Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation in Surgical Patients — SIC and JAAM-2 Early Detection, Transfusion Thresholds, Heparin Rules and Anticoagulant Evidence

Definition — consumption with thrombosis and bleeding

DIC is a severe coagulopathy characterized by widespread microvascular thrombosis and consumptive coagulopathy, leading to both thrombosis and hemorrhage.^[28] Solid-tumor teaching states the same duality as microthrombi with consumption of factors and platelets and a paradoxical bleeding risk.^[18] For the viva, reframe DIC as advanced failure of the coagulation system, characterized by excessive thrombin generation, impaired fibrin formation, depletion of endogenous anticoagulants, and fibrinolytic imbalance.^[21]

The history the examiner expects: the ISTH released overt DIC criteria in 2001, and since then ISTH overt DIC has been used as the global standard criterion for a decompensated stage of DIC.^[3][4] Because catching an earlier compensated phase would help treatment decisions, the ISTH introduced the SIC scoring system in 2019, specifically designed to detect the compensated phase of DIC in sepsis which can progress to overt DIC.^[3] The modern paradigm names SIC, TIC and obstetric-associated coagulopathy as the phenotype split within precision hemostasis.^[21]

Honest boundary: this set carries no verified verbatim ISTH, JAAM or JSTH point tables, so criteria are named with their stated components only and no invented cutoffs are quoted.^[7][14]

^{[28] [1] [3] [13] [11]}

Epidemiology — how often DIC strikes and who dies

DIC occurs in 30 to 50 percent of septic patients and contributes to high ICU mortality.^[27] The SIC lens finds far more disease: incidence approximately 60 percent in sepsis, twice overt DIC, with almost all overt DIC diagnosed with SIC earlier — and reported SIC mortality at levels used for anticoagulant patient selection.^[3]

The score-positivity ladder across 9319 sepsis patients in 21 studies: ISTH-DIC 28 percent, JAAM-DIC 55 percent, SIC 57 percent positive — with pooled mortalities of 44, 37 and 35 percent respectively.^[16] The interpretation is the teaching point: SIC and JAAM exhibit higher sensitivity for early coagulopathy and possible treatment, while ISTH identifies later-stage disease with better specificity — so early identification with SIC/JAAM with later ISTH confirmation is the proposed sequence.^[16]

Practice lags evidence: among 153 clinicians in 27 countries, the most suggestive features were bleeding in 89 percent, petechiae in 77 percent and shock in 63 percent — yet only 28 percent used a formal DIC scoring system, while first-line management relied on fresh-frozen plasma in 65 percent, platelets in 38 percent and cryoprecipitate in 32 percent.^[19]

^{[27] [3] [16] [19]}

Pathophysiology — thrombin, DAMPs, endothelium and fibrinolysis

Dysregulated innate immunity participates in trauma DIC: cell deaths and neutrophil traps release DAMPs such as histones, nuclear and mitochondrial DNA and high-mobility group box 1 into circulation immediately after trauma.^[6] Those signals drive tissue-factor vesicles, systemic inflammation, platelet and coagulation activation with impaired fibrinolysis and endothelial injury, leading to anticoagulant dysfunction — the main DIC mechanisms — with systemic thrombin generation not restricted to injury sites.^[6]

Trauma then follows a biphasic arc: ineffective hemostasis driven by massive blood loss, tissue damage and hyperfibrinolysis causes the early bleeding phenotype, which progresses to a prothrombotic hypofibrinolytic state also termed fibrinolytic shutdown, promoted further by inflammatory mediators, endothelial injury and platelet dysregulation.^[5] TIC arrives on hospital arrival in approximately 25 percent of seriously injured patients with impaired hemostasis and a bleeding phenotype that can later progress to that prothrombotic phase.^[5]

