Association of early mobility with the incidence of deep-vein thrombosis and mortality among critically ill patients: a post hoc analysis of PREVENT trial.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the mobility levels among critically ill patients and the association of early mobility with incident proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis and 90-day mortality. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of the multicenter PREVENT trial, which evaluated adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression in critically ill patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis with an expected ICU stay ≥ 72 h and found no effect on the primary outcome of incident proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis. Mobility levels were documented daily up to day 28 in the ICU using a tool with an 8-point ordinal scale. We categorized patients according to mobility levels within the first 3 ICU days into three groups: early mobility level 4-7 (at least active standing), 1-3 (passive transfer from bed to chair or active sitting), and 0 (passive range of motion). We evaluated the association of early mobility and incident lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis and 90-day mortality by Cox proportional models adjusting for randomization and other co-variables. RESULTS: Of 1708 patients, only 85 (5.0%) had early mobility level 4-7 and 356 (20.8%) level 1-3, while 1267 (74.2%) had early mobility level 0. Patients with early mobility levels 4-7 and 1-3 had less illness severity, femoral central venous catheters, and organ support compared to patients with mobility level 0. Incident proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis occurred in 1/85 (1.3%) patients in the early mobility 4-7 group, 7/348 (2.0%) patients in mobility 1-3 group, and 50/1230 (4.1%) patients in mobility 0 group. Compared with early mobility group 0, mobility groups 4-7 and 1-3 were not associated with differences in incident proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16, 8.90; p = 0.87 and 0.91, 95% CI 0.39, 2.12; p = 0.83, respectively). However, early mobility groups 4-7 and 1-3 had lower 90-day mortality (aHR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22, 1.01; p = 0.052, and 0.43, 95% CI 0.30, 0.62; p < 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Only a small proportion of critically ill patients with an expected ICU stay ≥ 72 h were mobilized early. Early mobility was associated with reduced mortality, but not with different incidence of deep-vein thrombosis. This association does not establish causality, and randomized controlled trials are required to assess whether and to what extent this association is modifiable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PREVENT trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02040103 (registered on 3 November 2013) and Current controlled trials, ID: ISRCTN44653506 (registered on 30 October 2013).

Adjunctive Intermittent Pneumatic Compression for Venous Thromboprophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Whether adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression in critically ill patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis would result in a lower incidence of deep-vein thrombosis than pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients who were considered adults according to the local standards at the participating sites (≥14, ≥16, or ≥18 years of age) within 48 hours after admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) to receive either intermittent pneumatic compression for at least 18 hours each day in addition to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis with unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin (pneumatic compression group) or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone (control group). The primary outcome was incident (i.e., new) proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis, as detected on twice-weekly lower-limb ultrasonography after the third calendar day since randomization until ICU discharge, death, attainment of full mobility, or trial day 28, whichever occurred first. RESULTS: A total of 2003 patients underwent randomization - 991 were assigned to the pneumatic compression group and 1012 to the control group. Intermittent pneumatic compression was applied for a median of 22 hours (interquartile range, 21 to 23) daily for a median of 7 days (interquartile range, 4 to 13). The primary outcome occurred in 37 of 957 patients (3.9%) in the pneumatic compression group and in 41 of 985 patients (4.2%) in the control group (relative risk, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 1.44; P = 0.74). Venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or any lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis) occurred in 103 of 991 patients (10.4%) in the pneumatic compression group and in 95 of 1012 patients (9.4%) in the control group (relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.44), and death from any cause at 90 days occurred in 258 of 990 patients (26.1%) and 270 of 1011 patients (26.7%), respectively (relative risk, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.13). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill patients who were receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression did not result in a significantly lower incidence of proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis than pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone. (Funded by King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology and King Abdullah International Medical Research Center; PREVENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02040103; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN44653506.).

Histopathology of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronovirus (MERS-CoV) infection - clinicopathological and ultrastructural study.

