Argatroban versus Lepirudin in critically ill patients (ALicia): a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Critically ill patients often require renal replacement therapy accompanied by thrombocytopenia. Thrombocytopenia during heparin anticoagulation may be due to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with need for alternative anticoagulation. Therefore, we compared argatroban and lepirudin in critically ill surgical patients. METHODS: Following institutional review board approval and written informed consent, critically ill surgical patients more than or equal to 18 years with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, were randomly assigned to receive double-blind argatroban or lepirudin anticoagulation targeting an activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (aPTT) of 1.5 to 2 times baseline. In patients requiring continuous renal replacement therapy we compared the life-time of hemodialysis filters. We evaluated in all patients the incidence of bleeding and thrombembolic events. RESULTS: We identified 66 patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, including 28 requiring renal replacement therapy. Mean filter lifetimes did not differ between groups (argatroban 32 ± 25 hours (n = 12) versus lepirudin 27 ± 21 hours (n = 16), mean difference 5 hours, 95% CI -13 to 23, P = 0.227). Among all 66 patients, relevant bleeding occurred in four argatroban- versus eleven lepirudin-patients (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.1 to 14.0, P = 0.040). In the argatroban-group, three thromboembolic events occurred compared to two in the lepirudin group (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.1 to 4.4, P = 0.639). The incidence of confirmed heparin-induced thrombocytopenia was 23% (n = 15) in our study population. CONCLUSIONS: This first randomized controlled double-blind trial comparing two direct thrombin inhibitors showed comparable effectiveness for renal replacement therapy, but suggests fewer bleeds in surgical patients with argatroban anticoagulation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov NCT00798525. Registered 25 November 2008.

Does interscalene catheter placement with stimulating catheters improve postoperative pain or functional outcome after shoulder surgery? A prospective, randomized and double-blinded trial.

BACKGROUND: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial we investigated the use of stimulating catheters in patients during and after shoulder surgery; functional improvement being the primary outcome measurement. METHODS: After eliciting an adequate muscular twitch at < or =0.5 mA nerve stimulation output, the perineural catheter was advanced either blindly (conventional catheter = CC group, n = 20) or guided by stimulation via the catheter (stimulating catheter = SC group, n = 20). A bolus of 40 mL prilocaine 1% and 10 mL ropivacaine 0.75% was injected, followed by a patient-controlled infusion of ropivacaine 0.2% (8 mL/h infusion rate, bolus 2 mL, lockout time 20 min). RESULTS: Onset of motor block was faster in the SC group, whereas sensory block did not differ between groups. Median pain scores on two postoperative days were equal. Improvement of the objective shoulder function score (Constant Murley Score) 6 wk postoperatively was enhanced to a clinically relevant extent in the SC group compared to the CC group (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the use of a stimulating catheter results in a faster onset of motor block, unaltered postoperative pain, and a significantly improved functional outcome 6 wk after shoulder surgery.