Ismael Qushmaq

Dalteparin versus unfractionated heparin in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND The effects of thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin, as compared with unfractionated heparin, on venous thromboembolism, bleeding, and other outcomes are uncertain in critically ill patients. METHODS In this multicenter trial, we tested the superiority of dalteparin over unfractionated heparin by randomly assigning 3764 patients to receive either subcutaneous dalteparin (at a dose of 5000 IU once daily) plus placebo once daily (for parallel-group twice-daily injections) or unfractionated heparin (at a dose of 5000 IU twice daily) while they were in the intensive care unit. The primary outcome, proximal leg deep-vein thrombosis, was diagnosed on compression ultrasonography performed within 2 days after admission, twice weekly, and as clinically indicated. Additional testing for venous thromboembolism was performed as clinically indicated. Data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS There was no significant between-group difference in the rate of proximal leg deep-vein thrombosis, which occurred in 96 of 1873 patients (5.1%) receiving dalteparin versus 109 of 1873 patients (5.8%) receiving unfractionated heparin (hazard ratio in the dalteparin group, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.23; P=0.57). The proportion of patients with pulmonary emboli was significantly lower with dalteparin (24 patients, 1.3%) than with unfractionated heparin (43 patients, 2.3%) (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.88; P=0.01). There was no significant between-group difference in the rates of major bleeding (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.34; P=0.98) or death in the hospital (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.05; P=0.21). In prespecified per-protocol analyses, the results were similar to those of the main analyses, but fewer patients receiving dalteparin had heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.98; P=0.046). CONCLUSIONS Among critically ill patients, dalteparin was not superior to unfractionated heparin in decreasing the incidence of proximal deep-vein thrombosis. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; PROTECT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00182143.).

Elevated troponin and myocardial infarction in the intensive care unit: a prospective study

IntroductionElevated troponin levels indicate myocardial injury but may occur in critically ill patients without evidence of myocardial ischemia. An elevated troponin alone cannot establish a diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI), yet the optimal methods for diagnosing MI in the intensive care unit (ICU) are not established. The study objective was to estimate the frequency of MI using troponin T measurements, 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) and echocardiography, and to examine the association of elevated troponin and MI with ICU and hospital mortality and length of stay.MethodIn this 2-month single centre prospective cohort study, all consecutive patients admitted to our medical-surgical ICU were classified in duplicate by two investigators as having MI or no MI based on troponin, ECGs and echocardiograms obtained during the ICU stay. The diagnosis of MI was based on an adaptation of the joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology definition: a typical rise or fall of an elevated troponin measurement, in addition to ischemic symptoms, ischemic ECG changes, a coronary artery intervention, or a new cardiac wall motion abnormality.ResultsWe screened 117 ICU admissions and enrolled 115 predominantly medical patients. Of these, 93 (80.9%) had at least one ECG and one troponin; 44 of these 93 (47.3%) had at least one elevated troponin and 24 (25.8%) had an MI. Patients with MI had significantly higher mortality in the ICU (37.5% versus 17.6%; P = 0.050) and hospital (50.0% versus 22.0%; P = 0.010) than those without MI. After adjusting for Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score and need for inotropes or vasopressors, MI was an independent predictor of hospital mortality (odds ratio 3.22, 95% confidence interval 1.04–9.96). The presence of an elevated troponin (among those patients in whom troponin was measured) was not independently predictive of ICU or hospital mortality.ConclusionIn this study, 47% of critically ill patients had an elevated troponin but only 26% of these met criteria for MI. An elevated troponin without ischemic ECG changes was not associated with adverse outcomes; however, MI in the ICU setting was an independent predictor of hospital mortality.

Detecting myocardial infarction in critical illness using screening troponin measurements and ECG recordings

