Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis during Invasive Mechanical Ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Whether proton-pump inhibitors are beneficial or harmful for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients undergoing invasive ventilation is unclear. METHODS: In this international, randomized trial, we assigned critically ill adults who were undergoing invasive ventilation to receive intravenous pantoprazole (at a dose of 40 mg daily) or matching placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU) at 90 days, and the primary safety outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. Multiplicity-adjusted key secondary outcomes were ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, and patient-important bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 4821 patients underwent randomization in 68 ICUs. Clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 25 of 2385 patients (1.0%) receiving pantoprazole and in 84 of 2377 patients (3.5%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.47; P<0.001). At 90 days, death was reported in 696 of 2390 patients (29.1%) in the pantoprazole group and in 734 of 2379 patients (30.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.04; P = 0.25). Patient-important bleeding was reduced with pantoprazole; all other key secondary outcomes were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing invasive ventilation, pantoprazole resulted in a significantly lower risk of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding than placebo, with no significant effect on mortality. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; REVISE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03374800.).

Liberal or Restrictive Transfusion Strategy in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury.

BACKGROUND: The effect of a liberal transfusion strategy as compared with a restrictive strategy on outcomes in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults with moderate or severe traumatic brain injury and anemia to receive transfusion of red cells according to a liberal strategy (transfusions initiated at a hemoglobin level of ≤10 g per deciliter) or a restrictive strategy (transfusions initiated at ≤7 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was an unfavorable outcome as assessed by the score on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended at 6 months, which we categorized with the use of a sliding dichotomy that was based on the prognosis of each patient at baseline. Secondary outcomes included mortality, functional independence, quality of life, and depression at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 742 patients underwent randomization, with 371 assigned to each group. The analysis of the primary outcome included 722 patients. The median hemoglobin level in the intensive care unit was 10.8 g per deciliter in the group assigned to the liberal strategy and 8.8 g per deciliter in the group assigned to the restrictive strategy. An unfavorable outcome occurred in 249 of 364 patients (68.4%) in the liberal-strategy group and in 263 of 358 (73.5%) in the restrictive-strategy group (adjusted absolute difference, restrictive strategy vs. liberal strategy, 5.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to 13.7). Among survivors, a liberal strategy was associated with higher scores on some but not all the scales assessing functional independence and quality of life. No association was observed between the transfusion strategy and mortality or depression. Venous thromboembolic events occurred in 8.4% of the patients in each group, and acute respiratory distress syndrome occurred in 3.3% and 0.8% of patients in the liberal-strategy and restrictive-strategy groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury and anemia, a liberal transfusion strategy did not reduce the risk of an unfavorable neurologic outcome at 6 months. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; HEMOTION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03260478.).

A comparison of computational algorithms for the Bayesian analysis of clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are increasingly using Bayesian methods for their design and analysis. Inference in Bayesian trials typically uses simulation-based approaches such as Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods. Markov Chain Monte Carlo has high computational cost and can be complex to implement. The Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations algorithm provides approximate Bayesian inference without the need for computationally complex simulations, making it more efficient than Markov Chain Monte Carlo. The practical properties of Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations compared to Markov Chain Monte Carlo have not been considered for clinical trials. Using data from a published clinical trial, we aim to investigate whether Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations is a feasible and accurate alternative to Markov Chain Monte Carlo and provide practical guidance for trialists interested in Bayesian trial design. METHODS: Data from an international Bayesian multi-platform adaptive trial that compared therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin to usual care in non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were used to fit Bayesian hierarchical generalized mixed models. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was compared to two Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithms, implemented in the software JAGS and stan, using packages available in the statistical software R. Seven outcomes were analysed: organ-support free days (an ordinal outcome), five binary outcomes related to survival and length of hospital stay, and a time-to-event outcome. The posterior distributions for the treatment and sex effects and the variances for the hierarchical effects of age, site and time period were obtained. We summarized these posteriors by calculating the mean, standard deviations and the 95% equitailed credible intervals and presenting the results graphically. The computation time for each algorithm was recorded. RESULTS: The average overlap of the 95% credible interval for the treatment and sex effects estimated using Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was 96% and 97.6% compared with stan, respectively. The graphical posterior densities for these effects overlapped for all three algorithms. The posterior mean for the variance of the hierarchical effects of age, site and time estimated using Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations are within the 95% credible interval estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo but the average overlap of the credible interval is lower, 77%, 85.6% and 91.3%, respectively, for Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations compared to stan. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations and stan were easily implemented in clear, well-established packages in R, while JAGS required the direct specification of the model. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was between 85 and 269 times faster than stan and 26 and 1852 times faster than JAGS. CONCLUSION: Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations could reduce the computational complexity of Bayesian analysis in clinical trials as it is easy to implement in R, substantially faster than Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods implemented in JAGS and stan, and provides near identical approximations to the posterior distributions for the treatment effect. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was less accurate when estimating the posterior distribution for the variance of hierarchical effects, particularly for the proportional odds model, and future work should determine if the Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations algorithm can be adjusted to improve this estimation.

