Search

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of critical illness with important clinical consequences. The Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT) is a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of the two most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, in medical-surgical patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). E-PROTECT is a prospective and concurrent economic evaluation of the PROTECT trial., Methods/design: The primary objective of E-PROTECT is to identify and quantify the total (direct and indirect, variable and fixed) costs associated with the management of critically ill patients participating in the PROTECT trial, and, to combine costs and outcome results to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH versus UFH, from the acute healthcare system perspective, over a data-rich time horizon of ICU admission and hospital admission. We derive baseline characteristics and probabilities of in-ICU and in-hospital events from all enrolled patients. Total costs are derived from centers, proportional to the numbers of patients enrolled in each country. Direct costs include medication, physician and other personnel costs, diagnostic radiology and laboratory testing, operative and non-operative procedures, costs associated with bleeding, transfusions and treatment-related complications. Indirect costs include ICU and hospital ward overhead costs. Outcomes are the ratio of incremental costs per incremental effects of LMWH versus UFH during hospitalization; incremental cost to prevent a thrombosis at any site (primary outcome); incremental cost to prevent a pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, major bleeding event or episode of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (secondary outcomes) and incremental cost per life-year gained (tertiary outcome). Pre-specified subgroups and sensitivity analyses will be performed and confidence intervals for the estimates of incremental cost-effectiveness will be obtained using bootstrapping., Discussion: This economic evaluation employs a prospective costing methodology concurrent with a randomized controlled blinded clinical trial, with a pre-specified analytic plan, outcome measures, subgroup and sensitivity analyses. This economic evaluation has received only peer-reviewed funding and funders will not play a role in the generation, analysis or decision to submit the manuscripts for publication., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182143 . Date of registration: 10 September 2005.

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 $39,508 (interquartile range [IQR], $24,676 to $71,431) for 1862 patients who received LMWH compared with $40,805 (IQR, $24,393 to $76,139) for 1862 patients who received UFH (incremental cost, -$1297 [IQR, -$4398 to $1404]; P = .41). In 78% of simulations, a strategy using LMWH was most effective and least costly. In sensitivity analyses, a strategy using LMWH remained least costly unless the drug acquisition cost of dalteparin increased from $8 to $179 per dose and was consistent among higher- and lower-spending health care systems. There was no threshold at which lowering the acquisition cost of UFH favored prophylaxis with UFH., Conclusions and Relevance: From a health care payer perspective, the use of the LMWH dalteparin for VTE prophylaxis among critically ill medical-surgical patients was more effective and had similar or lower costs than the use of UFH. These findings were driven by lower rates of pulmonary embolus and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and corresponding lower overall use of resources with LMWH.

Background: Thrombocytopenia occurs in 20% to 45% of critically ill medical-surgical patients. The 4Ts heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) score (with 4 domains: Thrombocytopenia, Timing of thrombocytopenia, Thrombosis and oTher reason[s] for thrombocytopenia) might reliably identify patients at low risk for HIT. Interobserver agreement on 4Ts scoring is uncertain in this setting., Objective: To evaluate whether a published clinical prediction rule (the "4Ts score") reliably rules out HIT in "low-risk" intensive care unit (ICU) patients as assessed by research coordinators (who prospectively scored) and 2 adjudicators (who scored retrospectively) during an international heparin thromboprophylaxis trial (PROTECT, NCT00182143)., Methods: Of 3746 medical-surgical ICU patients in PROTECT, 794 met the enrollment criteria for this HIT substudy. Enrollment was predicated on one of the following occurring in ICU: platelets less than 50×10(9)/L, platelets decreased to 50% of ICU admission value (if admission value<100×10(9)/L), any venous thrombosis, or if HIT was otherwise clinically suspected. Independently, 4Ts scores were completed in real time by research coordinators blinded to study drug and laboratory HIT results, and retrospectively by 2 adjudicators blinded to study drug, laboratory HIT results, and research coordinators' scores; the adjudicators arrived at consensus in all cases. Of the 763 patients, 474 had a central or local laboratory HIT test performed and had 4Ts scoring by adjudicators; 432 were scored by trained research coordinators. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia was defined by a centrally performed positive serotonin release assay (SRA)., Results: Of the 474 patients with central adjudication, 407 (85.9%) had a 4Ts score of 3 or lower, conferring a low pretest probability (PTP) of HIT; of these, 6 (1.5% [95% confidence interval, 0.7%-3.2%) had a positive SRA. Fifty-nine (12.4%) had a moderate PTP (4Ts score of 4-5); of these, 4 (6.8%) had a positive SRA. Eight patients had a high PTP (4Ts score of ≥6); of these, 1 (12.5%) had a positive SRA. Raw agreement between research coordinators and central adjudication on each domain of the 4Ts score and low, intermediate, and high PTP was good. However, chance-corrected agreement was variable between adjudicators (weighted κ values of 0.31-0.93) and between the adjudicator consensus and research coordinators (weighted κ values of 0.13 and 0.78). Post hoc review of the 6 SRA-positive cases with an adjudicated low PTP demonstrated that their scores would have been increased if the adjudicators had had additional information on heparin exposure prior to ICU admission. In general, the fourth domain of 4Ts (oTher causes of thrombocytopenia) generated the most disagreement., Conclusions: Real-time 4Ts scoring by research coordinators at the time of testing for HIT was not consistent with 4Ts scores obtained by central adjudicators. The results of this comprehensive HIT testing highlight the need for further research to improve the assessment of PTP scoring of HIT for critically ill patients., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Bleeding frequently complicates critical illness and may have serious consequences. Our objectives are to describe the predictors of major bleeding and the association between bleeding and mortality in medical-surgical critically ill patients receiving heparin thromboprophylaxis., Methods: We prospectively studied patients from 67 intensive care units and six countries enrolled in a thromboprophylaxis trial (NCT00182143) comparing dalteparin with unfractionated heparin. Patients with trauma, orthopedic surgery or neurosurgery were excluded. Trained research coordinators used a validated tool to document bleeding, which underwent duplicate independent blinded adjudication. Major bleeding was defined as hypovolemic shock, bleeding into critical sites, requiring an invasive intervention or transfusion of at least two units of red blood cells, or associated with hypotension or tachycardia in the absence of other causes. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to identify major bleeding predictors and the association between bleeding and mortality., Results: Among 3,746 patients, bleeding occurred in 208 [5.6 %, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 4.9-6.3 %]. Time-dependent predictors were prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time [hazard ratio (HR) 1.10, 1.05-1.14 per 10 s increase], lower platelet count (HR 1.16, 1.09-1.24 per 50 × 10(9)/L decrease), therapeutic heparin (HR 3.26, 1.72-6.17), antiplatelet agents (HR 1.38, 1.02-1.88), renal replacement therapy (HR 1.75, 1.20-2.56), and recent surgery (HR 1.64, 1.01-2.65). Type of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis was not associated with bleeding. Patients with bleeding had a higher risk of in-hospital death (HR 2.09, 1.69-2.57)., Conclusions: As major bleeding has modifiable risk factors and is associated with in-hospital mortality, strategies to mitigate these factors should be evaluated in critically ill patients.

