Dapagliflozin in patients with critical illness: rationale and design of the DEFENDER study.

BACKGROUND: Critical illness is a major ongoing health care burden worldwide and is associated with high mortality rates. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have consistently shown benefits in cardiovascular and renal outcomes. The effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in acute illness have not been properly investigated. METHODS: DEFENDER is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in 500 adult participants with acute organ dysfunction who are hospitalized in the intensive care unit. Eligible participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive dapagliflozin 10mg plus standard of care for up to 14 days or standard of care alone. The primary outcome is a hierarchical composite of hospital mortality, initiation of kidney replacement therapy, and intensive care unit length of stay, up to 28 days. Safety will be strictly monitored throughout the study. CONCLUSION: DEFENDER is the first study designed to investigate the use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor in general intensive care unit patients with acute organ dysfunction. It will provide relevant information on the use of drugs of this promising class in critically ill patients. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRY: NCT05558098.

Dapagliflozin in patients with critical illness: rationale and design of the DEFENDER study / Dapagliflozina em pacientes com doença crítica: justificativa e desenho do estudo DEFENDER

ABSTRACT Background: Critical illness is a major ongoing health care burden worldwide and is associated with high mortality rates. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have consistently shown benefits in cardiovascular and renal outcomes. The effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in acute illness have not been properly investigated. Methods: DEFENDER is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in 500 adult participants with acute organ dysfunction who are hospitalized in the intensive care unit. Eligible participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive dapagliflozin 10mg plus standard of care for up to 14 days or standard of care alone. The primary outcome is a hierarchical composite of hospital mortality, initiation of kidney replacement therapy, and intensive care unit length of stay, up to 28 days. Safety will be strictly monitored throughout the study. Conclusion: DEFENDER is the first study designed to investigate the use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor in general intensive care unit patients with acute organ dysfunction. It will provide relevant information on the use of drugs of this promising class in critically ill patients. ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT05558098

RESUMO Antecedentes: A doença crítica é um importante ônus permanente da assistência médica em todo o mundo e está associada a altas taxas de mortalidade. Os inibidores do cotransportador de sódio-glicose do tipo 2 têm demonstrado consistentemente benefícios nos desfechos cardiovasculares e renais. Os efeitos dos inibidores do cotransportador de sódio-glicose do tipo 2 em doenças agudas ainda não foram devidamente investigados. Métodos: O DEFENDER é um estudo de iniciativa do investigador, multicêntrico, randomizado, aberto, desenhado para avaliar a eficácia e a segurança da dapagliflozina em 500 participantes adultos com disfunção orgânica aguda hospitalizados na unidade de terapia intensiva. Os participantes aptos serão randomizados 1:1 para receber 10mg de dapagliflozina e o tratamento padrão por até 14 dias ou apenas o tratamento padrão. O desfecho primário é um composto hierárquico de mortalidade hospitalar, início de terapia renal substitutiva e tempo de internação na unidade de terapia intensiva, até 28 dias. O monitoramento da segurança será rigoroso durante todo o estudo. Conclusão: O DEFENDER é o primeiro estudo desenvolvido para investigar o uso de um inibidor do cotransportador de sódio-glicose do tipo 2 em pacientes de unidade de terapia intensiva geral com disfunção orgânica aguda. O estudo fornecerá informações relevantes sobre o uso de medicamentos dessa classe promissora em pacientes críticos. Registro ClincalTrials.gov: NCT05558098

Erratum: Evaluation of the characteristics of infection prevention and control programs and infection control committees in Brazilian hospitals: A countrywide cross-sectional study - CORRIGENDUM.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1017/ash.2023.136.].

Evaluation of the characteristics of infection prevention and control programs and infection control committees in Brazilian hospitals: A countrywide cross-sectional study.

Objective: Data are scarce regarding hospital infection control committees and compliance with infection prevention and control (IPC) recommendations in Brazil, a country of continental dimensions. We assessed the main characteristics of infection control committees (ICCs) on healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in Brazilian hospitals. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in ICCs of public and private hospitals distributed across all Brazilian regions. Data were collected directly from the ICC staff by completing an online questionnaire and during on-site visits through face-to-face interviews. Results: In total, 53 Brazilian hospitals were evaluated from October 2019 to December 2020. All hospitals had implemented the IPC core components in their programs. All centers had protocols for the prevention and control of ventilator-associated pneumonia as well as bloodstream, surgical site, and catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Most hospitals (80%) had no budget specifically allocated to the IPC program; 34% of the laundry staff had received specific IPC training; and only 7.5% of hospitals reported occupational infections in healthcare workers. Conclusions: In this sample, most ICCs complied with the minimum requirements for IPC programs. The main limitation regarding ICCs was the lack of financial support. The findings of this survey support the development of strategic plans to improve IPCs in Brazilian hospitals.

