Nicole Zytaruk

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.).

Prophylaxis Against Deep Vein Thrombosis in Critically Ill Patients With Severe Renal Insufficiency With the Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Dalteparin An Assessment of Safety and Pharmacodynamics: The DIRECT Study

BACKGROUND Use of low-molecular-weight heparins is avoided in patients with renal insufficiency because of concerns about an excessive anticoagulant effect and increased bleeding risk. To challenge this premise, we evaluated if deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis with dalteparin sodium confers an excessive anticoagulant effect in critically ill patients with severe renal insufficiency. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, single-arm clinical trial of DVT prophylaxis with dalteparin sodium, 5000 IU once daily in critically ill patients with a creatinine clearance lower than 30 mL/min (to convert to milliliters per second, multiply by 0.0167). Bioaccumulation was defined by a trough anti-Xa level higher than 0.40 IU/mL, measured twice weekly. The pharmacodynamic properties of dalteparin were assessed by serial anti-Xa levels measured on days 3, 10, and 17. RESULTS We enrolled 156 patients with a mean (SD) creatinine clearance of 18.9 (6.5) mL/min; 18 were excluded because they died or were discharged before testing (n = 3) or had prevalent DVT (n = 15). Of 138 patients included, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of dalteparin exposure was 7 (4-12) days. In 120 patients who had at least 1 trough anti-Xa level (427 total measurements), no patient had bioaccumulation (0%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0%-3.0%); the median (IQR) trough anti-Xa level was undetectable (<0.10 IU/mL [<0.10 to <0.10 IU/mL]). Based on serial measurements, peak anti-Xa levels were 0.29 to 0.34 IU/mL and trough levels were lower than 0.06 IU/mL. Deep vein thrombosis occurred in 7 of 138 patients (5.1%; 95% CI, 2.5%-10.1%); major bleeding occurred in 10 patients (7.2%; 95% CI, 4.0%-12.8%), all with trough anti-Xa levels of 0.18 IU/mL or lower. CONCLUSION In critically ill patients with severe renal insufficiency, DVT prophylaxis with dalteparin sodium, 5000 IU once daily, is not associated with an excessive anticoagulant effect due to drug bioaccumulation and is unlikely to contribute to bleeding. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00138099.

Do hip protectors decrease the risk of hip fracture in institutional and community-dwelling elderly? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Hip fractures are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in the elderly. Hip protectors are padded undergarments designed to decrease the impact of a fall on the hip. We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials of hip protectors to determine if they reduce hip fractures in the elderly. Analyses were pooled according to participant residence—community or institutional (the latter, included nursing homes, residential group homes or seniors’ hostels). We included individually randomized and statistically adjusted cluster randomized trials. Seven trials of 12- to 28-month duration were included. The Safehip brand of hip protector was used in most studies. Compliance rates in the treatment groups varied from 31 to 68%. In four trials including a total of 5,696 community-dwelling seniors, the hip fracture rates in control groups ranged from 1.1 to 7.4%, and the pooled risk difference with hip protector allocation was 0% [95% confidence intervals (CI), −1%, +1%), with a relative risk of 1.07 (0.81, 1.42). In three trials including 1,188 institutionalized elderly participants, hip fracture rates in the control groups varied from 8 to 19.4%, and the pooled risk difference for sustaining one or more hip fractures with hip protector allocation was −3.7% (95% CI, −7.4%, 0.1%), with a relative risk of 0.56 (0.31, 1.01) (with statistically significant heterogeneity of treatment effect). In a post-hoc subgroup analysis of two trials comprised of exclusively nursing home residents, the risk difference with hip protector allocation was −4.4% (−8.09, −0.76) with a relative risk of 0.50 (0.28, 0.91) ( n =1,014). Thus, there is little evidence to support the use of hip protectors outside the nursing home setting. The potential benefit of hip protectors in reducing hip fractures in nursing home residents requires further confirmation.

Parathyroid hormone for the treatment of osteoporosis: a systematic review

Background: Human parathyroid hormone (hPTH)(1–34) was approved in 2004 for the treatment of severe osteoporosis. Members of the Osteoporosis Canada clinical guidelines committee conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the efficacy and safety of hPTH for fracture prevention in postmenopausal women and men with osteoporosis. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, HTA, Current Contents and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry for published data from 1966 to February 2005. A systematic literature search for RCTs was conducted using the Cochrane Collaborative approach. We identified 12 trials that randomly assigned patients either to hPTH or placebo or to hPTH or an active comparator and were at least 1 year in duration. Outcomes included change in bone mineral density (BMD), fractures, back pain and adverse events. Two independent reviewers abstracted data on study characteristics and outcomes. Results: hPTH(1–34) significantly increases lumbar spine BMD, with smaller increases at the femoral neck and total hip. hPTH(1–84) significantly increases lumbar spine BMD. The data show a significant reduction in both vertebral and nonvertebral fractures with hPTH(1–34) in postmenopausal women with previous vertebral fractures. There were no data on fractures comparing the approved dose of hPTH(1–34) with active comparators. Interpretation: There is Level I evidence that hPTH(1–34) significantly increases BMD at all skeletal sites except the radius and significantly reduces the risk of new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with prior fractures.

