Search

Background Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are prescribed for over 80% of patients who start anticoagulant therapy for a new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF). Inappropriate DOAC prescriptions are associated with increased mortality. However, limited data exist as to what proportion of primary care physicians (PCPs) initiate anticoagulation in patients with new AF and the extent of their DOAC knowledge. Material and methods We conducted a telephone survey of randomly selected PCPs in Ontario, Canada. Our primary objective was to determine the percentage of PCPs who initiate anticoagulation in new AF patients and the proportion of patients they initiate on DOACs. Our secondary objectives were to assess PCPs' knowledge about DOACs and to identify educational opportunities to address any knowledge gaps. Results Our survey included 50 respondents. After making a new AF diagnosis, 66% of PCPs stated that they usually initiate anticoagulation themselves and 84% prescribed a DOAC at least 75% of the time. Potential DOAC knowledge gaps included: administration considerations, off-label dosing, concomitant use of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and use in valvular AF. Conclusion Most PCPs initiate anticoagulants for AF and prescribe DOACs for the vast majority of new patients. PCPs were well versed in certain aspects of DOAC prescribing, however, a number of knowledge gaps were identified. PCPs may benefit from targeted education in these areas to improve patient outcomes in AF.

Background Although venous thromboembolism (VTE) is one of the most common and most preventable complications of hospital stay, review of the literature demonstrates large evidence-care gaps for VTE prevention. Objectives This study aimed to determine if a multi-component quality improvement (QI) strategy, including the support of hospital leadership, use of order sets, audit and feedback, and active pharmacy involvement, could increase the use of appropriate thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalized for hip fracture surgery (HFS), major general surgery (MGS) and acute medical illness (MED). Methods TOPPS was a cluster randomized trial involving eight hospitals. After a baseline data collection phase, one of the three patient groups at each site was randomized to the targeted QI intervention while the other two groups served as controls. In the next phase, an additional patient group at each site was randomized to the intervention while the third group remained controls. Standardized chart audits were conducted to assess the rates of appropriate thromboprophylaxis use. Results At baseline, the rates of appropriate thromboprophylaxis were 79% in HFS, 43% in MGS and 31% in MED. By the end of phase 3, 89% of HFS, 65% of MGS and 70% of MED patients were receiving appropriate prophylaxis. Improvement was greater in the intervention groups compared to controls (85% vs. 76% in HFS; 67% vs. 54% in MGS; 64% vs. 62% in MED) and this difference reached significance in the MGS group (p = 0.048). Conclusions Use of a multi-component intervention can be effective in improving the appropriate use of thromboprophylaxis.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading cause of delayed mortality in patients with severe injury. While low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is often favored over unfractionated heparin (UH) for thromboprophylaxis, evidence is lacking to demonstrate an effect on the occurrence of PE. This study compared the effectiveness of LMWH versus UH to prevent PE in patients following major trauma.Data for adults with severe injury who received thromboprophylaxis with LMWH or UH were derived from the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2012-2015). Patients who died or were discharged within 5 days were excluded. Rates of PE were compared between propensity-matched LMWH and UH groups. Subgroup analyses included patients with blunt multisystem injury, penetrating truncal injury, shock, severe traumatic brain injury, and isolated orthopedic injury. A center-level analysis was performed to determine if practices with respect to choice of prophylaxis type influence hospital PE rates.We identified 153,474 patients at 217 trauma centers who received thromboprophylaxis with LMWH or UH. Low-molecular-weight heparin was given in 74% of patients. Pulmonary embolism occurred in 1.8%. Propensity score matching yielded a well-balanced cohort of 75,920 patients. After matching, LMWH was associated with a significantly lower rate of PE compared with UH (1.4% vs. 2.4%; odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.63). This finding was consistent across injury subgroups. Trauma centers in the highest quartile of LMWH utilization (median LMWH use, 95%) reported significantly fewer PE compared with centers in the lowest quartile (median LMWH use, 39%; 1.2% vs. 2.0%; odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.74).Thromboprophylaxis with LMWH (vs. UH) was associated with significantly lower risk of PE. Trauma centers favoring LMWH-based prophylaxis strategies reported lower rates of PE. Low-molecular-weight heparin should be the anticoagulant agent of choice for prevention of PE in patients with major trauma.Therapeutic study, level III.