IMPACTO-MR: um estudo brasileiro de plataforma nacional para avaliar infecções e multirresistência em unidades de terapia intensiva / IMPACTO-MR: a Brazilian nationwide platform study to assess infections and multidrug resistance in intensive care units

RESUMO Objetivo: Descrever o IMPACTO-MR, um estudo brasileiro de plataforma nacional em unidades de terapia intensiva focado no impacto das infecções por bactérias multirresistentes relacionadas à assistência à saúde. Métodos: Descrevemos a plataforma IMPACTO-MR, seu desenvolvimento, critérios para seleção das unidades de terapia intensiva, caracterização da coleta de dados, objetivos e projetos de pesquisa futuros a serem realizados na plataforma. Resultados: Os dados principais foram coletados por meio do Epimed Monitor System® e consistiram em dados demográficos, dados de comorbidades, estado funcional, escores clínicos, diagnóstico de internação e diagnósticos secundários, dados laboratoriais, clínicos e microbiológicos e suporte de órgãos durante a internação na unidade de terapia intensiva, entre outros. De outubro de 2019 a dezembro de 2020, 33.983 pacientes de 51 unidades de terapia intensiva foram incluídos no banco de dados principal. Conclusão: A plataforma IMPACTO-MR é um banco de dados clínico brasileiro de unidades de terapia intensiva focado na pesquisa do impacto das infecções por bactérias multirresistentes relacionadas à assistência à saúde. Essa plataforma fornece dados para o desenvolvimento e pesquisa de unidades de terapia intensiva individuais e ensaios clínicos observacionais e prospectivos multicêntricos.

ABSTRACT Objective: To describe the IMPACTO-MR, a Brazilian nationwide intensive care unit platform study focused on the impact of health care-associated infections due to multidrug-resistant bacteria. Methods: We described the IMPACTO-MR platform, its development, criteria for intensive care unit selection, characterization of core data collection, objectives, and future research projects to be held within the platform. Results: The core data were collected using the Epimed Monitor System® and consisted of demographic data, comorbidity data, functional status, clinical scores, admission diagnosis and secondary diagnoses, laboratory, clinical, and microbiological data, and organ support during intensive care unit stay, among others. From October 2019 to December 2020, 33,983 patients from 51 intensive care units were included in the core database. Conclusion: The IMPACTO-MR platform is a nationwide Brazilian intensive care unit clinical database focused on researching the impact of health care-associated infections due to multidrug-resistant bacteria. This platform provides data for individual intensive care unit development and research and multicenter observational and prospective trials.

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3-0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59-1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61-8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation. FUNDING: Coalition COVID-19 Brazil, Bayer SA.

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3­0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59­1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61­8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation.

High Residual Platelet Reactivity during Aspirin Therapy in Patients with Non-St Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: Comparison Between Initial and Late Phases / Alta Atividade Plaquetária Residual em Resposta ao Ácido Acetilsalicílico na Síndrome Coronariana Aguda Sem Supra de ST: Comparação entre as Fases Aguda e Tardia

Abstract Background: High platelet reactivity (HPR) during therapy with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is a poor prognostic factor in acute coronary syndromes (ACS). The prevalence of HPR during ACS is greater than that reported in stable diseases. However, it is unclear whether this prevalence of HPR is a transient phenomenon or a characteristic of this high-risk population. Objective: The main objective is to compare the effects of ASA on platelet function in the initial and late phases of ACS in a single population. Secondary objectives are: correlation between the tests between themselves and the relationship between the tests and the variation of the inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein and interleukin-6). Methods: Seventy patients with non-ST segment elevation (NSTE) ACS in use of 100-200 mg of ASA per day for at least 7 days were prospectively studied. Platelet function was assessed in the first 48 hours and subsequently after 3 months using four methods: VerifyNow™ (VFN), whole blood platelet aggregation (WBPA) with arachidonic acid (AA) and collagen as agonists, and platelet function analyzer (PFA). The level of statistical significance considered was < 0.05. Results: According to the more specific methods (WBPA with AA and VFN), the incidence of HPR was significantly higher in the early phase than in the late phase: WBPA with AA: 31% versus 13%, p = 0.015; VFN: 32% versus 16%, p = 0.049. The other methods tested, which were less specific for ASA, did not show significant differences between phases. The correlation between the methods was weak or moderate (r ranging from 0.3 to 0.5, p < 0.05), and there were no significant associations between HPR and inflammatory markers. Conclusion: The prevalence of HPR during AAS therapy, assessed by specific methods for cyclooxygenase 1 (COX-1), is higher during the acute phase than in the late phase of NSTE ACS.

