Performance of Risk Assessment Models for VTE in Patients Who Are Critically Ill Receiving Pharmacologic Thromboprophylaxis: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Pneumatic Compression for Preventing VTE Trial.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic performance of the available risk assessment models for VTE in patients who are critically ill receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: For patients who are critically ill receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, do risk assessment models predict who would develop VTE or who could benefit from adjunctive pneumatic compression for thromboprophylaxis? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of the Pneumatic Compression for Preventing VTE (PREVENT) trial, different risk assessment models for VTE (ICU-VTE, Kucher, Intermountain, Caprini, Padua, and International Medical Prevention Registry on VTE [IMPROVE] models) were evaluated. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were constructed, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated. In addition, subgroup analyses were performed evaluating the effect of adjunctive pneumatic compression vs none on the study primary outcome. RESULTS: Among 2,003 patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, 198 (9.9%) developed VTE. With multivariable logistic regression analysis, the independent predictors of VTE were Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, prior immobilization, femoral central venous catheter, and invasive mechanical ventilation. All risk assessment models had areas under the curve < 0.60 except for the Caprini model (0.64; 95% CI, 0.60-0.68). The Caprini, Padua, and Intermountain models had high sensitivity (> 85%) but low specificity (< 20%) for predicting VTE, whereas the ICU-VTE, Kucher, and IMPROVE models had low sensitivities (< 15%) but high specificities (> 85%). The positive predictive value was low (< 20%) for all studied cutoff scores, whereas the negative predictive value was mostly > 90%. Using the risk assessment models to stratify patients into high- vs low-risk subgroups, the effect of adjunctive pneumatic compression vs pharmacologic prophylaxis alone did not differ across the subgroups (Pinteraction > .05). INTERPRETATION: The risk assessment models for VTE performed poorly in patients who are critically ill receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. None of the models identified a subgroup of patients who might benefit from adjunctive pneumatic compression. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02040103; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. ISRCTN44653506.

Statistical analysis plan for the replacing protein via enteral nutrition in a stepwise approach in critically ill patients (REPLENISH) randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal amount and timing of protein intake in critically ill patients are unknown. REPLENISH (Replacing Protein via Enteral Nutrition in a Stepwise Approach in Critically Ill Patients) trial evaluates whether supplemental enteral protein added to standard enteral nutrition to achieve a high amount of enteral protein given from ICU day five until ICU discharge or ICU day 90 as compared to no supplemental enteral protein to achieve a moderate amount of enteral protein would reduce all-cause 90-day mortality in adult critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized trial, critically ill patients will be randomized to receive supplemental enteral protein (1.2 g/kg/day) added to standard enteral nutrition to achieve a high amount of enteral protein (range of 2-2.4 g/kg/day) or no supplemental enteral protein to achieve a moderate amount of enteral protein (0.8-1.2 g/kg/day). The primary outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality; other outcomes include functional and health-related quality-of-life assessments at 90 days. The study sample size of 2502 patients will have 80% power to detect a 5% absolute risk reduction in 90-day mortality from 30 to 25%. Consistent with international guidelines, this statistical analysis plan specifies the methods for evaluating primary and secondary outcomes and subgroups. Applying this statistical analysis plan to the REPLENISH trial will facilitate unbiased analyses of clinical data. CONCLUSION: Ethics approval was obtained from the institutional review board, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (RC19/414/R). Approvals were also obtained from the institutional review boards of each participating institution. Our findings will be disseminated in an international peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences and meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04475666 . Registered on July 17, 2020.

Replacing protein via enteral nutrition in a stepwise approach in critically ill patients: the REPLENISH randomized clinical trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Protein intake is recommended in critically ill patients to mitigate the negative effects of critical illness-induced catabolism and muscle wasting. However, the optimal dose of enteral protein remains unknown. We hypothesize that supplemental enteral protein (1.2 g/kg/day) added to standard enteral nutrition formula to achieve high amount of enteral protein (range 2-2.4 g/kg/day) given from ICU day 5 until ICU discharge or ICU day 90 as compared to no supplemental enteral protein to achieve moderate amount enteral protein (0.8-1.2 g/kg/day) would reduce all-cause 90-day mortality in adult critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: The REPLENISH (Replacing Protein Via Enteral Nutrition in a Stepwise Approach in Critically Ill Patients) trial is an open-label, multicenter randomized clinical trial. Patients will be randomized to the supplemental protein group or the control group. Patients in both groups will receive the primary enteral formula as per the treating team, which includes a maximum protein 1.2 g/kg/day. The supplemental protein group will receive, in addition, supplemental protein at 1.2 g/kg/day starting the fifth ICU day. The control group will receive the primary formula without supplemental protein. The primary outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Other outcomes include functional and quality of life assessments at 90 days. The trial will enroll 2502 patients. DISCUSSION: The study has been initiated in September 2021. Interim analysis is planned at one third and two thirds of the target sample size. The study is expected to be completed by the end of 2025. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04475666 . Registered on July 17, 2020.

Combination of norepinephrine with phenylephrine versus norepinephrine with vasopressin in critically ill patients with septic shock: A retrospective study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcomes of patients with septic shock treated with a combination of norepinephrine with phenylephrine compared to norepinephrine with vasopressin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study including adults admitted between 2002 and 2017 with septic shock according to the Sepsis 3 criteria. We compared outcomes of patients treated with norepinephrine with phenylephrine to those treated with norepinephrine with vasopressin. Multivariate analysis was carried out to evaluate the association of norepinephrine with phenylephrine compared to norepinephrine with vasopressin with in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: During the study period, 158 patients with septic shock were treated with norepinephrine with phenylephrine and 129 with norepinephrine with vasopressin. Crude in-hospital mortality was not different between the two groups [91/158 (57.6%) versus 80/129 (62.5%), p = 0.40]. There was also no difference in ICU length of stay or hospital length of stay. Multivariate analysis demonstrated no significant association of norepinephrine with phenylephrine with in-hospital mortality compared to norepinephrine with vasopressin (OR 0.62 (95% confidence interval 0.31, 1.23, p = 0.17). CONCLUSION: Phenylephrine used as a second-line vasoactive agent combined with norepinephrine may be a reasonable option compared to vasopressin. However, this finding needs to be validated in a randomized controlled trial.

Outcomes associated with tocilizumab with or without corticosteroid versus dexamethasone for treatment of patients with severe to critical COVID-19 pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION: Immunomodulators, including dexamethasone (DEX), have been recommended by the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) to treat moderate, severe, and critical COVID-19. Tocilizumab (TCZ) was added to the treatment recommendations based on recent data from two large randomized controlled trials and its potential synergistic effect with DEX. METHOD: We included adult patients admitted from June until October 2020 with a PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. 135 patients with severe to critical COVID-19 and received TCZ and/or corticosteroid or DEX were retrospectively evaluated and followed until hospital discharge or death. RESULTS: The cohort was divided into two different groups of patients; TCZ group received TCZ ± corticosteroid, N = 100 and DEX group received DEX, N = 35. Groups were analyzed for hospital mortality. The rate of hospital mortality was 36% in TCZ and 37% in the DEX group, p = 0.91. Age of 60 years and above was associated with higher mortality rate with OR = 1.030 and 95% CI = (1.004, 1.057). More than 50% of patients required MV in both groups. Development of bacterial or fungal infection post immunomodulator were similar in TCZ and DEX groups, 29% vs. 31.4%. CONCLUSION: Our study revealed that age of 60 years and above is the only factor associated with higher mortality rate regardless of the type of immunomodulator therapy. Findings of this study also revealed the lack of synergistic effect between TCZ and DEX on the hospital mortality.