Acute pulmonary embolism in cancer patients admitted to intensive care unit: Impact of anticoagulant treatment on 90-day mortality and risk factors, results of a multicentre retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening situation in cancer patients. In this situation, anticoagulant therapy is complex to administer due to the risk of bleeding. Only few studies have been conducted when these patients are admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). The aim of this study was to assess the association between anticoagulation strategies as well as other factors with 90-day mortality in patients with cancer and PE admitted to ICU. Major bleeding was also evaluated according to the type of anticoagulation.

METHODS

Retrospective study carried out in 4 ICUs in France over a 12-year period (2009-2021). All patients with cancer and PE were included. An overlap propensity score weighting analysis was performed in the subgroup of patients treated with either unfractionated heparins (UFH) alone or low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) alone on 90-day mortality and major bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 218 consecutive cancer patients admitted to ICU and presenting PE were included. The 90-day mortality rate was 42 % for the global cohort. After propensity score analysis in the subgroup of patients treated with either "UFH alone" (n = 80) or "LMWH alone" (n = 71), the 90-day mortality was similar in patients treated with UFH alone (42.6 %) vs LMWH alone (39.9 %): OR = 1.124, CI 95 % [0.571-2.214], p = 0.750. There was a significant increased toward major bleeding rates in the "UFH alone" group (25.5 %) as compared to "LMWH alone" group (11.5 %), p = 0.04.

CONCLUSION

In 218 patients admitted to ICU and presenting PE, the 90-day mortality rate was 42 %. Treatment with UFH alone was associated with a mortality comparable to treatment with LMWH alone but it appeared to be more prone to major bleeding.

Saudi Critical Care Society clinical practice guidelines on the prevention of venous thromboembolism in adults with trauma: reviewed for evidence-based integrity and endorsed by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

BACKGROUND

To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in adults with trauma in inpatient settings.

METHODS

The Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) sponsored guidelines development and included 22 multidisciplinary panel members who completed conflict-of-interest forms. The panel developed and answered structured guidelines questions. For each question, the literature was searched for relevant studies. To summarize treatment effects, meta-analyses were conducted or updated. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then the evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework was used to generate recommendations. Recommendations covered the following prioritized domains: timing of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis initiation in non-operative blunt solid organ injuries; isolated blunt traumatic brain injury (TBI); isolated blunt spine trauma or fracture and/or spinal cord injury (SCI); type and dose of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis; mechanical VTE prophylaxis; routine duplex ultrasonography (US) surveillance; and inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs).

RESULTS

The panel issued 12 clinical practice recommendations-one, a strong recommendation, 10 weak, and one with no recommendation due to insufficient evidence. The panel suggests starting early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis for non-operative blunt solid organ injuries, isolated blunt TBIs, and SCIs. The panel suggests using low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) over unfractionated heparin (UFH) and suggests either intermediate-high dose LMWH or conventional dosing LMWH. For adults with trauma who are not pharmacologic candidates, the panel strongly recommends using mechanical VTE prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC). The panel suggests using either combined VTE prophylaxis with mechanical and pharmacologic methods or pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis alone. Additionally, the panel suggests routine bilateral lower extremity US in adults with trauma with elevated risk of VTE who are ineligible for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis and suggests against the routine placement of prophylactic IVCFs. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue any recommendation on the use of early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in adults with isolated blunt TBI requiring neurosurgical intervention.

CONCLUSION

The SCCS guidelines for VTE prevention in adults with trauma were based on the best available evidence and identified areas for further research. The framework may facilitate adaptation of recommendations by national/international guideline policymakers.

Compliance of non-pharmacological preventive practice of venous thromboembolism among Jordanian nurses

Many practices, such as non-pharmacological preventive practices, have demonstrated significant improvement and reduced the venous thromboembolism incidence. This study aims at investigating the compliance with non-pharmacological preventive practice of venous thromboembolism guidelines among Jordanian intensive care and medical and surgical nurses. Descriptive and cross-sectional with the non-participant observational design was used. This study recruited 271 registered nurses in adult medical-surgical units and intensive care units of 12 different government hospitals in Jordan's middle and north regions. The observational checklist included 10 preventive practices based on the non-pharmacological preventive of venous thromboembolism guidelines. In the observational checklist, the highest score was 20, and the lowest was 0. If the nurse received equal to or higher than (>14) score were classified as sufficient compliance, while insufficient compliance was (≤14) score. The observations period started from September 2019 until March 2020. The participants' overall mean venous thromboembolism compliance score was insufficient compliance (10.6 ± 1.6). The majority of nurses were classified as insufficient compliance 67%. "Doing foot exercise and early ambulation 2 times per day 50.3%" and "checked the integrity of the patient's skin at regular intervals 50.0%" were the highest practices done rightly and completely by half of the participants. The participants who had a bachelor of nursing degree, staff nurse, and works in the intensive care unit, are less experienced and have no previous venous thromboembolism education reported low venous thromboembolism compliance. This study presents expanded compliance regarding venous thromboembolism preventive practices among Jordanian intensive care and medical & surgical nurses, so the policymakers need to develop an initiative to improve nurses' compliance.

Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Statement for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in the Critical Care Unit

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a preventable complication of critical illness, and this guideline aims to convey a pragmatic approach to the problem. Guidelines have multiplied over the last decade, and their utility has become increasingly conflicted as the reader interprets all suggestions or recommendations as something that must be followed. The nuances of grade of recommendation vs level of evidence are often ignored, and the difference between a "we suggest" vs a "we recommend" is overlooked. There is a general unease among clinicians that failure to follow the guidelines translates to poor medical practice and legal culpability. We attempt to overcome these limitations by highlighting ambiguity when it occurs and refraining from dogmatic recommendations in the absence of robust evidence. Readers and practitioners may find the lack of specific recommendations unsatisfactory, but we believe that true ambiguity is better than inaccurate certainty. We have attempted to comply with the guidelines on how to create guidelines.1 And to overcome the poor compliance with these guidelines.2 Some observers have expressed concern that DVT prophylaxis guidelines may cause more harm than good.3 We have placed greater emphasis on large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with clinical end point and de-emphasized RCTs with surrogate end points and also de-emphasized hypothesis generating studies (observational studies, small RCTs, and meta-analysis of these studies). We have de-emphasized RCTs in non-intensive care unit populations like postoperative patients or those with cancer and stroke. We have also considered resource limitation settings and have avoided recommending costly and poorly proven therapeutic options.

