Saudi Critical Care Society clinical practice guidelines on the prevention of venous thromboembolism in adults with trauma: reviewed for evidence-based integrity and endorsed by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine.

BACKGROUND: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in adults with trauma in inpatient settings. METHODS: The Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) sponsored guidelines development and included 22 multidisciplinary panel members who completed conflict-of-interest forms. The panel developed and answered structured guidelines questions. For each question, the literature was searched for relevant studies. To summarize treatment effects, meta-analyses were conducted or updated. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then the evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework was used to generate recommendations. Recommendations covered the following prioritized domains: timing of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis initiation in non-operative blunt solid organ injuries; isolated blunt traumatic brain injury (TBI); isolated blunt spine trauma or fracture and/or spinal cord injury (SCI); type and dose of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis; mechanical VTE prophylaxis; routine duplex ultrasonography (US) surveillance; and inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs). RESULTS: The panel issued 12 clinical practice recommendations-one, a strong recommendation, 10 weak, and one with no recommendation due to insufficient evidence. The panel suggests starting early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis for non-operative blunt solid organ injuries, isolated blunt TBIs, and SCIs. The panel suggests using low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) over unfractionated heparin (UFH) and suggests either intermediate-high dose LMWH or conventional dosing LMWH. For adults with trauma who are not pharmacologic candidates, the panel strongly recommends using mechanical VTE prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC). The panel suggests using either combined VTE prophylaxis with mechanical and pharmacologic methods or pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis alone. Additionally, the panel suggests routine bilateral lower extremity US in adults with trauma with elevated risk of VTE who are ineligible for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis and suggests against the routine placement of prophylactic IVCFs. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue any recommendation on the use of early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in adults with isolated blunt TBI requiring neurosurgical intervention. CONCLUSION: The SCCS guidelines for VTE prevention in adults with trauma were based on the best available evidence and identified areas for further research. The framework may facilitate adaptation of recommendations by national/international guideline policymakers.

Saudi Critical Care Society clinical practice guidelines on the prevention of venous thromboembolism in adults with trauma: reviewed for evidence-based integrity and endorsed by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in adults with trauma in inpatient settings. The Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) sponsored guidelines development and included 22 multidisciplinary panel members who completed conflict-of-interest forms. The panel developed and answered structured guidelines questions. For each question, the literature was searched for relevant studies. To summarize treatment effects, meta-analyses were conducted or updated. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then the evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework was used to generate recommendations. Recommendations covered the following prioritized domains: timing of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis initiation in non-operative blunt solid organ injuries; isolated blunt traumatic brain injury (TBI); isolated blunt spine trauma or fracture and/or spinal cord injury (SCI); type and dose of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis; mechanical VTE prophylaxis; routine duplex ultrasonography (US) surveillance; and inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs). The panel issued 12 clinical practice recommendations­one, a strong recommendation, 10 weak, and one with no recommendation due to insufficient evidence. The panel suggests starting early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis for non-operative blunt solid organ injuries, isolated blunt TBIs, and SCIs. The panel suggests using low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) over unfractionated heparin (UFH) and suggests either intermediate­high dose LMWH or conventional dosing LMWH. For adults with trauma who are not pharmacologic candidates, the panel strongly recommends using mechanical VTE prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC). The panel suggests using either combined VTE prophylaxis with mechanical and pharmacologic methods or pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis alone. Additionally, the panel suggests routine bilateral lower extremity US in adults with trauma with elevated risk of VTE who are ineligible for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis and suggests against the routine placement of prophylactic IVCFs. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue any recommendation on the use of early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in adults with isolated blunt TBI requiring neurosurgical intervention. The SCCS guidelines for VTE prevention in adults with trauma were based on the best available evidence and identified areas for further research. The framework may facilitate adaptation of recommendations by national/international guideline policymakers.