AIMS: The pathogenesis, viral localization and histopathological features of Middle East respiratory syndrome - coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in humans are not described sufficiently. The aims of this study were to explore and define the spectrum of histological and ultrastructural pathological changes affecting various organs in a patient with MERS-CoV infection and represent a base of MERS-CoV histopathology. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed the post-mortem histopathological findings and investigated localisation of viral particles in the pulmonary and extrapulmonary tissue by transmission electron microscopic examination in a 33-year-old male patient of T cell lymphoma, who acquired MERS-CoV infection. Tissue needle biopsies were obtained from brain, heart, lung, liver, kidney and skeletal muscle. All samples were collected within 45 min from death to reduce tissue decomposition and artefact. Histopathological examination showed necrotising pneumonia, pulmonary diffuse alveolar damage, acute kidney injury, portal and lobular hepatitis and myositis with muscle atrophic changes. The brain and heart were histologically unremarkable. Ultrastructurally, viral particles were localised in the pneumocytes, pulmonary macrophages, renal proximal tubular epithelial cells and macrophages infiltrating the skeletal muscles. CONCLUSION: The results highlight the pulmonary and extrapulmonary pathological changes of MERS-CoV infection and provide the first evidence of the viral presence in human renal tissue, which suggests tissue trophism for MERS-CoV in kidney.

Management and outcomes of patients presenting with sepsis and septic shock to the emergency department during nursing handover: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical handover is an important process for the transition of patient-care responsibility to the next healthcare provider, but it may divert the attention of the team away from active patients. This is challenging in the Emergency Department (ED) because of highly dynamic patient conditions and is likely relevant in conditions that requires time-sensitive therapies, such as sepsis. We aimed to examine the management and outcomes of patients presenting with sepsis and septic shock to the ED during nursing handover. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a 115-bed ED and more than 200,000 annual ED visits, within a 900-bed academic tertiary care center. Data on Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) bundle elements and hospital mortality were collected for all ≥14-year-old patients who presented to the ED with a diagnosis of sepsis and septic shock between January 1, 2011 and October 30, 2013. Our primary outcome was time to antibiotics, were other SSC bundle elements and mortality counted as secondary outcomes. Patients were divided into two groups: 1) handover time group, comprising patients who presented an hour before or after the start of handover time (6-8 AM/PM), and 2) non-handover time group, comprising patients who presented over the remaining 20 h. RESULTS: During the study period, 1330 patients presented with sepsis or septic shock (228, handover time group; 1102, non-handover time group). No significant differences were found between the handover time and non-handover time groups, respectively, in median time to antibiotic administration (100 [interquartile range (IQR) 57-172] vs. 95 [IQR 50-190] minutes; P = 0.07), median time to serum lactate result (162 [IQR 108-246] vs. 156 [IQR 180-246] minutes; P = 0.33) and median time to obtain blood culture (54 [IQR 36-119] vs. 52 [IQR 28-103] minutes; P = 0.52), and hospital mortality rate (29.4% vs. 28.9%; P = 0.89). CONCLUSION: No significant differences were found in median time of SSC bundle elements or hospital mortality between patients who presented during the handover and non-handover times.