Resumo Fundamento: A alta atividade plaquetária (AAP) durante a terapia com ácido acetilsalicílico (AAS) é fator de mau prognóstico nas síndromes coronarianas agudas (SCA). A prevalência de AAP durante a SCA é maior do que a relatada na doença estável. No entanto, não está claro se esta prevalência de AAP é um fenômeno transitório ou característica dessa população de alto risco. Objetivo: O objetivo principal é comparar, em uma mesma população, os efeitos do AAS sobre a função plaquetária nas fases inicial e tardia da SCA. Os objetivos secundários são: correlação entre os testes entre si e a relação entre os testes e a variação dos marcadores inflamatórios (proteína C reativa e interleucina-6). Métodos: Foram estudados prospectivamente 70 pacientes com SCA sem elevação de ST (SCSST) em uso de 100 a 200 mg de AAS por dia por pelo menos 7 dias. A função plaquetária foi avaliada nas primeiras 48 horas e 3 meses após por quatro métodos: VerifyNow™ (VFN), agregometria de sangue total (AST) com ácido araquidônico (AA) e colágeno como agonistas, e analisador de função plaquetária (PFA). O nível de significância estatístico considerado foi < 0,05. Resultados: A média de idade foi de 65 ±9,7 anos e 54% da população eram do sexo feminino. De acordo com os métodos mais específicos (AST com AA e VFN), a incidência de AAP foi significativamente maior na fase inicial, em relação à tardia: AST com AA 31% versus 13%, p = 0,015; VFN 32% versus 16%, p = 0,049. Os outros métodos testados, menos específicos para o AAS, não mostraram diferenças significativas entre as fases. A correlação entre os métodos foi fraca ou moderada (r variando de 0,3 a 0,5, p < 0,05), e não houve associações significativas entre AAP e marcadores inflamatórios. Conclusão: A prevalência de AAP durante a terapia com AAS, avaliada por métodos específicos para cicloxigenase 1 (COX-1), é maior durante a fase aguda do que na tardia da SCASST.

High Residual Platelet Reactivity during Aspirin Therapy in Patients with Non-St Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: Comparison Between Initial and Late Phases.

BACKGROUND: High platelet reactivity (HPR) during therapy with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is a poor prognostic factor in acute coronary syndromes (ACS). The prevalence of HPR during ACS is greater than that reported in stable diseases. However, it is unclear whether this prevalence of HPR is a transient phenomenon or a characteristic of this high-risk population. OBJECTIVE: The main objective is to compare the effects of ASA on platelet function in the initial and late phases of ACS in a single population. Secondary objectives are: correlation between the tests between themselves and the relationship between the tests and the variation of the inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein and interleukin-6). METHODS: Seventy patients with non-ST segment elevation (NSTE) ACS in use of 100-200 mg of ASA per day for at least 7 days were prospectively studied. Platelet function was assessed in the first 48 hours and subsequently after 3 months using four methods: VerifyNow™ (VFN), whole blood platelet aggregation (WBPA) with arachidonic acid (AA) and collagen as agonists, and platelet function analyzer (PFA). The level of statistical significance considered was < 0.05. RESULTS: According to the more specific methods (WBPA with AA and VFN), the incidence of HPR was significantly higher in the early phase than in the late phase: WBPA with AA: 31% versus 13%, p = 0.015; VFN: 32% versus 16%, p = 0.049. The other methods tested, which were less specific for ASA, did not show significant differences between phases. The correlation between the methods was weak or moderate (r ranging from 0.3 to 0.5, p < 0.05), and there were no significant associations between HPR and inflammatory markers. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of HPR during AAS therapy, assessed by specific methods for cyclooxygenase 1 (COX-1), is higher during the acute phase than in the late phase of NSTE ACS.

Sociedade brasileira de cardiologia a carta das mulheres / Brazilian society of cardiology the women's letter

O objetivo primordial desse documento é estimular a melhoria das condições de saúde das mulheres brasileiras, com foco na doença cardiovascular (DCV). A DCV é responsável por 17,5 milhões de mortes prematuras/ano no mundo, com previsão de aumento para 23 milhões em 2030. As DCV são responsáveis por um terço de todas as mortes no Brasil, com semelhança entre homens e mulheres após a menopausa. Esses dados revestem-se de maior importância quando consideramos que 80% das mortes prematura. (AU)

Atorvastatin for high-risk statin-naïve patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: The Lowering the Risk of Operative Complications Using Atorvastatin Loading Dose (LOAD) randomized trial.

Preliminary evidence suggests that statins may prevent major perioperative vascular complications. METHODS: We randomized 648 statin-naïve patients who were scheduled for noncardiac surgery and were at risk for a major vascular complication. Patients were randomized to a loading dose of atorvastatin or placebo (80 mg anytime within 18hours before surgery), followed by a maintenance dose of 40 mg (or placebo), started at least 12hours after the surgery, and then 40 mg/d (or placebo) for 7days. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, and stroke at 30days. RESULTS: The primary outcome was observed in 54 (16.6%) of 326 patients in the atorvastatin group and 59 (18.7%) of 316 patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% CI 0.60-1.26, P=.46). No significant effect was observed on the 30-day secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality (4.3% vs 4.1%, respectively; HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.53-2.47, P=.74), nonfatal myocardial infarction (3.4% vs 4.4%, respectively; HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.35-1.68, P=.50), myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (13.2% vs 16.5%; HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53-1.19, P=.26), and stroke (0.9% vs 0%, P=.25). CONCLUSION: In contrast to the prior observational and trial data, the LOAD trial has neutral results and did not demonstrate a reduction in major cardiovascular complications after a short-term perioperative course of statin in statin-naïve patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. We demonstrated, however, that a large multicenter blinded perioperative statin trial for high-risk statin-naïve patients is feasible and should be done to definitely establish the efficacy and safety of statin in this patient population.