Association of early mobility with the incidence of deep-vein thrombosis and mortality among critically ill patients: a post hoc analysis of PREVENT trial.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the mobility levels among critically ill patients and the association of early mobility with incident proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis and 90-day mortality. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of the multicenter PREVENT trial, which evaluated adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression in critically ill patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis with an expected ICU stay ≥ 72 h and found no effect on the primary outcome of incident proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis. Mobility levels were documented daily up to day 28 in the ICU using a tool with an 8-point ordinal scale. We categorized patients according to mobility levels within the first 3 ICU days into three groups: early mobility level 4-7 (at least active standing), 1-3 (passive transfer from bed to chair or active sitting), and 0 (passive range of motion). We evaluated the association of early mobility and incident lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis and 90-day mortality by Cox proportional models adjusting for randomization and other co-variables. RESULTS: Of 1708 patients, only 85 (5.0%) had early mobility level 4-7 and 356 (20.8%) level 1-3, while 1267 (74.2%) had early mobility level 0. Patients with early mobility levels 4-7 and 1-3 had less illness severity, femoral central venous catheters, and organ support compared to patients with mobility level 0. Incident proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis occurred in 1/85 (1.3%) patients in the early mobility 4-7 group, 7/348 (2.0%) patients in mobility 1-3 group, and 50/1230 (4.1%) patients in mobility 0 group. Compared with early mobility group 0, mobility groups 4-7 and 1-3 were not associated with differences in incident proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16, 8.90; p = 0.87 and 0.91, 95% CI 0.39, 2.12; p = 0.83, respectively). However, early mobility groups 4-7 and 1-3 had lower 90-day mortality (aHR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22, 1.01; p = 0.052, and 0.43, 95% CI 0.30, 0.62; p < 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Only a small proportion of critically ill patients with an expected ICU stay ≥ 72 h were mobilized early. Early mobility was associated with reduced mortality, but not with different incidence of deep-vein thrombosis. This association does not establish causality, and randomized controlled trials are required to assess whether and to what extent this association is modifiable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PREVENT trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02040103 (registered on 3 November 2013) and Current controlled trials, ID: ISRCTN44653506 (registered on 30 October 2013).

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.).

Critically ill patients with diabetes and Middle East respiratory syndrome: a multi-center observational study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a risk factor for infection with coronaviruses. This study describes the demographic, clinical data, and outcomes of critically ill patients with diabetes and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at 14 hospitals in Saudi Arabia (September 2012-January 2018). We compared the demographic characteristics, underlying medical conditions, presenting symptoms and signs, management and clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill patients with MERS who had diabetes compared to those with no diabetes. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine if diabetes was an independent predictor of 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Of the 350 critically ill patients with MERS, 171 (48.9%) had diabetes. Patients with diabetes were more likely to be older, and have comorbid conditions, compared to patients with no diabetes. They were more likely to present with respiratory failure requiring intubation, vasopressors, and corticosteroids. The median time to clearance of MERS-CoV RNA was similar (23 days (Q1, Q3: 17, 36) in patients with diabetes and 21.0 days (Q1, Q3: 10, 33) in patients with no diabetes). Mortality at 90 days was higher in patients with diabetes (78.9% versus 54.7%, p < 0.0001). Multivariable regression analysis showed that diabetes was an independent risk factor for 90-day mortality (odds ratio, 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-3.72). CONCLUSIONS: Half of the critically ill patients with MERS have diabetes; which is associated with more severe disease. Diabetes is an independent predictor of mortality among critically patients with MERS.

