Protocol implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic: experiences from a randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many intensive care units (ICUs) halted research to focus on COVID-19-specific studies. OBJECTIVE: To describe the conduct of an international randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis (Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions in the ICU [REVISE]) during the pandemic, addressing enrolment patterns, center engagement, informed consent processes, data collection, a COVID-specific substudy, patient transfers, and data monitoring. METHODS: REVISE is a randomized trial among mechanically ventilated patients, comparing pantoprazole 40 mg IV to placebo on the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the primary safety outcome of 90-day mortality. We documented protocol implementation status from March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022. RESULTS: The Steering Committee did not change the scientific protocol. From the first enrolment on July 9th 2019 to March 10th 2020 (8 months preceding the pandemic), 267 patients were enrolled in 18 centers. From March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022 (30 months thereafter), 41 new centers joined; 59 were participating by August 30th 2022 which enrolled 2961 patients. During a total of 1235 enrolment-months in the pandemic phase, enrolment paused for 106 (8.6%) months in aggregate (median 3 months, interquartile range 2;6). Protocol implementation involved a shift from the a priori consent model pre-pandemic (188, 58.8%) to the consent to continue model (1615, 54.1%, p < 0.01). In one new center, an opt-out model was approved. The informed consent rate increased slightly (80.7% to 85.0%, p = 0.05). Telephone consent encounters increased (16.6% to 68.2%, p < 0.001). Surge capacity necessitated intra-institutional transfers; receiving centers continued protocol implementation whenever possible. We developed a nested COVID-19 substudy. The Methods Centers continued central statistical monitoring of trial metrics. Site monitoring was initially remote, then in-person when restrictions lifted. CONCLUSION: Protocol implementation adaptations during the pandemic included a shift in the consent model, a sustained high consent rate, and launch of a COVID-19 substudy. Recruitment increased as new centers joined, patient transfers were optimized, and monitoring methods were adapted.