How to cite this article

Jagiasi BG, Chhallani AA, Dixit SB, Kumar R, Pandit RA, Govil D, et al. Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Statement for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in the Critical Care Unit. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(S2):S51-S65.

Modeling current practices in critical care comparative effectiveness research

Objective: To determine whether contemporaneous practices are adequately represented in recent critical care comparative effectiveness research studies. Design: All critical care comparative effectiveness research trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine from April 2019 to March 2020 were identified. To examine studies published in other high impact medical journals during the same period, such trials were subsequently also identified in the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet. All cited sources were reviewed, and the medical literature was searched to find studies describing contemporary practices. Then, the designated control group or the comparable therapies studied were examined to determine if they represented contemporaneous critical care practices as described in the medical literature. Results: Twenty-five of 332 randomised clinical trials published in these three journals during this 1-year period described critical care comparative effectiveness research that met our inclusion criteria. Seventeen characterised current practices before enrolment (using surveys, observational studies and guidelines) and then incorporated current practices into one or more study arm. In the other eight, usual care arms appeared insufficient. Four of these trials randomly assigned patients to one of two fixed approaches at either end of a range of usually titrated care. However, due to randomisation, different subgroups within each arm received care that was inappropriate for their specific clinical conditions. In the other four of these trials, common practices influencing treatment choice were not reflected in the trial design, despite a prior effort to characterise usual care. Conclusion: One-third of critical care comparative effectiveness research trials published in widely read medical journals during a recent year did not include a designated control arm or comparable therapies representative of contemporary practices. Failure to incorporate contemporary practices into critical care comparative effectiveness trials appears to be a widespread design weakness.

The association of timing of pharmacological prophylaxis and venous thromboembolism in patients with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES:

Patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) have an increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). The current guidelines recommend pharmacologic prophylaxis, but its timing remains unclear.

METHODS:

In this retrospective cohort study, patients with moderate-to-severe TBI admitted to a tertiary care intensive care unit between 2016 and 2019 were categorized into two groups according to the timing of pharmacologic prophylaxis: early if prophylaxis was given within 72 h from hospital admission and late if after 72 h.

RESULTS:

Of the 322 patients in the cohort, 46 (14.3%) did not receive pharmacological prophylaxis, mainly due to early brain death; 152 (47.2%) received early pharmacologic prophylaxis and 124 (38.5%) received late prophylaxis. Predictors of late pharmacologic prophylaxis were lower body mass index, intracerebral hemorrhage (odds ratio [OR], 3.361; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.269–8.904), hemorrhagic contusion (OR, 3.469; 95% CI, 1.039–11.576), and lower platelet count. VTE was diagnosed in 43 patients on a median of 10 days after trauma (Q1, Q3: 5, 15): 6.6% of the early prophylaxis group and 26.6% of the late group (P < 0.001). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, the predictors of VTE were Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and late versus early pharmacologic prophylaxis (OR, 3.858; 95% CI, 1.687–8.825). The late prophylaxis group had higher rate of tracheostomy, longer duration of mechanical ventilation and stay in the hospital, lower discharge Glasgow coma scale, but similar survival, compared with the early group.

CONCLUSIONS:

Late prophylaxis (>72 h) was associated with higher VTE rate in patients with moderate-to-severe TBI, but not with higher mortality.

Prevention, treatment, and risk factors of deep vein thrombosis in critically ill patients in Zhejiang province, China: a multicenter, prospective, observational study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to investigate the prevention and treatment patterns of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in critically ill patients and to explore the risk factors for DVT in people from Zhejiang Province, China.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study prospectively enrolled patients admitted in intensive care units (ICUs) of 54 hospitals from 09/16/2019 to 01/16/2020. The risk of developing DVT and subsequent prophylaxis was evaluated. The primary outcome was DVT occurrence during ICU hospitalisation. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were performed to determine the risk factors for DVT.

RESULTS

A total of 940 patients were included in the study. Among 847 patients who received prophylaxis, 635 (75.0%) patients received physical prophylaxis and 199 (23.5%) patients received drug prophylaxis. Fifty-eight (6.2%) patients were diagnosed with DVT after admission to the ICU, and 36 patients were treated with anticoagulants (all patients received low molecular weight heparin [LMWH]). D-dimer levels (OR = 1.256, 95% CI: 1.132-1.990), basic prophylaxis (OR = 0.092, 95% CI: 0.016-0.536), and physical prophylaxis (OR = 0.159, 95% CI: 0.038-0.674) were independently associated with DVT in ICU patients. The short-term survival was similar between DVT and non-DVT patients.

CONCLUSIONS

DVT prophylaxis is widely performed in ICU patients. Prophylaxis is an independent protective factor for DVT occurrence. The most common treatment of DVT patients is LMWH, although it might increase the rate of bleeding.Key messagesThis is the only multicenter and prospective study of DVT in ICUs in China.d-dimer levels were independently associated with DVT in ICU patients.Prophylaxis was an independent protective factor for DVT occurrence in ICU.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Critically Ill Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Critically ill adults are at increased risk of VTE, including DVT, and pulmonary embolism. Various agents exist for venous thromboprophylaxis in this population.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the comparative efficacy and safety of prophylaxis agents for prevention of VTE in critically ill adults?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating efficacy of thromboprophylaxis agents among critically ill patients. We searched six databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline) from inception through January 2021 for RCTs of patients in the ICU receiving pharmacologic, mechanical, or combination therapy (pharmacologic agents and mechanical devices) for thromboprophylaxis. Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and extraction. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to rate certainty of effect estimates.

RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs (9,619 patients). Compared with control treatment (a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduced the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.59 [95% credible interval [CrI], 0.33-0.90]; high certainty) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82 [95% CrI, 0.47-1.37]; low certainty). LMWH probably reduces DVT compared with UFH (OR, 0.72 [95% CrI, 0.46-0.98]; moderate certainty). Compressive devices may reduce risk of DVT compared with control treatments; however, this is based on low-certainty evidence (OR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.50-1.50]). Combination therapy showed unclear effect on DVT compared with either therapy alone (very low certainty).

INTERPRETATION

Among critically ill adults, compared with control treatment, LMWH reduces incidence of DVT, whereas UFH and mechanical compressive devices may reduce the risk of DVT. LMWH is probably more effective than UFH in reducing incidence of DVT and should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis. The efficacy and safety of combination pharmacologic therapy and mechanical compressive devices were unclear.

TRIAL REGISTRY

Open Science Framework; URL: https://osf.io/694aj.

Thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients: balancing on a tightrope

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a common and potentially fatal complication in the intensive care unit (ICU). Critically ill patients have some special characteristics that increase the risk for VTE and complicate risk stratification and diagnosis. Given the positive effect of thromboprophylaxis on main outcomes, its use is mandatory in these patients, which is documented by various studies and recommended by all published guidelines. However, anticoagulation management is not an easy issue in clinical practice, as the critical patient may be at high risk for thrombosis or, conversely, at increased risk of bleeding or may balance between thrombotic and bleeding risk. Thrombotic and bleeding risk scoring should be evaluated daily in order to select the appropriate form of thromboprophylaxis. The selection depends on the degree of bleeding risk and the subgroup of ICU patients involved, such as patients with sepsis, acute brain injury, major trauma or coronavirus disease-2019. If there is no bleeding risk or other contraindication, the patient should receive pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis with unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparins, weighing the advantages of each agent. If the patient is at high risk of bleeding or there is a contraindication to pharmacologic prophylaxis, he should receive mechanical thromboprophylaxis mainly with intermittent pneumatic compression or graduated compression stockings. Thromboprophylaxis compliance with the guidelines is a prerequisite for moving from theory to practice. Direct oral anticoagulants have been studied in ICU patients and have no place at present in VTE prophylaxis requiring further research.

Can Intermittent Pneumatic Compression Reduce the Incidence of Venous Thrombosis in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication for critically ill patients. Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) is recommended for patients with high risk of bleeding. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of IPC for thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients. We searched PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that evaluated IPC in critically ill patients. RevMan 5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis. A total of 10 studies were included. The IPC group significantly reduced the VTE incidence compared with no thromboprophylaxis group (risk ratio [RR]: 0.35, confidence interval [CI]: 0.18-0.68, P = .002) and the IPC group also showed lower VTE incidence than the graduated compression stockings (GCS) group (RR: 0.47, CI: 0.24-0.91, P = .03). There were no significant differences between using IPC and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for VTE incidence (RR: 1.26, CI: 0.72-2.22, P = .41), but LMWH showed significantly more bleeding events. Intermittent pneumatic compression as an adjunctive treatment did not further reduce VTE incidence (RR: 0.55, CI: 0.24-1.27, P = .16). Intermittent pneumatic compression can reduce the incidence of VTE for critically ill patients, which is better than GCS and similar to LMWH, but it has no significant advantage as an adjunct therapy for thromboprophylaxis.

Eliminating Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries Caused by Graduated Compression Stockings

PURPOSE

The purpose of this evidence-based practice project was to reduce the incidence of pressure injuries (PIs) from the use of graduated compression stockings in patients on a gastrointestinal (GI) sarcoma surgery unit. Before this project, the standard of care for preventing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) included the use of graduated compression stockings, anticoagulation therapy, and intermittent pneumatic compression devices. We sought to examine the impact on PI and DVT risk of using only anticoagulation therapy and intermittent pneumatic compression devices.

METHODS

The pilot phase of the project began in June 2017 when nurses on the GI sarcoma surgery unit initiated a practice change in which graduated compression stockings were removed during the 7 AM shift change and put back on the patient before bedtime. Data on the incidence of DVTs and PIs were already being collected in our institution's electronic health record and safety intelligence reporting system. The project team monitored the incidence of PIs and DVTs throughout the project. After the pilot project concluded in August 2017, the GI sarcoma surgery unit staff continued the practice of taking off graduated compression stockings during the day, until on June 2018 the use of graduated compression stockings was formally discontinued for all surgical patients, both during the day and night.

RESULTS

Data collected during the pilot phase revealed that no PIs or DVTs occurred among the 497 study patients on the GI sarcoma surgery unit. From June to October 2017, the unit cared for a total of 856 patients and PI and DVT rates remained at zero. From the start of the pilot project in June 2017 to October 2018 (five months after the discontinuation of graduated compression stockings on all surgical units) the unit cared for 3,141 patients-an average of 174 patients per month-and had a zero rate of PIs and DVTs.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the use of graduated compression stockings confers more risks than benefits for patients. Our findings prompted the discontinuation of graduated compression stockings use in postoperative patients throughout our institution. In the 17 months after the pilot project was initiated, no PIs occurred among patients in the GI sarcoma surgery unit, which also maintained a zero rate of DVTs.

Nursing in mechanical prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical patients

OBJECTIVE

This theoretical study aims to discuss the role of nurses in the mechanical prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical patients.

METHOD

The study considered the updated versions of the main international guidelines and reviews on the topic. Non-pharmacological measures to prevent venous thromboembolism in surgical patients and the role of nurses are discussed.

RESULTS

It is important that surgical nurses include in their activities risk of assessments for venous thromboembolism and non-pharmacological prophylactic measures, based on scientific evidence and well-designed institutional protocols.