Ribavirin and Interferon Therapy for Critically Ill Patients With Middle East Respiratory Syndrome: A Multicenter Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of ribavirin and recombinant interferon (RBV/rIFN) therapy on the outcomes of critically ill patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), accounting for time-varying confounders. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed MERS from 14 hospitals in Saudi Arabia diagnosed between September 2012 and January 2018. We evaluated the association of RBV/rIFN with 90-day mortality and MERS coronavirus (MERS-CoV) RNA clearance using marginal structural modeling to account for baseline and time-varying confounders. RESULTS: Of 349 MERS patients, 144 (41.3%) patients received RBV/rIFN (RBV and/or rIFN-α2a, rIFN-α2b, or rIFN-ß1a; none received rIFN-ß1b). RBV/rIFN was initiated at a median of 2 days (Q1, Q3: 1, 3 days) from intensive care unit admission. Crude 90-day mortality was higher in patients with RBV/rIFN compared to no RBV/rIFN (106/144 [73.6%] vs 126/205 [61.5%]; P = .02]. After adjusting for baseline and time-varying confounders using a marginal structural model, RBV/rIFN was not associated with changes in 90-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .73-1.44]; P = .87) or with more rapid MERS-CoV RNA clearance (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, .30-1.44]; P = .29). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study, RBV/rIFN (RBV and/or rIFN-α2a, rIFN-α2b, or rIFN-ß1a) therapy was commonly used in critically ill MERS patients but was not associated with reduction in 90-day mortality or in faster MERS-CoV RNA clearance.

Corticosteroid Therapy for Critically Ill Patients with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome.

RATIONALE: Corticosteroid therapy is commonly used among critically ill patients with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), but its impact on outcomes is uncertain. Analyses of observational studies often do not account for patients' clinical condition at the time of corticosteroid therapy initiation. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association of corticosteroid therapy on mortality and on MERS coronavirus RNA clearance in critically ill patients with MERS. METHODS: ICU patients with MERs were included from 14 Saudi Arabian centers between September 2012 and October 2015. We performed marginal structural modeling to account for baseline and time-varying confounders. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 309 patients, 151 received corticosteroids. Corticosteroids were initiated at a median of 3.0 days (quartile 1 [Q1]-Q3, 1.0-7.0) from ICU admission. Patients who received corticosteroids were more likely to receive invasive ventilation (141 of 151 [93.4%] vs. 121 of 158 [76.6%]; P < 0.0001) and had higher 90-day crude mortality (112 of 151 [74.2%] vs. 91 of 158 [57.6%]; P = 0.002). Using marginal structural modeling, corticosteroid therapy was not significantly associated with 90-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.07; P = 0.12) but was associated with delay in MERS coronavirus RNA clearance (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.17-0.72; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroid therapy in patients with MERS was not associated with a difference in mortality after adjustment for time-varying confounders but was associated with delayed MERS coronavirus RNA clearance. These findings highlight the challenges and importance of adjusting for baseline and time-varying confounders when estimating clinical effects of treatments using observational studies.

Critically Ill Patients With the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe patient characteristics, clinical manifestations, disease course including viral replication patterns, and outcomes of critically ill patients with severe acute respiratory infection from the Middle East respiratory syndrome and to compare these features with patients with severe acute respiratory infection due to other etiologies. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Patients admitted to ICUs in 14 Saudi Arabian hospitals. PATIENTS: Critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection (n = 330) admitted between September 2012 and October 2015 were compared to consecutive critically ill patients with community-acquired severe acute respiratory infection of non-Middle East respiratory syndrome etiology (non-Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection) (n = 222). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Although Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection patients were younger than those with non-Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection (median [quartile 1, quartile 3] 58 yr [44, 69] vs 70 [52, 78]; p < 0.001), clinical presentations and comorbidities overlapped substantially. Patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection had more severe hypoxemic respiratory failure (PaO2/FIO2: 106 [66, 160] vs 176 [104, 252]; p < 0.001) and more frequent nonrespiratory organ failure (nonrespiratory Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score: 6 [4, 9] vs 5 [3, 7]; p = 0.002), thus required more frequently invasive mechanical ventilation (85.2% vs 73.0%; p < 0.001), oxygen rescue therapies (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation 5.8% vs 0.9%; p = 0.003), vasopressor support (79.4% vs 55.0%; p < 0.001), and renal replacement therapy (48.8% vs 22.1%; p < 0.001). After adjustment for potential confounding factors, Middle East respiratory syndrome was independently associated with death compared to non-Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection (adjusted odds ratio, 5.87; 95% CI, 4.02-8.56; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial overlap exists in the clinical presentation and comorbidities among patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection from other etiologies; therefore, a high index of suspicion combined with diagnostic testing is essential component of severe acute respiratory infection investigation for at-risk patients. The lack of distinguishing clinical features, the need to rely on real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction from respiratory samples, variability in viral shedding duration, lack of effective therapy, and high mortality represent substantial clinical challenges and help guide ongoing clinical research efforts.

