Optimal dosing of heparin for prophylactic anticoagulation in critically ill COVID-19 patients a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: The optimal amount of anticoagulation for critically ill COVID-19 patients is controversial. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of escalated doses of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of three major databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase, from inception to May 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included comparing therapeutic or intermediate doses to standard prophylactic doses of anticoagulants in critically ill COVID-19 patients, with heparins as the only anticoagulation therapy considered. RESULTS: Out of the six RCTs, 2130 patients were administered escalated dose anticoagulation (50.2%) and standard thromboprophylaxis therapy (49.8%). The escalated dose showed no significant impact on mortality (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90-1.13). Although there was no significant difference in DVT (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.08), the risk of PE was significantly reduced in patients receiving escalated dose anticoagulation (RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.60), with an increased risk of bleeding events (RR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.08-2.53). CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis fail to support escalated anticoagulation doses to reduce mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients. However, higher doses of anticoagulants appear to reduce thrombotic events while increasing the risk of bleeding effectively.

A prospective comparison between multidisciplinary healthcare providers' clinical examination and a validated pain scale.

Introduction: Unrecognized pain in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), due to inadequate assessment and therapeutic management, is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Despite the availability of validated pain monitoring tools, such as the Critical-Care Pain Observational Tool (CPOT), these scales are not commonly used in clinical practice, with healthcare professionals often relying on their clinical impression. Our study aims to determine the agreement between the pain examination performed by ICU professionals and the CPOT. Methods: Prospective cohort study that included critically ill patients and physicians, nurses and physiotherapists from an ICU in Bahia, Brazil. During bedside clinical rounds, the CPOT score was applied to assess the pain of hospitalized patients, and health professionals were interviewed to ascertain their perception of the patient's pain for a maximum of five consecutive days. Correlations were assessed using the Spearman rank tests. Hierarchical cluster analysis was employed to show the results of CPOT score and pain assessment by healthcare professionals at each study time. And the Kappa statistic was calculated to assess the agreement between the CPOT score vs. the pain assessment by healthcare providers. Results: One hundred one patients were included in the study with median age of 74 years (IQR 61.5-83.5), a predominance of women (55.4%) and a median SAPS 3 score of 45 (IQR 39.5-53.0). The correlation between the professional's pain assessment and the CPOT were mostly statistically significant, ranged from negligible to weak, being the highest index obtained in the evaluation of nurses on day 5 (Kappa index = 0.43, p = 0.005). Physician assessments were significant only in day 1. On the presence of pain, the professionals' assessments and CPOT revealed mild to a moderate agreement. Conclusion: Healthcare professional's pain assessment displayed a weak positive correlation with a validated pain scale and poor agreement amongst members of the ICU team, particularly when the pain was felt to be absent. Thus, this study highlights the importance of routine tools for pain assessment in the ICU for all members of multidisciplinary teams.

Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Dilational Tracheostomy: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous dilational tracheostomy (PDT) is a common and increasingly used procedure in the intensive care unit (ICU). It is usually performed with bronchoscopy guidance. Ultrasound has emerged as a useful tool in order to assist PDT, potentially improving its success rate and reducing procedural-related complications. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the ultrasound-guided PDT is equivalent or superior to the bronchoscopy-guided or anatomical landmarks-guided PDT with regard to procedural-related and clinical complications. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials was conducted comparing an ultrasound-guided PDT to the control groups (either a bronchoscopy-guided PDT or an anatomical landmark-guided PDT) in patients undergoing a PDT in the ICU. The primary outcome was the incidence of major procedural-related and clinical complication rates. The secondary outcome was the incidence of minor complication rates. Random-effect meta-analyzes were used to pool the results. RESULTS: Four studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and they were analyzed. The studies included 588 participants. There were no differences in the major complication rates between the patients who were assigned to the ultrasound-guided PDT when compared to the control groups (pooled risk ratio [RR]: 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-1.71, I2 = 0%). The minor complication rates were not different between the groups, but they had a high heterogeneity (pooled RR: 0.49; 95% CI 0.16-1.50; I2 = 85%). The sensitivity analyzes that only included the randomized controlled trials that used a landmark-guided PDT as the control group showed lower rates of minor complications in the ultrasound-guided PDT group (pooled RR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.31-0.98, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: The ultrasound-guided PDT seems to be safe and it is comparable to the bronchoscopy-guided PDT regarding the major and minor procedural-related or clinical complications. It also seems to reduce the minor complications when compared to the anatomical landmark-guided PDT.

Transfusion requirements after head trauma: a randomized feasibility controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Anemia is frequent among patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and is associated with an increased risk of poor outcome. The optimal hemoglobin concentration to trigger red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in patients with TBI is not clearly defined. METHODS: All eligible consecutive adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with moderate or severe TBI were randomized to a "restrictive" (hemoglobin transfusion threshold of 7 g/dL), or a "liberal" (threshold 9 g/dL) transfusion strategy. The transfusion strategy was continued for up to 14 days or until ICU discharge. The primary outcome was the mean difference in hemoglobin between groups. Secondary outcomes included transfusion requirements, intracranial pressure management, cerebral hemodynamics, length of stay, mortality and 6-month neurological outcome. RESULTS: A total of 44 patients were randomized, 21 patients to the liberal group and 23 to the restrictive group. There were no baseline differences between the groups. The mean hemoglobin concentrations during the 14-day period were 8.4 ± 1.0 and 9.3 ± 1.3 (p < 0.01) in the restrictive and liberal groups, respectively. Fewer RBC units were administered in the restrictive than in the liberal group (35 vs. 66, p = 0.02). There was negative correlation (r = - 0.265, p < 0.01) between hemoglobin concentration and middle cerebral artery flow velocity as evaluated by transcranial Doppler ultrasound and the incidence of post-traumatic vasospasm was significantly lower in the liberal strategy group (4/21, 3% vs. 15/23, 65%; p < 0.01). Hospital mortality was higher in the restrictive than in the liberal group (7/23 vs. 1/21; p = 0.048) and the liberal group tended to have a better neurological status at 6 months (p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: The trial reached feasibility criteria. The restrictive group had lower hemoglobin concentrations and received fewer RBC transfusions. Hospital mortality was lower and neurological status at 6 months favored the liberal group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02203292 . Registered on 29 July 2014.