CONCLUSION

Among the mechanical measures, the use of graduated compression stockings and intermittent pneumatic compression should be ensured by nurses.

Decision-Making in the Management of Venous Thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism comprising deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolus is common. Patients with venous thromboembolism may present to a variety of health care providers, and while a significant proportion of patients begin treatment in the hospital, ambulatory management of both deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolus is feasible and becoming more common. Initial anticoagulant management, investigation of venous thromboembolism etiology, and decisions about extended anticoagulation require coordinated care by physicians from multiple specialties. Comprehensive management of venous thromboembolism requires coordinated care from the time of presentation in order to expedite diagnosis, initiate timely anticoagulant treatment, determine the need for extended anticoagulation based on risk of bleeding and recurrent thrombosis, and advise on thromboprophylaxis during future high-risk periods for venous thromboembolism. In this review we use case scenarios to provide an operational framework, based on current evidence-based recommendations, for informed decision-making about a number of clinical practice issues that are frequently encountered in the management of venous thromboembolism patients.

[What is evidence-based in the treatment of sepsis?]

BACKGROUND

The term sepsis was redefined in 2016 as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by an inadequate host response to an infection. The German S3 guidelines for the treatment of sepsis were published in 2018.

OBJECTIVE

What is evidence-based in the treatment of patients with sepsis?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Discussion of the S3 guidelines and inclusion of study results after 2018.

RESULTS

The cornerstones for the treatment of sepsis continue to consist of early hemodynamic stabilization, anti-infection treatment and organ support procedures. Supportive and extracorporeal treatments are controversially discussed and continue to be intensively investigated.

CONCLUSION

Despite an improved understanding of the pathophysiology, there is still no effective causal sepsis treatment, i.e. directed against the pathological host reaction. The treatment of patients with sepsis is therefore still based on the basic principles of correction of volume deficits, anti-infective agents, source control and organ support, including the symptomatic treatment of vasoplegia with catecholamines.

Meta-Analysis of the Role of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression of the Lower Limbs to Prevent Venous Thromboembolism in Critically Ill Patients

Critically ill patients (patients treated in a medical or surgical intensive care unit) are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) development (deep vein thrombosis [DVT] and/or pulmonary embolism). Multiple thromboprophylaxis strategies have been used for the prevention of VTE in this population with various outcomes. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) prophylaxis in the lower limb compared with no treatment, anticoagulant use, or their combinations in reducing risk. A comprehensive electronic database search was conducted for all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical outcomes of IPC versus anticoagulants or no treatment or their combinations for the prevention of VTE for critically ill patients. The primary outcome was VTE. The secondary outcome was DVT. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs). We included 5 RCTs with 3133 total patients, represented by a mean age of 49.61 ± 18 years, while 60.28% were male. There was a significant reduction of the primary outcome (incidence of VTE events) when no treatment was compared with IPC (OR = 0.36; 95% CrI = 0.18-0.71), anticoagulation alone (OR = 0.30; 95% CrI = 0.12-0.68), or anticoagulation with IPC (OR = 0.34; 95% CrI = 0.13-0.81). In addition, there was a significant reduction in DVT when no treatment was compared with IPC (OR = 0.45; 95% CrI = 0.21-0.9), anticoagulation alone (OR = 0.16; 95% CrI = 0.03-0.66), or anticoagulation with IPC (OR = 0.18; 95% CrI = 0.03-0.84). However, there were no significant differences between other comparisons (IPC vs anticoagulation alone, anticoagulation alone vs anticoagulation with IPC, or anticoagulation with IPC vs IPC alone) regarding VTE or DVT incidence. Among critically ill patients, IPC alone, anticoagulation alone, and IPC with anticoagulation were associated with a significant reduction of VTE and DVT incidence compared with no treatment. However, there was no significant difference between these modalities when compared together. Therefore, further larger studies comparing those different thromboprophylaxis modalities and their combinations are needed to provide more robust results for future clinical recommendations.

Effectiveness of Sequential Compression Devices in Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Medically Ill Hospitalized Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Objective:

To evaluate the effectiveness of sequential compression devices (SCDs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in medically ill hospitalized patients.

Materials and Methods:

Adult patients admitted to a teaching hospital from April 2015 to March 2016 were included. Patients on anticoagulants with or without SCDs were excluded. We analyzed VTE risk, length of hospital stay, and other comorbidities among propensity score-matched patients on SCDs and those without thromboprophylaxis (NONE).

Results:

Among 30,824 patients, 67 patients (0.22%) developed VTE during their hospital stays, with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in 55 cases and pulmonary embolism (PE) in 12. VTE was seen in 47 out of 20,018 patients on SCDs (41 DVT, 6 PE) and 20 out of 10,819 patients without SCDs (14 DVT, 6 PE). Risk-adjusted analysis showed no significant difference in VTE incidence in the SCD group compared to NONE (odds ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.57-1.73, p=0.74).

Conclusion:

Compared to the NONE group, SCDs are not associated with decreased VTE incidence during hospital stay.

Adjunctive Intermittent Pneumatic Compression for Venous Thromboprophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Whether adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression in critically ill patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis would result in a lower incidence of deep-vein thrombosis than pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone is uncertain.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients who were considered adults according to the local standards at the participating sites (≥14, ≥16, or ≥18 years of age) within 48 hours after admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) to receive either intermittent pneumatic compression for at least 18 hours each day in addition to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis with unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin (pneumatic compression group) or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone (control group). The primary outcome was incident (i.e., new) proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis, as detected on twice-weekly lower-limb ultrasonography after the third calendar day since randomization until ICU discharge, death, attainment of full mobility, or trial day 28, whichever occurred first.