A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) occurs after exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). For persons who are exposed, the standard of care is observation and quarantine. Whether hydroxychloroquine can prevent symptomatic infection after SARS-CoV-2 exposure is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across the United States and parts of Canada testing hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis. We enrolled adults who had household or occupational exposure to someone with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Within 4 days after exposure, we randomly assigned participants to receive either placebo or hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 additional days). The primary outcome was the incidence of either laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or illness compatible with Covid-19 within 14 days. RESULTS: We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was -2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -7.0 to 2.2; P = 0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported. CONCLUSIONS: After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure. (Funded by David Baszucki and Jan Ellison Baszucki and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04308668.).

Impact of Early Tracheostomy Versus Late or No Tracheostomy in Nonneurologically Injured Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal timing of tracheostomy in nonneurologically injured mechanically ventilated critically ill adult patients is uncertain. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effect of early versus late tracheostomy or prolonged intubation in this population. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Web of science databases for randomized controlled trials comparing early tracheostomy (<10 d of intubation) with late tracheostomy or prolonged intubation in adults. DATA SELECTION: We selected trials comparing early tracheostomy (defined as being performed less than 10 d after intubation) with late tracheostomy (performed on or after the 10th day of intubation) or prolonged intubation and no tracheostomy in nonneurologically injured patients. The primary outcome was overall mortality. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-associated pneumonia, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU, and hospital length of stay. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers screened citations, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias, and classification of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation independently. DATA SYNTHESIS: Our search strategy yielded 8,275 citations, from which nine trials (n = 2,457) were included. We did not observe an effect on the overall mortality of early tracheostomy compared with late tracheostomy or prolonged intubation (risk ratio, 0.91, 95% CI, 0.82-1.01; I2 = 18%). Our results were consistent in all subgroup analyses. No differences were observed in ICU and hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, incidence of ventilator-acquired pneumonia, and complications. Our trial sequential analysis showed that our primary analysis on mortality was likely underpowered. CONCLUSION: In our systematic review, we observed that early tracheostomy, as compared with late tracheostomy or prolonged intubation, was not associated with a reduction in overall mortality. However, we cannot exclude a clinically relevant reduction in mortality considering the level of certainty of the evidence. A well-designed trial is needed to answer this important clinical question.

Acquired haemophilia A: A 15-year population-based review of incidence rate, patient demographics and treatment outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Acquired haemophilia A (AHA) is a rare bleeding disorder characterized by autoantibodies against coagulation factor VIII (FVIII). Estimates of AHA incidence are largely based on registry data, which may be prone to referral bias. Population-based studies can enhance our understanding of the epidemiology, presentation and outcomes of AHA. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, population-based cohort study of all AHA diagnosed and treated in Manitoba, Canada over a 15-year period. Using records from the sole provincial reference laboratory, we identified all patients with FVIII inhibitors who did not have congenital haemophilia.  Using a piloted case report form, patient data was ascertained from hospital and bleeding disorder clinic records. RESULTS: From 2006 to 2021, we identified 34 patients with AHA, corresponding to a population-based incidence rate of AHA of 1.78 cases per million per year. The median age at presentation was 76 years and most cases were idiopathic (79%). Almost all patients (97%) presented with bleeding, of which 58% were considered major bleeds and required haemostatic agents in 67%. Longstanding unexplained bleeding symptoms were commonly reported, suggesting delayed diagnosis. Immunosuppressive therapy (IST) was administered in 88% of patients. Remission was achieved in 79% of patients; median time to remission was 2.1 months. There were two deaths due to bleeding. No deaths due to IST were reported. CONCLUSION: The population-based incidence of AHA in Manitoba is 1.78 cases/million/year. Bleeding is common and can be life-threatening. AHA outcomes are encouraging with the use of haemostatic agents and IST. Serious treatment-associated morbidity and mortality is uncommon.

Tracheostomy versus prolonged intubation in moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: a multicentre retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Tracheostomy is a surgical procedure that is commonly performed in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). It is frequently required in patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), a subset of patients with prolonged altered state of consciousness that may require a long period of mechanical respiratory assistance. While many clinicians favour the use of early tracheostomy in TBI patients, the evidence in favour of this practice remains scarce. The aims of our study were to evaluate the potential clinical benefits of tracheostomy versus prolonged endotracheal intubation, as well as whether the timing of the procedure may influence outcome in patients with moderate to severe TBI. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multicentre cohort study based on data from the provincial integrated trauma system of Quebec (Québec Trauma Registry). The study population was selected from adult trauma patients hospitalized between 2013 and 2019. We included patients 16 yr and older with moderate to severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale score < 13) who required mechanical ventilation for 96 hr or longer. Our primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital and ICU mortality, six-month mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, ventilator-associated pneumonia, ICU and hospital length of stay as well as orientation of patients upon discharge from the hospital. We used propensity score covariate adjustment. To overcome the effect of immortal time bias, an extended Cox shared frailty model was used to compare mortality between groups. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2019, 26,923 patients with TBI were registered in the Québec Trauma Registry. A total of 983 patients who required prolonged endotracheal intubation for 96 hr or more were included in the study, 374 of whom underwent a tracheostomy and 609 of whom remained intubated. We observed a reduction in 30-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.21 to 0.53) associated with tracheostomy compared with prolonged endotracheal intubation. This effect was also seen in the ICU as well as at six months. Tracheostomy, when compared with prolonged endotracheal intubation, was associated with an increase in the duration of mechanical respiratory assistance without any increase in the length of stay. No effect on mortality was observed when comparing early vs late tracheostomy procedures. An early procedure was associated with a reduction in the duration of mechanical respiratory support as well as hospital and ICU length of stay. CONCLUSION: In this multicentre cohort study, tracheostomy was associated with decreased mortality when compared with prolonged endotracheal intubation in patients with moderate to severe TBI. This effect does not appear to be modified by the timing of the procedure. Nevertheless, the generalization and application of these results remains limited by potential residual time-dependent indication bias.