Sex differences in thromboprophylaxis of the critically ill: a secondary analysis of a randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of critical illness. Sex- or gender-based analyses are rarely conducted and their effect on outcomes is unknown. We assessed for an effect modification of thromboprophylaxis (dalteparin or unfractionated heparin [UFH]) by sex on thrombotic (deep venous thrombosis [DVT], pulmonary embolism [PE], VTE) and mortality outcomes in a secondary analysis of the Prophylaxis for Thromboembolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT). METHODS: We conducted unadjusted analyses using Cox proportional hazards analysis, stratified by centre and admission diagnostic category, including sex, treatment, and an interaction term. Additionally, we performed adjusted analyses and assessed the credibility of our findings. RESULTS: Critically ill female (n = 1,614) and male (n = 2,113) participants experienced similar rates of DVT, proximal DVT, PE, any VTE, ICU death, and hospital death. In unadjusted analyses, we did not find significant differences in treatment effect favouring males (vs females) treated with dalteparin (vs UFH) for proximal leg DVT, any DVT, or any PE, but found a statistically significant effect (moderate certainty) favouring dalteparin in males for any VTE (males: hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.96 vs females: HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.68; P = 0.04). This effect remained after adjustment for baseline characteristics (males: HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.96 vs females: HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.68; P = 0.04) and weight (males: HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.96 vs females: HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.73; P = 0.03). We did not identify a significant effect modification by sex on mortality. CONCLUSIONS: We found an effect modification by sex of thromboprophylaxis on VTE in critically ill patients that requires confirmation. Our findings highlight the need for sex- and gender-based analyses in acute care research.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La maladie thromboembolique veineuse (MTEV) est une complication fréquente au cours des maladies critiques. Des analyses basées sur le sexe ou le genre sont rarement effectuées et leur effet sur les critères d'évaluation est inconnu. Nous avons évalué une modification de l'effet de la thromboprophylaxie (daltéparine ou héparine non fractionnée [HNF]) selon le sexe sur la maladie thrombotique (thrombose veineuse profonde [TVP], embolie pulmonaire [EP], MTEV) et sur les critères de mortalité au cours d'une analyse secondaire de l'étude PROTECT (essai de prophylaxie de la thromboembolie en soins critiques). MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé des analyses non ajustées au moyen d'une analyse des risques proportionnels de Cox, stratifiées par site et catégorie diagnostique à l'admission, incluant le sexe, le traitement et un terme d'interaction. Nous avons aussi réalisé des analyses ajustées et avons évalué la crédibilité de nos constatations. RéSULTATS: Les participant·es dans un état critique de sexe féminin (n = 1 614) et masculin (n = 2 113) ont présenté des taux semblables de TVP, EP, et MTEV de tout type, de décès en soins intensifs et de décès en milieu hospitalier. Nous n'avons pas trouvé de différences significatives dans les analyses non ajustées en faveur des hommes (par rapport aux femmes) traités par la daltéparine (par rapport à l'HNF) pour la TVP de la cuisse, la TVP de tout type, ou tout type d'EP; en revanche, nous avons trouvé un effet statistiquement significatif (certitude modérée) en faveur de la daltéparine pour la MTEV de tout type (hommes : rapport de risque [RR], 0,71; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 0,52 à 0,96 par rapport aux femmes : RR, 1,16; IC 95 %, 0,81 à 1,68; P = 0,04). Cet effet a persisté après ajustement pour les caractéristiques à l'inclusion (hommes : RR, 0,70; IC 95 %, 0,52 à 0,96 par rapport aux femmes : RR, 1,17; IC 95 %, 0,81 à 1,68; P = 0,04) et le poids (hommes : RR, 0,70; IC 95 %, 0,52 à 0,96 par rapport aux femmes : RR, 1,20; IC 95 %, 0,83 à 1,73; P = 0,03). Nous n'avons pas identifié de modification significative de l'effet en fonction du sexe sur la mortalité. CONCLUSION: Nous avons trouvé une modification de l'effet en fonction du sexe sur la thromboprophylaxie sur la MTEV chez les patient·es en état critique; cette constatation nécessite une confirmation. Nos constatations soulignent le besoin d'analyses en fonction du sexe et du genre dans la recherche sur les soins aigus.