Introduction There is concern about excessive bleeding when low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are used for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in renal dysfunction. Our objective was to evaluate whether LMWH VTE prophylaxis was safe and effective in critically ill patients with renal dysfunction by conducting a subgroup analysis of PROTECT, a randomized blinded trial. Methods We studied intensive care unit (ICU) patients with pre-ICU dialysis-dependent end-stage renal disease (ESRD; pre-specified subgroup; n = 118), or severe renal dysfunction at ICU admission (defined as ESRD or non-dialysis dependent with creatinine clearance [CrCl]

Although there are numerous publications addressing venous thromboembolism and its prevention in neurosurgery, there are relatively few high-quality studies to guide decisions regarding thromboprophylaxis. In patients undergoing craniotomy, we recommend that if intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) is used, it should be applied before the surgical procedure or on admission (Grade 1C). In craniotomy patients at particularly high risk for venous thromboembolism, we suggest considering the initiation of mechanical thromboprophylaxis with IPC preoperatively with addition of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) postoperatively when the risk of bleeding is presumed to be decreased (Grade 2C). In patients with non-traumatic intracranial haemorrhage, we suggest thromboprophylaxis with IPC (Grade 2C). For patients who have had non-traumatic intracranial haemorrhage, we suggest giving consideration to commencement of LMWH or low-dose unfractionated heparin when the risk of bleeding is presumed to be low (Grade 2C). We suggest continuing thromboprophylaxis until full mobilisation of the patient (Grade 2C). For patients undergoing spinal surgery with no additional risk factors, we suggest no active thromboprophylaxis intervention apart from early mobilisation (Grade 2C). For patients undergoing spinal surgery with additional risk factors, we recommend starting mechanical thromboprophylaxis with IPC (Grade 1C), and we suggest the addition of LMWH postoperatively when the risk of bleeding is presumed to be decreased (Grade 2C).

At a recently concluded Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Annual Meeting, a Clinical Practice Guidelines Conference Series was convened with the topic focusing on Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Prophylaxis in Liver Surgery. The symposium brought together hepatobiliary surgeons from three continents as well as medical experts in hematology and coagulation.The content of the discussion included literature reviews, evaluation of multi-institutional VTE outcome data, and examination of practice patterns at multiple high-volume centers.Literature review demonstrated that, within gastrointestinal surgery, liver resection patients are at particularly high-risk for VTE. Recent evidence clearly indicates a direct relationship between the magnitude of hepatectomy and postoperative VTE rates, however, the PT/INR does not accurately reflect the coagulation status of the post-hepatectomy patient. Evaluation of available data and practice patterns regarding the utilization and timing of anticoagulant VTE prophylaxis led to recommendations regarding preoperative and postoperative thromboprophylaxis for liver surgery patients.This conference was effective in consolidating our knowledge of coagulation abnormalities after liver resection. Based on the expert review of the available data and practice patterns, a number of recommendations were developed.

Direct oral anticoagulants are making anticoagulation simpler for patients with atrial fibrillation who need protection from strokes. However, clinicians still have an important role to play in pat...

To identify risk factors for failure of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients in the ICU.Multivariable regression analysis of thrombosis predictors from a randomized thromboprophylaxis trial.Sixty-seven medical-surgical ICUs in six countries.Three thousand seven hundred forty-six medical-surgical critically ill patients.All patients received anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin at standard doses.Independent predictors for venous thromboembolism, proximal leg deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism developing during critical illness were assessed. A total of 289 patients (7.7%) developed venous thromboembolism. Predictors of thromboprophylaxis failure as measured by development of venous thromboembolism included a personal or family history of venous thromboembolism (hazard ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.03-2.59; p = 0.04) and body mass index (hazard ratio, 1.18 per 10-point increase; 95% CI, 1.04-1.35; p = 0.01). Increasing body mass index was also a predictor for developing proximal leg deep vein thrombosis (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.06-1.46; p = 0.007), which occurred in 182 patients (4.9%). Pulmonary embolism occurred in 47 patients (1.3%) and was associated with body mass index (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.02-1.83; p = 0.035) and vasopressor use (hazard ratio, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.01-3.35; p = 0.046). Low-molecular-weight heparin (in comparison to unfractionated heparin) thromboprophylaxis lowered pulmonary embolism risk (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27-0.95; p = 0.034) while statin use in the preceding week lowered the risk of proximal leg deep vein thrombosis (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.77; p = 0.004).Failure of standard thromboprophylaxis using low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin is more likely in ICU patients with elevated body mass index, those with a personal or family history of venous thromboembolism, and those receiving vasopressors. Alternate management or incremental risk reduction strategies may be needed in such patients.

There has been a dramatic increase in vena cava filter (VCF) use over the past 20 years in the absence of evidence that filters provide a net patient benefit or are required in most cases. This increase is largely attributable to the availability of retrievable filters and expanded indications, particularly as primary prophylaxis in patients thought to be at high risk of pulmonary embolism. Substantial variability in VCF use, unrelated to patient clinical factors, has been shown between hospitals, from region to region, and among various countries. Despite the lack of direct evidence for the benefit of VCFs for any indication, it is appropriate to insert a retrievable VCF in patients with a recent proximal deep vein thrombosis and an absolute contraindication to therapeutic anticoagulation and then to remove the filter once the bleeding risk decreases and the patient has been anticoagulated. Unfortunately, a high proportion of retrievable filters are not removed, even after the reason for their placement has long passed. Retrievable filters are associated with substantial rates of complications if they are not removed, including penetration of the vena caval wall, fracture and embolization of filter fragments, and caval occlusion. Patient safety priorities and medical-legal concerns mandate careful selection of patients for VCF placement and removal shortly after anticoagulation has been initiated.