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.

The effect of intermittent pneumatic compression on deep-vein thrombosis and ventilation-free days in critically ill patients with heart failure.

There are contradictory data regarding the effect of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) on the incidence of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and heart failure (HF) decompensation in critically ill patients. This study evaluated the effect of adjunctive use of IPC on the rate of incident DVT and ventilation-free days among critically ill patients with HF. In this pre-specified secondary analysis of the PREVENT trial (N = 2003), we compared the effect of adjunctive IPC added to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (IPC group), with pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone (control group) in critically ill patients with HF. The presence of HF was determined by the treating teams according to local practices. Patients were stratified according to preserved (≥ 40%) versus reduced (< 40%) left ventricular ejection fraction, and by the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. The primary outcome was incident proximal lower-limb DVT, determined with twice weekly venous Doppler ultrasonography. As a co-primary outcome, we evaluated ventilation-free days as a surrogate for clinically important HF decompensation. Among 275 patients with HF, 18 (6.5%) patients had prevalent proximal lower-limb DVT (detected on trial day 1 to 3). Of 257 patients with no prevalent DVT, 11/125 (8.8%) patients in the IPC group developed incident proximal lower-limb DVT compared to 6/132 (4.5%) patients in the control group (relative risk, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-5.08, p = 0.17). There was no significant difference in ventilator-free days between the IPC and control groups (median 21 days versus 25 days respectively, p = 0.17). The incidence of DVT with IPC versus control was not different across NYHA classes (p value for interaction = 0.18), nor across patients with reduced and preserved ejection fraction (p value for interaction = 0.15). Ventilator-free days with IPC versus control were also not different across NYHA classes nor across patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction. In conclsuion, the use of adjunctive IPC compared with control was associated with similar rate of incident proximal lower-limb DVT and ventilator-free days in critically ill patients with HF.Trial registration: The PREVENT trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02040103 (registered on 3 November 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02040103 ) and Current controlled trials, ID: ISRCTN44653506 (registered on 30 October 2013).

Surveillance or no surveillance ultrasonography for deep vein thrombosis and outcomes of critically ill patients: a pre-planned sub-study of the PREVENT trial.

PURPOSE: We examined the association between surveillance for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) among medical-surgical critically ill patients by twice-weekly ultrasonography and 90-day all-cause mortality. METHODS: This was a pre-planned sub-study of the Pneumatic Compression for Preventing Venous Thromboembolism (PREVENT) trial (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02040103) that compared addition of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) to pharmacologic prophylaxis versus pharmacologic prophylaxis alone. The surveillance group included enrolled patients in the trial, while the non-surveillance group included eligible non-enrolled patients. Using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models, we examined the association of surveillance with the primary outcome of 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE). RESULTS: The surveillance group consisted of 1682 patients and the non-surveillance group included 383 patients. Using Cox proportional hazards model with bootstrapping, surveillance was associated with a decrease in 90-day mortality (adjusted HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.57, 0.98). Surveillance was associated with earlier diagnosis of DVT [(median 4 days (IQR 2, 10) vs. 20 days (IQR 16, 22)] and PE [median 4 days (IQR 2.5, 5) vs. 7.5 days (IQR 6.1, 28.9)]. There was an increase in diagnosis of DVT (adjusted HR 5.49; 95% CI 2.92, 13.02) with no change in frequency in diagnosis of PE (adjusted HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.19, 1.91). CONCLUSIONS: Twice-weekly surveillance ultrasonography was associated with an increase in DVT detection, reduction in diagnostic testing for non-lower limb DVT and PE, earlier diagnosis of DVT and PE, and lower 90-day mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PREVENT trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02040103. Registered on 3 November 2013; Current controlled trials, ID: ISRCTN44653506. Registered on 30 October 2013.