Health economic evaluation alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (E-PROSPECT): a cost-effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE: We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of probiotics and usual care with usual care without probiotics in mechanically ventilated, intensive care unit patients alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (PROSPECT). METHODS: We conducted a health economic evaluation alongside the PROSPECT randomized control trial (October 2013-March 2019). We adopted a public healthcare payer's perspective. Forty-four intensive care units in three countries (Canada/USA/Saudi Arabia) with adult critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients (N = 2,650) were included. Interventions were probiotics (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG) vs placebo administered enterally twice daily. We collected healthcare resource use and estimated unit costs in 2019 United States dollars (USD) over a time horizon from randomization to hospital discharge/death. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comparing probiotics vs usual care. The primary outcome was incremental cost per ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) event averted; secondary outcomes were costs per Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD), antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD), and mortality averted. Uncertainty was investigated using nonparametric bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation [SD]) cost per patient was USD 66,914 (91,098) for patients randomized to probiotics, with a median [interquartile range (IQR)] of USD 42,947 [22,239 to 76,205]. By comparison, for those not receiving probiotics, mean (SD) cost per patient was USD 62,701 (78,676) (median [IQR], USD 41,102 [23,170 to 75,140]; incremental cost, USD 4,213; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2,269 to 10,708). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for VAP or AAD events averted, probiotics were dominated by usual care (more expensive, with similar effectiveness). The ICERs were USD 1,473,400 per CDAD event averted (95% CI, undefined) and USD 396,764 per death averted (95% CI, undefined). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves reveal that probiotics were not cost-effective across wide ranges of plausible willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses did not change the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Probiotics for VAP prevention among critically ill patients were not cost-effective. Study registration data www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT01782755); registered 4 February 2013.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons cherché à comparer le rapport coût-efficacité d'un traitement avec probiotiques ajoutés aux soins habituels avec des soins habituels prodigués sans probiotiques chez les patients des soins intensifs sous ventilation mécanique dans le cadre de l'étude PROSPECT (Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial). MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une évaluation de l'économie de la santé parallèlement à l'étude randomisée contrôlée PROSPECT (octobre 2013-mars 2019). Nous avons adopté le point de vue d'un payeur public de services de santé. Quarante-quatre unités de soins intensifs dans trois pays (Canada/États-Unis/Arabie saoudite) prenant soin de patients adultes gravement malades sous ventilation mécanique (n = 2650) ont été inclus. Les interventions ont été les suivantes : probiotiques (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG) vs placebo administrés par voie entérale deux fois par jour. Nous avons recueilli les données concernant l'utilisation des ressources en soins de santé et estimé les coûts unitaires en dollars américains (USD) de 2019 sur un horizon temporel allant de la randomisation au congé de l'hôpital / décès. Nous avons calculé des rapports coût-efficacité différentiels (RCED) en comparant les probiotiques vs les soins habituels. Le critère d'évaluation principal était le coût différentiel par événement évité de pneumonie associée au ventilateur (PAV); les critères d'évaluation secondaires étaient les coûts par diarrhée associée au Clostridioides difficile (DACD), diarrhée associée aux antibiotiques (DAA) et mortalité évitées. L'incertitude a été étudiée à l'aide d'analyses d'amorçage et de sensibilité non paramétriques. RéSULTATS: Le coût moyen (écart type [ÉT]) par patient était de 66 914 (91 098) USD pour les patients randomisés au groupe probiotiques, avec une médiane [écart interquartile (ÉIQ)] de 42 947 USD [22 239 à 76 205]. En comparaison, pour ceux ne recevant pas de probiotiques, le coût moyen (ÉT) par patient était de 62 701 USD (78 676) (médiane [ÉIQ], 41 102 USD [23 170 à 75 140]; coût différentiel, 4213 USD; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95%, -2269 à 10 708). En matière de rapports coût-efficacité différentiels pour les événements de PAV ou DAA évités, les probiotiques étaient dominés par les soins habituels (plus coûteux, avec une efficacité similaire). Les RCED étaient de 1 473 400 USD par événement de DACD évitée (IC 95 %, non défini) et de 396 764 USD par décès évité (IC 95 %, non défini). Les courbes d'acceptabilité coût-efficacité révèlent que les probiotiques n'étaient pas rentables dans de larges gammes de seuils plausibles de volonté de payer. Les analyses de sensibilité n'ont pas modifié les conclusions. CONCLUSION: Les probiotiques utilisés pour prévenir la PAV chez les patients gravement malades n'étaient pas rentables. Enregistrement de l'étude : www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01782755); enregistrée le 4 février 2013.

Effect of Probiotics on Incident Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Critically Ill Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Growing interest in microbial dysbiosis during critical illness has raised questions about the therapeutic potential of microbiome modification with probiotics. Prior randomized trials in this population suggest that probiotics reduce infection, particularly ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), although probiotic-associated infections have also been reported. Objective: To evaluate the effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG on preventing VAP, additional infections, and other clinically important outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized placebo-controlled trial in 44 ICUs in Canada, the United States, and Saudi Arabia enrolling adults predicted to require mechanical ventilation for at least 72 hours. A total of 2653 patients were enrolled from October 2013 to March 2019 (final follow-up, October 2020). Interventions: Enteral L rhamnosus GG (1 × 1010 colony-forming units) (n = 1321) or placebo (n = 1332) twice daily in the ICU. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was VAP determined by duplicate blinded central adjudication. Secondary outcomes were other ICU-acquired infections including Clostridioides difficile infection, diarrhea, antimicrobial use, ICU and hospital length of stay, and mortality. Results: Among 2653 randomized patients (mean age, 59.8 years [SD], 16.5 years), 2650 (99.9%) completed the trial (mean age, 59.8 years [SD], 16.5 years; 1063 women [40.1%.] with a mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 22.0 (SD, 7.8) and received the study product for a median of 9 days (IQR, 5-15 days). VAP developed among 289 of 1318 patients (21.9%) receiving probiotics vs 284 of 1332 controls (21.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.03 (95% CI, 0.87-1.22; P = .73, absolute difference, 0.6%, 95% CI, -2.5% to 3.7%). None of the 20 prespecified secondary outcomes, including other ICU-acquired infections, diarrhea, antimicrobial use, mortality, or length of stay showed a significant difference. Fifteen patients (1.1%) receiving probiotics vs 1 (0.1%) in the control group experienced the adverse event of L rhamnosus in a sterile site or the sole or predominant organism in a nonsterile site (odds ratio, 14.02; 95% CI, 1.79-109.58; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation, administration of the probiotic L rhamnosus GG compared with placebo, resulted in no significant difference in the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia. These findings do not support the use of L rhamnosus GG in critically ill patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02462590.

