Physicians declining patient enrollment in a critical care trial: a case study in thromboprophylaxis.

PURPOSE: To analyze the frequency, rationale and determinants of attending physicians requesting that their eligible patients not be approached for participation in a thromboprophylaxis trial. METHODS: Research personnel in 67 centers prospectively documented eligible non-randomized patients due to physicians declining to allow their patients to be approached. RESULTS: In 67 centers, 3,764 patients were enrolled, but 1,460 eligible patients had no consent encounter. For 218 (14.9 %) of these, attending physicians requested that their patients not be approached. The most common reasons included a high risk of bleeding (31.2 %) related to fear of heparin bioaccumulation in renal failure, the presence of an epidural catheter, peri-operative status or other factors; specific preferences for thromboprophylaxis (12.4 %); morbid obesity (9.6 %); uncertain prognosis (6.4 %); general discomfort with research (3.7 %) and unclear reasons (17.0 %). Physicians were more likely to decline when approached by less experienced research personnel; considering those with[10 years of experience as the reference category, the odds ratios (OR) for physician refusals to personnel without trial experience was 10.47 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.19-50.02] and those with less than 10 years experience was 1.72 (95 % CI 0.61-4.84). Physicians in open rather than closed units were more likely to decline (OR 4.26; 95 % CI 1.27-14.34). Refusals decreased each year of enrollment compared to the pilot phase. CONCLUSIONS: Tracking, analyzing, interpreting and reporting the rates and reasons for physicians declining to allow their patients to be approached for enrollment provides insights into clinicians' concerns and attitudes to trials. This information can encourage physician communication and education, and potentially enhance efficient recruitment.

A pilot prospective study of the vascular repair response following red cell transfusion in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Red blood cell transfusion has been associated with adverse outcomes including infection, delayed recovery and increased mortality in some patient populations. Circulating cells that yield endothelial-like vascular progenitor cell (VPC) clusters are correlated with vascular repair and recovery after ischaemic injury. The impact of red cell transfusion on VPC clusters and vascular repair remains uncertain. STUDY DESIGN: We prospectively enrolled patients admitted to intensive care requiring red cell transfusion and subjects at low likelihood of requiring red cell transfusion. Levels of VPC clusters and plasma levels of angiogenic cytokines were compared. A total of 17 patients were recruited and had blood samples collected at time of enrolment and at 24-48 h, 48-72 h and 1 week following transfusion. RESULTS: We could not discern differences in the number of VPC clusters between transfused patients (n = 6) and non-transfused subjects (n = 11) at baseline or throughout the study period. VPC cluster levels demonstrated wide variance and were highest at 24-h post-enrolment in the entire cohort. Furthermore, levels of all 16 cytokines analysed were not significantly different between transfused and non-transfused patients and we did not observe a correlation between cytokine concentrations and levels of circulating VPC-cluster forming cells in the overall study population. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that assessment of vascular repair responses after red blood cell transfusion in critically ill patients is challenging. Although our study did not allow us to discern an influence of red cell transfusion on VPC cluster levels or angiogenic cytokines, new methods evaluating vascular repair mechanisms may be required.

Vasopressin versus epinephrine for inhospital cardiac arrest: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Survival rates for cardiac arrest patients, both in and out of hospital, are poor. Results of a previous study suggest better outcomes for patients treated with vasopressin than for those given epinephrine, in the out-of-hospital setting. Our aim was to compare the effectiveness and safety of these drugs for the treatment of in-patient cardiac arrest. METHODS: We did a triple-blind randomised trial in the emergency departments, critical care units, and wards of three Canadian teaching hospitals. We assigned adults who had cardiac arrest and required drug therapy to receive one dose of vasopressin 40 U or epinephrine 1 mg intravenously, as the initial vasopressor. Patients who failed to respond to the study intervention were given epinephrine as a rescue medication. The primary outcomes were survival to hospital discharge, survival to 1 h, and neurological function. Preplanned subgroup assessments included patients with myocardial ischaemia or infarction, initial cardiac rhythm, and age. FINDINGS: We assigned 104 patients to vasopressin and 96 to epinephrine. For patients receiving vasopressin or epinephrine survival did not differ for hospital discharge (12 [12%] vs 13 [14%], respectively; p50.67; 95% CI for absolute increase in survival 211.8% to 7.8%) or for 1 h survival (40 [39%] vs 34 [35%]; p50.66; 210.9% to 17.0%); survivors had closely similar median mini-mental state examination scores (36 [range 19-38] vs 35 [20-40]; p50.75) and median cerebral performance category scores (1 vs 1). INTERPRETATION: We failed to detect any survival advantage for vasopressin over epinephrine. We cannot recommend the routine use of vasopressin for inhospital cardiac arrest patients, and disagree with American Heart Association guidelines, which recommend vasopressin as alternative therapy for cardiac arrest.