Venous thromboembolism and bleeding in critically ill patients with severe renal insufficiency receiving dalteparin thromboprophylaxis: prevalence, incidence and risk factors

BackgroundCritically ill patients with renal insufficiency are predisposed to both deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and bleeding. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the prevalence, incidence and predictors of DVT and the incidence of bleeding in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with estimated creatinine clearance <30 ml/min.MethodsIn a multicenter, open-label, prospective cohort study of critically ill patients with severe acute or chronic renal insufficiency or dialysis receiving subcutaneous dalteparin 5,000 IU once daily, we estimated the prevalence of proximal DVT by screening compression venous ultrasound of the lower limbs within 48 hours of ICU admission. DVT incidence was assessed on twice-weekly ultrasound testing. We estimated the incidence of major and minor bleeding by daily clinical assessments. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to identify independent predictors of both DVT and major bleeding.ResultsOf 156 patients with a mean (standard deviation) creatinine clearance of 18.9 (6.5) ml/min, 18 had DVT or pulmonary embolism within 48 hours of ICU admission, died or were discharged before ultrasound testing – leaving 138 evaluable patients who received at least one dose of dalteparin. The median duration of dalteparin administration was 7 days (interquartile range, 4 to 12 days). DVT developed in seven patients (5.1%; 95% confidence interval, 2.5 to 10.1). The only independent risk factor for DVT was an elevated baseline Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (hazard ratio for 10-point increase, 2.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 4.91). Major bleeding developed in 10 patients (7.2%; 95% confidence interval, 4.0 to 12.8), all with trough anti-activated factor X levels ≤ 0.18 IU/ml. Independent risk factors for major bleeding were aspirin use (hazard ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.35 to 29.4) and a high International Normalized Ratio (hazard ratio for 0.5-unit increase, 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 2.66).ConclusionIn ICU patients with renal insufficiency, the incidence of DVT and major bleeding are considerable but appear related to patient comorbidities rather than to an inadequate or excessive anticoagulant from thromboprophylaxis with dalteparin.Clinical Trial RegistrationNumber NCT00138099.

Enrollment of intensive care unit patients into clinical studies: a trinational survey of researchers' experiences, beliefs, and practices.

Background:As critical care practice increases in scope, size, and complexity, enrollment of critically ill patients into clinical studies is increasing. Objective:To understand the experiences, beliefs, and practices of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group and Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group regarding enrollment of critically ill children and adults into clinical studies. Methods:Survey items generated by the research team were formatted in four domains: experiences, beliefs, practices, and demographics. Five research coordinators and five physicians pretested the survey, providing feedback on clarity and completeness. Intrarater reliability (16 participants, 2 wks apart) was very good. Results:The response rate was 284 of 322 (88.2%). Respondents worked in intensive care units with a mean of 20.5 (sd 10) beds, caring for adults (72.2%), pediatric (18.8%), and both groups (9%) of critically ill patients. Clinical research was considered key to the future of improved clinical care. To enhance recruitment efficiency, respondents widely endorsed the effectiveness of increasing participating centers, after-hours, and weekend enrollment (all 3 scores 7 [6–7[sqb], reflecting median [interquartile range] on 1–7 scale). Overall, the effectiveness (6 [4–7]), feasibility (5 [4–6]) and ethics (5 [4–7]) of coenrollment into more than one randomized trial was endorsed. Half of respondents have adopted coenrollment with scientific and psychosocial provisos. Alternative designs, such as factorial and cluster randomized trials, were considered when suitable. Modifications to consent approaches (deferred consent (7 [6–7]), waived consent (7 [6–7]), or consent from two physicians in the absence of a substitute decision maker (6 [5–7])) were considered effective, but beliefs about the feasibility and ethics of some of these approaches varied. Conclusions:Clinical research is highly valued by these intensive care unit communities. Strategies to increase capacity involve enhancing recruitment efficiencies, considering alternative study designs and expanding consent procedures. Thoughtfully implementing these strategies may advance the care of critically ill adults and children.

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.