A pragmatic randomized trial evaluating pre-operative aqueous antiseptic skin solutions in open fractures (Aqueous-PREP): statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 1 in 10 patients with a surgically treated open fracture will develop a surgical site infection. The Aqueous-PREP trial will investigate the effect of 10% povidone-iodine versus 4% chlorhexidine in aqueous antiseptic solutions in reducing infections after open fracture surgery. The study protocol was published in April 2020. METHODS AND DESIGN: The Aqueous-PREP trial is a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized multiple period cluster crossover trial. Each participating cluster is randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to provide 1 of the 2 study interventions on all eligible patients during a study period. The intervention periods are 2 months in length. After completing a 2-month period, the participating cluster crosses over to the alternative intervention. We plan to enroll a minimum of 1540 patients at 14 sites. RESULTS: The primary outcome is surgical site infection guided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Network reporting criteria (2017). All participants' surgical site infection surveillance period will end 30 days after definitive fracture management surgery for superficial infections and 90 days after definitive fracture management surgery for deep incisional or organ/space infections [1]. The secondary outcome is an unplanned fracture-related reoperation within 12 months of the fracture. CONCLUSION: This manuscript serves as the formal statistical analysis plan (version 1.0) for the Aqueous-PREP trial. The statistical analysis plan was completed on February 28, 2022.

Comparison of Prophylactic Intravenous Antibiotic Regimens After Endoprosthetic Reconstruction for Lower Extremity Bone Tumors: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The use of perioperative, prophylactic, intravenous antibiotics is standard practice to reduce the risk of surgical site infection after oncologic resection and complex endoprosthetic reconstruction for lower extremity bone tumors. However, evidence guiding the duration of prophylactic treatment remains limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a 5-day regimen of postoperative, prophylactic, intravenous antibiotics compared with a 1-day regimen on the rate of surgical site infections within 1 year after surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized clinical superiority trial was performed at 48 clinical sites in 12 countries from January 1, 2013, to October 29, 2019. The trial included patients with a primary bone tumor or a soft tissue sarcoma that had invaded the femur or tibia or oligometastatic bone disease of the femur or tibia with expected survival of at least 1 year who required surgical management by excision and endoprosthetic reconstruction. A total of 611 patients were enrolled, and 7 were excluded for ineligibility. INTERVENTIONS: A 1- or 5-day regimen of postoperative prophylactic intravenous cephalosporin (cefazolin or cefuroxime) that began within 8 hours after skin closure and was administered every 8 hours thereafter. Those randomized to the 1-day regimen received identical saline doses every 8 hours for the remaining 4 days; patients, care providers, and outcomes assessors were blinded to treatment regimen. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome in this superiority trial was a surgical site infection (superficial incisional, deep incisional, or organ space) classified according to the criteria established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention within 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes included antibiotic-related complications, unplanned additional operations, oncologic and functional outcomes, and mortality. RESULTS: Of the 604 patients included in the final analysis (mean [SD] age, 41.2 [21.9] years; 361 [59.8%] male; 114 [18.9%] Asian, 43 [7.1%] Black, 34 [5.6%] Hispanic, 15 [2.5%] Indigenous, 384 [63.8%] White, and 12 [2.0%] other), 293 were randomized to a 5-day regimen and 311 to a 1-day regimen. A surgical site infection occurred in 44 patients (15.0%) allocated to the 5-day regimen and in 52 patients (16.7%) allocated to the 1-day regimen (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.62-1.40; P = .73). Antibiotic-related complications occurred in 15 patients (5.1%) in the 5-day regimen and in 5 patients (1.6%) allocated to the 1-day regimen (hazard ratio, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.17-8.98; P = .02). Other secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This randomized clinical trial did not confirm the superiority of a 5-day regimen of postoperative intravenous antibiotics over a 1-day regimen in preventing surgical site infections after surgery for lower extremity bone tumors that required an endoprosthesis. The 5-day regimen group had significantly more antibiotic-related complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01479283.

Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens In Tumor Surgery (PARITY): a multi-center randomized controlled study comparing alternative antibiotic regimens in patients undergoing tumor resections with endoprosthetic replacements-a statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: Limb salvage with endoprosthetic reconstruction is the current standard practice for the surgical management of lower extremity bone tumors in skeletally mature patients and typically includes tumor resection followed by the functional limb reconstruction with modular metallic and polyethylene endoprosthetic implants. However, owing to the complexity and length of these procedures, as well as the immunocompromised nature of patients treated with chemotherapy, the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) is high. The primary research objective of the Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens In Tumor Surgery (PARITY) trial is to assess whether a 5-day regimen of post-operative antibiotics decreases the risk of SSI at 1 year post-operatively compared to a 1-day regimen. This article describes the statistical analysis plan for the PARITY trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The PARITY trial is an ongoing multi-center, blinded parallel two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 600 participants who have been diagnosed with a primary bone tumor, a soft tissue sarcoma that has invaded the bone or oligometastatic bone disease of the femur or tibia that requires surgical resection and endoprosthetic reconstruction. This article describes the overall analysis principles, including how participants will be included in each analysis, the presentation of results, adjustments for covariates, the primary and secondary outcomes, and their respective analyses. Additionally, we will present the planned sensitivity and sub-group analyses. DISCUSSION: Our prior work has demonstrated (1) high rates of SSI after the treatment of lower extremity tumors by surgical excision and endoprosthetic reconstruction, (2) highly varied opinion and practice among orthopedic oncologists with respect to prophylactic antibiotic regimens, (3) an absence of applicable RCT evidence, (4) extensive support from international investigators to participate in a RCT, and (5) the feasibility of conducting a definitive RCT to evaluate a 5-day regimen of post-operative antibiotics in comparison with a 1-day regimen. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01479283 . Registered on 24 November 2011.

Early Radiographic Union Score for Hip Is Predictive of Femoral Neck Fracture Complications Within 2 Years.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if the Radiographic Union Score for Hip (RUSH) measured at 3 and 6 months after femoral neck fracture were predictive of reoperation for infection, nonunion, delayed union, avascular necrosis, or implant failure within 24 months of initial surgery. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Logistic regression was performed to investigate associations between lower RUSH and reoperation. Results were reported as odds ratios (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and associated P values. All tests were 2 tailed with alpha = 0.05. SETTING: Eighty-one clinical sites across 8 countries. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Data from 734 of the clinical trial participants with radiographs at 3 and 6 months after fracture fixation were included. INTERVENTION: A reviewer blinded to patients' outcomes independently assigned a RUSH at each follow-up time point. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Revision surgery rate related to intervention. RESULTS: Lower RUSH at 3 and 6 months were associated with increased odds of reoperation within 24 months of fracture fixation. For every 2-point decrease in RUSH at 3 months, there was a 16% increase in the odds of a patient experiencing a re-operation (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.22; P < 0.0001). A similar association was observed at the 6-month assessment for every 2-point decrease (OR = 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Decreased radiographic healing as early as 3 months post fracture fixation is associated with developing patient important femoral neck fracture reoperations. This relationship may guide early treatment decisions, suggesting that 3- and 6-month RUSH are a useful surrogate measure of reoperations within 24 months of fracture fixation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

What Factors Increase Revision Surgery Risk When Treating Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures With Arthroplasty: A Secondary Analysis of the HEALTH Trial.

