CVVHD results in longer filter life than pre-filter CVVH: Results of a quasi-randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Filter clotting is a major issue in continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) that interrupts treatment, reduces delivered effluent dose, and increases cost of care. While a number of variables are involved in filter life, treatment modality is an understudied factor. We hypothesized that filters in pre-filter continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) would have shorter lifespans than in continuous venovenous hemodialysis (CVVHD). METHODS: This was a single center, pragmatic, unblinded, quasi-randomized cluster trial conducted in critically ill adult patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI) at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC) between March 2020 and December 2020. Patients were quasi-randomized by time block to receive pre-filter CVVH (convection) or CVVHD (diffusion). The primary outcome was filter life, and secondary outcomes were number of filters used, number of filters reaching 72 hours, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, filter life in pre-filter CVVH was 79% of that observed in CVVHD (mean ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.97, p = 0.02). Median filter life (with interquartile range) in pre-filter CVVH was 21.8 (11.4-45.3) and was 26.6 (13.0-63.5) for CVVHD. In addition, 11.8% of filters in pre-filter CVVH were active for >72 hours, versus 21.2% in the CVVHD group. Finally, filter clotting accounted for the loss of 26.7% of filters in the CVVH group compared to 17.5% in the CVVHD group. There were no differences in overall numbers of filters used or mortality between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically patients with severe AKI requiring CKRT, use of pre-filter CVVH resulted in significantly shorter filter life compared to CVVHD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04762524. Registered 02/21/21-Retroactively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04762524?cond=The+Impact+of+CRRT+Modality+on+Filter+Life&draw=2&rank=1.

Holistic thinking and risk-taking perceptions reduce risk-taking intentions: ethical, financial, and health/safety risks across genders and cultures

Holistic thinking involves four subconstructs: causality, contradiction, attention to the whole, and change. This holistic perspective varies across Eastern-Western cultures and genders. We theorize that holistic thinking reduces three domain-specific risk-taking behavioral intentions (ethical, financial, and health/safety) directly and indirectly through enhanced risk-taking attitudes. Our formative theoretical model treats the four subconstructs of holistic thinking as yoked antecedents and frames it in a proximal context of causes and consequences. We simultaneously explore the direct and indirect paths and test our model across cultures, genders, and the combination of the two. For the entire sample (N=531), holistic thinking negatively relates to risk intentions via enhanced risk perceptions. Across cultures, the indirect paths prevail among Chinese people (n = 284), and both direct and indirect paths triumph for Americans (n = 247 ) . Across genders, the indirect paths exist for females, whereas the negative direct path (risk-raking attitudes -> behavioral intentions) succeeds for males. Across cultures and genders, holistic thinking negatively relates to American males' ethical risks the most but Chinese males' financial risks the least. Risk-taking perceptions are negatively related to Chinese males' ethical risks the most, but Chinese people's (males/females) financial risks the least. Causality and change are vital for all contexts, attention to the whole for all males and Chinese males, and contradiction for Americans and all females. Holistic thinking has limits and is less robust than risk-taking perceptions in reducing risky behavioral intentions. Our practical implications help people make ethical, healthy, and wealthy decisions.

Standard prophylactic versus intermediate dose enoxaparin in adults with severe COVID-19: A multi-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with coagulopathy but the optimal prophylactic anticoagulation therapy remains uncertain and may depend on COVID-19 severity. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes in hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19 treated with standard prophylactic versus intermediate dose enoxaparin. METHODS: We conducted a multi-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial comparing standard prophylactic dose versus intermediate dose enoxaparin in adults who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) and/or had laboratory evidence of coagulopathy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard prophylactic dose enoxaparin or intermediate weight-adjusted dose enoxaparin. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included arterial or venous thromboembolism and major bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients (99 males and 77 females) underwent randomization. In the intention-to-treat population, all-cause mortality at 30 days was 15% for intermediate dose enoxaparin and 21% for standard prophylactic dose enoxaparin (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-1.45; P = .31 by Chi-square test). Unadjusted Cox proportional hazards modeling demonstrated no significant difference in mortality between intermediate and standard dose enoxaparin (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-1.37; P = .28). Arterial or venous thrombosis occurred in 13% of patients assigned to intermediate dose enoxaparin and 9% of patients assigned to standard dose enoxaparin. Major bleeding occurred in 2% of patients in each arm. CONCLUSION: In hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19, standard prophylactic dose and intermediate dose enoxaparin did not differ significantly in preventing death or thrombosis at 30 days.