Ethics research in critically ill patients

Barriers and challenges in the process of including critically ill patients in clinical studies

Background

Clinical research in severely ill or injured patients is required to improve healthcare but may be challenging to perform in practice. The aim of this study was to analyse barriers and challenges in the process of including critically ill patients in clinical studies.

Methods

Data from critically ill patients considered for inclusion in an observational study of venous thromboembolism in Norway were analysed. This included quantitative and qualitative information from the screening log, consent forms and research notes.

Results

Among 279 eligible critically ill patients, 204 (73%) were omitted from the study due to challenges and barriers in the inclusion process. Reasons for omission were categorised as practical in 133 (65%), medical in 31 (15%), and legal or ethical in 40 (20%) of the patients. Among 70 included patients, 29 (41%) consents were from patients and 41 (59%) from their next of kin. Several challenges were described herein; these included whether patients were competent to give consent, and which next of kin that should represent the patient. Furthermore, some included patients were unable to recall what they have consented, and some appeared unable to separate research from treatment.

Conclusions

Barriers and challenges in the inclusion process led to the omission of near three out of four eligible patients. This analysis provided information about where the problem resides and may be solved. The majority of challenges among included patients were related to issues of autonomy and validity of consent.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03405766).

Relationship of thromboelastography and conventional clotting test values with severe bleeding in critically ill patients with coagulopathy: A prospective study

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to ascertain the associations of thromboelastography (TEG^® ) and standard laboratory test (SLTs) values with the presence of bleeding in critically ill patients with known coagulopathy.

METHODS

Three groups of coagulopathic patients with (a) hepatic failure, (b) postoperative period after prolonged cardiac surgery, and (c) complex abdominal surgery with sepsis were prospectively included in this study. On intensive care unit (ICU) admission, patients were stratified into two groups according to whether they had major bleeding (MB) (evident overt bleeding, important bleeding apparent on imaging studies, and/or need for moderate-massive blood transfusion and hemodynamic instability). Blood samples were drawn for the SLTs (international normalized ratio [INR], activated partial thromboplastin time [aPTT], platelet count, and fibrinogen level [Clauss]) and TEG whole blood coagulation assays. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to determine the efficiency of TEG and SLTs for detecting bleeding. The correlations between SLTs and TEG parameters with similar coagulation profiles were evaluated by Spearman rank-order analysis.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients were included, and bleeding was confirmed in 45 (54%). The fibrinogen level demonstrated the best accuracy for detecting bleeding with an area under the curve and 95% confidence intervals [AUC (95% CI)] of 0.74 (0.63-0.85) with the best cutoff value of ≤ 2 g/L. Regarding TEG-MA, the AUC (CI) obtained with the optimal cutoff value of ≤ 51 mm was 0.68 (0.56-0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

Both conventional clotting tests and TEG values were poorly associated with bleeding in this critically ill cohort of patients with coagulopathy.

Reliability of the portable coagulometer qLabs to accurately measure the activated thromboplastin time and international normalized ratio: a prospective study in critically ill patients

: The current prospective study was aimed at investigating whether a portable coagulometer (qLabs) can be used to reliably monitor activated thromboplastin time (aPTT) and international normalized ratio (INR) in critically ill patients, as compared with standard central laboratory measurement. Both precision and accuracy of INR and aPTT measured by qLabs were assessed in this observational study by finger prick group (N = 30 patients) and blood droplet group from central venous catheter drawn (N = 60). For accuracy, clinical agreement percentage was ±0.3 for INR and ±10 s for aPTT. Precision of INR measurement in qLabs showed excellent intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC > 90%). Precision of aPTT measurement in qLabs was less acceptable for both finger prick [ICC: 0.70; Bland-Altman plot: 2.2 s (-19.8, 24.2)] and blood droplet [ICC: 0.50; Bland-Altman plot: 0.4 s (-70.9, 71.8)] groups. Accuracy of qLabs was acceptable for INR assessment (clinical agreement 90 and 81%, for finger prick and blood droplet groups, respectively), but not for aPTT (clinical agreement 55 and 68%, respectively). Accuracy of finger prick and blood droplet measurements in qLabs was better for INR and aPTT values near-to-normal (1.2 and 37 s, respectively). INR values from qLabs were consistent with the 'gold standard'. qLabs measurement is only reliable for aPTT values near-to-normal.

Evaluation and closure of the series on methodology in Intensive Care Medicine

The series of updates on methodology for research in critically ill patients has addressed the difficulties caused by the characteristics of patients of this kind, bioethics, the interpretation of results, and methodological error. New statistical methods for causality research, meta-analysis and big data analysis have also been described. The last update refers to the horizon for new research in the field of critical care. We close the series with the hope of having provided a global vision of the statistical methods oriented toward the future, with the aim of promoting statistical culture. In parallel, we have analyzed the evolution in complexity of the methodological analysis in the journal.