OBJECTIVES: HEALTH was a randomized controlled trial comparing total hip arthroplasty with hemiarthroplasty in low-energy displaced femoral neck fracture patients aged ≥50 years with unplanned revision surgery within 24 months of the initial procedure being the primary outcome. No significant short-term differences between treatment arms were observed. The primary objective of this secondary HEALTH trial analysis was to determine if any patient and surgical factors were associated with increased risk of revision surgery within 24 months after hip fracture. METHODS: We analyzed 9 potential factors chosen a priori that could be associated with revision surgery. The factors included age, body mass index, major comorbidities, independent ambulation, type of surgical approach, length of operation, use of femoral cement, femoral head size, and degree of femoral stem offset. Our statistical analysis was a multivariable Cox regression using reoperation within 24 months of index surgery as the dependent variable. RESULTS: Of the 1441 patients included in this analysis, 8.1% (117/1441) experienced reoperation within 24 months. None of the studied factors were found to be predictors of revision surgery (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both total and partial hip replacements are successful procedures in low-energy displaced femoral neck fracture patients. We were unable to identify any patient or surgeon-controlled factors that significantly increased the need for revision surgery in our elderly and predominately female patient population. One should not generalize our findings to an active physiologically younger femoral neck fracture population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

What Predicts Health-Related Quality of Life for Patients With Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures Managed With Arthroplasty? A Secondary Analysis of the HEALTH Trial.

BACKGROUND: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been argued to improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and function in femoral neck fracture patients compared with hemiarthroplasty (HA). The HEALTH trial showed no clinically important functional advantages of THA over HA. The current analysis explores factors associated with HRQoL and function in this population. METHODS: Using repeated measures regression, we estimated the association between HRQoL and function [Short Form-12 (SF-12) physical component score (PCS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function score] and 23 variables. RESULTS: THA as compared to monopolar HA, but not bipolar HA, was more likely to improve PCS scores (adjusted mean difference [AMD] 1.88 points, P = 0.02), whereas higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score (AMD -2.64, P < 0.01), preoperative use of an aid (AMD -2.66, P < 0.01), and partial weight-bearing status postoperatively (AMD -1.38, P = 0.04) demonstrated less improvement of PCS scores over time. THA improved WOMAC function scores over time compared with monopolar HA (but not bipolar HA) (AMD -2.40, P < 0.01), whereas higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (AMD 1.99, P = 0.01) and preoperative use of an aid (AMD 5.39, P < 0.01) were associated with lower WOMAC function scores. Preoperative treatment for depression was associated with lower functional scores (AMD 7.73, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving THA are likely to receive small and clinically unimportant improvements in health utility and function compared with those receiving monopolar HA and little improvement compared with those receiving bipolar HA. Patient-specific characteristics seem to play a larger role in predicting functional improvement among femoral neck fracture patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II.

Loss of Independence After Operative Management of Femoral Neck Fractures.

