Evaluation of Apixaban standard dosing in underweight patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines recommend using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as first-line agents in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Research is currently investigating the use of Apixaban in underweight patients, with some results suggesting altered pharmacokinetics, decreased drug absorption, and potential overdosing in this population. This study examined the effectiveness and safety of standard Apixaban dosing in adult patients with atrial NVAF weighing less than 50 kg. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC); adult patients with a body mass index (BMI) below 25 who received a standard dose of Apixaban (5 mg twice daily) were categorized into two sub-cohorts based on their weight at the time of Apixaban initiation. Underweight was defined as patients weighing ≤ 50 kg, while the control group (Normal weight) comprised patients weighing > 50 kg. We followed the patients for at least one year after Apixaban initiation. The study's primary outcome was the incidence of stroke events, while secondary outcomes included bleeding (major or minor), thrombosis, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Propensity score (PS) matching with a 1:1 ratio was used based on predefined criteria and regression model was utilized as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 1,433 patients were screened; of those, 277 were included according to the eligibility criteria. The incidence of stroke events was lower in the underweight than in the normal weight group at crude analysis (0% vs. 9.1%) p-value = 0.06), as well in regression analysis (OR (95%CI): 0.08 (0.001, 0.76), p-value = 0.002). On the other hand, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the odds of major and minor bleeding (OR (95%CI): 0.39 (0.07, 2.03), p-value = 0.26 and OR (95%CI): 1.27 (0.56, 2.84), p-value = 0.40, respectively). CONCLUSION: This exploratory study revealed that underweight patients with NVAF who received standard doses of Apixaban had fewer stroke events compared to normal-weight patients, without statistically significant differences in bleeding events. To confirm these findings, further randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes and longer observation durations are required.

The concomitant use of ultra short beta-blockers with vasopressors and inotropes in critically ill patients with septic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Septic shock is associated with systemic inflammatory response, hemodynamic instability, impaired sympathetic control, and the development of multiorgan dysfunction that requires vasopressor or inotropic support. The regulation of immune function in sepsis is complex and varies over time. However, activating Beta-2 receptors and blocking Beta-1 receptors reduces the proinflammatory response by influencing cytokine production. Evidence that supports the concomitant use of ultra short beta-blockers with inotropes and vasopressors in patients with septic shock is still limited. This study aimed to evaluate the use of ultra short beta-blockers and its impact on the ICU related outcomes such as mortality, length of stay, heart rate control, shock resolution, and vasopressors/inotropes requirements. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials including critically ill patients with septic shock who received inotropes and vasopressors. Patients who received either epinephrine or norepinephrine without beta-blockers "control group" were compared to patients who received ultra short beta-blockers concomitantly with either epinephrine or norepinephrine "Intervention group". MEDLINE and Embase databases were utilized to systematically search for studies investigating the use of ultra short beta-blockers in critically ill patients on either epinephrine or norepinephrine from inception to October 10, 2023. The primary outcome was the 28-day mortality. While, length of stay, heart rate control, and inotropes/ vasopressors requirements were considered secondary outcomes. Results: Among 47 potentially relevant studies, nine were included in the analysis. The 28-day mortality risk was lower in patients with septic shock who used ultra short beta-blockers concomitantly with either epinephrine or norepinephrine compared with the control group (RR (95%CI): 0.69 (0.53, 0.89), I2=26%; P=0.24). In addition, heart rate was statistically significantly lower with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -22.39 (95% CI: -24.71, -20.06) among the beta-blockers group than the control group. The SMD for hospital length of stay and the inotropes requirement were not statistically different between the two groups (SMD (95%CI): -0.57 (-2.77, 1.64), and SMD (95%CI): 0.08 (-0.02, 0.19), respectively). Conclusion: The use of ultra short beta-blockers concomitantly with either epinephrine or norepinephrine in critically ill patients with septic shock was associated with better heart rate control and survival benefits without increment in the inotropes and vasopressors requirement.

The association between tocilizumab therapy and the development of thrombosis in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a multicenter, cohort study.

