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.

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.