Sepsis follows a different arc: coagulation activation with suppressed fibrinolysis plus leukocyte, platelet and endothelial thromboinflammation, presenting as multiorgan dysfunction described as SIC that lacks a hemorrhagic phase — and the SIC and TIC phenotypes differ especially in initial presentation.^[5][4] Endotheliopathy tracks this biology as association only: in a 100-patient trauma cohort, syndecan-1 was markedly higher in DIC patients with strong discrimination, but this is context for bleeding risk, never a transfusion trigger in this set.^[5][6]

Clinical Presentation — the surgical deteriorator

Suspect DIC when bleeding, petechiae and shock cluster — the globally recognised triad at 89, 77 and 63 percent.^[19] Standard labs fall together: platelet count, PT/INR, fibrinogen and D-dimer are the commonly used set at 93, 85, 78 and 76 percent of practice.^[19] The solid-tumor pattern to name is an unexplained low platelet count with low fibrinogen, elevated D-dimer and prolonged PT.^[18]

Surgical triggers span sepsis, trauma, malignancy and operation itself: acute intraoperative DIC can strike with normal preoperative coagulation — excessive bleeding with prolonged PT, low fibrinogen and platelets and substantially elevated D-dimer confirming DIC by ISTH criteria — reversed in the reported case within hours by multimodal products, antibiotics and organ support.^[28] In brain injury, fibrinogen is consumed early with nadirs at 3 to 6 hours, D-dimer peaks at 3 hours, and bleeding tendency is highest within the first 3 hours with talk-and-deteriorate risk.^[25]

Differential Diagnosis — TIC versus SIC versus obstetric versus dilution

^{[5] [20] [22] [23] [1]}

Name the confusion aloud before committing: the viva rewards the candidate who states whether they face TIC, SIC or obstetric coagulopathy and which score they are using.^[5][21]

Clinical & Bedside Assessment — repeat the tests, track the pattern

The diagnosis should encompass both clinical and laboratory information, the ISTH system provides objective measurement that correlates with observations and outcomes, and it is important to repeat the tests to monitor the dynamically changing scenario.^[1] Order the four routine labs every time — platelets, PT/INR, fibrinogen and D-dimer — the globally used set.^[19] Track consumption as a pattern: falling platelets and fibrinogen with rising D-dimer or FDP and lengthening PT, with the solid-tumor variant showing low platelets and fibrinogen plus high D-dimer and long PT.^[19][18]

Investigations — SIC, JAAM-2 and what each score is for

SIC is the screening score: the ISTH introduced SIC criteria in 2019 that are easy to use and require only platelet count, PT-INR and SOFA — for severity evaluation and treatment timing — with screening and monitoring by SIC recommended.^[4] JAAM-2 is the treatment-start and bleeding-prediction score in this set: admission scores calculated from platelet count, PT-INR and fibrinogen/FDP, with critical bleeding defined as a composite of death within 24 hours or massive transfusion.^[14]

Performance to quote: at sepsis diagnosis 35 percent met JAAM-2, 9 percent ISTH-overt and 37 percent SIC — with treatment benefit only in DIC and transfusion-requiring bleeding only in non-DIC, and only JAAM-2 modifying both efficacy and safety.^[13] Head-to-head, JAAM and SIC diagnosed almost all ISTH DIC on day one at 98 and 94 percent with equal discrimination and equal MODS prediction and equal progression to ISTH disease — with no survival difference between JAAM- and SIC-defined groups.^[15] The JAAM-2 trauma validation gives an AUC of 0.802 with PT-INR strongest at 0.836 among components, in 10,834 trauma patients with 1.7 percent critical bleeding.^[14] A simplified SIC-2 without SOFA kept overt-DIC discrimination equal and mortality discrimination nearly equal with only a small absolute difference — investigational, not a bedside switch in this set.^[29]

Management — Transfusion: platelets, plasma and fibrinogen

The principle governs everything: transfusion of platelets or plasma should not primarily be based on laboratory results and should in general be reserved for patients who present with bleeding.^[1] Only three small RCTs under 100 patients total studied FFP and platelet transfusion in DIC and found no survival differences — so every product decision below is threshold-guided support, never proven survival therapy.^[2]