The use of tocilizumab for the management of COVID-19 emerged since it modulates inflammatory markers by blocking interleukin 6 receptors. Concerns regarding higher thrombosis risk while using tocilizumab were raised in the literature. The aim of this study is to investigate the association between tocilizumab therapy and the development of thromboembolic events in critically ill COVID-19 patients. A propensity score-matched, multicenter cohort study for critically ill adult patients with COVID-19. Eligible patients admitted to ICU between March 2020 and July 2021 were categorized into two sub-cohorts based on tocilizumab use within 24 h of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was to assess the incidence of all thrombosis cases during ICU stay. The secondary endpoints were 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, and the highest coagulation parameters follow-up (i.e., D-dimer, Fibrinogen) during the stay. Propensity score matching (1:2 ratio) was based on nine matching covariates. Among a total of 867 eligible patients, 453 patients were matched (1:2 ratio) using propensity scores. The thrombosis events were not statistically different between the two groups in crude analysis (6.8% vs. 7.7%; p-value = 0.71) and regression analysis [OR 0.83, 95% CI (0.385, 1.786)]. Peak D-dimer levels did not change significantly when the patient received tocilizumab (beta coefficient (95% CI): 0.19 (- 0.08, 0.47)), while there was a significant reduction in fibrinogen levels during ICU stay (beta coefficient (95% CI): - 0.15 (- 0.28, - 0.02)). On the other hand, the 30-day and in-hospital mortality were significantly lower in tocilizumab-treated patients (HR 0.57, 95% CI (0.37, 0.87), [HR 0.67, 95% CI (0.46, 0.98), respectively). The use of tocilizumab in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not associated with higher thrombosis events or peak D-dimer levels. On the other hand, fibrinogen levels, 30-day and in-hospital mortality were significantly lower in the tocilizumab group. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.

Dexamethasone versus methylprednisolone for multiple organ dysfunction in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a multicenter propensity score matching study.

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone usually recommended for patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to reduce short-term mortality. However, it is uncertain if another corticosteroid, such as methylprednisolone, may be utilized to obtain better clinical outcome. This study assessed dexamethasone's clinical and safety outcomes compared to methylprednisolone. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted between March 01, 2020, and July 31, 2021. It included adult COVID-19 patients who were initiated on either dexamethasone or methylprednisolone therapy within 24 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The primary outcome was the progression of multiple organ dysfunction score (MODS) on day three of ICU admission. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:3 ratio) based on the patient's age and MODS within 24 h of ICU admission. RESULTS: After Propensity Score (PS) matching, 264 patients were included; 198 received dexamethasone, while 66 patients received methylprednisolone within 24 h of ICU admission. In regression analysis, patients who received methylprednisolone had a higher MODS on day three of ICU admission than those who received dexamethasone (beta coefficient: 0.17 (95% CI 0.02, 0.32), P = 0.03). Moreover, hospital-acquired infection was higher in the methylprednisolone group (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.01, 4.66; p = 0.04). On the other hand, the 30-day and the in-hospital mortality were not statistically significant different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone showed a lower MODS on day three of ICU admission compared to methylprednisolone, with no statistically significant difference in mortality.

Comparison of the safety and efficacy for different regimens of pharmaco-prophylaxis among severely burned patients: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in critically ill patients, including severe burn cases. Burn patients respond differently to medications due to pharmacokinetic changes. This study aims to assess the feasibility and safety of different VTE pharmaco-prophylaxis in patients admitted to the ICU with severe burns. METHODS: A pilot, open-label randomized controlled trial was conducted on ICU patients with severe burns (BSA ≥ 20%). By using block randomization, patients were allocated to receive high-dose enoxaparin 30 mg q12hours (E30q12), standard-dose enoxaparin 40 mg q24hours (E40q24), or unfractionated heparin (UFH) 5000 Units q8hours. In this study, the primary outcomes assessed were the recruitment and consent rates, as well as bleeding or hematoma at both the donor and graft site. Additionally, secondary measures were evaluated to provide further insights. RESULTS: Twenty adult patients out of 114 screened were enrolled and received E30q12 (40%), E40q24 (30%), and UFH (30%). The recruitment rate was one patient per month with a 100% consent rate. Donor site bleeding occurred in one patient (16.7%) in the UFH group. On the other hand, graft site bleeding was only reported in one patient (12.5%) who received E30q12. Major bleeding happened in two patients, one in E30q12 and one in the UFH group. Five patients (25.0%) had minor bleeding; two patients (25.0%) received E30q12, two patients E40q24, and one patient UFH. RBC transfusion was needed in four patients, two on E30q12 and two on UFH. Only one patient had VTE, while four patients died in the hospital. CONCLUSION: The study observed a low recruitment rate but a high consent rate. Furthermore, there were no major safety concerns identified with any of the three pharmacologic prophylaxis regimens that were evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05237726.

The Impact of Midodrine Tapering Versus Nontapering Regimens on the Clinical Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Midodrine has been used in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting to reduce the time to vasopressor discontinuation. The limited data supporting midodrine use have led to variability in the pattern of initiation and discontinuation of midodrine. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of 2 midodrine discontinuation regimens during weaning vasopressors in critically ill patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City. Included patients were adults admitted to ICU who received midodrine after being unable to be weaned from intravenous vasopressors for more than 24 hours. Patients were categorized into two subgroups depending on the pattern of midodrine discontinuation (tapered dosing regimen vs. nontapered regimen). The primary endpoint was the incidence of inotropes and vasopressors re-initiation after midodrine discontinuation. RESULTS: The incidence of inotropes or vasopressors' re-initiation after discontinuation of midodrine was lower in the tapering group (15.4%) compared with the non-tapering group (40.7%) in the crude analysis as well as regression analysis (odd ratio [OR] = 0.15; 95% CI = 0.03, 0.73, P = 0.02). The time required for the antihypertensive medication(s) initiation after midodrine discontinuation was longer in patients who had dose tapering (beta coefficient (95% CI): 3.11 (0.95, 5.28), P = 0.005). Moreover, inotrope or vasopressor requirement was lower 24 hours post midodrine initiation. In contrast, the two groups had no statistically significant differences in 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, or ICU length of stay. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: These real-life data showed that tapering midodrine dosage before discontinuation in critically ill patients during weaning from vasopressor aids in reducing the frequency of inotrope or vasopressor re-initiation. Application of such a strategy might be a reasonable approach among ICU patients unless contraindicated.

The Impact of Recombinant Human Erythropoietin Administration in Critically ill COVID-19 Patients: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

The use of erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs) as adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may have a potential benefit. This study aims to evaluate the effect of ESAs on the clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients. A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted from 01-03-2020 to 31-07-2021. We included adult patients who were ≥ 18 years old with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 infection and admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Patients were categorized depending on ESAs administration during their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was the length of stay; other endpoints were considered secondary. After propensity score matching (1:3), the overall included patients were 120. Among those, 30 patients received ESAs. A longer duration of ICU and hospital stay was observed in the ESA group (beta coefficient: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.31-0.97; P = < .01, beta coefficient: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.12-0.69; P = < .01, respectively). In addition, the ESA group's ventilator-free days (VFDs) were significantly shorter than the control group. Moreover, patients who received ESAs have higher odds of liver injury and infections during ICU stay than the control group. The use of ESAs in COVID-19 critically ill patients was associated with longer hospital and ICU stays, with no survival benefits but linked with lower VFDs.

Incidence and Clinical Outcomes of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Critically lll Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study - New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation and COVID-19.