Macrolides in critically ill patients with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: Macrolides have been reported to be associated with improved outcomes in patients with viral pneumonia related to influenza and other viruses, possibly because of their immune-modulatory effects. Macrolides have frequently been used in patients with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). This study investigated the association of macrolides with 90-day mortality and MERS coronavirus (CoV) RNA clearance in critically ill patients with MERS. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of a multicenter cohort database included 14 tertiary-care hospitals in five cities in Saudi Arabia. Multivariate logistic-regression analysis was used to determine the association of macrolide therapy with 90-day mortality, and the Cox-proportional hazard model to determine the association of macrolide therapy with MERS-CoV RNA clearance. RESULTS: Of 349 critically ill MERS patients, 136 (39%) received macrolide therapy. Azithromycin was most commonly used (97/136; 71.3%). Macrolide therapy was commonly started before the patient arrived in the intensive care unit (ICU) (51/136; 37.5%), or on day1 in ICU (53/136; 39%). On admission to ICU, the baseline characteristics of patients who received and did not receive macrolides were similar, including demographic data and sequential organ failure assessment score. However, patients who received macrolides were more likely to be admitted with community-acquired MERS (P=0.02). Macrolide therapy was not independently associated with a significant difference in 90-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] :0.47-1.51; P=0.56) or MERS-CoV RNA clearance (adjusted HR: 0.88; 95% CI:0.47-1.64; P=0.68). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that macrolide therapy is not associated with a reduction in 90-day mortality or improvement in MERS-CoV RNA clearance.

Noninvasive ventilation in critically ill patients with the Middle East respiratory syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been used in patients with the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, but the effectiveness of this approach has not been studied. METHODS: Patients with MERS from 14 Saudi Arabian centers were included in this analysis. Patients who were initially managed with NIV were compared to patients who were managed only with invasive mechanical ventilation (invasive MV). RESULTS: Of 302 MERS critically ill patients, NIV was used initially in 105 (35%) patients, whereas 197 (65%) patients were only managed with invasive MV. Patients who were managed with NIV initially had lower baseline SOFA score and less extensive infiltrates on chest radiograph compared with patients managed with invasive MV. The vast majority (92.4%) of patients who were managed initially with NIV required intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation, and were more likely to require inhaled nitric oxide compared to those who were managed initially with invasive MV. ICU and hospital length of stay were similar between NIV patients and invasive MV patients. The use of NIV was not independently associated with 90-day mortality (propensity score-adjusted odds ratio 0.61, 95% CI [0.23, 1.60] P = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with MERS and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, NIV failure was very high. The use of NIV was not associated with improved outcomes.

Surveillance or no surveillance for deep venous thrombosis and outcomes of critically ill patients: A study protocol and statistical analysis plan.