RéSUMé: INTRODUCTION: La trachéotomie est une intervention chirurgicale communément pratiquée chez les personnes admises à l'unité de soins intensifs (USI). Elle est fréquemment requise chez les patient·es victimes d'un traumatisme craniocérébral (TCC) modéré à grave, un sous-groupe présentant une altération prolongée de l'état de conscience qui peut nécessiter une longue période d'assistance respiratoire mécanique. Bien que bon nombre de cliniciens et cliniciennes soient favorables à l'utilisation d'une trachéotomie précoce chez cette patientèle, les données probantes en faveur de cette pratique restent insuffisantes. Les objectifs de notre étude étaient d'évaluer l'effet de la trachéotomie par rapport à l'intubation endotrachéale prolongée, ainsi que si le moment où la procédure est effectuée pouvait influencer cet effet, chez les personnes ayant subi un TCC modéré à grave. MéTHODES: Nous avons effectué une étude de cohorte rétrospective multicentrique basée sur le système provincial intégré de traumatologie du Québec (Registre des traumatismes du Québec). La population de l'étude a été sélectionnée parmi les patient·es adultes victimes de traumatismes hospitalisé·es entre 2013 et 2019. Nous avons inclus les patient·es âgé·es de 16 ans et plus présentant un TCC modéré à grave (score sur l'échelle de coma de Glasgow [GCS] < 13) ayant nécessité une assistance respiratoire mécanique pendant 96 h ou plus. Notre critère d'évaluation principal était la mortalité à 30 jours. Les critères d'évaluation secondaires comprenaient la mortalité hospitalière et à l'USI, la mortalité à 6 mois, la durée d'assistance respiratoire mécanique, les pneumonies acquises en lien avec l'assistance respiratoire mécanique, les durées de séjour à l'USI et à l'hôpital ainsi que l'orientation des patient·es à leur sortie de l'hôpital. Nous avons utilisé un score de propension pour l'ajustement des covariables. Pour corriger l'effet du biais du temps immortel, un modèle de régression de la fragilité partagée de Cox étendu a été utilisé pour estimer la mortalité entre les groupes. RéSULTATS: De 2013 à 2019, 26 923 personnes victimes de TCC ont été inscrites dans le Registre des traumatismes du Québec. Un total de 983 patient·es ayant nécessité une intubation endotrachéale prolongée de 96 h ou plus ont été inclus·es dans l'étude, dont 374 ont subi une trachéotomie et 609 sont resté·es intubé·es. Nous avons observé une réduction de la mortalité à 30 jours (aHR : 0,33 [0,21 − 0,53]) associée à la trachéotomie en comparaison à l'intubation endotrachéale prolongée. Cet effet a également été observé à l'USI ainsi qu'à 6 mois. La trachéotomie, comparée à l'intubation endotrachéale prolongée, était associée à une augmentation de la durée d'assistance respiratoire mécanique sans augmentation de la durée de séjour. Aucun effet sur la mortalité n'a été observé en comparant les procédures de trachéotomie précoces et tardive. Une procédure précoce a été associée à une réduction de la durée d'assistance respiratoire mécanique ainsi que la durée de séjour à l'USI et à l'hôpital. CONCLUSION: Dans cette étude de cohorte multicentrique, nous avons observé que la trachéotomie est associée à une diminution de la mortalité en comparaison à l'intubation endotrachéale prolongée chez la patientèle ayant subi un TCC modéré ou grave. Cet effet ne semble pas modifié par le moment de la procédure durant l'hospitalisation. La généralisation et l'application de ces résultats restent toutefois limitées par un biais d'indication résiduel potentiel.

Heterogeneous Treatment Effects of Therapeutic-Dose Heparin in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19.

