Suppr超能文献

不同药物预防方案在严重烧伤患者中的安全性和疗效比较:一项随机对照试验。

Comparison of the safety and efficacy for different regimens of pharmaco-prophylaxis among severely burned patients: a randomized controlled trial.

机构信息

Pharmaceutical Care Department, King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC) - Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs (MNGHA), King Abdullah International Medical Research Center/King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, PO Box 22490, 11426, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

College of Pharmacy, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

出版信息

Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2024 Apr;50(2):567-579. doi: 10.1007/s00068-024-02443-9. Epub 2024 Jan 19.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in critically ill patients, including severe burn cases. Burn patients respond differently to medications due to pharmacokinetic changes. This study aims to assess the feasibility and safety of different VTE pharmaco-prophylaxis in patients admitted to the ICU with severe burns.

METHODS

A pilot, open-label randomized controlled trial was conducted on ICU patients with severe burns (BSA ≥ 20%). By using block randomization, patients were allocated to receive high-dose enoxaparin 30 mg q12hours (E30q12), standard-dose enoxaparin 40 mg q24hours (E40q24), or unfractionated heparin (UFH) 5000 Units q8hours. In this study, the primary outcomes assessed were the recruitment and consent rates, as well as bleeding or hematoma at both the donor and graft site. Additionally, secondary measures were evaluated to provide further insights.

RESULTS

Twenty adult patients out of 114 screened were enrolled and received E30q12 (40%), E40q24 (30%), and UFH (30%). The recruitment rate was one patient per month with a 100% consent rate. Donor site bleeding occurred in one patient (16.7%) in the UFH group. On the other hand, graft site bleeding was only reported in one patient (12.5%) who received E30q12. Major bleeding happened in two patients, one in E30q12 and one in the UFH group. Five patients (25.0%) had minor bleeding; two patients (25.0%) received E30q12, two patients E40q24, and one patient UFH. RBC transfusion was needed in four patients, two on E30q12 and two on UFH. Only one patient had VTE, while four patients died in the hospital.

CONCLUSION

The study observed a low recruitment rate but a high consent rate. Furthermore, there were no major safety concerns identified with any of the three pharmacologic prophylaxis regimens that were evaluated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05237726.

摘要

目的

静脉血栓栓塞症(VTE)是危重症患者的常见并发症,包括严重烧伤患者。由于药代动力学的变化,烧伤患者对药物的反应不同。本研究旨在评估不同 VTE 药物预防方案在 ICU 收治的严重烧伤患者中的可行性和安全性。

方法

对 ICU 收治的严重烧伤(BSA≥20%)患者进行了一项试点、开放标签、随机对照试验。采用区组随机化方法,将患者分配至接受高剂量依诺肝素 30mg q12h(E30q12)、标准剂量依诺肝素 40mg q24h(E40q24)或未分级肝素(UFH)5000 单位 q8h。本研究的主要结局评估是招募和同意率,以及供区和移植物部位的出血或血肿。此外,还评估了次要措施以提供进一步的见解。

结果

在筛选出的 114 例患者中,有 20 例成年患者入组并接受了 E30q12(40%)、E40q24(30%)和 UFH(30%)治疗。招募率为每月 1 例,同意率为 100%。UFH 组有 1 例患者(16.7%)发生供区出血。另一方面,仅在接受 E30q12 的 1 例患者(12.5%)中报告了移植物部位出血。2 例患者(12.5%)发生大出血,1 例在 E30q12 组,1 例在 UFH 组。5 例患者(25.0%)发生轻微出血;2 例患者(25.0%)接受 E30q12,2 例患者接受 E40q24,1 例患者接受 UFH。4 例患者需要输血,2 例在 E30q12 组,2 例在 UFH 组。只有 1 例患者发生 VTE,4 例患者在住院期间死亡。

结论

该研究观察到招募率较低,但同意率较高。此外,在所评估的三种药物预防方案中,均未发现重大安全性问题。

临床试验注册号

NCT05237726。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验