IntroductionTo use screening cardiac troponin (cTn) measurements and electrocardiograms (ECGs) to determine the incidence of elevated cTn and of myocardial infarction (MI) in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), and to assess whether these findings influence prognosis. This is a prospective screening study.Materials and methodsWe enrolled consecutive patients admitted to a general medical-surgical ICU over two months. All patients underwent systematic screening with cTn measurements and ECGs on ICU admission, then daily for the first week in ICU, alternate days for up to one month and weekly thereafter until ICU death or discharge, for a maximum of two months. Patients without these investigations ordered during routine clinical care underwent screening for study purposes but these results were unavailable to the ICU team. After the study, all ECGs were interpreted independently in duplicate for ischaemic changes meeting ESC/ACC criteria supporting a diagnosis of MI. Patients were classified as having MI (elevated cTn and ECG evidence supporting diagnosis of MI), elevated cTn only (no ECG evidence supporting diagnosis of MI), or no cTn elevation.ResultsOne hundred and three patients were admitted to the ICU on 112 occasions. Overall, 37 patients (35.9 per cent) had an MI, 15 patients (14.6 per cent) had an elevated cTn only and 51 patients (49.5 per cent) had no cTn elevation. Patients with MI had longer duration of mechanical ventilation (p < 0.0001), longer ICU stay (p = 0.001), higher ICU mortality (p < 0.0001) and higher hospital mortality (p < 0.0001) compared with those with no cTn elevation. Patients with elevated cTn had higher hospital mortality (p = 0.001) than patients without cTn elevation. Elevated cTn was associated with increased hospital mortality (odds ratio 27.3, 95 per cent CI 1.7 – 449.4), after adjusting for APACHE II score, MI and advanced life support. The ICU team diagnosed 18 patients (17.5 per cent) as having MI on clinical grounds; four of these patients did not have MI by adjudication. Thus, screening detected an additional 23 MIs not diagnosed in practice, reflecting 62.2 per cent of MIs ultimately diagnosed. Patients with MI diagnosed by the ICU team had similar outcomes to patients with MI detected by screening alone.ConclusionSystematic screening detected elevated cTn measurements and MI in more patients than were found in routine practice. Elevated cTn was an independent predictor of hospital mortality. Further research is needed to evaluate whether screening and subsequent treatment of these patients reduces mortality.

PROphylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial protocol and analysis plan.

BACKGROUND This article reports the preparatory studies as well as the design, implementation, and a priori analysis plans of PROphylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT) before dissemination of results. PROphylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial (NCT00182143) is a randomized, stratified, concealed international trial comparing subcutaneous injection of unfractionated heparin (UFH) 5000 IU or the low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin 5000 IU once daily plus once-daily placebo for the duration of the intensive care unit stay. METHODS The objective of PROTECT is to examine, among medical-surgical critically ill patients, the effect of the LMWH vs heparin on the primary outcome of proximal leg deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and the following secondary outcomes: DVT elsewhere, pulmonary embolism, any venous thromboembolism (DVT or pulmonary embolism), the composite of venous thromboembolism or death, bleeding, and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Patients are followed up to death or hospital discharge. Venous thromboembolism events were included after intensive care unit discharge. All patients, families, clinicians, research personnel, and the trial biostatistician are blind to allocation. RESULTS We describe the pilot work, large trial methodology, implementation methods, and the analytic plan. Patient recruitment is complete, but 2 patients remain in the hospital. The rigorous design of PROTECT suggests that the risk of systematic error will be low. The sample size suggests that the risk of random error will be low. PROTECT will be the largest investigator-initiated peer-review funded thromboprophylaxis trial in critical care in the world. CONCLUSIONS If PROTECT shows that LMWH is more effective than UFH, this trial will change practice in that LMWH may be the anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis of choice for this population. If the results show that UFH is as effective or more effective than LMWH, intensivists in many parts of the world may continue to use UFH, whereas those currently using LMWH may reconsider and change to use UFH. Unfavorable consequences such as major bleeding, ease of use, and the costs of complications will also factor into such decisions.

Cost-effectiveness of Dalteparin vs Unfractionated Heparin for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Critically Ill Patients

IMPORTANCE Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of acute illness, and its prevention is a ubiquitous aspect of inpatient care. A multicenter blinded, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of the most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, finding no difference in the primary end point of leg deep-vein thrombosis but a reduced rate of pulmonary embolus and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia among critically ill medical-surgical patients who received dalteparin. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the comparative cost-effectiveness of LMWH vs UFH for prophylaxis against VTE in critically ill patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Prospective economic evaluation concurrent with the Prophylaxis for Thromboembolism in Critical Care Randomized Trial (May 2006 to June 2010). The economic evaluation adopted a health care payer perspective and in-hospital time horizon; derived baseline characteristics and probabilities of intensive care unit and in-hospital events; and measured costs among 2344 patients in 23 centers in 5 countries and applied these costs to measured resource use and effects of all enrolled patients. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Costs, effects, incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH vs UFH during the period of hospitalization, and sensitivity analyses across cost ranges. RESULTS Hospital costs per patient were

Acute Management and Long-Term Survival Among Subjects With Severe Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Pneumonia and ARDS

39,508 (interquartile range [IQR],

Reliability of electrocardiogram interpretation in critically ill patients.

24,676 to

Failure of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis: risk factors in medical-surgical critically ill patients

71,431) for 1862 patients who received LMWH compared with

Rates and determinants of informed consent: A case study of an international thromboprophylaxis trial

40,805 (IQR,

The diagnosis of myocardial infarction in critically ill patients: An agreement study

24,393 to