The association of duration of boarding in the emergency room and the outcome of patients admitted to the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: The demand for critical care beds is increasing out of proportion to bed availability. As a result, some critically ill patients are kept in the Emergency Department (ED boarding) awaiting bed availability. The aim of our study is to examine the impact of boarding in the ED on the outcome of patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit(ICU). METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of ICU data collected prospectively at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh from ED between January 2010 and December 2012 and all patients admitted during this time were evaluated for their duration of boarding. Patients were stratified into three groups according to the duration of boarding from ED. Those admitted less than 6 h were classified as Group I, between 6 and 24 h, Group II and more than 24 h as Group III. We carried out multivariate analysis to examine the independent association of boarding time with the outcome adjusting for variables like age, sex, APACHE, Mechanical ventilation, Creatinine, Platelets, INR. RESULTS: During the study period, 940 patients were admitted from the ED to ICU, amongst whom 227 (25%) were admitted to ICU within 6 h, 358 (39%) within 6-24 h and 355 (38%) after 24 h. Patients admitted to ICU within 6 h were younger [48.7 ± 22.2(group I) years, 50.6 ± 22.6 (group II), 58.2 ± 20.9 (group III) (P = 0.04)]with less mechanical ventilation duration[5.9 ± 8.9 days (Group I), 6.5 ± 8.1 (Group II) and 10.6 ± 10.5 (Group III), P = 0.04]. There was a significant increase in hospital mortality [51(22.5), 104(29.1), 132(37.2), P = 0.0006) and the ICU length of stay(LOS) [9.55 days (Group I), 9.8 (Group II) and 10.6 (Group III), (P = 0.002)] with increase in boarding duration. In addition, the delay in admission was an independent risk factor for ICU mortality(OR for group III vs group I is 1.90, P = 0.04) and hospital mortality(OR for group III vs Group I is 2.09, P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Boarding in the ED is associated with higher mortality. This data highlights the importance of this phenomenon and suggests the need for urgent measures to reduce boarding and to improve patient flow.

Critically ill patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection.

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency medicine 2016. Other selected articles can be found online at http://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2016. Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901.

Middle East respiratory syndrome: knowledge to date.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a conceptual and clinical review of Middle East respiratory syndrome. DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed articles were identified through searches of PubMed using the terms "Middle East respiratory syndrome," "coronavirus respiratory illness in Saudi Arabia," and "novel (beta) coronavirus and human coronavirus Erasmus Medical Center". In addition, articles were searched on the websites of the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention using the terms "Middle East respiratory syndrome" and "novel coronavirus in Middle East." The reference lists of these articles and relevant review articles were also reviewed. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Final references were selected for inclusion in the review on the basis of their relevance. DATA SYNTHESIS: The emerging Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus causes severe pulmonary disease with multiorgan involvement and a high fatality rate. Within months after its emergence, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus was reported in several countries worldwide in people who had traveled from the Middle East. Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus is considered a zoonotic virus that has crossed the species barrier to humans, but the pathogenesis and the routes of transmission are not completely understood. There is currently no recommended treatment for Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, although supportive treatment has played an important role. CONCLUSIONS: This syndrome has raised global public health concerns about the dissemination of an emerging infectious disease and highlights the need for a coordinated global response to contain such a disease threat.

Islamic views on artificial nutrition and hydration in terminally ill patients.

Withholding and withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from terminally ill patients poses many ethical challenges. The literature provides little information about the Islamic beliefs, attitudes, and laws related to these challenges. Artificial nutrition and hydration may be futile and reduce quality of life. They can also harm the terminally ill patient because of complications such as aspiration pneumonia, dyspnea, nausea, diarrhea, and hypervolemia. From the perspective of Islam, rules governing the care of terminally ill patients are derived from the principle that injury and harm should be prevented or avoided. The hastening of death by the withdrawal of food and drink is forbidden, but Islamic law permits the withdrawal of futile, death-delaying treatment, including life support. Nutritional support is considered basic care and not medical treatment, and there is an obligation to provide nutrition and hydration for the dying person unless it shortens life, causes more harm than benefit, or is contrary to an advance directive that is consistent with Islamic law. The decision about withholding or withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from the terminally ill Muslim patient is made with informed consent, considering the clinical context of minimizing harm to the patient, with input from the patient, family members, health care providers, and religious scholars.