Introduction:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is difficult to diagnose yet potentially life threatening. A low-risk pretest probability (PTP) assessment combined with a negative Ddimer can rule out VTE in two-thirds of outpatients, reducing the need for imaging. Real-life implementation of this strategy is associated with several challenges.Methods:We evaluated the impact of introducing a standardized diagnostic algorithm including a mandatory PTP assessment and D-dimer on radiologic test use for VTE in our emergency department (ED). A retrospective review of all ED visits for suspected VTE in the year prior to and following the introduction of this algorithm was conducted. VTE diagnosis was based on imaging. Guideline compliance was also assessed.Results:ED visits were investigated for suspected VTE in the pre- and postintervention periods (n 5 1,785). Most D-dimers (95%) ordered were associated with a PTP assessment, and 50% of visits assigned a low PTP had a negative D-dimer. The proportion of imaging tests ordered for VTE in all ED visits was unchanged postintervention (1.9% v. 2.0%). The proportion of patients with suspected VTE in whom VTE was confirmed on imaging decreased postintervention (10.2% v. 14.1%).Conclusion:In spite of excellent compliance with our algorithm, we were unable to reduce imaging for VTE. This may be due to a lower threshold for suspecting VTE and an increase in investigation for VTE combined with a high false positive rate of our D-dimer assay in low–pretest probability patients. This study highlights two common real-life challenges with adopting this strategy for VTE investigation.

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 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 ( 9 /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. Trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT00182143; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov

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.).

Background Major trauma induces a hypercoagulable state, which is frequently complicated by pathological thrombosis. However the sequential changes in coagulation markers and their relationship to clinical thrombosis have been poorly characterized. Methods We measured several markers of in vivo coagulation and fibrinolysis and their regulation serially for 2 weeks after multi-system trauma in a prospective cohort of patients who received no anticoagulant prophylaxis. Asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) was assessed by routine bilateral venography between day 12 and 14. Clinically suspected DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE) were investigated in a standardized manner. Results Among the 135 cohort patients the overall venous thromboembolism (VTE) rate was 59%. Markers of thrombin generation were markedly increased within 24 hours of injury, remained persistently elevated for about 5 days and then decreased by day 14. No early compensatory increase in Tissue Factor Pathway Inhibitor (TFPI) or the complex of Factor Xa and TFPI (FXa-TFPI) was seen; FXa-TFPI remained depressed throughout the study. There was no inverse relationship demonstrated between markers of thrombin generation and thrombin regulation. Acquired APC resistance and hypofibrinolysis did not appear to be important contributors to hypercoagulability after trauma. None of the coagulation markers were independently predictive of VTE. Increasing age was the only significant, independent predictor of VTE. Conclusion Major trauma leads to significantly increased and persistent thrombin generation with disruption of its regulation. Coagulation markers do not appear to add independent predictive value in detecting VTE. Increasing age is the most important clinical predictor of VTE after trauma.

The last 50 years have witnessed a multitude of publications evaluating the efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness of many different thromboprophylaxis interventions. There is widespread consensus that thromboprophylaxis safely reduces morbidity and mortality. More than 25 evidence-based guidelines, published since 1986, also recommend routine thromboprophylaxis in the majority of hospitalized patients. As a result, thromboprophylaxis is recognized as a key safety priority for hospitals. Some of the remaining areas of controversy that will be discussed in this paper include the role of individual risk assessments to determine thrombosis risk and prophylaxis, replacement of low-dose heparin by low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), the optimal duration of prophylaxis, the role of combined thromboprophylaxis modalities, the safety of anticoagulant prophylaxis with regional analgesia, the use of LMWHs in chronic renal insufficiency, and the emerging role of new oral anticoagulants as thromboprophylactic agents. Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting thromboprophylaxis, rates of thromboprophylaxis use remain far from optimal. Successful implementation strategies to bridge this knowledge:care gap are the most important current challenges in this area. These strategies must be multifaceted, utilizing local, systems-based approaches as well as legislation and incentives that reinforce best practices.

Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients has been shown to be safe and effective. Underutilization of this patient safety practice may result in avoidable mortality and morbidity. Objectives We aimed to determine the proportion of hospitalized, acutely ill medical patients across Canada who were eligible to receive thromboprophylaxis and to evaluate the frequency, determinants and appropriateness of its use. Patients/Methods CURVE is a national, multicenter chart audit of 29 Canadian hospitals. Data were collected on consecutive patients admitted to hospital for an acute medical illness during a defined 3-week study period. Information on demographic and clinical characteristics, risk factors for VTE and bleeding and use of VTE prophylaxis were recorded. The indications for and appropriateness of VTE prophylaxis were assessed using pre-specified criteria based on international consensus guidelines. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify determinants of prophylaxis use. Results Of the 4124 medical admissions screened over the study period, 1894 patients (46%) were eligible for study inclusion. The most common specified admitting diagnoses were severe infection (28%), COPD exacerbation or respiratory failure (12%), malignancy (9%) and congestive heart failure (8%). Thromboprophylaxis was indicated in 1702 (90%) study patients. Overall, some form of prophylaxis was administered to 23% of all patients. However, only 16% received appropriate thromboprophylaxis. Factors independently associated with greater use of prophylaxis included internist (vs. other specialty) as attending physician (OR 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.03, 1.71]), university-associated (vs. community) hospital (OR 1.46, 95% CI [1.03, 2.07]), immobilization (per day) (OR 1.60, 95% CI [1.45, 1.77]), presence of ≥ 1 VTE risk factors (OR = 1.78, 95% CI [1.35, 2.34]) and duration of hospitalization (per day of stay) (OR 1.05, 95% CI [1.03, 1.07]), however, use of prophylaxis was unacceptably low in all groups. Patients with cancer had a significantly reduced likelihood of receiving prophylaxis (OR = 0.40, 95% CI [0.24, 0.68]). Presence of risk factors for bleeding did not influence the use or choice of prophylaxis. Conclusion Most patients hospitalized for medical illness had indications for thromboprophylaxis, yet only 16% received appropriate prophylaxis. Efforts should be made to elucidate the reasons that underlie the very low rate of thromboprophylaxis in medical patients and to develop and test strategies to improve implementation of this patient safety practice.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an adverse drug reaction occurring in up to 5% of patients exposed to unfractionated heparin (UFH). We examined the impact of a hospital-wide strategy for avoiding heparin on the incidence of HIT, HIT with thrombosis (HITT), and HIT-related costs. The Avoid-Heparin Initiative, implemented at a tertiary care hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, since 2006, involved replacing UFH with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for prophylactic and therapeutic indications. Consecutive cases with suspected HIT from 2003 through 2012 were reviewed. Rates of suspected HIT, adjudicated HIT, and HITT, along with HIT-related expenditures were compared in the pre-intervention (2003-2005) and the avoid-heparin (2007-2012) phases. The annual rate of suspected HIT decreased 42%, from 85.5 per 10 000 admissions in the pre-intervention phase to 49.0 per 10 000 admissions in the avoid-heparin phase ( ITALIC! P< .001). The annual rate of patients with a positive HIT assay decreased 63% from 16.5 to 6.1 per 10 000 admissions ( ITALIC! P< .001), adjudicated HIT decreased 79% from 10.7 to 2.2 per 10 000 admissions ( ITALIC! P< .001), and HITT decreased 91% from 4.6 to 0.4 per 10 000 admissions ( ITALIC! P< .001). Hospital HIT-related expenditures decreased by $266 938 per year in the avoid-heparin phase. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating the success and feasibility of a hospital-wide HIT prevention strategy.

Objective The purpose of this study is to describe the prevalence, to analyze the incidence and independent risk factors for thrombocytopenia, and to examine the impact of thrombocytopenia developing in the intensive care unit (ICU) on patient outcome in a well-defined cohort of critically ill patients in a medical-surgical ICU. Materials and Methods As part of a prospective cohort study examining the frequency and clinical importance of venous thromboembolism in the ICU, we enrolled consecutive patients older than 18 years expected to be in the ICU for more than 72 hours. Exclusion criteria were an admitting diagnosis of trauma, orthopedic surgery or cardiac surgery, pregnancy, and life support withdrawal. Patients had platelet counts performed as directed by clinical need. We defined thrombocytopenia as a platelet count of less than 150 × 10 9 /L and severe thrombocytopenia as a platelet count of less than 50 × 10 9 /L. Protocol-directed care included routine thromboprophylaxis and twice weekly screening ultrasonography of the legs. Patients were followed to hospital discharge. Results Of the 261 enrolled patients, 121 (46%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 40%-53%) had thrombocytopenia (62 on ICU admission and 59 acquired during their ICU stay). Patients who developed a platelet count less than 150 × 10 9 /L during their ICU stay had higher ICU and hospital mortality ( P = .03 and .005, respectively), required longer mechanical ventilation ( P = .05), and were more likely to receive platelets ( P P = .005), and red blood cell transfusions ( P = .004) than patients who did not develop thrombocytopenia. The only independent risk factors for thrombocytopenia developing during the ICU stay were administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs before ICU admission (hazard ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-6.0) and dialysis during the ICU stay (hazard ratio, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.2-7.8). Of the 33 patients who underwent 36 tests for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, none tested positive. Conclusions We found that about 50% of the patients admitted to the ICU had at least one platelet count of less than 150 × 10 9 /L during their ICU stay. Patients who developed thrombocytopenia were more likely to die, required longer duration of mechanical ventilation, and were more likely to require blood product transfusion. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia was frequently suspected but did not develop in these critically ill patients.

Patients with renal failure have an increased risk of both thrombotic and bleeding complications. A number of antithrombotic drugs undergo renal clearance. Therefore, estimation of renal function is necessary when prescribing these drugs to patients with renal dysfunction. Pharmacokinetic and clinical data in patients with chronic renal impairment are limited for several anticoagulants, and adequate administration information is often absent. Dose adjustment of anticoagulants may be indicated when the creatinine clearance falls below 30 mL/ min. Unfractionated heparin, argatroban, and vitamin K antagonists generally do not require dose adjustment with renal dysfunction. However, smaller doses of warfarin may be required to achieve a particular target international normalized ratio. Close monitoring of anticoagulation is recommended when argatroban or high doses of unfractionated heparin are administered in patients with severe chronic renal impairment. Low-molecular weight heparins, danaparoid sodium, hirudins, and bivalirudin all undergo renal clearance. Lower doses and closer anticoagulation monitoring may be advisable when these agents are used in patients with chronic renal failure. We recommend that fondaparinux sodium and ximelagatran (not yet licensed) be avoided in the presence of severe renal impairment and be used with caution in patients with moderate renal dysfunction. While acknowledging the lack of pharmacokinetic data, this review provides specific recommendations for the use of anticoagulants in patients with chronic renal impairment.

Summary. Background: The risk of recurrence is lower after treatment of an episode of venous thromboembolism associated with a transient risk factor, such as recent surgery, than after an episode associated with a permanent, or no, risk factor. Retrospective analyses suggest that 1 month of anticoagulation is adequate for patients whose venous thromboembolic event was provoked by a transient risk factor. Methods: In this double-blind study, patients who had completed 1 month of anticoagulant therapy for a first episode of venous thromboembolism provoked by a transient risk factor were randomly assigned to continue warfarin or to placebo for an additional 2 months. Our goal was to determine if the duration of treatment could be reduced without increasing the rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism during 11 months of follow-up. Results: Of 84 patients assigned to placebo, five (6.0%) had recurrent venous thromboembolism, compared with three of 81 (3.7%) assigned to warfarin, resulting in an absolute risk difference of 2.3%[95% confidence interval (CI) − 5.2, 10.0]. The incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism after discontinuation of warfarin was 6.8% per patient-year in those who received warfarin for 1 month and 3.2% per patient-year in those who received warfarin for 3 months (rate difference of 3.6% per patient-year; 95% CI − 3.8, 11.0). There were no major bleeds in either group. Conclusion: Duration of anticoagulant therapy for venous thromboembolism provoked by a transient risk factor should not be reduced from 3 months to 1 month as this is likely to increase recurrent venous thromboembolism without achieving a clinically important decrease in bleeding.

Venous thromboembolism, which includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is the result of an imbalance among procoagulant, anticoagulant and profibrinolytic processes. This imbalance reflects a complex interplay between genetic and environmental or acquired risk factors. Genetic thrombophilic defects influence the risk of a first episode of thrombosis. How these defects influence the risk of recurrence in patients whose first episode of venous thromboembolism was unprovoked is less certain. Thus, when anticoagulants are stopped, patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism have a risk of recurrence of at least 7% to 10% per year, even in the absence of an underlying thrombophilic defect. Consequently, there is a trend toward longer durations of anticoagulation therapy for these patients, which is problematic given the limitation of existing anticoagulants. This chapter provides an overview of the thrombophilic defects and how they influence the risk of venous thromboembolism. The chapter also details advances in anticoagulant therapy, focusing on new inhibitors of factor Xa and thrombin. In Section I, Dr. Saskia Middeldorp describes the various thrombophilic defects and reviews their relative importance in the pathogenesis of a first episode of venous thromboembolism. She then discusses the influence of these defects on the risk of recurrent thrombotic events in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism and in those whose thrombosis occurred in association with a known risk factor, such as surgery. In Section II, Dr. William Geerts reviews the pharmacology of new parenteral and oral factor Xa inhibitors and describes the results of the Phase II and III clinical trials with these agents. He then provides perspective on the potential advantages and drawbacks of these drugs for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism. In Section III, Dr. John Heit focuses on direct thrombin inhibitors. He discusses their mechanism of action and compares and contrasts their pharmacological profiles prior to describing the results of Phase II and III clinical trials. Dr. Heit then provides perspective on the potential advantages and limitations of these drugs relative to existing anticoagulants.

Many patients with the antiphospholipid antibody syndrome and recurrent thrombosis receive doses of warfarin adjusted to achieve an international normalized ratio (INR) of more than 3.0. However, there are no prospective data to support this approach to thromboprophylaxis.We performed a randomized, double-blind trial in which patients with antiphospholipid antibodies and previous thrombosis were assigned to receive enough warfarin to achieve an INR of 2.0 to 3.0 (moderate intensity) or 3.1 to 4.0 (high intensity). Our objective was to show that high-intensity warfarin was more effective in preventing thrombosis than moderate-intensity warfarin.A total of 114 patients were enrolled in the study and followed for a mean of 2.7 years. Recurrent thrombosis occurred in 6 of 56 patients (10.7 percent) assigned to receive high-intensity warfarin and in 2 of 58 patients (3.4 percent) assigned to receive moderate-intensity warfarin (hazard ratio for the high-intensity group, 3.1; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.6 to 15.0). Major bleeding occurred in three patients assigned to receive high-intensity warfarin and four patients assigned to receive moderate-intensity warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.2 to 4.8).High-intensity warfarin was not superior to moderate-intensity warfarin for thromboprophylaxis in patients with antiphospholipid antibodies and previous thrombosis. The low rate of recurrent thrombosis among patients in whom the target INR was 2.0 to 3.0 suggests that moderate-intensity warfarin is appropriate for patients with the antiphospholipid antibody syndrome.

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.To evaluate the comparative cost-effectiveness of LMWH vs UFH for prophylaxis against VTE in critically ill patients.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.Costs, effects, incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH vs UFH during the period of hospitalization, and sensitivity analyses across cost ranges.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.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 Women with a history of venous thromboembolism may be at increased risk for venous thromboembolic events during pregnancy. In these women, the decision to give or withhold heparin in the antepartum period is controversial, because accurate estimates of the frequency of recurrent thromboembolic events if antepartum heparin is withheld are not available. Methods We prospectively studied 125 pregnant women with a single previous episode of venous thromboembolism. Antepartum heparin was withheld, but anticoagulant therapy was given for four to six weeks post partum. Our primary objective was to determine the rate of antepartum recurrence of venous thromboembolism. Laboratory studies were performed to identify thrombophilia in 95 women. Results Three of the 125 women (2.4 percent) had an antepartum recurrence of venous thromboembolism (95 percent confidence interval, 0.2 to 6.9 percent). There were no recurrences in the 44 women who had no evidence of thrombophilia and who also had a previous episod...

This study assessed family physicians' and pulmonary specialists' approaches to the treatment of adult outpatient asthma using a self-administered questionnaire consisting of six asthma scenarios of varying severity levels. One hundred sixty-three randomly selected family physicians and pulmonary specialists completed the questionnaire (response rate of 80%). We observed that, regardless of asthma severity, more than 75% of physicians (regardless of specialty) would not include oral theophylline or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory preparations in their treatment approach. Pulmonary specialists' and family physicians' approaches to mild asthma were similar (more than 90% recommended an inhaled beta2-agonist). However, considerable differences existed among and between physician groups for the remaining scenarios. For example, with an exacerbation associated with an upper respiratory tract infection, family physicians were more likely to recommend oral antibiotics (p

Background Low-molecular-weight heparin is known to be safe and effective for the initial Treatment of patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis. However, its application to patients with pulmonary embolism or previous episodes of thromboembolism has not been studied.Methods We randomly assigned 1021 patients with symptomatic venous thromboembolism to fixed-dose, subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (reviparin sodium) or adjusted-dose, intravenous unfractionated heparin. Oral anticoagulant therapy with a coumarin derivative was started concomitantly and continued for 12 weeks, Approximately one third of the patients had associated pulmonary embolism, The outcome events studied over the 12 weeks were symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and death. We sought to determine whether low-molecular-weight heparin is at least equivalent to unfractionated heparin in patients with venous thromboembolism.Results Twenty-seven of the 510 patients assigned to low-molecular-weight heparin (5.3 percent) had recurrent thromboembolic events, as compared with 25 of the 511 patients assigned to unfractionated heparin (4.9 percent). The difference of 0.4 percentage point indicates that the two therapies have equivalent value according to our predetermined definition of equivalence. Sixteen patients assigned to low-molecular-weight heparin (3.1 percent) and 12 patients assigned to unfractionated heparin (2.3 percent) had episodes of major bleeding (P=0.63), and the mortality rates in the two groups were 7.1 percent and 7.6 percent, respectively (P=0.89).Conclusions Fixed-dose, subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin is as effective and safe as adjusted-dose, intravenous unfractionated heparin for the initial management of venous thromboembolism, regardless of whether the patient has pulmonary embolism or a history of venous thromboembolism. (C) 1997, Massachusetts Medical Society.

BACKGROUND: Some patients develop fatigue while taking warfarin, but causality is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether warfarin use is associated with fatigue. METHODS: This investigation was a substudy of a randomized double-blind trial in 13 outpatient thromboembolism clinics. Subjects who had received one month of open-label warfarin therapy for venous thromboembolism due to a transient risk factor were randomly assigned to receive warfarin or placebo for 2 months and followed for another 9 months after stopping the study drug. Fatigue was measured using a Likert scale, and change of fatigue was measured by the patient's global rating. RESULTS: In 87 subjects, the overall ratings of fatigue were 0.1 unit lower (95% CI 0.6 units lower to 0.4 units higher) while taking warfarin. Global rating for change in fatigue intensity showed no increase of fatigue with warfarin use. CONCLUSIONS: The short-term use of warfarin was not associated with symptoms of fatigue.

SummaryThe optimal duration of oral anticoagulant therapy for patients with acute proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is uncertain. Based on the hypothesis that a normal impedance plethysmogram (IPG) following DVT defines a group of patients at low risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), a trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of only four weeks of warfarin. Patients with venographically confirmed acute proximal DVT who had received four weeks of warfarin after initial heparin and whose four week IPG was normal were allocated to either continue warfarin (targeted International Normalized Ratio 2.0 to 3.0) for a further eight weeks or receive placebo. Patients with an abnormal four week IPG received warfarin for a further eight weeks. Based on clinical characteristics at the time of the qualifying thrombosis, all patients were classified as having either continuing or transient risk factors for recurrent VTE. During the eight weeks following randomization, nine (8.6%) of the 105 placebo patients developed recurrent VTE compared to one (0.9%) of the 109 warfarin patients, P = 0.009. Over the entire 11 months of follow-up, 12 placebo patients developed recurrence compared to seven warfarin patients, P = 0.3. Nineteen of the 192 patients with an abnormal four week IPG experienced recurrence during the nine months after discontinuing warfarin.In the 301 patients who received three months of warfarin in the randomized trial or in the cohort study, all 26 recurrent events were in the 212 patients with continuing risk factors.In conclusion, an IPG four weeks after proximal DVT is not a useful predictor for recurrent VTE; whereas the presence of continuing risk factors is a very strong predictor. Four weeks of oral anticoagulants may be all that is required in patients without continuing risk factors. Patients with continuing risk factors may require more than three months of oral anticoagulants.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent but often silent complication of critical illness that has a negative impact on patient outcomes. 1 The prevention of VTE is an essential component of patient care in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting, and is the focus of this review. Critically ill patients present a number of important challenges with respect to VTE and its prevention. First, ICU patients have greater heterogeneity in their risk of thrombosis than do other hospitalized patient groups. Second, a clinical suspicion of possible VTE is very common (often daily) in these patients because of tachycardia, desaturation, patient anxiety, limb swelling, and fever. Third, symptoms and signs commonly associated with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) are not reliable indicators of VTE in critical care patients. 2,3 Fourth, ICU patients frequently have compromised cardiopulmonary function and, therefore, relatively small pulmonary emboli could have dire consequences. Autopsy studies have shown that PE is found in up to 25% of these patients and is sometimes the cause of their death. 3 Finally, although critically ill patients often have multiple risk factors for VTE, they are frequently also at increased risk for bleeding because of recent surgery, trauma, intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding, thrombocytopenia, and renal insufficiency. Despite these challenges, studies in trauma, surgery and acutely ill medical patients, as well as recently published studies in critical care patients, allow clinicians to provide effective and safe thromboprophylaxis.

Background: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an adverse drug reaction associated with heparin exposure. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, a tertiary-care adult academic hospital, has cared for an average of 100 cases of suspected HIT per year. Although the management of suspected HIT is resource intensive, few studies have assessed the cost burden associated with HIT, and none have assessed the costs of suspected HIT. Objective: The objective of this study was to identify and quantify the direct medical costs associated with suspected (confirmed and negative) HIT at a hospital in Canada. Methods: A cost-of-illness analysis was conducted in patients with suspected HIT during 2005. Resource utilization variables included (i) laboratory tests to investigate HIT; (ii) HIT-safe anticoagulant use; (iii) diagnostic imaging related to HIT or its treatment; and (iv) additional hospital days attributed to HIT. The average costs per case of confirmed HIT, confirmed HIT with thrombosis (HITT) and negative HIT were calculated in &dollar;Can, year 2007 values. Results: Confirmed HITT cases incurred substantially greater costs (&dollar;Can34 155, range 358-202 069; n - 12) than confirmed HIT cases without thrombosis (&dollar;Can4575, range 39-16 373; n - 8). The average cost of care for a negative HIT case was &dollar;Can119 (range 39-4181; n - 88). Conclusions: This is the first study to quantify the costs associated with suspected HIT cases. These cases increase the costs of hospital care and provide further justification for HIT prevention strategies.

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.

Summary. Background and objectives: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs in 20–30% of patients with malignant glioma per year of survival. We tested the efficacy of long-term dalteparin low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for prevention of VTE in these patients. Patients/methods: Adults with newly diagnosed malignant glioma were randomized to receive dalteparin 5000 anti-Xa units or placebo, both subcutaneously once daily for 6 months starting within 4 weeks of surgery. Treatment continued for up to 12 months. The primary outcome was the cumulative risk of VTE over 6 months. The target sample size was 512 patients. Events were adjudicated by a committee unaware of treatment. Results: The trial began in 2002 and closed in May 2006 because of expiration of study medication. Ninety-nine patients were randomized to LMWH and 87 to placebo. Twenty-two patients developed VTE in the first 6 months: nine in the LMWH group and 13 in the placebo group [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.19–1.4, P = 0.29]. At 6 months, there were three major bleeds on LMWH and none on placebo; at 12 months, 5 (5.1%) major bleeds on LMWH and 1 (1.2%) on placebo occurred (HR = 4.2, 95% CI: 0.48–36, P = 0.22). All major bleeds were intracranial and occurred while on study medication. The 12-month mortality rates were 47.8% for LMWH and 45.4% for placebo (HR = 1.2, 95% CI: 0.73–2.0, P = 0.48). Conclusions: Trends suggesting reduced VTE and increased intracranial bleeding were seen in the LMWH thromboprophylaxis group. The role of long-term anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis in patients with brain tumors remains uncertain.

Background Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is commonly considered but rarely confirmed in critically ill patients. The 4Ts score ( T hrombocytopenia, T iming of thrombocytopenia, T hrombosis, and o T her reason) might identify individual patients at risk of having this disorder. Objective The aim of the study was to evaluate the value of the 4Ts HIT score in comparison with the serotonin-release assay (SRA) in critically ill patients. Methods This study describes the combined results of 3 prospective studies enrolling critically ill patients who were investigated for HIT if platelets fell to less than 50 × 10 9 /L or if platelet counts decreased to less than 50% of the value upon intensive care unit admission. We confirmed HIT by a positive platelet SRA. We assigned a 4Ts score blinded to SRA results to all 50 patients investigated for HIT; those with positive SRA results were scored in duplicate. Results Of 528 patients, 50 (9.5%) were investigated for HIT; 39 (78%) of 50 (64%-88%) of these patients were scored as "low probability" by 4Ts score and none had a positive SRA. Of 49 patients who underwent SRA testing because of thrombocytopenia, only 2 (4.1%; 0.5-14.0) had a positive SRA (1 with a moderate 4Ts score and 1 with a high 4Ts score). Therefore, the overall incidence of HIT confirmed by SRA was 2 (0.4%) of 528 (0.04%-1.4%). Conclusions Significant thrombocytopenia during heparin administration occurred in 9.5% of critically ill patients, but HIT was confirmed in only 4.1% of those undergoing testing, for an overall incidence of 0.4%. A low 4Ts score occurred in 78% of patients investigated for HIT; none of these patients had a positive SRA. We conclude that HIT is uncommon in critically ill patients and that the 4Ts score is worthy of further evaluation in this patient population.

We sought to determine whether thrombophilic defects increase recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) during warfarin therapy. Six hundred sixty-one patients with unprovoked VTE who were randomized to extended low-intensity (international normalized ratio [INR], 1.5-1.9) or conventional-intensity (INR, 2.0-3.0) anticoagulant therapy were tested for thrombophilia and followed for a mean of 2.3 years. One or more thrombophilic defects were present in 42% of patients. The overall rate of recurrent VTE was 0.9% per patient-year. Recurrent VTE was not increased in the presence of factor V Leiden (hazard ratio [HR], 0.7; 95% CI, 0.2-2.6); the 20210G>A prothrombin gene mutation (HR, 0); antithrombin deficiency (HR, 0); elevated factor VIII (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.1-5.4); elevated factor XI (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.1-5.0), or elevated homocysteine (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.1-5.3), but showed a trend to an increase with an antiphospholipid antibody (HR, 2.9; 95% CI, 0.8-10.5). Compared with patients with no thrombophilic defects, the rate of recurrence was not increased in the presence of one (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.2-2.3) or more than one (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.2-3.4) defect. We conclude that single or multiple thrombophilic defects are not associated with a higher risk of recurrent VTE during warfarin therapy.

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.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.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 to0.10 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.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.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00138099.

Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8N 3Z5 Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8N 3Z5 Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 3A7 Department of Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5W9 Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada M5G 2C4

Purpose There is no randomized trial comparing low–molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) for thromboprophylaxis in medical-surgical ICU patients. The primary objective of this randomized pilot study on LMWH vs UFH was to assess the feasibility of conducting a large randomized trial with respect to timely enrollment and blinded study drug administration, practicality of twice-weekly lower limb ultrasounds to screen for deep venous thrombosis, LMWH bioaccumulation and dose adjustment in renal insufficiency, and recruitment rates for a future trial in medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Its additional goals were to evaluate the suitability of the exclusion criteria and to document the range of research activities that precede accrual of patients into a trial to plan multisite management. Materials and Methods By computerized telephone randomization, we allocated 129 medical-surgical ICU patients to treatment with dalteparin 5000 IU QD SC or that with UFH 5000 IU BID SC. Within each clinical center, only the study pharmacist was not blinded. We performed bilateral lower limb compression ultrasounds within 48 hours of ICU admission, twice weekly, on suspicion of deep venous thrombosis, and 7 days after ICU discharge. Research coordinators and investigators at 7 centers reported the time they engaged in all research activities before the first patient was randomized. Results Timely complete study drug administration occurred after enrollment. More than 99% of scheduled doses were administered in a blinded fashion. Scheduled ultrasounds were performed without exception. No bioaccumulation of dalteparin was observed when creatinine clearance decreased to lower than 30 mL/min. Average recruitment was 2 patients/center per month before the study exclusion criteria were modified. Study startup activities required, on average, 65.5 hours of combined investigator and research coordinator time at each center. Careful examination of the accrual in the pilot study led to a reexamination of the Prophylaxis of Thromboembolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT) study exclusion criteria. Conclusions This pilot study suggests that a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing LMWH with UFH in critically ill medical-surgical patients is feasible. Pilot studies can improve the design of larger trials and may enhance successful timely completion.