Thomas Schmoch1,2, Thorsten Brenner3, Andrea Becker-Pennrich4, Ludwig Christian Hinske4,5, Markus A Weigand6, Josef Briegel4, Patrick Möhnle4. 1. Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland. thomas.schmoch@uk-essen.de. 2. Klinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Deutschland. thomas.schmoch@uk-essen.de. 3. Klinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Deutschland. 4. Klinik für Anästhesiologie und Abteilung für Transfusionsmedizin, Zelltherapeutika und Hämostaseologie, LMU Klinikum München, München, Deutschland. 5. Institut für medizinische Informationsverarbeitung, Biometrie und Epidemiologie, LMU München, München, Deutschland. 6. Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
Authors: Stavros K Kakkos; Joseph A Caprini; George Geroulakos; Andrew N Nicolaides; Gerard Stansby; Daniel J Reddy; Ioannis Ntouvas Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-09-07
Authors: Adam Flaczyk; Rachel P Rosovsky; Clay T Reed; Brittany K Bankhead-Kendall; Edward A Bittner; Marvin G Chang Journal: Crit Care Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 9.097