Diagnostic accuracy of a screening electronic alert tool for severe sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Early recognition of severe sepsis and septic shock is challenging. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of an electronic alert system in detecting severe sepsis or septic shock among emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: An electronic sepsis alert system was developed as a part of a quality-improvement project for severe sepsis and septic shock. The system screened all adult ED patients for a combination of systemic inflammatory response syndrome and organ dysfunction criteria (hypotension, hypoxemia or lactic acidosis). This study included all patients older than 14 years who presented to the ED of a tertiary care academic medical center from Oct. 1, 2012 to Jan. 31, 2013. As a comparator, emergency medicine physicians or the critical care physician identified the patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. In the ED, vital signs were manually entered into the hospital electronic heath record every hour in the critical care area and every two hours in other areas. We also calculated the time from the alert to the intensive care unit (ICU) referral. RESULTS: Of the 49,838 patients who presented to the ED, 222 (0.4%) were identified to have severe sepsis or septic shock. The electronic sepsis alert had a sensitivity of 93.18% (95% CI, 88.78% - 96.00%), specificity of 98.44 (95% CI, 98.33% - 98.55%), positive predictive value of 20.98% (95% CI, 18.50% - 23.70%) and negative predictive value of 99.97% (95% CI, 99.95% - 99.98%) for severe sepsis and septic shock. The alert preceded ICU referral by a median of 4.02 hours (Q1 - Q3: 1.25-8.55). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that electronic sepsis alert tool has high sensitivity and specificity in recognizing severe sepsis and septic shock, which may improve early recognition and management.

Performance of Risk Assessment Models for VTE in Patients Who Are Critically Ill Receiving Pharmacologic Thromboprophylaxis: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Pneumatic Compression for Preventing VTE Trial.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic performance of the available risk assessment models for VTE in patients who are critically ill receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: For patients who are critically ill receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, do risk assessment models predict who would develop VTE or who could benefit from adjunctive pneumatic compression for thromboprophylaxis? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of the Pneumatic Compression for Preventing VTE (PREVENT) trial, different risk assessment models for VTE (ICU-VTE, Kucher, Intermountain, Caprini, Padua, and International Medical Prevention Registry on VTE [IMPROVE] models) were evaluated. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were constructed, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated. In addition, subgroup analyses were performed evaluating the effect of adjunctive pneumatic compression vs none on the study primary outcome. RESULTS: Among 2,003 patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, 198 (9.9%) developed VTE. With multivariable logistic regression analysis, the independent predictors of VTE were Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, prior immobilization, femoral central venous catheter, and invasive mechanical ventilation. All risk assessment models had areas under the curve < 0.60 except for the Caprini model (0.64; 95% CI, 0.60-0.68). The Caprini, Padua, and Intermountain models had high sensitivity (> 85%) but low specificity (< 20%) for predicting VTE, whereas the ICU-VTE, Kucher, and IMPROVE models had low sensitivities (< 15%) but high specificities (> 85%). The positive predictive value was low (< 20%) for all studied cutoff scores, whereas the negative predictive value was mostly > 90%. Using the risk assessment models to stratify patients into high- vs low-risk subgroups, the effect of adjunctive pneumatic compression vs pharmacologic prophylaxis alone did not differ across the subgroups (Pinteraction > .05). INTERPRETATION: The risk assessment models for VTE performed poorly in patients who are critically ill receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. None of the models identified a subgroup of patients who might benefit from adjunctive pneumatic compression. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02040103; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. ISRCTN44653506.

The effect of intermittent pneumatic compression on deep-vein thrombosis and ventilation-free days in critically ill patients with heart failure.

There are contradictory data regarding the effect of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) on the incidence of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and heart failure (HF) decompensation in critically ill patients. This study evaluated the effect of adjunctive use of IPC on the rate of incident DVT and ventilation-free days among critically ill patients with HF. In this pre-specified secondary analysis of the PREVENT trial (N = 2003), we compared the effect of adjunctive IPC added to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (IPC group), with pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone (control group) in critically ill patients with HF. The presence of HF was determined by the treating teams according to local practices. Patients were stratified according to preserved (≥ 40%) versus reduced (< 40%) left ventricular ejection fraction, and by the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. The primary outcome was incident proximal lower-limb DVT, determined with twice weekly venous Doppler ultrasonography. As a co-primary outcome, we evaluated ventilation-free days as a surrogate for clinically important HF decompensation. Among 275 patients with HF, 18 (6.5%) patients had prevalent proximal lower-limb DVT (detected on trial day 1 to 3). Of 257 patients with no prevalent DVT, 11/125 (8.8%) patients in the IPC group developed incident proximal lower-limb DVT compared to 6/132 (4.5%) patients in the control group (relative risk, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-5.08, p = 0.17). There was no significant difference in ventilator-free days between the IPC and control groups (median 21 days versus 25 days respectively, p = 0.17). The incidence of DVT with IPC versus control was not different across NYHA classes (p value for interaction = 0.18), nor across patients with reduced and preserved ejection fraction (p value for interaction = 0.15). Ventilator-free days with IPC versus control were also not different across NYHA classes nor across patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction. In conclsuion, the use of adjunctive IPC compared with control was associated with similar rate of incident proximal lower-limb DVT and ventilator-free days in critically ill patients with HF.Trial registration: The PREVENT trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02040103 (registered on 3 November 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02040103 ) and Current controlled trials, ID: ISRCTN44653506 (registered on 30 October 2013).