Nonleg Venous Thrombosis in Critically Ill Adults: A Nested Prospective Cohort Study

IMPORTANCE Critically ill patients are at risk of venous thrombosis, and therefore guidelines recommend daily thromboprophylaxis. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) commonly occurs in the lower extremities but can occur in other sites including the head and neck, trunk, and upper extremities. The risk of nonleg deep venous thromboses (NLDVTs), predisposing factors, and the association between NLDVTs and pulmonary embolism (PE) or death are unclear. OBJECTIVE To describe the frequency, anatomical location, risk factors, management, and consequences of NLDVTs in a large cohort of medical-surgical critically ill adults. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A nested prospective cohort study in the setting of secondary and tertiary care intensive care units (ICUs). The study population comprised 3746 patients, who were expected to remain in the ICU for at least 3 days and were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial of dalteparin vs standard heparin for thromboprophylaxis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The proportion of patients who had NLDVTs, the mean number per patient, and the anatomical location. We characterized NLDVTs as prevalent or incident (identified within 72 hours of ICU admission or thereafter) and whether they were catheter related or not. We used multivariable regression models to evaluate risk factors for NLDVT and to examine subsequent anticoagulant therapy, associated PE, and death. RESULTS Of 3746 trial patients, 84 (2.2%) developed 1 or more non-leg vein thromboses (superficial or deep, proximal or distal). Thromboses were more commonly incident (n = 75 [2.0%]) than prevalent (n = 9 [0.2%]) (P < .001) and more often deep (n = 67 [1.8%]) than superficial (n = 31 [0.8%]) (P < .001). Cancer was the only independent predictor of incident NLDVT (hazard ratio [HR], 2.22; 95% CI, 1.06-4.65). After adjusting for Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores, personal or family history of venous thromboembolism, body mass index, vasopressor use, type of thromboprophylaxis, and presence of leg DVT, NLDVTs were associated with an increased risk of PE (HR, 11.83; 95% CI, 4.80-29.18). Nonleg DVTs were not associated with ICU mortality (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.62-1.92) in a model adjusting for age, APACHE II, vasopressor use, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, and platelet count below 50 × 10(9)/L. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Despite universal heparin thromboprophylaxis, nonleg thromboses are found in 2.2% of medical-surgical critically ill patients, primarily in deep veins and proximal veins. Patients who have a malignant condition may have a significantly higher risk of developing NLDVT, and patients with NLDVT, compared with those without, appeared to be at higher risk of PE but not higher risk of death. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182143.

Adjudication of bleeding outcomes in an international thromboprophylaxis trial in critical illness

INTRODUCTION Measuring bleeding in critical care trials is challenging. We determined the reliability of adjudicated bleeding assessments in a large thromboprophylaxis trial in the intensive care unit (ICU). MATERIALS AND METHODS PROphylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT) was an international randomized controlled trial that compared dalteparin to unfractionated heparin for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in the ICU. Daily bleeding data were collected prospectively using a validated tool. Bleeds were adjudicated in duplicate by 2 of 4 members comprising a central adjudication committee. Bleeds were stratified by severity and study drug, then randomly assigned to adjudicator pairs. Adjudicators were blinded to treatment allocation, study centre and peer-assessments. We calculated agreement on bleeding severity and examined the effect of adjudication on overall trial results. RESULTS In PROTECT, 491 patients had bleeding events including 208 with major bleeding and 283 with minor bleeding only. Of 491 patients, 446 were adjudicated in duplicate: 182 with major, 250 with minor and 14 with no bleeding. After adjudication, 52 of 244 bleeds were downgraded to minor; whereas only 15 of 244 were upgraded to major. Overall agreement among adjudicators was excellent (crude agreement=86.3%; kappa=0.76). Hazard ratios for major or any bleeding with dalteparin or unfractionated heparin were similar when analyzed using non-adjudicated events. CONCLUSIONS Major bleeds were sometimes over-called by research coordinators in a large ICU thromboprohylaxis trial. Adjudicator agreement was excellent. Central adjudication allowed reliable bleeding assessment and enhanced the rigor and validity of this major safety outcome.

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

BACKGROUND Successful completion of randomized trials depends upon efficiently and ethically screening patients and obtaining informed consent. Awareness of modifiable barriers to obtaining consent may inform ongoing and future trials. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to describe and examine determinants of consent rates in an international heparin thromboprophylaxis trial (Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial, clinicaltrials.gov NCT00182143). DESIGN Throughout the 4-year trial, research personnel approached eligible critically ill patients or their substitute decision makers for informed consent. Whether consent was obtained or declined was documented daily. SETTING The trial was conducted in 67 centers in 6 countries. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS A total of 3764 patients were randomized. The overall consent rate was 82.2% (range, 50%-100%) across participating centers. Consent was obtained from substitute decision makers and patients in 90.1% and 9.9% of cases, respectively. Five factors were independently associated with consent rates. Research coordinators with more experience achieved higher consent rates (odds ratio [OR], 3.43; 95% confidence interval, 2.42-4.86; P < .001 for those with >10 years of experience). Consent rates were higher in smaller intensive care units with less than 15 beds compared with intensive care units with 15 to 20 beds, 21 to 25 beds, and greater than 25 beds (all ORs, <0.5; P < .001) and were higher in centers with more than 1 full-time research staff (OR, 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.99; P < .001). Consent rates were lower in centers affiliated with the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group or the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group compared with other centers (OR, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.77; P < .001). Finally, consent rates were highest during the pilot trial, lowest during the initiation of the full trial, and increased over years of recruitment (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Characteristics of study centers, research infrastructure, and experience were important factors associated with successfully procuring informed consent to participate in this thromboprophylaxis trial.