RESULTS

A total of 2003 patients underwent randomization - 991 were assigned to the pneumatic compression group and 1012 to the control group. Intermittent pneumatic compression was applied for a median of 22 hours (interquartile range, 21 to 23) daily for a median of 7 days (interquartile range, 4 to 13). The primary outcome occurred in 37 of 957 patients (3.9%) in the pneumatic compression group and in 41 of 985 patients (4.2%) in the control group (relative risk, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 1.44; P = 0.74). Venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or any lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis) occurred in 103 of 991 patients (10.4%) in the pneumatic compression group and in 95 of 1012 patients (9.4%) in the control group (relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.44), and death from any cause at 90 days occurred in 258 of 990 patients (26.1%) and 270 of 1011 patients (26.7%), respectively (relative risk, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.13).

CONCLUSIONS

Among critically ill patients who were receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression did not result in a significantly lower incidence of proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis than pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone. (Funded by King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology and King Abdullah International Medical Research Center; PREVENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02040103; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN44653506.).

Thromboprophylaxis in Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Literature Review

Thromboembolism is a major complication in hospitalized patients. Intensive care unit (ICU) patients have a greater risk of thrombotic events due to additional risk factors such as immobilization, mechanical ventilation, and central catheters. The diagnosis and management of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) in critically ill patients are challenging and these conditions are associated with high mortality. Medical thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) as well as unfractionated heparin (UFH) has been shown to reduce the incidence of thromboembolic events in such patients. For patients with high risk of bleeding, mechanical thromboprophylaxis can be used. Literature database was conducted on Medline for articles published up to 2018 using particular search terms such as thromboprophylaxis and venous thromboembolism in ICU patients. The following review summarizes the existing data regarding thromboprophylaxis in ICU patients with special consideration to the use of mechanical prophylaxis and pharmacologic prophylaxis using heparin products.

Assessment of an Extended Interval Fondaparinux Dosing Regimen for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients with Severe Renal Dysfunction Using Antifactor Xa Levels

OBJECTIVE

Pharmacologic options for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis are often limited in critically ill patients due to thrombocytopenia and multisystem organ dysfunction. Fondaparinux offers potential advantages in the critically ill; however, it is currently contraindicated in severe renal dysfunction (SRD). We evaluated anti-factor Xa levels in critically ill patients with SRD who were receiving an extended interval dosing regimen of fondaparinux for VTE prophylaxis.

METHODS

A prospective, single-arm, interventional study was conducted at two academic hospitals of the Detroit Medical Center. Eligible patients were in the intensive care unit, had an estimated creatinine clearance of less than 30 ml/minute, and had either acute kidney injury or end-stage renal disease; several patients were taking renal replacement therapy. Fondaparinux was administered at an extended interval dosing regimen of 2.5 mg subcutaneously every 48 hours. Fondaparinux peak and trough anti-factor Xa levels were obtained. Lower extremity venous duplex studies were performed at baseline and study completion to assess for deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and patients were monitored for bleeding complications.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were enrolled. Patients received a median of four doses (interquartile range two to five) of fondaparinux. Fondaparinux peak (n=98) and trough (n=86) anti-factor Xa levels were 0.36 ± 0.18 mg/L and 0.17 ± 0.11 mg/L (mean ± SD), respectively, and were similar to levels reported in patients with normal renal function receiving conventional once-daily dosing. No lower extremity DVTs or suspected VTE events occurred. Two (6%) patients had significant bleeding events.

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients with SRD, an extended interval fondaparinux dosing regimen of 2.5 mg every 48 hours for VTE prophylaxis achieved peak and trough anti-factor Xa levels similar to those reported in noncritically ill patients with normal renal function receiving once-daily fondaparinux. This regimen offers an alternative for patients with SRD when heparinoids must be avoided.

Different combination strategies for prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients: A prospective multicenter randomized controlled study

The aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different combination strategies for prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after gynecologic surgery in patients at different levels of risk. This was a prospective multicenter randomized controlled study, in which 625 women who would undergo pelvic surgery for gynecologic diseases were stratified into three risk groups and then randomized into four groups to receive graduated compression stockings (GCS) alone (group A), GCS + low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) (group B), GCS + intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) (group C), and GCS + IPC + LMWH (group C), respectively. The overall incidence of DVT was 5.1%. Group A had the highest incidence of DVT (8.8%), followed by group C (5.2%), group B (3.8%), and group D (2.6%). There was a significant difference in the incidence of DVT between groups A and D. The incidence of DVT was significantly lower in LMWH-treated patients (group B + group D) than in non-LMWH-treated patients (group A + group C). In conclusion, combination prophylaxis, especially LMWH-containing strategies, is better than monoprophylaxis in reducing VTE after gynecologic surgery. Risk-stratified prophylactic strategies should be implemented in patients undergoing gynecologic surgery, with LMWH-containing strategies being recommended for high-risk and very-high-risk patients.

Statistical analysis plan for the Pneumatic CompREssion for PreVENting Venous Thromboembolism (PREVENT) trial: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

The Pneumatic CompREssion for Preventing VENous Thromboembolism (PREVENT) trial evaluates the effect of adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) with pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis compared to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone on venous thromboembolism (VTE) in critically ill adults.

Methods/design

In this multicenter randomized trial, critically ill patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis will be randomized to an IPC or a no IPC (control) group. The primary outcome is “incident” proximal lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) within 28 days after randomization. Radiologists interpreting the lower-extremity ultrasonography will be blinded to intervention allocation, whereas the patients and treating team will be unblinded. The trial has 80% power to detect a 3% absolute risk reduction in the rate of proximal DVT from 7% to 4%.