Surveillance or no surveillance ultrasonography for deep vein thrombosis and outcomes of critically ill patients: a pre-planned sub-study of the PREVENT trial.

PURPOSE: We examined the association between surveillance for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) among medical-surgical critically ill patients by twice-weekly ultrasonography and 90-day all-cause mortality. METHODS: This was a pre-planned sub-study of the Pneumatic Compression for Preventing Venous Thromboembolism (PREVENT) trial (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02040103) that compared addition of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) to pharmacologic prophylaxis versus pharmacologic prophylaxis alone. The surveillance group included enrolled patients in the trial, while the non-surveillance group included eligible non-enrolled patients. Using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models, we examined the association of surveillance with the primary outcome of 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE). RESULTS: The surveillance group consisted of 1682 patients and the non-surveillance group included 383 patients. Using Cox proportional hazards model with bootstrapping, surveillance was associated with a decrease in 90-day mortality (adjusted HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.57, 0.98). Surveillance was associated with earlier diagnosis of DVT [(median 4 days (IQR 2, 10) vs. 20 days (IQR 16, 22)] and PE [median 4 days (IQR 2.5, 5) vs. 7.5 days (IQR 6.1, 28.9)]. There was an increase in diagnosis of DVT (adjusted HR 5.49; 95% CI 2.92, 13.02) with no change in frequency in diagnosis of PE (adjusted HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.19, 1.91). CONCLUSIONS: Twice-weekly surveillance ultrasonography was associated with an increase in DVT detection, reduction in diagnostic testing for non-lower limb DVT and PE, earlier diagnosis of DVT and PE, and lower 90-day mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PREVENT trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02040103. Registered on 3 November 2013; Current controlled trials, ID: ISRCTN44653506. Registered on 30 October 2013.

Knowledge and Attitudes of Saudi Emergency Physicians toward t-PA Use in Stroke.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) within 4.5 hours from onset improves outcome in patients with ischemic stroke and has been recommended by several international guidelines. Since its approval in 1996, the debate among emergency physicians continues particularly around the result interpretation of the first positive randomized controlled trial, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) clinical trial. This lack of consensus might negatively affect the delivery of effective stroke care. Here we aimed to assess the knowledge and attitude of Saudi emergency physicians toward t-PA use within 4.5 hours of onset in acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: A web-based, self-administered, locally designed questionnaire was sent to all emergency physicians practicing in the city of Riyadh from January to September 2017. RESULTS: Out of 450 emergency physicians, 122 from ten hospitals in Riyadh participated in the survey, with a 27% response rate. The majority of participants were men (78%), and their mean age was 40 ± 8 years. Half of the participants were board certified, and 36% were consultants. Half of the participants consider the evidence for t-PA use in stroke within 4.5 hours of stroke onset to be controversial, and 41% recommend against its use due to lack of proven efficacy (37%), the risk of hemorrhagic complications (35%), lack of stroke expertise (21%), and medicolegal liability (9%). Nearly half were willing to administer IV t-PA for ischemic stroke in collaboration with remote stroke neurology consultation if telestroke is implemented. CONCLUSION: Our study detected inadequate knowledge and a negative attitude among Saudi emergency physicians toward t-PA use in acute stroke. This might negatively impact patient outcome. Therefore, we recommend developing urgent strategies to improve emergency physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs in the management of acute stroke.