Importance: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of therapeutic-dose heparin in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 produced conflicting results, possibly due to heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) across individuals. Better understanding of HTE could facilitate individualized clinical decision-making. Objective: To evaluate HTE of therapeutic-dose heparin for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and to compare approaches to assessing HTE. Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory analysis of a multiplatform adaptive RCT of therapeutic-dose heparin vs usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in 3320 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 enrolled in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia between April 2020 and January 2021. Heterogeneity of treatment effect was assessed 3 ways: using (1) conventional subgroup analyses of baseline characteristics, (2) a multivariable outcome prediction model (risk-based approach), and (3) a multivariable causal forest model (effect-based approach). Analyses primarily used bayesian statistics, consistent with the original trial. Exposures: Participants were randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Organ support-free days, assigning a value of -1 to those who died in the hospital and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 for those who survived to hospital discharge; and hospital survival. Results: Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between patients randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care (median age, 60 years; 38% female; 32% known non-White race; 45% Hispanic). In the overall multiplatform RCT population, therapeutic-dose heparin was not associated with an increase in organ support-free days (median value for the posterior distribution of the OR, 1.05; 95% credible interval, 0.91-1.22). In conventional subgroup analyses, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin on organ support-free days differed between patients requiring organ support at baseline or not (median OR, 0.85 vs 1.30; posterior probability of difference in OR, 99.8%), between females and males (median OR, 0.87 vs 1.16; posterior probability of difference in OR, 96.4%), and between patients with lower body mass index (BMI <30) vs higher BMI groups (BMI ≥30; posterior probability of difference in ORs >90% for all comparisons). In risk-based analysis, patients at lowest risk of poor outcome had the highest propensity for benefit from heparin (lowest risk decile: posterior probability of OR >1, 92%) while those at highest risk were most likely to be harmed (highest risk decile: posterior probability of OR <1, 87%). In effect-based analysis, a subset of patients identified at high risk of harm (P = .05 for difference in treatment effect) tended to have high BMI and were more likely to require organ support at baseline. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin was heterogeneous. In all 3 approaches to assessing HTE, heparin was more likely to be beneficial in those who were less severely ill at presentation or had lower BMI and more likely to be harmful in sicker patients and those with higher BMI. The findings illustrate the importance of considering HTE in the design and analysis of RCTs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, NCT04372589.

Small-Volume Blood Collection Tubes to Reduce Transfusions in Intensive Care: The STRATUS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Blood collection for laboratory testing in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is a modifiable contributor to anemia and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. Most blood withdrawn is not required for analysis and is discarded. Objective: To determine whether transitioning from standard-volume to small-volume vacuum tubes for blood collection in ICUs reduces RBC transfusion without compromising laboratory testing procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants: Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in 25 adult medical-surgical ICUs in Canada (February 5, 2019 to January 21, 2021). Interventions: ICUs were randomized to transition from standard-volume (n = 10 940) to small-volume tubes (n = 10 261) for laboratory testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was RBC transfusion (units per patient per ICU stay). Secondary outcomes were patients receiving at least 1 RBC transfusion, hemoglobin decrease during ICU stay (adjusted for RBC transfusion), specimens with insufficient volume for testing, length of stay in the ICU and hospital, and mortality in the ICU and hospital. The primary analysis included patients admitted for 48 hours or more, excluding those admitted during a 5.5-month COVID-19-related trial hiatus. Results: In the primary analysis of 21 201 patients (mean age, 63.5 years; 39.9% female), which excluded 6210 patients admitted during the early COVID-19 pandemic, there was no significant difference in RBC units per patient per ICU stay (relative risk [RR], 0.91 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.05]; P = .19; absolute reduction of 7.24 RBC units/100 patients per ICU stay [95% CI, -3.28 to 19.44]). In a prespecified secondary analysis (n = 27 411 patients), RBC units per patient per ICU stay decreased after transition from standard-volume to small-volume tubes (RR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.00]; P = .04; absolute reduction of 9.84 RBC units/100 patients per ICU stay [95% CI, 0.24 to 20.76]). Median decrease in transfusion-adjusted hemoglobin was not statistically different in the primary population (mean difference, 0.10 g/dL [95% CI, -0.04 to 0.23]) and lower in the secondary population (mean difference, 0.17 g/dL [95% CI, 0.05 to 0.29]). Specimens with insufficient quantity for analysis were rare (≤0.03%) before and after transition. Conclusions and Relevance: Use of small-volume blood collection tubes in the ICU may decrease RBC transfusions without affecting laboratory analysis. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03578419.

Prognostic Factors Associated With Development of Venous Thromboembolism in Critically Ill Patients-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify prognostic factors for the development of venous thromboembolism in the ICU. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to March 1, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: We included English-language studies describing prognostic factors associated with the development of venous thromboembolism among critically ill patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors performed data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment. We pooled adjusted odds ratios and adjusted hazard ratios for prognostic factors using random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 39 observational cohort studies involving 729,477 patients. Patient factors with high or moderate certainty of association with increased odds of venous thromboembolism include older age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.29 per 10 yr), obesity (adjusted odds ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.18-1.32), active malignancy (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.18-2.44), history of venous thromboembolism (adjusted odds ratio, 4.77; 95% CI, 3.42-6.65), and history of recent surgery (adjusted odds ratio, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.26-2.47). ICU-specific factors with high or moderate certainty of association with increased risk of venous thromboembolism include sepsis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.12-1.78), lack of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.14-2.84), central venous catheter (adjusted odds ratio, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.98-4.34), invasive mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.36-2.24), and use of vasoactive medication (adjusted odds ratio, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.23-2.81). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis provides quantitative summaries of the association between patient-specific and ICU-related prognostic factors and the risk of venous thromboembolism in the ICU. These findings provide the foundation for the development of a venous thromboembolism risk stratification tool for critically ill patients.