Discussion

Consistent with international guidelines, we have developed a detailed plan to guide the analysis of the PREVENT trial. This plan specifies the statistical methods for the evaluation of primary and secondary outcomes, and defines covariates for adjusted analyses a priori. Application of this statistical analysis plan to the PREVENT trial will facilitate unbiased analyses of clinical data.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02040103. Registered on 3 November 2013;

Current controlled trials, ID: ISRCTN44653506. Registered on 30 October 2013.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2534-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

VTE primary prevention, including hospitalised medical and orthopaedic surgical patients

Primary prevention is the key to managing a significant proportion of the burden of venous thromboembolism (VTE), defined as deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). This is because VTE may lead to sudden death or are often misdiagnosed and therefore treatment is not feasible. Primary prevention usually commences in hospital as VTE following hospitalisation adds to the significant disease burden worldwide. Numerous medical, surgical and other risk factors have been recognised and studied as indications for prophylaxis. The risk of VTE continues following admission to hospital with a medical or surgical condition, usually long after discharge and therefore prolonged primary prophylaxis is often recommended. Clinical and observational studies in surgical patients show this risk extends for months and perhaps more than one year, for medical patients the risk extends for at least several weeks. For the specific groups of patients at higher risk of developing VTE primary prevention, either pharmaceutical or mechanical, is recommended. The aim of this review is to describe the population at risk, the main related risk factors and the approach to thromboprophylaxis in different populations.

A survey of knowledge and application of mechanical thromboprophylaxis among the medical staff of intensive care units in North China

INTRODUCTION

Mechanical prophylaxis with graduated compression stockings (GCS) or intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) is suggested for patients who are bleeding or at high risk for major bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To explore how intensive care unit (ICU) medical staff in North China comprehend and practice mechanical thromboprophylaxis.

METHODS

Questionnaires comprising 39 questions including 4 dimensions of thromboprophylaxis were administered in ICUs in North China.

RESULTS

Fifty-two ICUs were surveyed from September 2014 to January 2015. A total of 2500 questionnaires were sent and 1861 were returned, corresponding to approximately 74.4%. Approximately 52.30% of all surveyed medical staff indicated they often practiced mechanical thromboprophylaxis. Twenty-five percentage of them never used or had never heard of mechanical thromboprophylaxis. Thirty-eight percent and twenty-four percent of them doubted the effectiveness of GCS and IPC respectively. Regarding the use of GCS, 50.2% of them were concerned about skin injury, 57.4% were concerned about difficulty with removal and 57.6% were anxious about discomfort. Thirty-five percent of the medical staff feared the ease of thrombus release during IPC thromboprophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

A wide gap exists with regards to the knowledge and application of mechanical thromboprophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) between the medical staff of our country and abroad. Strengthened standardized training may help medical staff improve their understanding and application of mechanical thromboprophylaxis. Amelioration of concerns regarding IPC and GCS could help increase the rate of mechanical thromboprophylaxis for VTE, reduce the occurrence of VTE in ICUs and improve the prognosis of these critically ill patients.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012."

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.

METHODS

The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable.

RESULTS

The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Thromboprophylaxis Failure in the Adult Medical Inpatient

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among hospitalized patients, is often due to prophylaxis failure rather than omission, but few studies have identified the risk factors for failure. Risk factors for thromboprophylaxis failure include personal or family history of VTE, use of vasopressors or inotropes, increased body mass index, cranial surgery, intensive care patient, leukocytosis, indwelling central venous catheter and admission from a long-term care facility. Identifying patients at risk for thromboprophylaxis failure should prompt close observation during hospitalization for signs of VTE, close observation after discharge and potentially more aggressive prophylaxis strategies, although no specific guidelines exist for medical patients at this time.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012".

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.

METHODS

The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable.

RESULTS

The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Pediatric Hospital Acquired Venous Thromboembolism

Pediatric hospital acquired venous thromboembolism (HA-VTE) is an increasing problem with an estimated increase from 5.3 events per 10,000 pediatric hospital admissions in the early 1990s to a current estimate of 30-58 events per 10,000 pediatric hospital admissions. Pediatric HA-VTE is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The etiology is multifactorial but central venous catheters remain the predominant risk factor. Additional HA-VTE risk factors include both acquired (recent surgery, immobility, inflammation, and critical illness) and inherited risk factors. Questions remain regarding the most effective method to assess for HA-VTE risk in hospitalized pediatric patients and what preventative strategies should be implemented. While several risk-assessment models have been published in pediatric patients, these studies have limited power due to small sample size and require prospective validation. Potential thromboprophylactic measures include mechanical and pharmacologic methods both of which have associated harms, the most significant of which is bleeding from anticoagulation. Standard anticoagulation options in pediatric patients currently include unfractionated heparin, low molecular weight heparin, or warfarin all of which pose a monitoring burden. Ongoing pediatric studies with direct oral anticoagulants could potentially revolutionize the prevention and treatment of pediatric thrombosis with the possibility of a convenient route of administration and no requirement for monitoring. Further studies assessing clinical outcomes of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention strategies are critical to evaluate the effectiveness and harm of prophylactic interventions in children. Despite HA-VTE prevention efforts, thrombotic events can still occur, and it is important that clinicians have a high clinical suspicion to ensure prompt diagnosis and treatment to prevent further associated harms.

The Saudi clinical practice guideline for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in medical and critically ill patients

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) acquired during hospitalization is common, yet preventable by the proper implementation of thromboprophylaxis which remains to be underutilized worldwide. As a result of an initiative by the Saudi Ministry of Health to improve medical practices in the country, an expert panel led by the Saudi Association for Venous Thrombo Embolism (SAVTE; a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society) with the methodological guidance of the McMaster University Guideline working group, produced this clinical practice guideline to assist healthcare providers in VTE prevention. The expert part panel issued ten recommendations addressing 10 prioritized questions in the following areas: thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients (Recommendations 1-5), thromboprophylaxis in critically ill medical patients (Recommendations 6-9), and thromboprophylaxis in chronically ill patients (Recommendation 10). The corresponding recommendations were generated following the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

Severity of ASD symptoms and their correlation with the presence of copy number variations and exposure to first trimester ultrasound

