RESUMO
Rationale: Enteral nutrition is beneficial for stroke patients with oral intake difficulties. However, it is time consuming and may interfere with routine medical care. Therefore, there is a clinical benefit if enteral nutrition can be safely administered in a short time. Although our retrospective study showed the safety of rapid administration, it remains unclear whether rapid administration of enteral nutrition is as safe as conventional administration. Aim: The randomized study of Enteral Nutrition with Rapid versus conventional administration in acute stroke patients (Rapid EN trial) aims to clarify the safety of rapid feeding of enteral nutrition compared with conventional feeding. Methods and design: This is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end-point clinical trial. Eligible criteria include acute stroke patients who have difficulty with oral intake defined as severe altered consciousness (Japan Coma Scale 10-300) or modified water swallowing test <4. The target enrollment is 700 patients, with 350 patients receiving rapid enteral nutrition at a rate of 100 mL in 5 min (Rapid EN group) and 350 patients receiving conventional enteral nutrition at a rate of 100 mL in 30 min (Conventional EN group). Study outcome: The primary outcome is the incidence of one or more complications of vomiting or diarrhea or pneumonia within 7 days would be non-inferior in the rapid EN group compared to the conventional EN group. Secondary outcomes were total time spent on enteral nutrition within 7 days from enteral nutrition, the incidence of vomiting, diarrhea and pneumonia within 3 or 7 days, and the rate of favorable clinical outcome. Discussion: Since no previous reports have focused on the speed of administration, we felt it was necessary to prove the safety of rapid administration. If this study shows positive results, it will not only benefit patients, but also reduce the burden of medical care. We believe this study is novel and will be useful in clinical practice. Clinical trial registration: https://rctportal.niph.go.jp/s/detail/um?trial_id=UMIN000046610 Identifier UMIN000046610.
RESUMO
Antithrombin deficiency is a high-risk factor for venous thromboembolism during pregnancy, whereas cerebral venous thrombosis is rare. Cerebral venous thrombosis related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines has been reported; however, there are a few reports of cerebral venous thrombosis after a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination. A 25-year-old female in her sixth week of pregnancy presented with headache 24 days after BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. The following day, she presented with altered sensorium and was diagnosed with severe cerebral venous thrombosis. She demonstrated heparin resistance and was found to have an inherited antithrombin deficiency. A heterozygous missense variant in SERPINC1 (c.379T>C, p.Cys127Arg, 'AT Morioka') was detected by DNA analysis. Despite intensive care with unfractionated heparin, antithrombin concentrate, and repeated endovascular treatments, she died on the sixth day of hospitalization. Cerebral venous thrombosis in pregnant women with an antithrombin deficiency can follow a rapid and fatal course. Treatment with unfractionated heparin and antithrombin concentrate may be ineffective in severe cerebral venous thrombosis cases with antithrombin deficiency. Early recognition of antithrombin deficiency and an immediate switch to other anticoagulants may be required. Although the association between cerebral venous thrombosis and the vaccine is uncertain, COVID-19 vaccinations may require careful evaluation for patients with prothrombic factors.
