Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29856817›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2018

Low-molecular-weight heparin venous thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients with renal dysfunction: A subgroup analysis of the PROTECT trial.

Menaka Pai, Neill K J Adhikari, Marlies Ostermann, Diane Heels-Ansdell, James D Douketis, Yoanna Skrobik, Ismael Qushmaq, Maureen Meade, Gordon Guyatt, William Geerts and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Anticoagulation in CKD and ESRD.Journal of nephrology · 2019
    Review
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 12 institutions in 5 countries.

Menaka PaiDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6053-689X
Neill K J AdhikariDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.
Marlies OstermannDepartment of Critical Care, Guys and St Thomas Hospital, London, England.
Diane Heels-AnsdellDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
James D DouketisDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Yoanna SkrobikDepartment of Medicine, Hôpital Maisonneuve Rosemont, Montréal, Canada.
Ismael QushmaqDepartment of Medicine, King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Maureen MeadeDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Gordon GuyattDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
William GeertsDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Michael W WalshDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Mark A CrowtherDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Jan O FriedrichInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Lisa BurryMount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
Rinaldo BellomoAustralian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC-RC), Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Nilton Brandão da SilvaMoinhos de Vento Hospital, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Rubens Costa FilhoPró Cardíaco Hospital, PROCEP, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Michael J CoxSt. John's Mercy Medical Center, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Suzana Alves SilvaPró Cardíaco Hospital, PROCEP, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Deborah J CookDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
PROTECT (Prophylaxis for Thromboembolism in Critical Care Trial) Investigators
Impact · CAHamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine Program · CAHospital Pró-Cardíaco · BRUniversity of Toronto · CAAustralian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society · AUHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont · CAHospital Moinhos de Vento · BRKing Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre · SAMercy Medical Center · USMount Sinai Hospital · CASt. Thomas Hospital · CASunnybrook Health Science Centre · CA

Funding

Canadian Institute Health Research #MCT78568
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere is concern about excessive bleeding when low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are used for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in renal dysfunction. Our objective was to evaluate whether LMWH VTE prophylaxis was safe and effective in critically ill patients with renal dysfunction by conducting a subgroup analysis of PROTECT, a randomized blinded trial.

methodsWe studied intensive care unit (ICU) patients with pre-ICU dialysis-dependent end-stage renal disease (ESRD; pre-specified subgroup; n = 118), or severe renal dysfunction at ICU admission (defined as ESRD or non-dialysis dependent with creatinine clearance [CrCl] <30 ml/min; post hoc subgroup; n = 590). We compared dalteparin, 5000 IU daily, with unfractionated heparin (UFH), 5000 IU twice daily, and considered outcomes of proximal leg deep vein thrombosis (DVT); pulmonary embolism (PE); any VTE; and major bleeding. Adjusted hazard ratios [HR] were calculated using Cox regression.

resultsIn patients with ESRD, there was no significant difference in DVT (8.3% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.76), any VTE (10.0% vs. 6.9%; p = 0.39) or major bleeding (5.0% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.32) between UFH and dalteparin. In patients with severe renal dysfunction, there was no significant difference in any VTE (10.0% vs. 6.4%; p = 0.07) or major bleeding (8.9% vs. 11.0%; p = 0.66) but an increase in DVT with dalteparin (7.6% vs. 3.7%; p = 0.04). Interaction p-values for comparisons of HRs (ESRD versus not) were non-significant.

conclusionsIn critically ill patients with ESRD, or severe renal dysfunction, there was no significant difference in any VTE or major bleeding between UFH and dalteparin. Patients with severe renal dysfunction who received dalteparin had more proximal DVTs than those on UFH; this finding did not hold in patients with ESRD alone.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnticoagulantsChemopreventionCritical CareCritical IllnessFemaleHeparin, Low-Molecular-WeightHumansKidney Failure, ChronicMaleMiddle AgedVenous ThromboembolismAnticoagulantsHeparin, Low-Molecular-Weight

Identifiers

PMID29856817
PMCPMC5983525
OpenAlexW2806576407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.