Current research suggests that incidence and heterogeneity of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) symptoms may arise through a variety of exogenous and/or endogenous factors. While subject to routine clinical practice and generally considered safe, there exists speculation, though no human data, that diagnostic ultrasound may also contribute to ASD severity, supported by experimental evidence that exposure to ultrasound early in gestation could perturb brain development and alter behavior. Here we explored a modified triple hit hypothesis [Williams & Casanova, ] to assay for a possible relationship between the severity of ASD symptoms and (1) ultrasound exposure (2) during the first trimester of pregnancy in fetuses with a (3) genetic predisposition to ASD. We did so using retrospective analysis of data from the SSC (Simon's Simplex Collection) autism genetic repository funded by the Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative. We found that male children with ASD, copy number variations (CNVs), and exposure to first trimester ultrasound had significantly decreased non-verbal IQ and increased repetitive behaviors relative to male children with ASD, with CNVs, and no ultrasound. These data suggest that heterogeneity in ASD symptoms may result, at least in part, from exposure to diagnostic ultrasound during early prenatal development of children with specific genetic vulnerabilities. These results also add weight to on-going concerns expressed by the FDA about non-medical use of diagnostic ultrasound during pregnancy. Autism Res 2017, 10: 472-484. © 2016 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The Use of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression in Orthopedic and Neurosurgical Postoperative Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to carry out an up-to-date evaluation on the use of compression devices as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis methods in orthopedic and neurological patients.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There is an increased risk of DVT with surgery, particularly in patients who are not expected to mobilize soon after their procedures, such as orthopedic and neurosurgical patients. Compression devices are often employed for DVT prophylaxis in these patients. However, the true efficacy of these devices and the standardization of use with these devices are yet to be established.

METHODS

Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane library electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting on the use of compression devices for DVT prevention.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included for review and meta-analysis. Use of an intermittent pneumatic compression device alone is neither superior nor inferior to chemoprophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of large randomized multicenter trials comparing the use of intermittent pneumatic compression or chemoprophylaxis alone to a combination of both treatments, the current evidence supports the use of a combined approach in high-risk surgical patients.

Thromboprophylaxis using combined intermittent pneumatic compression and pharmacologic prophylaxis versus pharmacologic prophylaxis alone in critically ill patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a common problem in critically ill patients. Pharmacologic prophylaxis is currently the standard of care based on high-level evidence from randomized controlled trials. However, limited evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices. The Pneumatic compREssion for preventing VENous Thromboembolism (PREVENT trial) aims to determine whether the adjunct use of IPC with pharmacologic prophylaxis compared to pharmacologic prophylaxis alone in critically ill patients reduces the risk of VTE.

METHODS/DESIGN

The PREVENT trial is a multicenter randomized controlled trial, which will recruit 2000 critically ill patients from over 20 hospitals in three countries. The primary outcome is the incidence of proximal lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) within 28 days after randomization. Radiologists interpreting the scans are blinded to intervention allocation, whereas the patients and caregivers are unblinded. The trial has 80 % power to detect a 3 % absolute risk reduction in proximal DVT from 7 to 4 %.

DISCUSSION

The first patient was enrolled in July 2014. As of May 2015, a total of 650 patients have been enrolled from 13 centers in Saudi Arabia, Canada and Australia. The first interim analysis is anticipated in July 2016. We expect to complete recruitment by 2018.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02040103 (registered on 3 November 2013). Current controlled trials: ISRCTN44653506 (registered on 30 October 2013).

Preventing Venous Thromboembolism in the Critically Ill — Can We do More?

Pulmonary embolism is the most common preventable cause of hospital death; and of all the different patient groups, the critically ill are particularly at risk of venous thromboembolism. Most critically ill patients have multiple risk factors. Clinical trials have shown that the use of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is safer than unfractionated heparin in this population. Further trials are required to look at the risks and benefits of dose adjusting LMWH at the extremes of weight, in patients with renal failure and those on antiplatelet agents. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is still a risk with LMWHs so a safer anticoagulant such as fondaparinux and even the new oral anticoagulants merit trials. Further evidence is also needed for the use of graduated compression stockings and pneumatic devices.

Prevalence and factors associated with the absence of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: A cross-sectional study of Georgia intensive care units

PURPOSE

The need for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is well accepted in the intensive care unit (ICU) and supported by a variety of guideline recommendations. Several studies have highlighted poor adherence to these recommendations, but it is unknown why this discrepancy exists. The aim of this study is assess the prevalence of pharmacoprophylaxis and characterize the practice of withholding prophylaxis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Multicenter, cross-sectional study conducted in adults admitted to a Georgia ICU at participating institutions on March 12, 2014. Data were collected on eligible patients regarding need for and omission of pharmacoprophylaxis.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty-four patients across 9 institutions were included in the study. Patients had a mean age of 58 years and a median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 5. Physical activity was completely bedridden or restricted in 87% of the cohort. Forty-five percent of patients were not receiving pharmacoprophylaxis. The most common reasons for withholding prophylaxis were receipt of mechanical prophylaxis, recent surgery or central nervous system bleed, and thrombocytopenia. Over 16% of the cohort was inappropriately not receiving thromboprophylaxis. Patients with an elevated international normalized ratio had lower odds of receiving prophylaxis (0.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is commonly omitted in ICU patients, and reasons for omission vary. An elevated international normalized ratio is associated with withholding of pharmacologic prophylaxis.

A new device for the prevention of pulmonary embolism in critically ill patients: Results of the European Angel Catheter Registry

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a potentially life-threatening complication of critical illness. In trauma and neurosurgical patients with contraindications to anticoagulation, inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have been used to prevent PE, but their associated long-term complication rates and difficulties associated with filter removal have limited their use. The Angel catheter is a temporary device, which combined an IVC filter with a triple-lumen central venous catheter (IVC filter-catheter) and is intended for bedside placement and removal when no longer indicated.

METHODS

This study presents data from a European Registry of 60 critically ill patients in whom the IVC filter-catheter was used to prevent PE. The patients were all at high risk of PE development or recurrence and had contraindications to anticoagulation. The primary end points of this study were to evaluate the safety (in particular, the presence of infectious or thrombotic events) and effectiveness (the numbers of PEs and averted PEs) of the IVC filter-catheter.

