MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Biological Rational for the Use of Heparin in Septic Shock: Translational Data from the Halo Pilot RCT

2015· article· en· W2587878856 on OpenAlexaff
Brett L. Houston, Dhruva J. Dwivedi, Peter M. Grin, Michelle Kwong, Enrico Rullo, Momina Khan, Senay Asma, Guillaume Paré, Patricia C. Liaw, Ryan Zarychanski, Alison Fox‐Robichaud

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research InstituteMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSeptic shockHeparinSepsisInternal medicineGastroenterologyPopulationSurgeryImmunologyAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a leading cause of mortality among critically ill patients and is associated with both systemic inflammation and up-regulation of coagulation. In the translational sub-study of the HALO (Heparin AnticoaguLation to improve Outcomes in septic shock) pilot trial, we evaluated the mechanisms by which unfractionated heparin (UFH) may reduce inflammation and coagulation in patients with septic shock. METHODS: In this multicenter pilot randomized trial of 69 patients diagnosed with septic shock, we evaluated the feasibility of administering therapeutic dose intravenous UFH (18 IU/kg/hr) compared to thromboprophylactic subcutaneous dalteparin (5000 IU daily). Blood samples were collected on days 1 (baseline prior to study infusion), 2, 3, 5, and 7. We evaluated coagulation using assays for protein C, activated protein C, thrombin-antithrombin (TAT), thrombin generation, clot lysis, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) and cell-free DNA (cf-DNA). Systematic inflammation was evaluated by measuring inflammatory cytokines (interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, IL-10, and IL-17). RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 61 years, of whom 43% were male. Thirty two patients (46%) were randomized to receive unfractionated heparin while 37 (54%) received dalteparin. The baseline mean aggregate Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score was 25 ± 7.8, and Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score (MODS) 5.6 ± 2.38. Baseline laboratory testing (coagulation assays and inflammatory cytokines) was not statistically different between UFH vs. LMWH treated patients. On day 2, the median clot lysis time in UFH-treated patients compared to those receiving dalteparin was significantly decreased [6630 (IQR 0 - 14156) seconds vs. 9615 (IQR 8209 - 11018) seconds; p = 0.008] (Figure 1). UFH administration was associated with increased protein C levels [66.4% of normal (IQR 9.9 - 122.9) vs. 41.1% of normal (IQR 4.8 - 77.4); p = 0.02], and reduced thrombin generation of 0 (IQR 0 - 1725) units/min vs. 3393 (IQR 0 - 8519) units/min; p<0.001]. On day 2, we observed no differences between thrombin-antithrombin complex (TAT), activated protein C, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) or cell-free DNA (cf-DNA). Similarly, there were no differences between treatment groups in inflammatory markers, including IL-6, IL-8, IL-10 or IL-17. Analysis thus far is limited to samples collected on days 1 and 2; day 3-7 analyses are ongoing. CONCLUSION: In patients diagnosed with septic shock, IV UFH reduces thrombin generation, shortens clot lysis time and improves endogenous protein C levels compared to dalteparin administered for thromboprophylaxis. Analyses for samples obtained on days 3, 5 and 7 are ongoing. These preliminary data provide a biologic rational for the use of heparin in sepsis. Figure 1. Differences in clot lysis, protein C and thrombin generation in patients treated with UFH vs. LMWH. UFH is associated with reduced thrombin generation, improved Protein C levels, and reduced clot lysis time. Figure 1. Differences in clot lysis, protein C and thrombin generation in patients treated with UFH vs. LMWH. UFH is associated with reduced thrombin generation, improved Protein C levels, and reduced clot lysis time. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.636
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→