White blood cell count trajectory and mortality in septic shock: a historical cohort study.

PURPOSE: Septic shock is associated with a mortality of 20-40%. The white blood cell count (WBC) at hospital admission correlates with prognosis in septic shock. Here, we explore whether the trajectory of WBC after admission provides further information about outcomes. We aimed to identify groups of patients with different WBC trajectories and the association of WBC trajectory with mortality. METHODS: We included adult patients with septic shock in two academic intensive care units (ICU) in Winnipeg, MB, Canada between 2006 and 2012. We used group-based trajectory analysis to group patients according to their WBC patterns over the first seven days in the ICU. Our primary analysis was the association of WBC trajectory group on 30-day mortality using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: We included 917 patients with septic shock. The final model identified seven distinct WBC trajectories. The rising WBC trajectory was independently associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio, 3.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.86 to 6.26; P < 0.001) compared with the stable WBC trajectory. CONCLUSION: In patients with septic shock, distinct and clinically relevant groups can be identified by analyzing WBC trajectories. A rising WBC trajectory was associated with higher mortality.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Le choc septique est associé à une mortalité de 20 à 40 %. La numération leucocytaire à l'admission à l'hôpital est corrélée au pronostic en cas de choc septique. Dans ce manuscrit, nous tentons de déterminer si l'évolution de la numération leucocytaire après l'admission fournit plus d'informations sur les devenirs. Nous avons cherché à identifier des groupes de patients présentant différentes trajectoires d'évolution de numération leucocytaire et l'association entre l'évolution de la numération et la mortalité. MéTHODE: Nous avons inclus des patients adultes atteints d'un choc septique dans deux unités de soins intensifs (USI) universitaires à Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada entre 2006 et 2012. Nous avons utilisé une analyse de l'évolution basée sur le groupe pour regrouper les patients en fonction du type d'évolution de la numération leucocytaire au cours des sept premiers jours à l'USI. Notre analyse principale consistait à déterminer l'association entre le groupe d'évolution de numération leucocytaire et la mortalité à 30 jours en utilisant une régression multivariable à risque proportionnel de Cox. RéSULTATS: Nous avons inclus 917 patients atteints de choc septique. Le modèle final a identifié sept types de trajectoire d'évolution de numération leucocytaire distincts. Une évolution ascendante de la numération leucocytaire était indépendamment associée à une augmentation de la mortalité (rapport de risque, 3,41; intervalle de confiance à 95 %, 1,86 à 6,26; P < 0,001) par rapport à une évolution de numération leucocytaire stable. CONCLUSION: Chez les patients atteints de choc septique, des groupes distincts et cliniquement pertinents peuvent être identifiés en analysant les trajectoires d'évolution de la numération leucocytaire. Une évolution ascendante de la numération leucocytaire était associée à une mortalité plus élevée.

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 Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support-Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021). Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions. Results: The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines on the Management of Adults With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the ICU: First Update.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. METHODS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.

Prophylactic tranexamic acid use in non-cardiac surgeries at high risk for transfusion.

BACKGROUND: Tranexamic acid (TXA) reduces transfusion in a wide range of surgical populations, although its real-world use in non-cardiac surgeries has not been well described. The objective of this study was to describe prophylactic TXA use in non-cardiac surgeries at high risk for transfusion. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery at ≥5% risk of perioperative transfusion at five Canadian hospitals between January 2014 and December 2016. Canadian Classification of Health Interventions procedure codes within the Discharge Abstract Database were linked to transfusion and laboratory databases. TXA use was ascertained electronically from The Ottawa Hospital Data Warehouse and via manual chart review for Winnipeg hospitals. For each surgery, we evaluated the percentage of patients who received TXA as well as the specifics of TXA dosing and administration. RESULTS: TXA use was evaluable in 14 300 patients. Overall, 17% of surgeries received TXA, ranging from 0% to 68% among individual surgeries. TXA use was more common in orthopaedic (n = 2043/4942; 41%) and spine surgeries (n = 239/1322; 18%) compared to other surgical domains (n = 109/8036; 1%). TXA was commonly administered as a bolus (n = 2097/2391; 88%). The median TXA dose was 1000 mg (IQR 1000-1000 mg). CONCLUSION: TXA is predominantly used in orthopaedic and spine surgeries, with little uptake in other non-cardiac surgeries at high risk for red blood cell transfusion. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TXA and to understand the barriers to TXA administration in a broad range of non-cardiac surgeries.

Intravenous Immunoglobulin Use In Critically Ill Children.