Early Versus Delayed Coronary Angiography After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Without ST-Segment Elevation-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

The optimal timing of coronary angiography remains unclear following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) without ST elevation on electrocardiogram. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early angiography versus delayed angiography following OHCA without ST elevation. DATA SOURCES: The databases MEDLINE, PubMed EMBASE, and CINHAL, as well as unpublished sources from inception to March 9, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: A systematic search was performed for randomized controlled trials of adult patients after OHCA without ST elevation who were randomized to early as compared to delayed angiography. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers screened and abstracted data independently and in duplicate. The certainty of evidence was assessed for each outcome using the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The protocol was preregistered (CRD 42021292228). DATA SYNTHESIS: Six trials were included (n = 1,590 patients). Early angiography probably has no effect on mortality (relative risk [RR] 1.04; 95% CI 0.94-1.15; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on survival with good neurologic outcome (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.87-1.07; low certainty) or ICU length of stay (LOS) (mean difference 0.41 days fewer; 95% CI -1.3 to 0.5 d; low certainty). Early angiography has an uncertain effect on adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In OHCA patients without ST elevation, early angiography probably has no effect on mortality and may have no effect on survival with good neurologic outcome and ICU LOS. Early angiography has an uncertain effect on adverse events.

Pulmonary hypertension and associated outcomes in noncardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Some studies suggest that patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) may be at higher risk of complications and death after noncardiac surgery. However, the magnitude of these associations is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the associations between PH and adverse outcomes after noncardiac surgery. METHODS: We searched PUBMED and EMBASE for studies published from January 1970 to April 2022. We included studies that reported the association between PH and one or more outcomes of interest occurring after noncardiac surgery. Data were pooled using random-effects models and reported as summary odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Eighteen studies met eligibility criteria (n=18,214,760). PH was independently associated with mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.09; 95% CI, 1.51-2.90; I2=98%; 8 studies). PH was associated with a higher unadjusted risk of deep venous thrombosis (OR 4.02; 95% CI, 2.14-7.54; I2=85%; 3 studies), pulmonary embolism (OR 4.16; 95% CI, 3.23-5.36; I2=69%; 7 studies), myocardial infarction (OR 1.49; 95% CI, 1.44-1.54; I2=0%; 5 studies), congestive heart failure or cardiogenic shock (OR 3.37; 95% CI, 1.73-6.60; I2=34%; 5 studies), length of hospital stay (mean difference 1.97 days; 95% CI, 0.81-3.12; I2=99%; 5 studies), and delayed extubation (OR 5.98; 95% CI, 1.70-21.02; I2=3%; 3 studies). PH was associated with lower unadjusted risk of postoperative stroke (OR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.98; I2=0%; 3 studies). CONCLUSION: PH is a predictor of morbidity and mortality after noncardiac surgery. High quality studies are needed to determine effective strategies for reducing postoperative complications in this population.

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in patients with acute myocardial infarction - A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Although mineralocorticoid antagonists (MRAs) reduce mortality in patients with heart failure complicating myocardial infarction (MI), it is unclear if they could be beneficial to all patients with MI. To evaluate the utility of MRAs in MI patients, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from 1965 to June 2016. Conference abstracts were searched from 2000 to June 2016. Randomized trials evaluating the effect of MRA after MIs were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Data were combined using fixed-/random-effects models. RESULTS: Eleven randomized clinical trials (N = 11,258) were included; 1 trial (N = 6,642) included patients with apparent heart failure (Killip class III-IV). Administration of MRA versus placebo or standard therapy (no-MRA) after MI reduced overall and cardiovascular mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.73-0.93, P = .002, and OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71-0.93, P = .003, respectively; I2 for both = 0%). In the subgroup of trials with patients with heart failure, the mortality was 14.4% in MRA group versus 16.7% in no-MRA group (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.96), and among those without heart failure, it was 2.5% with MRA versus 3.5% without MRA (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51-1.02, P for interaction = .43). Patients receiving MRA had fewer new or worsening heart failure events (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.84, P < .0001; I2 = 14%). Nevertheless, MRA therapy increased risk for hyperkalemia (≥5.5 mmol/L) (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.36-4.65, P = .003; I2 = 63%). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of MRA may reduce mortality after acute MI. However, this is largely based on post-MI patients with heart failure. Further data are needed in MI patients without heart failure.