Tranexamic acid for the prevention of blood loss after cesarean among women with twins: a secondary analysis of the TRAnexamic Acid for Preventing Postpartum Hemorrhage Following a Cesarean Delivery randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Although prophylactic tranexamic acid administration after cesarean delivery resulted in a lower incidence of calculated estimated blood loss of >1000 mL or red cell transfusion by day 2, its failure to reduce the incidence of hemorrhage-related secondary clinical outcomes (TRAnexamic Acid for Preventing Postpartum Hemorrhage Following a Cesarean Delivery trial) makes its use questionable. The magnitude of its effect may differ in women at higher risk of blood loss, including those with multiple pregnancies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effect of tranexamic acid vs placebo to prevent blood loss after cesarean delivery among women with multiple pregnancies. STUDY DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of the TRAnexamic Acid for Preventing Postpartum Hemorrhage Following a Cesarean Delivery trial data, a double-blind, randomized controlled trial from March 2018 to January 2020 in 27 French maternity hospitals, that included 319 women with multiple pregnancies. Women with a cesarean delivery before or during labor at ≥34 weeks of gestation were randomized to receive intravenously 1 g of tranexamic acid (n=160) or placebo (n=159), both with prophylactic uterotonics. The primary outcome was a calculated estimated blood loss of >1000 mL or a red blood cell transfusion by 2 days after delivery. The secondary outcomes included clinical and laboratory blood loss measurements. RESULTS: Of the 4551 women randomized in this trial, 319 had a multiple pregnancy and cesarean delivery, and 298 (93.4%) had primary outcome data available. This outcome occurred in 62 of 147 women (42.2%) in the tranexamic acid group and 67 of 152 (44.1%) receiving placebo (adjusted risk ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.38; P=.86). No significant between-group differences occurred for any hemorrhage-related clinical outcomes: gravimetrically estimated blood loss, provider-assessed clinically significant hemorrhage, additional uterotonics, postpartum blood transfusion, arterial embolization, and emergency surgery (P>.05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSION: Among women with a multiple pregnancy and cesarean delivery, prophylactic tranexamic acid did not reduce the incidence of any blood loss-related outcomes.

High-dose versus standard-dose vitamin D supplementation in older adults with COVID-19 (COVIT-TRIAL): A multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D supplementation has been proposed as a treatment for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) based on experimental data and data from small and uncontrolled observational studies. The COvid19 and VITamin d TRIAL (COVIT-TRIAL) study was conducted to test whether a single oral high dose of cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) administered within 72 hours after the diagnosis of COVID-19 improves, compared to standard-dose cholecalciferol, the 14-day overall survival among at-risk older adults infected with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS AND FINDINGS: This multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label, superiority trial involved collaboration of 9 medical centers in France. Patients admitted to the hospital units or living in nursing homes adjacent to the investigator centers were eligible if they were ≥65 years, had SARS-CoV-2 infection of less than 3 days, and at least 1 COVID-19 worsening risk factor (among age ≥75 years, SpO2 ≤94%, or PaO2/FiO2 ≤300 mm Hg). Main noninclusion criteria were organ failure requiring ICU, SpO2 ≤92% despite 5 L/min oxygen, life expectancy <3 months, vitamin D supplementation >800 IU/day during the preceding month, and contraindications to vitamin D supplements. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either a single oral high-dose (400,000 IU) or standard-dose (50,000 IU) cholecalciferol administered under medical supervision within 72 hours after the diagnosis of COVID-19. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but the Steering Committee and the Data and Safety Monitoring Board were masked to the randomization group and outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 14-day overall mortality. Between April 15 and December 17, 2020, of 1,207 patients who were assessed for eligibility in the COVIT-TRIAL study, 254 met eligibility criteria and formed the intention-to-treat population. The median age was 88 (IQR, 82 to 92) years, and 148 patients (58%) were women. Overall, 8 (6%) of 127 patients allocated to high-dose cholecalciferol, and 14 (11%) of 127 patients allocated to standard-dose cholecalciferol died within 14 days (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.39 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.99], P = 0.049, after controlling for randomization strata [i.e., age, oxygen requirement, hospitalization, use of antibiotics, anti-infective drugs, and/or corticosteroids] and baseline imbalances in important prognostic factors [i.e., sex, ongoing cancers, profuse diarrhea, and delirium at baseline]). The number needed to treat for one person to benefit (NNTB) was 21 [NNTB 9 to ∞ to number needed to treat for one person to harm (NNTH) 46]. Apparent benefits were also found on 14-day mortality due to COVID-19 (7 (6%) deaths in high-dose group and 14 (11%) deaths in standard-dose group; adjusted hazard ratio = 0.33 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.86], P = 0.02). The protective effect of the single oral high-dose administration was not sustained at 28 days (19 (15%) deaths in high-dose group and 21 (17%) deaths in standard-dose group; adjusted hazard ratio = 0.70 [95% CI, 0.36 to 1.36], P = 0.29). High-dose cholecalciferol did not result in more frequent adverse effects compared to the standard dose. The open-label design and limited study power are the main limitations of the study. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized controlled trial (RCT), we observed that the early administration of high-dose versus standard-dose vitamin D3 to at-risk older patients with COVID-19 improved overall mortality at day 14. The effect was no longer observed after 28 days. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04344041.