Atrial fibrillation (Afib) can contribute to a significant increase in mortality and morbidity in critically ill patients. Thus, our study aims to investigate the incidence and clinical outcomes associated with the new-onset Afib in critically ill patients with COVID-19. A multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) from March, 2020 to July, 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups (new-onset Afib vs control). The primary outcome was the in-hospital mortality. Other outcomes were secondary, such as mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and complications during stay. After propensity score matching (3:1 ratio), 400 patients were included in the final analysis. Patients who developed new-onset Afib had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (OR 2.76; 95% CI: 1.49-5.11, P = .001). However, there was no significant differences in the 30-day mortality. The MV duration, ICU LOS, and hospital LOS were longer in patients who developed new-onset Afib (beta coefficient 0.52; 95% CI: 0.28-0.77; P < .0001,beta coefficient 0.29; 95% CI: 0.12-0.46; P < .001, and beta coefficient 0.35; 95% CI: 0.18-0.52; P < .0001; respectively). Moreover, the control group had significantly lower odds of major bleeding, liver injury, and respiratory failure that required MV. New-onset Afib is a common complication among critically ill patients with COVID-19 that might be associated with poor clinical outcomes; further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Evaluation of Low-Dose Aspirin use among Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin is widely used as a cardioprotective agent due to its antiplatelet and anti-inflammatory properties. The literature has assessed and evaluated its role in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, no data are available regarding its role in COVID-19 critically ill patients. This study aimed to evaluate the use of low-dose aspirin (81-100 mg) and its impact on outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHOD: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study of all critically ill adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Eligible patients were classified into two groups based on aspirin use during ICU stay. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and other outcomes were considered secondary. Propensity score matching was used (1:1 ratio) based on the selected criteria. RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients were eligible, and 352 patients were included after propensity score matching. The in-hospital mortality (HR 0.73 [0.56, 0.97], p = 0.03) was lower in patients who received aspirin during stay. Conversely, patients who received aspirin had a higher odds of major bleeding than those in the control group (OR 2.92 [0.91, 9.36], p = 0.07); however, this was not statistically significant. Additionally, subgroup analysis showed a possible mortality benefit for patients who used aspirin therapy prior to hospitalization and continued during ICU stay (HR 0.72 [0.52, 1.01], p = 0.05), but not with the new initiation of aspirin (HR 1.22 [0.68, 2.20], p = 0.50). CONCLUSION: Continuation of aspirin therapy during ICU stay in critically ill patients with COVID-19 who were receiving it prior to ICU admission may have a mortality benefit; nevertheless, it may be associated with an increased risk of significant bleeding. Appropriate evaluation for safety versus benefits of utilizing aspirin therapy during ICU stay in COVID19 critically ill patients is highly recommended.

Ibuprofen and NSAID Use in COVID-19 Infected Patients Is Not Associated with Worse Outcomes: A Prospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Ibuprofen disappeared from the pharmacy shelves during the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. However, a while later, information circulated that ibuprofen should be avoided as it could worsen COVID-19 symptoms. The aim of our study was to assess the association of acute and chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with worse COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: We did a prospective cohort study between April 12 and June 1, 2020. Adults consecutively diagnosed with COVID-19 were included. Information on NSAID use was collected through a telephone questionnaire, and patients were followed up for COVID-19 infection outcomes, including death, admission, severity, time to clinical improvement, oxygen requirement and length of stay. RESULTS: Acute use of ibuprofen was not associated with a greater risk of mortality relative to non-use (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.632 [95% CI 0.073-5.441; P = 0.6758]). Chronic NSAID use was also not associated with a greater risk of mortality (adjusted HR 0.492 [95% CI 0.178-1.362; P = 0.1721]). Acute ibuprofen use was not associated with a higher risk of admission compared to non-NSAID users (adjusted odds ratio OR 1.271; 95% CI 0.548-2.953). NSAID users did not have a significantly longer time to clinical improvement or length of stay. CONCLUSION: Acute or chronic use of ibuprofen and other NSAIDs was not associated with worse COVID-19 disease outcomes.

The Use of Antidepressants in Patients with Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a chronic disease affecting patients' quality of life (QoL) and may cause depression. Recent studies reported that the prevalence of depression in patients with HF is 21.5%. Antidepressants, mainly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, are usually prescribed for HF patients diagnosed with depression. Some evidence supports antidepressant's role in improving symptoms by enhancing the psychological aspect of their QoL. Depression screening and treatment are important in the multidisciplinary management; however, their survival benefits are inconsistent. In our study, we aim to investigate the prevalence of depression and the use of antidepressants in patients with HF as well as to determine the acceptance of using antidepressants in such patients. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study conducted by interviewing HF outpatients at National Guard Hospital in Riyadh. Patients were assessed using Hamilton depression rating scale. RESULTS: A total of 306 patients were included, with the majority (69%) being male and aged >61 years (60%). Patients' medical history was classified into different groups, with the largest proportion (39.9%) in the diabetic-hypertensive group, followed by a diabetic group (21.2%) and a hypertensive group (10.8%). Patients were classified according to the New York Heart Association Functional Classification, and most patients were in Class I (61.8%). Some of the patients (8.5%) had been diagnosed with depression. There was no statistically significant association between HF and depression (p > 0.05). However, 5.6% of patients had been prescribed antidepressants and 17.1% of patients believed that they required antidepressants. Moreover, there was a statically significant association between medical history and development of depression (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of depression in HF patients in our population was lower than reported. There was no association between HF stage, depression, and antidepressant use.