Shirley Vallance

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.).

Endogenous melatonin increases in cerebrospinal fluid of patients after severe traumatic brain injury and correlates with oxidative stress and metabolic disarray

Oxidative stress plays a significant role in secondary damage after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI); and melatonin exhibits both direct and indirect antioxidant effects. Melatonin deficiency is deleterious in TBI animal models, and its administration confers neuroprotection, reducing cerebral oedema, and improving neurobehavioural outcome. This study aimed to measure the endogenous cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and serum melatonin levels post-TBI in humans and to identify relationships with markers of oxidative stress via 8-isoprostaglandin-F2α (isoprostane), brain metabolism and neurologic outcome. Cerebrospinal fluid and serum samples of 39 TBI patients were assessed for melatonin, isoprostane, and various metabolites. Cerebrospinal fluid but not serum melatonin levels were markedly elevated (7.28±0.92 versus 1.47±0.35 pg/mL, P<0.0005). Isoprostane levels also increased in both CSF (127.62±16.85 versus 18.28±4.88 pg/mL, P<0.0005) and serum (562.46±50.78 versus 126.15±40.08 pg/mL (P<0.0005). A strong correlation between CSF melatonin and CSF isoprostane on day 1 after injury (r=0.563, P=0.002) suggests that melatonin production increases in conjunction with lipid peroxidation in TBI. Relationships between CSF melatonin and pyruvate (r=0.369, P=0.049) and glutamate (r=0.373, P=0.046) indicate that melatonin production increases with metabolic disarray. In conclusion, endogenous CSF melatonin levels increase after TBI, whereas serum levels do not. This elevation is likely to represent a response to oxidative stress and metabolic disarray, although further studies are required to elucidate these relationships.

A pilot feasibility trial of allocation of freshest available red blood cells versus standard care in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND: Prolonged storage of red blood cells (RBCs) may increase posttransfusion adverse events in critically ill patients. We aimed to evaluate in intensive care unit (ICU) patients 1) the feasibility of allocating freshest available compatible RBCs versus standard care and 2) the suitability of this approach in the design of a large randomized controlled trial (RCT).

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.

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.

Effect of Early Sustained Prophylactic Hypothermia on Neurologic Outcomes Among Patients With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: The POLAR Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance After severe traumatic brain injury, induction of prophylactic hypothermia has been suggested to be neuroprotective and improve long-term neurologic outcomes. Objective To determine the effectiveness of early prophylactic hypothermia compared with normothermic management of patients after severe traumatic brain injury. Design, Setting, and Participants The Prophylactic Hypothermia Trial to Lessen Traumatic Brain Injury–Randomized Clinical Trial (POLAR-RCT) was a multicenter randomized trial in 6 countries that recruited 511 patients both out-of-hospital and in emergency departments after severe traumatic brain injury. The first patient was enrolled on December 5, 2010, and the last on November 10, 2017. The final date of follow-up was May 15, 2018. Interventions There were 266 patients randomized to the prophylactic hypothermia group and 245 to normothermic management. Prophylactic hypothermia targeted the early induction of hypothermia (33°C-35°C) for at least 72 hours and up to 7 days if intracranial pressures were elevated, followed by gradual rewarming. Normothermia targeted 37°C, using surface-cooling wraps when required. Temperature was managed in both groups for 7 days. All other care was at the discretion of the treating physician. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was favorable neurologic outcomes or independent living (Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended score, 5-8 [scale range, 1-8]) obtained by blinded assessors 6 months after injury. Results Among 511 patients who were randomized, 500 provided ongoing consent (mean age, 34.5 years [SD, 13.4]; 402 men [80.2%]) and 466 completed the primary outcome evaluation. Hypothermia was initiated rapidly after injury (median, 1.8 hours [IQR, 1.0-2.7 hours]) and rewarming occurred slowly (median, 22.5 hours [IQR, 16-27 hours]). Favorable outcomes (Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended score, 5-8) at 6 months occurred in 117 patients (48.8%) in the hypothermia group and 111 (49.1%) in the normothermia group (risk difference, 0.4% [95% CI, –9.4% to 8.7%]; relative risk with hypothermia, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.82-1.19]; P = .94). In the hypothermia and normothermia groups, the rates of pneumonia were 55.0% vs 51.3%, respectively, and rates of increased intracranial bleeding were 18.1% vs 15.4%, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with severe traumatic brain injury, early prophylactic hypothermia compared with normothermia did not improve neurologic outcomes at 6 months. These findings do not support the use of early prophylactic hypothermia for patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00987688; Anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12609000764235

Erythropoietin does not alter serum profiles of neuronal and axonal biomarkers after traumatic brain injury: Findings from the Australian EPO-TBI clinical trial

Objective: To determine profiles of serum ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 and phosphorylated neurofilament heavy-chain, examine whether erythropoietin administration reduce their concentrations, and whether biomarkers discriminate between erythropoietin and placebo treatment groups. Design: Single-center, prospective observational study. Setting: A sub-study of the erythropoietin-traumatic brain injury clinical trial, conducted at the Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. Patients: Forty-four patients with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury. Interventions: Epoetin alfa 40,000 IU or 1 mL sodium chloride 0.9 as subcutaneous injection within 24 hours of traumatic brain injury. Measurements and Main Results: Ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1, phosphorylated neurofilament heavy-chain, and erythropoietin concentrations were measured in serum by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from D0 (within 24 hr of injury, prior to erythropoietin/vehicle administration) to D5. Biomarker concentrations were compared between injury severities, diffuse versus focal traumatic brain injury and erythropoietin or placebo treatment groups. Ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 peaked at 146.0 ng/mL on D0, significantly decreased to 84.30 ng/mL on D1, and declined thereafter. Phosphorylated neurofilament heavy-chain levels were lowest at D0 and peaked on D5 at 157.9 ng/mL. D0 ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 concentrations were higher in diffuse traumatic brain injury. Peak phosphorylated neurofilament heavy-chain levels on D3 and D4 correlated with Glasgow Outcome Score–Extended, predicting poor outcome. Erythropoietin did not reduce concentrations of ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 or phosphorylated neurofilament heavy-chain. Conclusions: Serum ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 and phosphorylated neurofilament heavy-chain increase after traumatic brain injury reflecting early neuronal and progressive axonal injury. Consistent with lack of improved outcome in traumatic brain injury patients treated with erythropoietin, biomarker concentrations and profiles were not affected by erythropoietin. Pharmacokinetics of erythropoietin suggest that the dose given was possibly too low to exert neuroprotection.