:345–358

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Petros.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

S. Petros und L. Weidhase geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Additional information

Redaktion

M. Buerke, Siegen

C. Hermes, Bonn

S. Petros, Leipzig

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Petros, S., Weidhase, L. Labordiagnostik in der Intensivmedizin. Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed 115, 539–544 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00063-020-00730-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00063-020-00730-y

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation