MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2586751572 · doi:10.1182/blood.v118.21.198.198

Laboratory HIT Testing in Critically Ill Patients

2011· article· en· W2586751572 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Mark Crowther, Stéphan Langevin, Jamie L Cooper, Peter Dodek, John Muscedere, Martin Albert, Kosar Khwaja, Jim Kutsiogiannis, Geeta Mehta, James R. Klinger, Jan O. Friedrich, Marlies Ostermann, Gordon Guyatt, Nicole Zytaruk, Diane Heels‐Ansdell, Jo‐Ann I. Sheppard, Theodore E. Warkentin

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Établissements canadiensSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph's Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineThrombosisHeparinHeparin-induced thrombocytopeniaDeep veinCritically illLow molecular weight heparinVenous thrombosisComplete blood countInternal medicineSurgeryEmergency medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 198FN2 Introduction: Many critically ill patients are frequently suspected of having HIT because heparin exposure is nearly universal and up to 45% of medical-surgical ICU patients have a platelet count of less than 150 × 109. Methods: Our objectives were: (1) To estimate the incidence of suspected and objectively confirmed HIT; and (2) To evaluate whether a published clinical prediction rule (the 4T's score) reliably rules out HIT in ‘low risk' ICU patients. PROTECT was a multinational, concealed, stratified, randomized blinded trial enrolling medical-surgical critically ill patients to evaluate thromboprophylaxis with the low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin 5,000U daily vs unfractionated heparin (UFH) 5,000 twice daily on the primary outcome of proximal leg deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Patients were evaluated for HIT and included in this HITEC Substudy if 1) their platelet count decreased to less than 50 × 109/L, 2) if there was an otherwise unexplained platelet count decrease to less than 50% of the patient's baseline (defined as the value found on the first platelet count after ICU admission as long as the count is >100 × 109/L), or 3) if venous thrombosis occurred, and 4) if HIT was otherwise suspected. There were 2 laboratory components to HIT testing (local and central). For local real-time clinical care, HIT was evaluated and treated as per local practice. Centrally, blood samples were analyzed at the laboratory of Dr Ted Warkentin at McMaster University. The 4Ts Score was completed by Research Coordinators (RCs) and by central adjudication. We defined HIT as a clinical suspicion of HIT and a positive serotonin release assay (SRA). Results: The PROTECT trial enrolled 3746 patients of whom 763 patients (397 allocated to UFH and 366 to LMWH) met HITEC enrollment criteria; 151 because of an absolute platelet count of less than 50×109, 253 because of a fall in their platelet count of greater than 50% from the time of ICU admission and 534 because venous thrombosis developed and 128 because of a clinical suspicion of HIT (categories are not mutually exclusive). Of these 763 patients, 475 had a central or local laboratory HIT test performed and were adjudicated. HIT was present in 15/3746 patients enrolled in the PROTECT study (0.4%, 95% CI 0.2% to 0.7%), and 15/475 (3.2%) with local or central testing, while 432 patients with RC 4Ts scores were matched to an adjudicated outcome. Using the 4Ts score, RCs and central adjudication classified patients as low risk (4Ts score of 3 or less) in 71.1% and 86.3% of cases, respectively, moderate risk (score or 4 or 5) in 25.7% and 12.0% of cases, and high risk (score of 6 or more) in 3.2% and 1.7% of cases. There was a good correlation between a low pretest probability according to the RCs' scores and the absence HIT (prevalence of adjudication confirmed HIT 1.6% (95% CI 0.5 to 3.7%).There was a moderate correlation between a low pretest probability according to central adjudication and the absence HIT (prevalence of adjudication confirmed HIT 2.6% (1.3 to 4.7%). Discussion: HIT occured in less than 1% of medical-surgical critically ill patients, and in 3% of patients who had at least one criterion to suspect HIT. We failed to confirm our pre-specified criteria for successful implementation of the 4T's score (that the upper boundary the 95% confidence interval about the proportion of patients with confirmed HIT and a low 4Ts score was less than 3%) and thus we conclude that use of the 4Ts score does not rule out the presence of platelet-activating antibodies in medical surgical critically ill patients with clinically suspected HIT; SRA testing is recommended. Funding: Canadian Institutes for Health Research and Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada Disclosures: Crowther: CSL Behring: Consultancy; Leo Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; BI: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Octapharm: Consultancy; Artisan: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Dalteparin is not indicated for prolonged DVT prophylaxis in medical intensive care unit patients. Zytaruk:Pfizer: donated study drug dalteparin for PROTECT. Cook:Pfizer: donated study drug dalteparin for PROTECT. Warkentin:GTI Diagnostics: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer Canada: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Speakers Bureau; Informa: Patents & Royalties; Canyon Pharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,009

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,243
Écart entre enseignants0,216 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2011
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→Travaux en français237 207→