Surveillance or no surveillance for deep venous thrombosis and outcomes of critically ill patients: A study protocol and statistical analysis plan.

OBJECTIVE: Surveillance ultrasounds in critically ill patients detect many deep venous thrombi (DVTs) that would otherwise go unnoticed. However, the impact of surveillance for DVT on mortality among critically ill patients remains unclear. DESIGN: We are conducting a multicenter, multinational randomized controlled trial that examines the effectiveness of adjunct intermittent pneumatic compression use with pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis compared to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone on the incidence of proximal lower extremity DVT in critically ill patients (the PREVENT trial). Enrolled patients undergo twice weekly surveillance ultrasounds of the lower extremities as part of the study procedures. We plan to compare enrolled patients who have surveillance ultrasounds to patients who meet the eligibility criteria but are not enrolled (eligible non-enrolled patients) and only who will have ultrasounds performed at the clinical team's discretion. We hypothesize that twice-weekly ultrasound surveillance for DVT in critically ill patients who are receiving thromboprophylaxis will have more DVTs detected, and consequently, fewer pulmonary emboli and lower all-cause 90-day mortality. DISCUSSION: We developed a detailed a priori plan to guide the analysis of the proposed study and enhance the validity of its results.

Statistical analysis plan for the Pneumatic CompREssion for PreVENting Venous Thromboembolism (PREVENT) trial: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Pneumatic CompREssion for Preventing VENous Thromboembolism (PREVENT) trial evaluates the effect of adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) with pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis compared to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone on venous thromboembolism (VTE) in critically ill adults. METHODS/DESIGN: In this multicenter randomized trial, critically ill patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis will be randomized to an IPC or a no IPC (control) group. The primary outcome is "incident" proximal lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) within 28 days after randomization. Radiologists interpreting the lower-extremity ultrasonography will be blinded to intervention allocation, whereas the patients and treating team will be unblinded. The trial has 80% power to detect a 3% absolute risk reduction in the rate of proximal DVT from 7% to 4%. DISCUSSION: Consistent with international guidelines, we have developed a detailed plan to guide the analysis of the PREVENT trial. This plan specifies the statistical methods for the evaluation of primary and secondary outcomes, and defines covariates for adjusted analyses a priori. Application of this statistical analysis plan to the PREVENT trial will facilitate unbiased analyses of clinical data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , ID: NCT02040103 . Registered on 3 November 2013; Current controlled trials, ID: ISRCTN44653506 . Registered on 30 October 2013.

Ultrasonography for the diagnosis of patients with clinically suspected skin and soft tissue infections: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: In patients presenting with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI), the use of ultrasound may lead to a more accurate distinction between cellulitis and abscess compared with clinical assessment alone. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aims to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for detecting skin abscesses. In addition, it aims to assess the impact of using ultrasound on management decisions in patients with SSTI. METHODS: We searched relevant electronic databases for primary studies including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. We searched conference proceedings, checked references of retrieved articles, and contacted field experts. Two reviewers assessed the quality of each full-text publication using a modified QUADAS-2 tool. RESULTS: Five studies (n=710) fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Four studies compared the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound with clinical examination alone (n=584). Most studies reported an improvement in diagnostic accuracy. The sensitivity of ultrasound ranged from 89 to 98% and the specificity ranged from 64 to 88%. However, the sensitivity of clinical assessment ranged from 75 to 90% and the specificity ranged from 55 to 83%; most of these results did not reach statistical significance. Sensitivity was further improved in cases of indeterminate clinical assessment. Two studies (n=176) examined the impact of ultrasound on management decisions. Use of ultrasound has led to significant and appropriate changes in management decisions in 16 to 39% of patients. CONCLUSION: The use of ultrasound could potentially improve diagnostic accuracy and lead to improved management decisions in patients with SSTI, especially in cases of indeterminate clinical assessment. Most of our findings did not achieve statistical significance. Further research is required to confirm these findings.

