Thrombocytopenia and platelet transfusions in ICU patients: an international inception cohort study (PLOT-ICU).

PURPOSE: Thrombocytopenia (platelet count < 150 × 109/L) is common in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and is likely associated with worse outcomes. In this study we present international contemporary data on thrombocytopenia in ICU patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study in adult ICU patients in 52 ICUs across 10 countries. We assessed frequencies of thrombocytopenia, use of platelet transfusions and clinical outcomes including mortality. We evaluated pre-selected potential risk factors for the development of thrombocytopenia during ICU stay and associations between thrombocytopenia at ICU admission and 90-day mortality using pre-specified logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: We analysed 1166 ICU patients; the median age was 63 years and 39.5% were female. Overall, 43.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 40.4-46.1) had thrombocytopenia; 23.4% (20-26) had thrombocytopenia at ICU admission, and 19.8% (17.6-22.2) developed thrombocytopenia during their ICU stay. Absence of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), non-cancer-related immune deficiency, liver failure, male sex, septic shock, and bleeding at ICU admission were associated with the development of thrombocytopenia during ICU stay. Among patients with thrombocytopenia, 22.6% received platelet transfusion(s), and 64.3% of in-ICU transfusions were prophylactic. Patients with thrombocytopenia had higher occurrences of bleeding and death, fewer days alive without the use of life-support, and fewer days alive and out of hospital. Thrombocytopenia at ICU admission was associated with 90-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.7; 95% CI 1.19-2.42). CONCLUSION: Thrombocytopenia occurred in 43% of critically ill patients and was associated with worse outcomes including increased mortality. Platelet transfusions were given to 23% of patients with thrombocytopenia and most were prophylactic.

Introducing video calls in an intensive care unit during the COVID-19 lockdown: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, visits to hospitals were prohibited. Therefore, new ways of communicating with relatives about and with patients were needed. This study aimed to explore experiences made with video calls in an adult ICU. METHODS: This study employed semi-structured group interviews conducted with six registered nurses from the ICU in a large hospital in Denmark who used video calls during the lockdown. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using systematic text condensation. RESULTS: The analyses indicated that video calls were a useful alternative to physical meetings. The advantages of video calls were that relatives had risk-free access to the ICU and the patient's treatment, whereas patients gained a window into their home, and nurses used less planning time than physical visit. Finally, patients were less distracted by video calls than by visits. The challenges identified with video calls were difficulties for nurses to care for relatives, ethical aspects and technical issues. CONCLUSIONS: Video calls were an effective tool for communication during the COVID-19 lockdown, presenting a number of advantages and challenges compared with in-person visits or telephone calls. By identifying and overcoming these challenges, video calls may become a beneficial supplement to in-person visits or telephone calls. FUNDING: none. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (P-2020-931).

The effect of prostacyclin (Iloprost) infusion at a dose of 1 ng/kg/min for 72 hours compared to placebo in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of continuous infusion of the potential endothelial cytoprotective agent prostacyclin (Iloprost) 1 ng/kg/min vs. placebo for 72 hours on pulmonary endotheliopathy in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. TRIAL DESIGN: A multicenter, randomized (1:1, active: placebo), blinded, parallel group exploratory trial PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria are: Adult patients (>18 years); Confirmed COVID-19 infection; Need for mechanical interventions; Endothelial biomarker soluble thrombomodulin >4ng/ml. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Withdrawal from active therapy; Pregnancy (non-pregnancy confirmed by patient being postmenopausal (age 60 or above) or having a negative urine- or plasma-hCG); Known hypersensitivity to iloprost or to any of the other ingredients; Previously included in this trial or a prostacyclin trial within 30 days; Consent cannot be obtained; Life-threatening bleeding defined by the treating physician; Known severe heart failure (NYHA class IV); Suspected acute coronary syndrome The study is conducted at five intensive care units in the Capital Region of Denmark at Rigshospitalet, Herlev Hospital, Hvidovre Hospital, Bispebjerg Hospital, Nordsjællands Hospital. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The patients are randomized to 72-hours continuous infusion of either prostacyclin (Iloprost/Ilomedin) at a dose of 1 ng/kg/min or Placebo (normal saline). MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary endpoint: Days alive without mechanical ventilation in the intensive care units within 28 days RANDOMISATION: The randomisation sequence is performed in permuted blocks of variable sizes stratified for trial site using centralised, concealed allocation. The randomisation sequence is generated 1:1 (active/placebo) using the online randomisation software 'Sealed Envelope' ( https://www.sealedenvelope.com/ ). Once generated the randomisation sequence is formatted and uploaded into Research Electronic Data Capture system (REDCap) to facilitate centralised, web-based allocation according to local written instruction. BLINDING (MASKING): The following are blinded: all clinicians, patients, investigators, and those assessing the outcomes including the statisticians. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): Forty patients are planned to be randomized to each group, with a total sample size of 80 patients. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version 1.4 dated May 25, 2020. Recruitment is ongoing. The recruitment was started June 15, 2020 and the anticipated finish of recruitment is February 28, 2021 with 90 days follow up hereafter. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration at clinicaltrialregisters.eu; EudraCT no. 2020-001296-33 on 3 April 2020 and at ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04420741 on 9 June 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1).In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

The presence of resuscitation equipment and influencing factors at General Practitioners' offices in Denmark: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) have proven effective when used by GPs. Despite this and the latest guidelines from the European Resuscitation Council, there are no recommendations for Danish GPs regarding proper equipment to treat cardiac arrest. Currently, there are no published data on the distribution of AEDs among GPs in Denmark. AIM: To assess the prevalence of resuscitation equipment and educated staff among Danish GPs and the parameters influencing the absence of AEDs at GP offices. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey among the 2030 GPs registered in Denmark. Questions concerned demographics, occurrence of resuscitation equipment and attitude towards acquisition of an AED. RESULTS: With a response rate >70%, we found that the prevalence of AEDs in GP offices is low (31.7%). Limited financial possibilities and relevant treatment by ambulance personnel were stated as the primary causes for not having an AED. In general, Danish primary care physicians believe that AEDs should be governmentally sponsored. Positive influential factors on the acquisition of an AED were education, number of physicians in the GP office and previous experience of cardiac arrest. CONCLUSIONS: Danish primary care physicians are generally not equipped with AEDs despite the proven effect of AEDs in GP offices. The main reasons for not acquiring an AED are financial considerations and believing that response time by ambulance services and nearby health facilities are the optimal treatment. We recommend better education and information in order to facilitate future acquisition of AEDs among GPs.