Platelets. In DIC with bleeding or high bleeding risk such as postoperative patients or those facing an invasive procedure with low platelets, transfusion of platelets should be considered — while in non-bleeding DIC, prophylactic transfusion is not given unless high bleeding risk is perceived.^[1] The consensus numbers: maintain platelets above 50 in bleeding DIC, with a lower threshold of 20 to 30 acceptable without bleeding.^[2] The stable hematology threshold below 10 is safe in stable disease, but higher thresholds or larger or more frequent doses fit DIC with fever, sepsis, anticoagulation or splenomegaly.^[17] Bleeding solid-tumor DIC is managed with platelet transfusions plus cryoprecipitate plus FFP.^[18]

Plasma. In bleeding DIC with prolonged PT and aPTT, FFP may be useful — never on labs alone but in active bleeding or before an invasive procedure — and there is no evidence that plasma infusion fuels ongoing coagulation.^[1] Where FFP is impossible because of fluid overload, consider factor concentrates such as prothrombin complex concentrate, recognising partial correction only.^[1]

Fibrinogen. Severe hypofibrinogenaemia persisting despite FFP replacement may be treated with fibrinogen concentrate or cryoprecipitate.^[1] Blunt-trauma mortality odds climb gradually as fibrinogen falls from 250 — replace early in bleeding DIC rather than waiting for profound depletion.^[12]

^{[1] [2] [13] [12]}

Management — Heparin: thrombotic phenotype, prophylaxis, and the negative trial signal

Where thrombosis predominates — arterial or venous thromboembolism, severe purpura fulminans with acral ischemia or vascular skin infarction — therapeutic doses of heparin should be considered, with continuous UFH preferred when bleeding risk coexists for its short half-life and reversibility.^[1] Solid-tumor thromboembolism is managed with continuous intravenous heparin plus supportive platelets, with cryoprecipitate to support levels — and combined bleeding plus clot may need a caval filter plus products.^[18] In critically ill non-bleeding DIC, prophylaxis with prophylactic heparin or LMWH is recommended, with consensus advising LMWH until bleeding ensues or platelets fall below 30.^[1][2]

The honesty the examiner rewards: JSTH makes no clear heparin recommendation in sepsis DIC for lack of evidence.^[7] The heparin meta-analysis found only three eligible RCTs: among 426 patients no significant 28-day or hospital mortality difference, and among the 109-patient DIC subgroup also no significant mortality reduction.^[8] The HepSIC answer is pending by design: DIC in 30 to 50 percent of sepsis, 600 planned patients with sepsis and suspected DIC randomised to UFH or saline by continuous infusion for 7 days within 6 hours, with ICU mortality as primary — no bedside UFH survival promise until it reads.^[27]

Management — Antithrombin and thrombomodulin: GRADE, resolution and survival

JSTH sepsis guidance recommends antithrombin and recombinant thrombomodulin, each GRADE 1B, with no clear recommendation for heparin or serine protease inhibitors — and AT-plus-rTM sequence or combination left as future research questions.^[7] Present the evidence exactly as it stands: seven RCTs plus six observationals for antithrombin showed no mortality difference in RCTs with a decreasing-mortality trend only in observationals, while bleeding complications were significantly higher with antithrombin in both designs.^[9] Seven observational trials of AT-plus-rTM versus monotherapy showed a non-significant favourable association with lower 28-day mortality with high heterogeneity.^[10] Across AT and rhTM trials, DIC resolution rates were higher with treatment while 28-day mortality and bleeding events did not differ significantly — resolution is not survival.^[11]

The SCARLET lesson belongs in the viva: the trial has many defects and cannot terminate rTM — future studies must enrol sufficient severity with a clear DIC standard and must not combine heparin with the investigational drug.^[26]

Management — Tranexamic acid: hyperfibrinolysis only, within hours

Blunt-trauma data frame the decision: TXA within 3 hours of arrival is the studied window, with mortality odds rising and plateauing from raised PT-INR, DIC scores above 4 points, APTT from 35 seconds, and gradually as fibrinogen falls from 250.^[12] Early hyperfibrinolysis after brain injury brings uncontrolled bleeding and death, with D-dimer and FDP useful for outcome prediction — while viscoelastic tests give rapid global assessment but remain unclear for fibrinolysis disruption, and early TXA is proposed only with confirmed hyperfibrinolysis.^[24] The limit to state: the only evidence-based TBI-coagulopathy treatment is TXA in mild-to-moderate TBI, with fibrinogen lowest at 3 to 6 hours, D-dimer peaking at 3 hours and bleeding tendency highest in the first 3 hours.^[25] Respect shutdown physiology: the early bleed gives way to hypofibrinolytic shutdown — antifibrinolytics serve hyperfibrinolytic bleeding, not the later prothrombotic phase.^[5]

Specific Subtypes & Scenarios — surgical contexts

• Postoperative bleeding DIC: high-risk by definition — consider platelets when low, FFP for bleeding with prolonged times, fibrinogen concentrate or cryoprecipitate for persistent hypofibrinogenaemia — while operating for source control without waiting for normal numbers.^[1]
• Trauma DIC and TIC: quarter of severely injured arrive coagulopathic and bleeding, then shut down to prothrombotic — JAAM-2 predicts critical bleeding with PT-INR strongest, and the 1982-to-2016 lethal-triad evolution explains why TIC and DIC must be named separately.^[5][14][20]
• Sepsis DIC and SIC: the compensated phase to catch — SIC in 60 percent, nearly all overt cases SIC-first — with JAAM-2 as the only score modifying treatment benefit and harm in this set.^[3][13]
• Solid-tumor DIC: diagnose by low platelets and fibrinogen with high D-dimer and long PT — bleeding gets products, clots get continuous heparin plus platelets, and effective cancer therapy itself resolves DIC.^[18]
• Intraoperative DIC: even with normal preoperative tests, chronic inflammation or occult infection can tip the case — bleeding with prolonged PT, low fibrinogen and platelets and high D-dimer confirms DIC, with products plus antibiotics plus organ support reversing the episode within hours in the reported case.^[28]
• Brain-injury coagulopathy: monitor fibrinogen and D-dimer through the 3-hour window, restrict TXA to mild-to-moderate disease with hyperfibrinolysis, and individualise beyond that.^[25][24]
• Obstetric boundary (do not import): revised Japanese criteria found 18 percent DIC among PPH transfers with severe outcomes in 55 versus 24 percent and fibrinogen 163 versus 241 separating while FDP and D-dimer did not — with PPH risk steepening below low platelets and fibrinogen 200 — recognise and refer, never apply these thresholds to general surgery.^[22][23]

Complications & Pitfalls — the errors examiners reward you for naming

The numbers-only trap — transfusing to correct labs without bleeding. Products are reserved for bleeding; repeat the dynamic scenario instead.^[1]

The missed-compensation trap — waiting for overt DIC. SIC finds twice the disease and nearly all overt cases had SIC first; screen and monitor by SIC.^[3][4]

The treatment-without-DIC trap — anticoagulant treatment without DIC raised transfusion-requiring bleeding without survival gain; only JAAM-2 guided start for benefit without harm.^[13]

The resolution-equals-survival trap — AT and rTM raise DIC resolution without mortality difference; quote resolution and survival separately.^[11]

The heparin-assumption trap — three RCTs with no mortality signal overall or in DIC; JSTH makes no clear heparin recommendation — do not promise benefit.^[8][7]

The TXA-everywhere trap — TXA within 3 hours for hyperfibrinolytic bleeding, only mild-to-moderate TBI evidence-based, never for shutdown-phase prothrombotic DIC.^[12][25]

The point-table trap — quoting ISTH or JAAM points from memory. No verified point source sits here; name components only.^[7][14]

Prognosis & Disposition — ladders and where the patient goes

^{[3] [16] [13] [9] [8] [12]}

Every DIC patient needs monitored care with serial coagulation and organ surveillance — SIC marks the compensated patients who progress to overt disease.^[3][4] Modifiers: trigger control, bleeding versus thrombotic phenotype, score trajectory, organ failures, age and frailty. Discharge only with trigger resolved, counts and fibrinogen stable, and explicit re-escalation triggers for bleeding or thrombosis.^[1][2]

Special Populations — emphasis shifts, never imported thresholds

• Post-laparotomy and major surgery: high bleeding risk by definition — product thresholds apply, source control first, repeat tests through resuscitation.^[1]
• Trauma with bleeding: blood-first resuscitation per the shock sibling, JAAM-2 for critical-bleeding prediction with PT-INR leading, then factor-targeted correction — the lung-protection sibling owns fluids once perfused.^[14][20]
• Elderly and frail: lower reserve, earlier escalation, LMWH prophylaxis only while non-bleeding with platelets above 30.^[2]
• Cancer surgery: chronic DIC pattern with bleeding-plus-clot possibilities — products for bleeding, continuous heparin for clots, cancer therapy as definitive DIC therapy.^[18]
• Pregnancy encountered by the general surgeon: recognise obstetric DIC, apply no surgical transfusion numbers to it, activate obstetric massive-transfusion and uterine-source pathways immediately.^[22][23]

Evidence, Guidelines & Regional Differences — the four stories and who led them

• The definition story (global): ISTH overt 2001 as late global standard → SIC 2019 as compensated-phase screen → phenotype reframing into SIC, TIC and obstetric disease.^[3][4][21]
• The support story (UK/international): BCSH clinical-plus-laboratory diagnosis with treatment of the underlying condition and bleeding-only products → three-trial evidence vacuum with consensus thresholds of 50 bleeding, 20 to 30 dry and LMWH to 30.^[1][2]
• The score story (Japan/global meta): JAAM-2 treatment-start utility with PT-INR leading → SIC-versus-JAAM equivalence for ISTH capture with early-sensitive versus late-specific roles → SIC-2 investigational without SOFA.^{[13][14][15][16][29]}
• The drug story (Japan/global): JSTH GRADE 1B for AT and rTM with heparin unresolved → RCTs no mortality gain with bleeding excess for AT, no heparin signal, resolution-without-survival for both agents → SCARLET critique plus HepSIC pending as the honest future.^{[7][9][8][11][26][27]}
• The surgical story: TIC-versus-SIC phenotypes with shutdown physiology, lethal-triad resuscitation framing, and intraoperative DIC rescue — with obstetric numbers fenced as boundary only.^{[5][20][28][22]}
• Sibling-topic boundary: shock owns pressors, perfusion and massive transfusion ratios; postoperative sepsis owns fever timing, hour-1 antibiotics and leak hunting — this topic owns consumption, scores and product versus anticoagulant decisions. Cite each where it lives.

Exam Pearls — the one-liners that score

• DIC in one breath: microvascular thrombosis plus consumption causing thrombosis and hemorrhage; ISTH 2001 late standard, SIC 2019 compensated screen.^[28][3]
• Numbers: DIC in 30 to 50 percent of sepsis; SIC 60 percent with nearly all overt SIC-first; positivity 28/55/57 with mortality 44/37/35.^[27][3][16]
• Diagnosis: clinical plus laboratory, ISTH correlates with outcomes, repeat the dynamic scenario.^[1]
• Scores: SIC needs platelets, PT-INR and SOFA; JAAM-2 needs platelets, PT-INR and fibrinogen/FDP — only JAAM-2 guides treatment start.^[4][14][13]
• Products: bleeding-only, platelets below 50 when bleeding or high-risk, 20 to 30 dry, FFP for bleeding with long times, fibrinogen concentrate or cryo for persistent hypofibrinogenaemia.^[1][2]
• Heparin: therapeutic for thrombotic phenotype with continuous UFH when bleeding threatens; prophylactic LMWH while non-bleeding to platelets 30; no mortality signal in three RCTs.^[1][2][8]
• AT and rTM: JSTH GRADE 1B each; RCTs no mortality gain with bleeding excess for AT; resolution up without survival gain; SCARLET needs severe clear-DIC patients without heparin masking.^{[7][9][11][26]}
• TXA: within 3 hours for hyperfibrinolytic bleeding with DIC above 4 and INR rising; TBI evidence only mild-to-moderate; never for shutdown.^[12][25]
• Phenotypes: TIC bleeds in a quarter on arrival then shuts down; SIC lacks hemorrhage and brings organ failure.^[5]
• Boundary: obstetric 18 percent DIC with 55 versus 24 percent severe outcomes — recognise and refer, never import.^[22]