Purpose: The use of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) has increased significantly in the last decade causing challenges for blood suppliers to respond to the demand. Indications for which IVIG infusion should be given to critically ill children remain unclear. The objective of this study is to characterize the epidemiology of IVIG use in this population. Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study of all patients aged between 3 days and 18 years who received at least one IVIG infusion while hospitalized in the pediatric intensive care unit of the Centre hospitalier universitaire (CHU) Sainte-Justine, Montréal Quebec (Canada) between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2018. Results: One hundred and seventy-two patients received a total of 342 IVIG infusions over the study period. Most common indications for IVIG infusions were staphylococcal or streptococcal toxic shock syndrome (n=53/342, 15.5%), immunoglobulin replacement in chylothorax (n=37/342, 10.9%), prophylaxis following bone marrow transplantation (n=31/342, 9.1%), myocarditis (n=25/342, 7.3%) and post-solid organ transplant complications (n=21/342, 6.1%). The median dose of IVIG per infusion was 0.95 g/kg (IQR 0.5-1.0) and median number of IVIG infusions per patient was one (IQR: 1-2). Seventy-nine percent of IVIG infusions given were administrated for off-label indications with regards to Health Canada recommendations. Conclusion: This study identified the most common indications for IVIG infusion in critically ill children in a tertiary care pediatric intensive care unit. Given the costs, the known adverse events associated with IVIG and the pressure that blood suppliers are facing to meet the demands, clinical trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IVIG in conditions where use is significant.

Epidemiology of intravenous immune globulin in septic shock: a retrospective cohort analysis of the Premier Healthcare Database.

PURPOSE: Intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) may improve survival in people with septic shock. Current utilization patterns of IVIG are unknown. We sought to characterize adult patients with septic shock requiring vasopressors who received IVIG, describes IVIG regimens, and evaluate determinants of IVIG use in patients with septic shock. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective database study of adult patients with septic shock admitted to US hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database (from July 2010 to June 2013). We described the proportion of patients with septic shock receiving IVIG, examined IVIG regimens across sites and employed random-effects multivariable regression techniques to identify predictors of IVIG use. RESULTS: Intravenous immune globulin was administered to 0.3% (n = 685) of patients with septic shock; with a median [interquartile range (IQR)] dose of 1 [0.5-1.8] g·kg-1 for a median [IQR] of 1 [1-2] day. Receipt of IVIG was less likely for Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41 to 0.72) and patients without private insurance (Medicare OR, 0.73; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.90; Medicaid OR, 0.41; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.57) and more likely for patients with immunocompromise (OR, 6.83; 95% CI 5.47 to 8.53), necrotizing fasciitis (OR, 9.78; 95% CI 6.97 to 13.72), and toxic shock (OR, 56.9; 95% CI 38.7 to 83.7). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous immune globulin is used infrequently across the US in patients with septic shock. Regimens of IVIG in septic shock may be less intensive than those associated with a survival benefit in meta-analyses. Observed infrequent use supports apparent clinical equipoise, perhaps secondary to limitations of the primary literature. A clinical trial evaluating the role of IVIG in septic shock is needed.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'immunoglobuline intraveineuse (IGIV) peut améliorer la survie chez les personnes atteintes de choc septique. Les pratiques actuelles d'utilisation de l'IGIV sont inconnues. Nous avons cherché à caractériser les patients adultes en état de choc septique et nécessitant des vasopresseurs qui ont reçu de l'IGIV, à décrire les dosages administrés d'IGIV, et à évaluer les causes déterminantes d'une utilisation d'IGIV chez ces patients. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude rétrospective de base de données portant sur des patients adultes atteints de choc septique admis dans des hôpitaux américains et inclus dans la base de données Premier Healthcare (de juillet 2010 à juin 2013). Nous avons décrit la proportion de patients en choc septique recevant de l'IGIV, examiné les posologies utilisées d'IGIV à travers les sites et employé des techniques de régression multivariable à effets aléatoires pour identifier les prédicteurs de l'utilisation d'IGIV. RéSULTATS: L'IGIV a été administrée à 0,3 % (n = 685) des patients présentant un choc septique, avec une dose médiane [écart interquartile (ÉIQ)] de 1 [0,5­1,8] g·kg-1 pour une médiane [ÉIQ] de 1 [1­2] jour. L'administration d'IGIV était moins probable chez les patients noirs (rapport de cotes [RC], 0,54; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 0,41 à 0,72) et les patients sans assurance privée (RC Medicare, 0,73; IC 95 %, 0,59 à 0,90; RC Medicaid, 0,41; IC 95 %, 0,30 à 0,57) et plus probable chez les patients immunodéprimés (RC, 6,83; IC 95 %, 5,47 à 8,53), atteints de fasciite nécrosante (RC, 9,78; IC 95 %, 6,97 à 13,72), et en choc toxique (RC, 56,9; IC 95 %, 38,7 à 83,7). CONCLUSION: L'IGIV est rarement utilisée aux États-Unis chez les patients en choc septique. Les dosages d'IGIV utilisés en cas de choc septique pourraient être moins intensifs que ceux associés à un effet bénéfique en matière de survie dans les méta-analyses. L'utilisation peu fréquente observée appuie une équivalence clinique apparente, peut-être secondaire aux limites de la littérature princeps. Une étude clinique évaluant le rôle de l'IGIV dans le choc septique est nécessaire.

Intravenous immune globulin in septic shock: a Canadian national survey of critical care medicine and infectious disease specialist physicians.

PURPOSE: This national survey evaluated the perceived efficacy and safety of intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) in septic shock, self-reported utilization patterns, barriers to use, the population of interest for further trials and willingness to participate in future research of IVIG in septic shock. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of critical care and infectious diseases physicians across Canada. We summarized categorical item responses as counts and proportions. We developed a multivariable logistic regression model to identify physician-level predictors of IVIG use in septic shock. RESULTS: Our survey was disseminated to 674 eligible respondents with a final response rate of 60%. Most (91%) respondents reported having prescribed IVIG to patients with septic shock at least once, 86% for septic shock due to necrotizing fasciitis, 52% for other bacterial toxin-mediated causes of septic shock, and 5% for undifferentiated septic shock. The majority of respondents expressed uncertainty regarding the impact of IVIG on mortality (97%) and safety (95%) in septic shock. Respondents were willing to participate in further IVIG research with 98% stating they would consider enrolling their patients into a trial of IVIG in septic shock. Familiarity with published evidence was the single greatest predictor of IVIG use in septic shock (odds ratio, 10.2; 95% confidence interval, 3.4 to 30.5; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most Canadian critical care and infectious diseases specialist physicians reported previous experience using IVIG in septic shock. Respondents identified inadequacy of existing research as the greatest barrier to routine use of IVIG in septic shock. Most respondents support the need for further studies on IVIG in septic shock, and would consider enrolling their own patients into a trial of IVIG in septic shock.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF : Cette enquête nationale a évalué l'efficacité et l'innocuité perçues des immunoglobulines intraveineuses (IgIV) dans le contexte du choc septique, les habitudes d'utilisation autodéclarées, les obstacles à l'utilisation de cette modalité, les populations à explorer pour des études futures et la volonté de participer aux recherches futures sur les IgIV et le choc septique. MéTHODE : Nous avons mené une enquête transversale auprès de médecins intensivistes et spécialistes des maladies infectieuses au Canada. Nous avons résumé les réponses de chaque point catégorique en tant que dénombrement et proportions. Nous avons mis au point un modèle de régression logistique multivariée afin d'identifier les prédicteurs, au niveau des médecins, d'une utilisation des IgIV en cas de choc septique. RéSULTATS : Notre sondage a été acheminé à 674 médecins admissibles et nous avons obtenu un taux de réponse final de 60 %. La plupart (91%) des répondants ont indiqué avoir prescrit des IgIV aux patients en choc septique au moins une fois, 86 % pour un choc septique dû à une fasciite nécrosante, 52 % pour des chocs septiques d'autres étiologies médiées par des toxines bactériennes, et 5 % dans des cas de choc septique non différencié. La majorité des répondants ont exprimé de l'incertitude quant à l'incidence des IgIV sur la mortalité (97 %) et l'innocuité (95 %) lors de choc septique. Les répondants étaient disposés à participer à d'autres recherches sur les IgIV, 98 % déclarant qu'ils envisageraient d'inscrire leurs patients à une étude sur les IgIV et le choc septique. La familiarité avec les données probantes publiées était le plus grand prédicteur d'utilisation d'IgIV dans un contexte de choc septique (rapport de cotes, 10,2; intervalle de confiance à 95 %, 3,4 à 30,5; P < 0,001). CONCLUSION : La plupart des médecins intensivistes et spécialistes des maladies infectieuses canadiens ont rapporté avoir une expérience antérieure d'utilisation d'IgIV en cas de choc septique. Les répondants ont identifié l'insuffisance de la recherche existante comme le plus grand obstacle à l'utilisation systématique d'IgIV dans les cas de choc septique. La plupart des répondants appuient la nécessité d'études plus approfondies sur les IgIV et le choc septique et envisageraient d'inscrire leurs propres patients à une étude sur les IgIV dans un contexte de choc septique.