OBJECTIVES: The FAITH trial evaluated effects of sliding hip screws versus cancellous screws in femoral neck fracture patients. Using FAITH trial data, we quantified changes in living status, use of aids, and investigated factors associated with living and walking independently 12 months after fracture. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive analysis to quantify patients' changes in living status, use of aids, and used multivariable Cox regression analyses to determine factors associated with living and walking independently after fracture. RESULTS: Of patients who lived independently before hip fracture, 3.07% (50-80 years old) and 19.81% (>80 years old) were institutionalized 12 months after injury. Of patients who were walking independently before injury, 33.62% (50-80 years old) and 69.34% (>80 years old) required a walking aid 12 months after injury. Factors associated with higher chances of living independently included the following: being between 50 and 80 years, having a class I American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, not using a walking aid before fracture, being a nonsmoker or former smoker, and having an acceptable quality of implant placement. Factors associated with higher chances of walking without an aid included the following: being between 50 and 80 years, having a class I American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, living independently before fracture, being a nonsmoker or former smoker, having an undisplaced fracture, and not requiring revision surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Femoral neck fracture patients suffer great losses of independence. Identifying factors associated with living and walking independently after hip fracture may help surgeons better identify which patients are at risk and optimize care of patients with this injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Low-molecular-weight heparin venous thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients with renal dysfunction: A subgroup analysis of the PROTECT trial.

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] <30 ml/min; post hoc subgroup; n = 590). We compared dalteparin, 5000 IU daily, with unfractionated heparin (UFH), 5000 IU twice daily, and considered outcomes of proximal leg deep vein thrombosis (DVT); pulmonary embolism (PE); any VTE; and major bleeding. Adjusted hazard ratios [HR] were calculated using Cox regression. RESULTS: In patients with ESRD, there was no significant difference in DVT (8.3% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.76), any VTE (10.0% vs. 6.9%; p = 0.39) or major bleeding (5.0% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.32) between UFH and dalteparin. In patients with severe renal dysfunction, there was no significant difference in any VTE (10.0% vs. 6.4%; p = 0.07) or major bleeding (8.9% vs. 11.0%; p = 0.66) but an increase in DVT with dalteparin (7.6% vs. 3.7%; p = 0.04). Interaction p-values for comparisons of HRs (ESRD versus not) were non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with ESRD, or severe renal dysfunction, there was no significant difference in any VTE or major bleeding between UFH and dalteparin. Patients with severe renal dysfunction who received dalteparin had more proximal DVTs than those on UFH; this finding did not hold in patients with ESRD alone.

Disease-specific education in the primary care setting increases the knowledge of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of brief disease-specific education delivered in primary care on objective measures of knowledge in individuals recently diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: A randomized control trial was undertaken during which an experimental group received 2h of education delivered by a certified COPD educator and a control group received usual care. The Bristol COPD Knowledge Questionnaire (BCKQ) was self-administered at the time of randomization and approximately three months later. RESULTS: Of the 93 individuals that completed the study, 50 (forced expiratory volume in 1s [FEV(1)]=60.0+/-14.3% predicted; 22 males) and 43 (FEV(1)=58.2+/-14.4% predicted; 20 males) participants were randomized to the experimental and control groups, respectively. The BCKQ increased from 27.6+/-8.7 to 36.5+/-7.7 points (p<0.001) in the experimental group, which was greater than any seen in the control group (between-group difference 8.3, 95% confidence interval 5.5-11.2 points). CONCLUSION: As little as 2h of education delivered in primary care was effective at increasing objective measures of disease-specific knowledge. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A program of brief education delivered in the primary care setting, represents an important approach for many individuals with COPD who are unlikely to access pulmonary rehabilitation.

The effect of bright light therapy on depression associated with premenstrual dysphoric disorder.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review summarizes the evidence from randomized clinical trials of bright light therapy for treatment of premenstrual dysphoric disorder. STUDY DESIGN: The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. They searched MEDLINE, AMED, CINAHL, Digital Dissertations, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The main outcome measure was the change in depressive symptom scores as measured by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Beck Depression Inventory. RESULTS: Four crossover trials studying a total of 55 participants met inclusion criteria. Three trials showed similar results; one fully unblinded trial showed a much larger effect. The pooled effect size from the random-effects model of the 3 higher quality trials was -0.20 (95% CI -0.48 to 0.07). CONCLUSION: The small size of trials and correspondingly wide confidence limits, and methodologic limitations of the trials, leaves the impact of bright light therapy for relief of premenstrual depressive symptoms uncertain. The current evidence justifies neither enthusiastic dissemination nor confident rejection of this therapeutic modality.