RESULTS

The main diagnosis before catheter insertion was major trauma in 33 patients (55%), intracerebral hemorrhage or stroke in 9 (15%), a venous thromboembolic event in 9 (15%), and active bleeding in 6 (10%). The IVC filter-catheter was placed as prophylaxis in 51 patients (85%) and as treatment in the 9 patients (15%) with venous thromboembolic event. The devices were inserted at the bedside without fluoroscopic guidance in 54 patients (90%) and within a median of 4 days after hospital admission. They were left in place for a mean of 6 days (4-8 days). One patient developed a PE, without hemodynamic compromise; two PEs were averted. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Early bedside placement of an IVC filter-catheter is possible, and our results suggest that this is a safe, effective alternative to short-term PE prophylaxis for high-risk patients with contraindications to anticoagulation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, level V.

A Survey of the Knowledge of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis among the Medical Staff of Intensive Care Units in North China

Background

Guideline concordance for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) varies across different countries.

Objective

To explore how the medical staff of ICUs in China comprehend and practice VTE prophylaxis.

Method

Questionnaires comprising 39 questions and including 4 dimensions of thromboprophylaxis were administered in ICUs in North China.

Results

In all, 52 ICUs at 23 tertiary hospitals in 7 Chinese provinces and municipalities were surveyed. A total of 2500 questionnaires were sent, and 1861 were returned, corresponding to a response rate of approximately 74.4%. Of all surveyed medical staff, 36.5% of physicians and 22.2% of nurses were aware of the guidelines in China, and 19.0% of physicians and 9.5% of nurses comprehended the 9^th edition of the guidelines of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP). Additionally, 37.6% of the medical staff chose a prophylaxis method based on the related guidelines, and 10.3% could demonstrate the exact indication for mechanical pattern application. Worries about skin injury, difficulty with removal and discomfort during mechanical thromboprophylaxis were cited by more than 30% of nurses, which was significantly more frequent than for physicians (graduated compression stockings: 54.3% VS 34.1%, 60.7% VS 49%, and 59.4% VS 54%, p = 0.000; intermittent pneumatic compression: 31% VS 22.2%, 19.2% VS 13.9%, and 37.8% VS 27.2%, p = 0.000).

Conclusions and Relevance

The knowledge of VTE prophylaxis among the medical staff of ICUs in North China remains limited, which may lead to a lack of standardization of VTE prophylaxis. Strengthened, standardized training may help medical staff to improve their comprehension of the relevant guidelines and may finally reduce the occurrence of VTE in ICUs and improve the prognosis of critically ill patients with VTE.

Venous Thromboembolism in Critically Ill Medical Patients Receiving Chemoprophylaxis

Purpose:

To compare the incidence of 90-day venous thromboembolism (VTE) in obese critically ill medical patients receiving VTE chemoprophylaxis with nonobese patients of similar illness severity. We also identified other VTE risk factors.

Methods:

Eligible patients spent ≥24 hours in an intensive care unit between November 2007 and November 2013 and received VTE chemoprophylaxis within 48 hours of admission. The primary outcome was 90-day VTE.

Results:

A total of 11 111 patients were evaluated, of which 1732 obese and 1831 nonobese patients were enrolled with mean BMIs of 38.9 ± 9.2 kg/m2 and 24.5 ± 3.1 kg/m2 and mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores of 28.4 ± 11.8 and 26.6 ± 11.7, respectively. The rate of 90-day VTE for the total cohort, obese, and nonobese patients was 6.5%, 7.5%, and 5.5%, respectively. Obese patients were more likely to develop VTE compared with nonobese patients (odds ratio [OR]: 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03 -1.93). Other risk factors significantly associated with 90-day VTE included prior VTE (OR: 3.93; 95% CI: 1.83-8.48), trauma with surgery in the previous 30 days (OR: 3.70; 95% CI: 1.39-9.86), central venous catheters (OR: 2.64; 95% CI: 1.87-3.72), surgery within 90 days (OR: 2.40; 95% CI: 1.61-3.58), mechanical ventilation (OR: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.39-2.71), male sex (OR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.13-2.14), and increasing age using 1-year increments (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 1.01 -1.03).

Conclusions:

The rate of VTE in critically ill medical patients remains high despite standard chemoprophylaxis. Obesity is among 8 risk factors independently associated with 90-day VTE.

Venous thromboembolism in hospitalized adolescents: an approach to risk assessment and prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Pediatric hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an increasingly prevalent and morbid disease. A multidisciplinary team at a tertiary children's hospital sought to answer the following clinical question: "Among hospitalized adolescents, does risk assessment and stratified VTE prophylaxis compared with no prophylaxis reduce VTE occurrence without an increase in significant adverse effects?"

METHODS

Serial literature searches using key terms were performed in the following databases: Medline, Cochrane Database, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health), Scopus, EBMR (Evidence Based Medicine Reviews). Pediatric studies were sought preferentially; when pediatric evidence was sparse, adult studies were included. Abstracts and titles were screened, and relevant full articles were reviewed. Studies were rated for quality using a standard rating system.

RESULTS

Moderate evidence exists to support VTE risk assessment in adolescents. This evidence comes from pediatric studies that are primarily retrospective in design. The results of the studies are consistent and cite prominent factors such as immobilization and central venous access. There is insufficient evidence to support specific prophylactic strategies in pediatric patients because available pediatric evidence for thromboprophylaxis efficacy and safety is minimal. There is, however, high-quality, consistent evidence demonstrating efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in adults.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the best available evidence, we propose a strategy for risk assessment and stratified VTE prophylaxis for hospitalized adolescents. This strategy involves assessing risk factors and considering prophylactic measures based on level of risk. We believe this strategy may reduce risk of VTE and appropriately balances the adverse effect profile of mechanical and pharmacologic prophylactic methods.