Thromboembolic risk stratification by TRiP(cast) score to rationalise thromboprophylaxis in patients with lower leg trauma requiring immobilisation: a study protocol of the casting stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with lower limb trauma requiring orthopaedic immobilisation may be at risk of venous thromboembolism but opinions differ about who may benefit from thromboprophylactic anticoagulant treatment.The aim of this CASTING study is to demonstrate the safety of thromboprophylaxis based on the Thrombosis Risk Prediction for patients with cast immobilisation (TRiP(cast) score with regards to the 3-month incidence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism events in low-risk patients not receiving thromboprophylaxis, as well as the usefulness of this strategy on the rate of patients receiving anticoagulant treatment in comparison to current practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: CASTING will be a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled clinical trial, performed in 15 emergency departments in France and Belgium. With their informed consent, outpatients admitted to one of the participating emergency departments for a lower limb trauma requiring orthopaedic immobilisation without surgery will be included. All centres will begin the trial with the 'observational period' and, every 2 weeks, 1 centre will be randomly assigned to switch to the 'interventional period' and to apply the TRiP(cast) score, in which only patients with a score ≥7 will receive thromboprophylactic anticoagulant treatment. The primary endpoint is the rate of clinical thromboembolic events within 90 days following the inclusion of low-risk patients not receiving thromboprophylaxis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by the Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud I (Ethics Review ID-RCB: 2019-A01829-48) for France and the Comité d'éthique hôpital-facultaire Saint Luc (N° B403201941338) for Belgium. It is carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The findings of this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04064489.

Incidental findings on emergency CT scans: Predictive factors and medico-economic impact.

PURPOSE: The main objective was to evaluate types and predictive factors of incidental findings (IFs) on multidetector computed tomographies (MDCTs) performed for an emergency department (ED). The secondary aim was to analyze additional investigations, their benefits, side effects, costs and the final diagnoses. METHOD: One thousand consecutive patients over 18 years old who underwent an MDCT in the ED of our institution from January 2011 to November 2011 were retrospectively included, accounting for 300 head MDCTs and 700 other MDCTs. The following criteria were collected in patient electronic medical records: IFs (divided into low and high clinical significance), body areas covered, availability of a prior imaging, radiologist's experience and subspecialty, additional investigations, their outcomes and costs. RESULTS: Among the 1000 included patients, 232 had at least one IF and 122 had at least one IF of high clinical significance (IFCS). There were 340 IFs and 150 IFCSs. A significant association with the presence of at least one IF was noted for older patients, less-experienced radiologists, no subspecialty of the radiologist, the abdominopelvic area, and the absence of prior imaging. Eighteen IFs generated additional investigations in our institution, including five invasive samplings and three surgical operations, with two diagnoses of malignancy (a gastrointestinal stromal tumor and a Bosniak IV cystic renal lesion). One benign iatrogenic complication occurred. Total cost of these investigations was €41,247 (with an average of €2292 per IF investigated). CONCLUSION: IFs on emergency MDCTs were frequent, rarely severe, rarely iatrogenic and relatively expensive.

Polyphenols Have No Impact on Endothelial Function in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Endothelial dysfunction, a pathophysiologic determinant of atherogenesis, has been found to occur in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSA) and is improved by continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). However, the efficacy of CPAP therapy is limited by variable adherence. Alternative treatment strategies are needed. The impact of polyphenols on endothelial function has never been evaluated in OSA. Objective: We evaluated the impact of 1-mo supplementation with grape juice polyphenols (GJPs) on the reactive hyperemia index (RHI), a validated measure of endothelial function in patients with severe OSA. Methods: Forty participants [75% men, median (IQR) age: 61 y (34, 64 y), BMI (in kg/m2): 30.6 (20.9, 33.7)] with severe OSA [median apnea-hypopnea index 43/h (33/h, 56/h)] were randomly assigned to receive GJPs (300 mg/d; n = 20) or placebo (n = 20) for 1 mo. The primary outcome was the change in RHI between baseline and after 1 mo of GJPs or placebo. Secondary outcome measures included changes in blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and polysomnographic indexes. Results: No significant differences in RHI and BP outcomes were observed between the GJPs and placebo groups. A significant between-group difference was observed for HR changes [-1 bpm (-5, +5 bpm) in the GJPs group compared with +6 bpm (+3, +10 bpm) in the placebo group; P = 0.001]. A significant decrease in total sleep time was observed in the GJPs group compared with the placebo group [-10 min (-33, 6 min) compared with +15 min (-12, 40 min), respectively; P = 0.02], with no between-group differences in the distribution of sleep stages. Conclusions: In participants with severe OSA and no overt cardiovascular disease, 1-mo GJP supplementation had no effect on endothelial function. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01977924.