Background: Thrombocytopenia is the most common hemostatic disorder in critically ill patients. The objective of this study was to describe the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of thrombocytopenia in patients admitted to medical-surgical ICUs., Methods: Three thousand seven hundred forty-six patients in 67 centers were enrolled in a randomized trial in which unfractionated heparin was compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for thromboprophylaxis. Patients who had baseline platelet counts < 75 × 10(9)/L or severe coagulopathy at screening were excluded. We analyzed the risk of developing mild (100-149 × 10(9)/L), moderate (50-99 × 10(9)/L), and severe (< 50 × 109/L) thrombocytopenia during an ICU stay. We also assessed independent and time-varying predictors of thrombocytopenia and the effect of thrombocytopenia on major bleeding, transfusions, and death., Results: The incidences of mild, moderate, and severe thrombocytopenia were 15.3%, 5.1%, and 1.6%, respectively. The predictors of each category of thrombocytopenia were APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) II score, use of inotropes or vasopressors, and renal replacement therapy. The risk of moderate thrombocytopenia was lower in patients who received LMWH thromboprophylaxis but higher in surgical patients and in patients who had liver disease. Each category of thrombocytopenia was associated with subsequent bleeding and transfusions. Moderate and severe thrombocytopenia were associated with increased ICU and hospital mortality., Conclusion: A high severity of illness, prior surgery, use of inotropes or vasopressors, renal replacement therapy, and liver dysfunction are associated with a higher risk of thrombocytopenia developing in the ICU, whereas LMWH thromboprophylaxis is associated with a lower risk. Patients who develop thrombocytopenia in the ICU are more likely to bleed, receive transfusions, and die.

Objective: To compare the time to achieve therapeutic anticoagulation with heparin using two dosing methods., Design: A retrospective before and after time series., Setting: An 11-bed medical-surgical intensive care unit of a tertiary, teaching hospital., Patients: Critically ill patients who required full dose anticoagulation as part of treatment of hemodynamic or respiratory failure., Intervention: The use of a weight-based dosing nomogram with independent adjustment of infusion rates by nursing staff utilizing the nomogram dosing directions. This nomogram was compared with prior empiric heparin dosing by physicians., Measurements and Main Results: The time to achieve a therapeutic activated partial thromboplastin time (PTT) (> 60 secs) was significantly less during use of the nomogram than during use of the empiric dosing method. The number of adjustments required to achieve the therapeutic PTT was less during use of the nomogram. Heparin dosing using the nomogram resulted in larger initial heparin infusion rates (unit/kg) and significantly higher initial PTT results. There was no difference in the initial bolus dose, time to first measured PTT, number of PTT measurements outside the therapeutic range, or signs of toxicity from subtherapeutic or supratherapeutic anticoagulation., Conclusions: Use of a weight-based heparin dosing nomogram by intensive care unit nursing staff can shorten the time to achieve therapeutic anticoagulation compared with empiric dosing by physicians.