Revision summary

Define consumption with thrombosis and bleeding against the ISTH 2001 late standard and the SIC 2019 compensated screen, reframed as advanced coagulation failure split into SIC, TIC and obstetric phenotypes.^[28][3][21] Expect DIC in 30 to 50 percent of sepsis with SIC at 60 percent and nearly all overt cases SIC-first, and band prognosis by score positivity and mortality ladders.^[27][3][16] Diagnose clinically plus laboratorily with repeated platelets, PT/INR, fibrinogen and D-dimer, screen by SIC and start treatment by JAAM-2 — the only score modifying benefit and harm — never treating without DIC.^{[1][4][14][13]} Transfuse bleeding-only by the platelet, plasma and fibrinogen rules, reserve therapeutic heparin for thrombotic phenotypes with prophylactic LMWH while dry, and present AT and rTM as GRADE 1B agents that resolve DIC without proven survival gain with heparin showing no signal.^{[1][2][7][9][8][11]} Time TXA within hours for hyperfibrinolytic bleeding only, respect shutdown physiology, and keep obstetric thresholds as boundary.^{[12][25][5][22]}

References29ShowHide

1. [1]Levi M, Toh CH, Thachil J, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of disseminated intravascular coagulation. British Committee for Standards in Haematology. Br J Haematol, 2009.PMID 19222477
2. [2]Squizzato A, Hunt BJ, Kinasewitz GT, et al. Supportive management strategies for disseminated intravascular coagulation. An international consensus. Thromb Haemost, 2016.PMID 26676927
3. [3]Iba T, Levi M, Thachil J, et al. Communication from the Scientific and Standardization Committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis on sepsis-induced coagulopathy in the management of sepsis. J Thromb Haemost, 2023.PMID 36695377
4. [4]Iba T, Helms J, Connors JM, et al. The pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of sepsis-associated disseminated intravascular coagulation. J Intensive Care, 2023.PMID 37221630
5. [5]Iba T, Helms J, Neal MD, et al. Mechanisms and management of the coagulopathy of trauma and sepsis: trauma-induced coagulopathy, sepsis-induced coagulopathy, and disseminated intravascular coagulation. J Thromb Haemost, 2023.PMID 37722532
6. [6]Gando S, Levi M, Toh CH Trauma-induced innate immune activation and disseminated intravascular coagulation. J Thromb Haemost, 2024.PMID 37816463
7. [7]Yamakawa K, Okamoto K, Seki Y, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for management of disseminated intravascular coagulation in Japan 2024. Part 1: sepsis. Int J Hematol, 2025.PMID 39676120
8. [8]Totoki T, Koami H, Makino Y, et al. Heparin therapy in sepsis and sepsis-associated disseminated intravascular coagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb J, 2024.PMID 39350146
9. [9]Tsuchida T, Makino Y, Wada T, et al. Efficacy of antithrombin administration for patients with sepsis: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Acute Med Surg, 2024.PMID 38638892
10. [10]Totoki T, Makino Y, Yamakawa K, et al. Effects of combination therapy of antithrombin and thrombomodulin for sepsis-associated disseminated intravascular coagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb J, 2024.PMID 38225597
11. [11]Li W, Sheng S, Zhu F Efficacy and safety of antithrombin or recombinant human thrombomodulin in the treatment of disseminated intravascular coagulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Res, 2025.PMID 40068332
12. [12]Takahashi Y, Hayakawa M, Itagaki Y, et al. Coagulopathy as a predictor of the effectiveness of tranexamic acid in severe blunt trauma: a multicenter retrospective study. Thromb J, 2025.PMID 40264127