Study protocol. TRAAP - TRAnexamic Acid for Preventing postpartum hemorrhage after vaginal delivery: a multicenter randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is a major cause of maternal mortality, accounting for one quarter of all maternal deaths worldwide. Estimates of its incidence in the literature vary widely, from 3 % to 15 % of deliveries. Uterotonics after birth are the only intervention that has been shown to be effective in preventing PPH. Tranexamic acid (TXA), an antifibrinolytic agent, has been investigated as a potentially useful complement to uterotonics for prevention because it has been proved to reduce blood loss in elective surgery, bleeding in trauma patients, and menstrual blood loss. Randomized controlled trials for PPH prevention after cesarean (n = 10) and vaginal (n = 2) deliveries show that women who received TXA had significantly less postpartum blood loss without any increase in their rate of severe adverse effects. However, the quality of these trials was poor and they were not designed to test the effect of TXA on the reduction of PPH incidence. Large, adequately powered, multicenter randomized controlled trials are required before the widespread use of TXA to prevent PPH can be recommended. METHODS AND DESIGN: A multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial will be performed. It will involve 4000 women in labor for a planned vaginal singleton delivery, at a term ≥ 35 weeks. Treatment (either TXA 1 g or placebo) will be administered intravenously just after birth. Prophylactic oxytocin will be administered to all women. The primary outcome will be the incidence of PPH, defined by blood loss ≥500 mL, measured with a graduated collector bag. This study will have 80 % power to show a 30 % reduction in the incidence of PPH, from 10.0 % to 7.0 %. DISCUSSION: In addition to prophylactic uterotonic administration, a complementary component of the management of third stage of labor acting on the coagulation process may be useful in preventing PPH. TXA is a promising candidate drug, inexpensive, easy to administer, and simple to add to the routine management of deliveries in hospitals. This large, adequately powered, multicenter, randomized placebo-controlled trial seeks to determine if the risk-benefit ratio favors the routine use of TXA after delivery to prevent PPH. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02302456 (November 17, 2014).

Sedative premedication before surgery--A multicentre randomized study versus placebo.

OBJECTIVE: Anxiolytic premedication before non-ambulatory surgery in adult patients may have become of less importance in an era of better preoperative patient information. Moreover, an oral hypnotic given the night before surgery may be as efficient as an anxiolytic for relieving patient anxiety. These two strategies were compared for superiority to a placebo and to each other for non-inferiority. STUDY DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, multicentre study versus placebo. Eight hospitals in France. June 2011 to February 2013. PATIENTS: Non-ambulatory consecutive surgical patients undergoing general surgery. METHODS AND INTERVENTIONS: Patients received either zopiclone 7.5mg the night before surgery (n=204), or alprazolam 0.5mg the morning of surgery (n=206) and controls received placebo (n=68). Demographic data, preoperative anxiety, fear of surgery and anaesthesia, and mood were assessed the day before surgery using a visual analogue scale, the Spielberger scale and the APAIS scale. In the operating room, anxiety and comfort were assessed in addition to physiological data. RESULTS: Preoperative data did not differ between groups. In the operating room, anxiety and comfort were moderate and did not differ significantly between groups on a 1-10 scale (median [25-75 percentile]): zopiclone: 2 [1-4] and 2.5 [1-5]; alprazolam: 2 [1,4] and 2 [1-5]; placebo: 3 [1-5] and 3 [1-5]. The patients who were more anxious preoperatively remained so in the operating room, irrespective of the treatment received (r=0.31, p<0.001). A placebo effect was observed in 38% of patients in the corresponding group. Patients receiving zopiclone reported a significantly better sleep the night before surgery compared to other groups (median: 2 vs. 1, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Premedication in non-ambulatory surgery is no more effective than a placebo, owing to the very moderate level of anxiety experienced by patients.