Variation in prophylactic tranexamic acid administration among anesthesiologists and surgeons in orthopedic surgery: a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Tranexamic acid (TXA) reduces red blood cell transfusion in various orthopedic surgeries, yet the degree of practice variation in its use among anesthesiologists and surgeons has not been described. To target future knowledge transfer and implementation strategies, and to better understand determinants of variability in prophylactic TXA use, our primary objective was to evaluate the influence of surgical team members on the variability of prophylactic TXA administration. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), hip fracture surgery, and spine fusion ± vertebrectomy at two Canadian hospitals between January 2014 and December 2016. We used Canadian Classification of Health Interventions procedure codes within the Discharge Abstract Database which we linked to the Ottawa Data Warehouse. We described the percentage of patients that received TXA by individual surgery, the specifics of TXA dosing, and estimated the effect of anesthesiologists and surgeons on prophylactic TXA using multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: In the 3,900 patients studied, TXA was most commonly used in primary THA (85%; n = 1,344/1,582), with lower use in hip fracture (23%; n = 342/1,506) and spine fusion surgery (23%; n = 186/812). The median [interquartile range] total TXA dose was 1,000 [1,000-1,000] mg, given as a bolus in 92% of cases. Anesthesiologists and surgeons added significant variability to the odds of receiving TXA in hip fracture surgery and spine fusion, but not primary THA. Most of the variability in TXA use was attributed to patient and other factors. CONCLUSION: We confirmed the routine use of TXA in primary THA, while observing lower utilization with more variability in hip fracture and spine fusion surgery. Further study is warranted to understand variations in use and the barriers to TXA implementation in a broader population of orthopedic surgical patients at high risk for transfusion.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'acide tranexamique (ATX) réduit la transfusion d'érythrocytes dans diverses chirurgies orthopédiques. Cependant, les variations de pratique quant à son utilisation parmi les anesthésiologistes et les chirurgiens n'ont pas été décrites. Afin de cibler les stratégies futures de transfert des connaissances et de mise en œuvre, et pour mieux comprendre les déterminants de la variabilité dans l'utilisation prophylactique d'ATX, notre objectif principal était d'évaluer l'influence des membres de l'équipe chirurgicale sur la variabilité de l'administration prophylactique d'ATX. MéTHODE: Il s'agissait d'une étude de cohorte rétrospective de tous les patients adultes subissant une arthroplastie totale primaire de la hanche (ATH), une chirurgie de fracture de la hanche et une fusion intervertébrale ± vertébrectomie dans deux hôpitaux canadiens entre janvier 2014 et décembre 2016. Nous avons utilisé les codes de procédure de la Classification canadienne des interventions en santé dans la Base de données sur les congés des patients, que nous avons liée à la banque de données d'Ottawa. Nous avons décrit le pourcentage de patients qui ont reçu de l'ATX par chirurgie individuelle, les détails du dosage de l'ATX, et avons estimé l'effet des anesthésiologistes et des chirurgiens sur l'ATX prophylactique en réalisant des analyses de régression logistique multivariées à effets mixtes. RéSULTATS: Parmi les 3900 patients étudiés, l'ATX était le plus fréquemment utilisé lors d'une ATH primaire (85 %; n = 1344/1582), avec une utilisation plus faible lors de chirurgie de fracture de la hanche (23 %; n = 342/1506) et de chirurgie de fusion intervertébrale (23 %; n = 186/812). La dose totale médiane [écart interquartile] d'ATX était de 1000 mg [1000 à 1000], administrés dans 92 % des cas sous forme de bolus. Les anesthésiologistes et les chirurgiens ont ajouté une variabilité significative aux probabilités de recevoir de l'ATX lors d'une chirurgie de fracture de la hanche et de fusion, mais pas lors d'ATH primaire. La majeure partie de la variabilité dans l'utilisation d'ATX était attribuable aux facteurs liés au patient et à d'autres facteurs. CONCLUSION: Nous avons confirmé l'utilisation de routine de l'ATX dans l'ATH primaire, tout en observant une utilisation moins répandue et plus variable lors de chirurgie de fracture de la hanche et de fusion intervertébrale. Une étude plus approfondie est nécessaire pour comprendre les variations d'utilisation et les obstacles à la mise en œuvre de l'ATX dans une population plus étendue de patients de chirurgie orthopédique à haut risque de transfusion.

Hydroxychloroquine in Nonhospitalized Adults With Early COVID-19 : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: No effective oral therapy exists for early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether hydroxychloroquine could reduce COVID-19 severity in adult outpatients. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from 22 March through 20 May 2020. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04308668). SETTING: Internet-based trial across the United States and Canada (40 states and 3 provinces). PARTICIPANTS: Symptomatic, nonhospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or probable COVID-19 and high-risk exposure within 4 days of symptom onset. INTERVENTION: Oral hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 more days) or masked placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Symptoms and severity at baseline and then at days 3, 5, 10, and 14 using a 10-point visual analogue scale. The primary end point was change in overall symptom severity over 14 days. RESULTS: Of 491 patients randomly assigned to a group, 423 contributed primary end point data. Of these, 341 (81%) had laboratory-confirmed infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or epidemiologically linked exposure to a person with laboratory-confirmed infection; 56% (236 of 423) were enrolled within 1 day of symptoms starting. Change in symptom severity over 14 days did not differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (difference in symptom severity: relative, 12%; absolute, -0.27 point [95% CI, -0.61 to 0.07 point]; P = 0.117). At 14 days, 24% (49 of 201) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine had ongoing symptoms compared with 30% (59 of 194) receiving placebo (P = 0.21). Medication adverse effects occurred in 43% (92 of 212) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine versus 22% (46 of 211) receiving placebo (P < 0.001). With placebo, 10 hospitalizations occurred (2 non-COVID-19-related), including 1 hospitalized death. With hydroxychloroquine, 4 hospitalizations occurred plus 1 nonhospitalized death (P = 0.29). LIMITATION: Only 58% of participants received SARS-CoV-2 testing because of severe U.S. testing shortages. CONCLUSION: Hydroxychloroquine did not substantially reduce symptom severity in outpatients with early, mild COVID-19. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Private donors.