OBJECTIVE: Surveillance ultrasounds in critically ill patients detect many deep venous thrombi (DVTs) that would otherwise go unnoticed. However, the impact of surveillance for DVT on mortality among critically ill patients remains unclear. DESIGN: We are conducting a multicenter, multinational randomized controlled trial that examines the effectiveness of adjunct intermittent pneumatic compression use with pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis compared to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone on the incidence of proximal lower extremity DVT in critically ill patients (the PREVENT trial). Enrolled patients undergo twice weekly surveillance ultrasounds of the lower extremities as part of the study procedures. We plan to compare enrolled patients who have surveillance ultrasounds to patients who meet the eligibility criteria but are not enrolled (eligible non-enrolled patients) and only who will have ultrasounds performed at the clinical team's discretion. We hypothesize that twice-weekly ultrasound surveillance for DVT in critically ill patients who are receiving thromboprophylaxis will have more DVTs detected, and consequently, fewer pulmonary emboli and lower all-cause 90-day mortality. DISCUSSION: We developed a detailed a priori plan to guide the analysis of the proposed study and enhance the validity of its results.

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.

Critically ill healthcare workers with the middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS): A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) leads to healthcare-associated transmission to patients and healthcare workers with potentially fatal outcomes. AIM: We aimed to describe the clinical course and functional outcomes of critically ill healthcare workers (HCWs) with MERS. METHODS: Data on HCWs was extracted from a multi-center retrospective cohort study on 330 critically ill patients with MERS admitted between (9/2012-9/2015). Baseline demographics, interventions and outcomes were recorded and compared between survivors and non-survivors. Survivors were approached with questionnaires to elucidate their functional outcomes using Karnofsky Performance Status Scale. FINDINGS: Thirty-Two HCWs met the inclusion criteria. Comorbidities were recorded in 34% (11/32) HCW. Death resulted in 8/32 (25%) HCWs including all 5 HCWs with chronic renal impairment at baseline. Non-surviving HCW had lower PaO2/FiO2 ratios 63.5 (57, 116.2) vs 148 (84, 194.3), p = 0.043, and received more ECMO therapy compared to survivors, 9/32 (28%) vs 4/24 (16.7%) respectively (p = 0.02).Thirteen of the surviving (13/24) HCWs responded to the questionnaire. Two HCWs confirmed functional limitations. Median number of days from hospital discharge until the questionnaires were filled was 580 (95% CI 568, 723.5) days. CONCLUSION: Approximately 10% of critically ill patients with MERS were HCWs. Hospital mortality rate was substantial (25%). Patients with chronic renal impairment represented a particularly high-risk group that should receive extra caution during suspected or confirmed MERS cases clinical care assignment and during outbreaks. Long-term repercussions of critical illness due to MERS on HCWs in particular, and patients in general, remain unknown and should be investigated in larger studies.

Initial experience with an intensive care hyperglycemia protocol in a Saudi Arabian intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy of nurse-driven intensive glucose management protocol in an intensive care setting. METHODS: This cohort study took place at King Abdul-Aziz National Guard Hospital, Al-Hasa, Saudi Arabia from April 2005 through June 2005. We modified a validated nurse-driven glycemic protocol when glucose level was >11.1 mmol/L. Protocol was applied to 103 consecutive patients. Three months after implementing the protocol, we analyzed the glucose control and relevant patient variables. To check the efficacy, glucose values were compared with patients admitted consecutively 2 months prior to the implementation of the protocol. Duration and mean insulin infusion rates were also recorded. A brief nursing survey was also conducted. RESULTS: The median blood glucose upon ICU admission was 8.7 mmol/L (interquartile range 6.9-12.05). Our cohort included 45 patients with history of diabetes while the remaining 58 were non-diabetics. Mean blood glucose decreased from 10 +/- 4.4 mmol/L on admission to 8.2 +/- 1.8 mmol/L for the duration of ICU stay. Protocol was effective in both diabetics and non-diabetics. Insulin infusion was employed in 33 patients. Median insulin infusion rate required throughout the ICU length of stay was 4.3 units/hour. Duration and rate of insulin infusion were not statistically significant between diabetics and non-diabetics. The glucose control was significantly better when compared with the prior practices of glucose control. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that nurse-driven hyperglycemia protocol were manageable to used in critically ill patients. Moreover, the protocol is equally effective in both diabetic and non-diabetic 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).