Schmoch Thomas, Brenner Thorsten, Becker-Pennrich Andrea, Hinske Ludwig Christian, Weigand Markus A, Briegel Josef, Möhnle Patrick
Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
Klinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Deutschland.
Anaesthesist. 2021 Aug;70(8):662-670. doi: 10.1007/s00101-021-00916-9. Epub 2021 Feb 8.
In the context of sepsis and septic shock, coagulopathy often occurs due to the close relationship between coagulation and inflammation. Sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) is the most severe and potentially fatal form. Anticoagulants used in prophylactic or therapeutic doses are discussed to potentially exert beneficial effects in patients with sepsis and/or SIC; however, due to the lack of evidence recent guidelines are limited to recommendations for drug prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE), while treatment of SIC has not been addressed.
In order to determine the status quo of VTE prophylaxis as well as treatment of SIC in German intensive care units (ICU), we conducted a Germany-wide online survey among heads of ICUs from October 2019 to May 2020. In April 2020, the survey was supplemented by an additional block of questions on VTE prophylaxis and SIC treatment in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.
A total of 67 senior doctors took part in the survey. The majority (n = 50; 74.6%) of the responses were from ICU under the direction of an anesthesiologist and/or a department of anesthesiology. Most of the participants worked either at a university hospital (n = 31; 47.8%) or an academic teaching hospital (n = 27; 40.3%). The survey results show a pronounced heterogeneity in clinical practice with respect to the prophylaxis of VTE as well as SIC treatment. In an exemplary case of pneumogenic sepsis, low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) were by far the most frequently mentioned group of medications (n = 51; 76.1% of the responding ITS). In the majority of cases (n = 43; 64.2%), anti-FXa activity is not monitored with the use of LMWH in prophylaxis doses. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) was listed as a strategy for VTE prophylaxis in 37.3% of the responses (n = 25). In an exemplary case of abdominal sepsis 54.5% of the participants (n = 36; multiple answers possible) stated the use of UFH or LMWH and UFH with dosage controlled by PTT is used on two participating ICUs. The anti-FXa activity under prophylactic anticoagulation with LMWH is monitored in 7 participating clinics (10.6%) in abdominal sepsis. Systematic screening for sepsis-associated coagulation disorders does not take place in most hospitals and patterns in the use of anticoagulants show significant variability between ICUs. In the case of COVID-19 patients, it is particularly noticeable that in three quarters of the participating ICUs the practice of drug-based VTE prophylaxis and SIC treatment does not differ from that of non-COVID-19 patients.
The heterogeneity of answers collected in the survey suggests that a systematic approach to this topic via clinical trials is urgently needed to underline individualized patient care with the necessary evidence.
在脓毒症和脓毒性休克的背景下,由于凝血与炎症之间的密切关系,凝血病经常发生。脓毒症诱导的凝血病(SIC)是最严重且可能致命的形式。讨论了以预防或治疗剂量使用抗凝剂可能对脓毒症和/或SIC患者产生有益效果;然而,由于缺乏证据,最近的指南仅限于对静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)进行药物预防的建议,而未涉及SIC的治疗。
为了确定德国重症监护病房(ICU)中VTE预防以及SIC治疗的现状,我们在2019年10月至2020年5月期间对德国各地的ICU负责人进行了一项在线调查。2020年4月,该调查补充了关于2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)患者VTE预防和SIC治疗的另一组问题。
共有67位高级医生参与了调查。大多数回复(n = 50;74.6%)来自麻醉医生和/或麻醉科指导下的ICU。大多数参与者在大学医院(n = 31;47.8%)或学术教学医院(n = 27;40.3%)工作。调查结果显示,在VTE预防以及SIC治疗的临床实践中存在明显的异质性。在一个典型的肺源性脓毒症病例中,低分子量肝素(LMWH)是迄今为止最常被提及的药物组(n = 51;占回复的ICU的76.1%)。在大多数情况下(n = 43;64.2%),预防性剂量使用LMWH时未监测抗FXa活性。普通肝素(UFH)在37.3%的回复(n = 25)中被列为VTE预防策略。在一个典型的腹部脓毒症病例中,54.5%的参与者(n = 36;可能有多个答案)表示使用UFH或LMWH,两个参与的ICU使用PTT控制剂量的UFH。在7个参与的诊所(10.6%)对腹部脓毒症患者进行LMWH预防性抗凝时监测抗FXa活性。大多数医院未对脓毒症相关凝血病进行系统筛查,ICU之间抗凝剂的使用模式存在显著差异。在COVID-19患者中,特别值得注意的是,四分之三的参与ICU基于药物的VTE预防和SIC治疗实践与非COVID-19患者没有差异。
调查收集的答案的异质性表明,迫切需要通过临床试验对该主题采取系统方法,以用必要的证据强调个体化患者护理。