ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2013
Evaluation of recombinant activated protein C for severe sepsis at a tertiary academic medical center.
Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structure Activity Relationship and Molecular Docking of Some Quinazolines Bearing Sulfamerazine Moiety as New 3CLpro, cPLA2, sPLA2 Inhibitors.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Antithrombin III and D-dimer levels as indicators of disease severity in patients with hyperlipidaemic or biliary acute pancreatitis.The Journal of international medical research · 2017Observational
- Activation of α2 adrenoceptor attenuates lipopolysaccharide-induced hepatic injury.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2015Article
- Protection against LPS-induced acute lung injury by a mechanism-based inhibitor of NADPH oxidase (type 2).American journal of physiology. Lung cellular and molecular physiology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEarly clinical trials of recombinant human activated protein C (rhAPC) for severe sepsis excluded patients at high risk of bleeding. Recent literature suggests bleeding rates are higher in clinical practice and may be associated with worsened outcomes. Our objective was to evaluate baseline demographics; incidence, and risk factors for major bleeding; and mortality of patients receiving rhAPC for severe sepsis at our institution.
methodsA retrospective study was performed for all patients receiving rhAPC for treatment of severe sepsis at a tertiary academic medical center from January 2002 to June 2009. Demographic information, clinical variables, intensive care unit, and hospital outcomes were recorded.
resultsOf the 156 patients that received rhAPC, 54 (34.6%) did not meet institutional criteria for safe use at baseline due to bleeding precaution or contraindication. Twenty-three (14.7%) patients experienced a major bleeding event. Multivariate analysis demonstrated baseline International Normalized Ratio ≥2.5 (odds ratio [OR] 3.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.28-10.56; P = 0.03) and platelet count ≤100 × 10(3)/mm(3) (OR 2.86, 95% CI: 1.07-7.67; P = 0.01) as significant predictors of a major bleed. Overall hospital mortality was 57.7%. Multivariate analysis demonstrated the presence of ≥3 organ dysfunctions (OR 2.46, 95% CI: 1.19-5.09; P < 0.05) and medical intensive care unit admission (OR 1.99, 95% CI: 1.00-3.98; P = 0.05) were independent variables associated with hospital mortality.
conclusionPatients receiving rhAPC at our institution had higher APACHE II scores, mortality, and major bleeding events than published postmarketing studies. Risk factors for major bleeding other than package-labeling contraindications and bleeding precautions were identified in our patient population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.