Application of Failure Mode Effect Analysis to Improve the Care of Septic Patients Admitted Through the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Failure mode effect analysis (FMEA) is a proactive multistep tool used to analyze risks, identify failures before they occur, and prioritize preventive measures. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team trained on FMEA methodology analyzed the process of treatment of septic patients and recorded processes under 3 major phases (recognition of severe sepsis, referral, and resuscitation). The team identified potential failure modes in each process; assigned severity, occurrence, and detection scores for each; and calculated the risk priority numbers (RPNs). Finally, higher-priority failure modes (RPN of ≥300) were analyzed to redesign the care process. RESULTS: We identified 27 processes and 48 failure modes with a mean RPN of 270. Twenty-two high-risk failures were identified by RPN of 300 or higher. All identified critical processes were related to phase 1 (recognition of sepsis) and phase 3 (resuscitation). The most critical process seemed to be related to the initial workup and treatment of septic patients, with 4 potential failure modes and a total RPN of 1485. CONCLUSIONS: Patient safety and care reliability issues are a major concern in health care. This study suggests that tools such as FMEA can enable a detailed analysis of the care process of septic patients by outlining potential failure modes and guiding improvement efforts.

The impact of a multifaceted intervention including sepsis electronic alert system and sepsis response team on the outcomes of patients with sepsis and septic shock.

BACKGROUND: Compliance with the clinical practice guidelines of sepsis management has been low. The objective of our study was to describe the results of implementing a multifaceted intervention including an electronic alert (e-alert) with a sepsis response team (SRT) on the outcome of patients with sepsis and septic shock presenting to the emergency department. METHODS: This was a pre-post two-phased implementation study that consisted of a pre-intervention phase (January 01, 2011-September 24, 2012), intervention phase I (multifaceted intervention including e-alert, from September 25, 2012-March 03, 2013) and intervention phase II when SRT was added (March 04, 2013-October 30, 2013) in a 900-bed tertiary-care academic hospital. We recorded baseline characteristics and processes of care in adult patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock. The primary outcome measures were hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were the need for mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive unit and in the hospital. RESULTS: After implementing the multifaceted intervention including e-alert and SRT, cases were identified with less severe clinical and laboratory abnormalities and the processes of care improved. When adjusted to propensity score, the interventions were associated with reduction in hospital mortality [for intervention phase II compared to pre-intervention: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.85, p = 0.003], reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation (aOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.37-0.55, p < 0.0001) and reduction in ICU LOS and hospital LOS for all patients as well as ICU LOS for survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a multifaceted intervention including sepsis e-alert with SRT was associated with earlier identification of sepsis, increase in compliance with sepsis resuscitation bundle and reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation and reduction in hospital mortality and LOS.

Thromboprophylaxis using combined intermittent pneumatic compression and pharmacologic prophylaxis versus pharmacologic prophylaxis alone in critically ill patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a common problem in critically ill patients. Pharmacologic prophylaxis is currently the standard of care based on high-level evidence from randomized controlled trials. However, limited evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices. The Pneumatic compREssion for preventing VENous Thromboembolism (PREVENT trial) aims to determine whether the adjunct use of IPC with pharmacologic prophylaxis compared to pharmacologic prophylaxis alone in critically ill patients reduces the risk of VTE. METHODS/DESIGN: The PREVENT trial is a multicenter randomized controlled trial, which will recruit 2000 critically ill patients from over 20 hospitals in three countries. The primary outcome is the incidence of proximal lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) within 28 days after randomization. Radiologists interpreting the scans are blinded to intervention allocation, whereas the patients and caregivers are unblinded. The trial has 80 % power to detect a 3 % absolute risk reduction in proximal DVT from 7 to 4 %. DISCUSSION: The first patient was enrolled in July 2014. As of May 2015, a total of 650 patients have been enrolled from 13 centers in Saudi Arabia, Canada and Australia. The first interim analysis is anticipated in July 2016. We expect to complete recruitment by 2018. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02040103 (registered on 3 November 2013). Current controlled trials: ISRCTN44653506 (registered on 30 October 2013).