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. Non-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.publishedVersio

Mobile X-ray Outside the Hospital vs. X-ray at the Hospital Challenges Exposed in an Explorative RCT Study

Background: For frail patients, it may sometimes be preferable to carry out X-ray examinations at the patients&rsquo; own home. The general state of such patients may worsen due to transport and change of environment when transported for examination at the hospital. Objective: The aim of the randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to investigate if mobile X-ray improves healthcare for fragile patients. The primary outcome was the number of hospitalizations. Data sources: We collected all data using questionnaires and data from the Electronic Patient Record (ER). Participants: Patients referred to a mobile X-ray examination living in nursing homes and homes for the elderly in the Aarhus Municipality (Denmark). Intervention: mobile X-ray examinations compared to those at the hospital. Study appraisal: Data were collected and stored using the computer programme Redcap. Stata was used for statistical calculations. One hundred and thirty-six patients were included in the RCT. We did not find significant differences between mobile X-ray (intervention) and X-ray at the hospital (control) concerning hospitalizations and number of hospital days. Challenges: We met several challenges when carrying out RCT in the planned study population. Doctors often withdraw the referral when they found out that their patient should go to the hospital instead of mobile X-ray. The nursing home staff often considered the patient too frail to allow the test person to ask questions post X-ray. We also met challenges in the randomization method resulting in bias in the first data collection, so we had to adjust the randomization method. Conclusions: For the fragile patients in the present explorative study, mobile X-ray did not significantly reduce the number of hospitalizations compared to X-ray at the hospital. Yet, mobile X-ray may be a new important diagnostic tool for more precise treatment to the frailest patients for whom transportation to the hospital is too exhausting. We need studies with focus on this aspect. We also recommend future RCT studies in a population for which mobile X-ray has not yet been a possibility

External validation of risk scores to predict in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized due to coronavirus disease 2019

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents an urgent threat to global health. Prediction models that accurately estimate mortality risk in hospitalized patients could assist medical staff in treatment and allocating limited resources. Aims: To externally validate two promising previously published risk scores that predict in-hospital mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods: Two prospective cohorts were available; a cohort of 1028 patients admitted to one of nine hospitals in Lombardy, Italy (the Lombardy cohort) and a cohort of 432 patients admitted to a hospital in Leiden, the Netherlands (the Leiden cohort). The endpoint was in-hospital mortality. All patients were adult and tested COVID-19 PCR-positive. Model discrimination and calibration were assessed. Results: The C-statistic of the 4C mortality score was good in the Lombardy cohort (0.85, 95CI: 0.82−0.89) and in the Leiden cohort (0.87, 95CI: 0.80−0.94). Model calibration was acceptable in the Lombardy cohort but poor in the Leiden cohort due to the model systematically overpredicting the mortality risk for all patients. The C-statistic of the CURB-65 score was good in the Lombardy cohort (0.80, 95CI: 0.75−0.85) and in the Leiden cohort (0.82, 95CI: 0.76−0.88). The mortality rate in the CURB-65 development cohort was much lower than the mortality rate in the Lombardy cohort. A similar but less pronounced trend was found for patients in the Leiden cohort. Conclusion: Although performances did not differ greatly, the 4C mortality score showed the best performance. However, because of quickly changing circumstances, model recalibration may be necessary before using the 4C mortality score