13. [13]Matsuoka T, Yamakawa K, Umemura Y, et al. The modified Japanese Association for Acute Medicine disseminated intravascular coagulation diagnostic criteria in sepsis is useful for an indicator of initiating treatment for disseminated intravascular coagulation. Thromb Res, 2025.PMID 40738094
14. [14]Takahashi M, Wada T, Tsuchida T, et al. Validation of the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine-2 disseminated intravascular coagulation criteria to predict critical bleeding in patients with trauma: A nationwide cohort study in Japan. Thromb Res, 2025.PMID 41232203
15. [15]Gando S, Wada T, Yamakawa K, et al. Utility of Sepsis-induced Coagulopathy Among Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Diagnostic Criteria: A Multicenter Retrospective Validation Study. Thromb Haemost, 2025.PMID 39900104
16. [16]Kiya GT, Abebe G, Mekonnen Z, et al. A comparison of disseminated intravascular coagulation scoring systems and their performance to predict mortality in sepsis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 2025.PMID 39821194
17. [17]Triulzi DJ How well do platelets prevent bleeding? Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program, 2020.PMID 33275687
18. [18]Feinstein DI Disseminated intravascular coagulation in patients with solid tumors. Oncology (Williston Park), 2015.PMID 25683828
19. [19]Nwagha TU, Hajjaj OI, Levy JH, et al. Global practice and challenges in the diagnosis and management of disseminated intravascular coagulation: communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation. J Thromb Haemost, 2026.PMID 41655787
20. [20]Xiao L, Zhang L The lethal triad: Past, present, and future. Chin J Traumatol, 2026.PMID 42120237
21. [21]Crochemore T, Scarlatescu E Revisiting the Concept of DIC: A Phenotype-guided Framework for Modern Hemostatic Medicine. Juntendo Med J, 2026.PMID 41859212
22. [22]Takahashi Y, Obata S, Nakanishi S, et al. Maternal Severity and Diagnostic Validity of the Revised Japanese Criteria for Obstetric Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation: A Retrospective Observational Study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2026.PMID 42381181
23. [23]Ii K, Hisamune R, Ushio N, et al. Assessment of coagulation markers and decision curve analysis for predicting transfusions and hemostatic interventions in severe postpartum hemorrhage: A nationwide observational study in Japan. Thromb Res, 2026.PMID 42019392
24. [24]Anderson TN, Farrell DH, Rowell SE Fibrinolysis in Traumatic Brain Injury: Diagnosis, Management, and Clinical Considerations. Semin Thromb Hemost, 2021.PMID 33878779
25. [25]Nakae R, Murai Y, Morita A, et al. Coagulopathy and Traumatic Brain Injury: Overview of New Diagnostic and Therapeutic Strategies. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo), 2022.PMID 35466118
26. [26]Guo JY, Lin HY Why anticoagulant studies on sepsis fail frequently --- start with SCARLET. Chin J Traumatol, 2023.PMID 37321903
27. [27]Sun Y, Ding R, Sun H, et al. Efficacy and safety of heparin for sepsis-induced disseminated intravascular coagulation (HepSIC): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Trials, 2024.PMID 38167115
28. [28]Nguyen BL, Pham MQ, Nguyen TH, et al. Acute Intraoperative Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation During Suppurative Keloid Excision: A Case Report. Am J Case Rep, 2026.PMID 42237503
29. [29]Iba T, Tanigawa T, Kondo Y, et al. Proposal of simplified sepsis-induced coagulopathy criteria (SIC-2) for the detection of early-phase disseminated intravascular coagulation in sepsis. J Thromb Haemost, 2026.PMID 42498136