Search

Failure to recognize the presence of competing risk or to account for it may result in misleading conclusions. We aimed to perform a competing risk analysis to assess the efficacy of the low molecular weight heparin dalteparin versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) in venous thromboembolism (VTE) in medical-surgical critically ill patients, taking death as a competing risk.This was a secondary analysis of a prospective randomized study of the Prophylaxis for Thromboembolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT) database. A total of 3746 medical-surgical critically ill patients from 67 intensive care units (ICUs) in 6 countries receiving either subcutaneous UFH 5000 IU twice daily (n = 1873) or dalteparin 5000 IU once daily plus once-daily placebo (n = 1873) were included for analysis.A total of 205 incident proximal leg deep vein thromboses (PLDVT) were reported during follow-up, among which 96 were in the dalteparin group and 109 were in the UFH group. No significant treatment effect of dalteparin on PLDVT compared with UFH was observed in either the competing risk analysis or standard survival analysis (also known as cause-specific analysis) using multivariable models adjusted for APACHE II score, history of VTE, need for vasopressors, and end-stage renal disease: sub-hazard ratio (SHR) = 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70-1.21, P-value = 0.56 for the competing risk analysis; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.68-1.23, P-value = 0.57 for cause-specific analysis. Dalteparin was associated with a significant reduction in risk of pulmonary embolism (PE): SHR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.31-0.94, P-value = 0.02 for the competing risk analysis; HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.30-0.88, P-value = 0.01 for the cause-specific analysis. Two additional sensitivity analyses using the treatment variable as a time-dependent covariate and using as-treated and per-protocol approaches demonstrated similar findings.This competing risk analysis yields no significant treatment effect on PLDVT but a superior effect of dalteparin on PE compared with UFH in medical-surgical critically ill patients. The findings from the competing risk method are in accordance with results from the cause-specific analysis.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182143.

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of critical illness with important clinical consequences. The Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT) is a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of the two most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, in medical-surgical patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). E-PROTECT is a prospective and concurrent economic evaluation of the PROTECT trial., Methods/design: The primary objective of E-PROTECT is to identify and quantify the total (direct and indirect, variable and fixed) costs associated with the management of critically ill patients participating in the PROTECT trial, and, to combine costs and outcome results to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH versus UFH, from the acute healthcare system perspective, over a data-rich time horizon of ICU admission and hospital admission. We derive baseline characteristics and probabilities of in-ICU and in-hospital events from all enrolled patients. Total costs are derived from centers, proportional to the numbers of patients enrolled in each country. Direct costs include medication, physician and other personnel costs, diagnostic radiology and laboratory testing, operative and non-operative procedures, costs associated with bleeding, transfusions and treatment-related complications. Indirect costs include ICU and hospital ward overhead costs. Outcomes are the ratio of incremental costs per incremental effects of LMWH versus UFH during hospitalization; incremental cost to prevent a thrombosis at any site (primary outcome); incremental cost to prevent a pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, major bleeding event or episode of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (secondary outcomes) and incremental cost per life-year gained (tertiary outcome). Pre-specified subgroups and sensitivity analyses will be performed and confidence intervals for the estimates of incremental cost-effectiveness will be obtained using bootstrapping., Discussion: This economic evaluation employs a prospective costing methodology concurrent with a randomized controlled blinded clinical trial, with a pre-specified analytic plan, outcome measures, subgroup and sensitivity analyses. This economic evaluation has received only peer-reviewed funding and funders will not play a role in the generation, analysis or decision to submit the manuscripts for publication., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182143 . Date of registration: 10 September 2005.

Importance: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of acute illness, and its prevention is a ubiquitous aspect of inpatient care. A multicenter blinded, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of the most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, finding no difference in the primary end point of leg deep-vein thrombosis but a reduced rate of pulmonary embolus and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia among critically ill medical-surgical patients who received dalteparin., Objective: To evaluate the comparative cost-effectiveness of LMWH vs UFH for prophylaxis against VTE in critically ill patients., Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective economic evaluation concurrent with the Prophylaxis for Thromboembolism in Critical Care Randomized Trial (May 2006 to June 2010). The economic evaluation adopted a health care payer perspective and in-hospital time horizon; derived baseline characteristics and probabilities of intensive care unit and in-hospital events; and measured costs among 2344 patients in 23 centers in 5 countries and applied these costs to measured resource use and effects of all enrolled patients., Main Outcomes and Measures: Costs, effects, incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH vs UFH during the period of hospitalization, and sensitivity analyses across cost ranges., Results: Hospital costs per patient were $39,508 (interquartile range [IQR], $24,676 to $71,431) for 1862 patients who received LMWH compared with $40,805 (IQR, $24,393 to $76,139) for 1862 patients who received UFH (incremental cost, -$1297 [IQR, -$4398 to $1404]; P = .41). In 78% of simulations, a strategy using LMWH was most effective and least costly. In sensitivity analyses, a strategy using LMWH remained least costly unless the drug acquisition cost of dalteparin increased from $8 to $179 per dose and was consistent among higher- and lower-spending health care systems. There was no threshold at which lowering the acquisition cost of UFH favored prophylaxis with UFH., Conclusions and Relevance: From a health care payer perspective, the use of the LMWH dalteparin for VTE prophylaxis among critically ill medical-surgical patients was more effective and had similar or lower costs than the use of UFH. These findings were driven by lower rates of pulmonary embolus and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and corresponding lower overall use of resources with LMWH.

Background: Thrombocytopenia occurs in 20% to 45% of critically ill medical-surgical patients. The 4Ts heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) score (with 4 domains: Thrombocytopenia, Timing of thrombocytopenia, Thrombosis and oTher reason[s] for thrombocytopenia) might reliably identify patients at low risk for HIT. Interobserver agreement on 4Ts scoring is uncertain in this setting., Objective: To evaluate whether a published clinical prediction rule (the "4Ts score") reliably rules out HIT in "low-risk" intensive care unit (ICU) patients as assessed by research coordinators (who prospectively scored) and 2 adjudicators (who scored retrospectively) during an international heparin thromboprophylaxis trial (PROTECT, NCT00182143)., Methods: Of 3746 medical-surgical ICU patients in PROTECT, 794 met the enrollment criteria for this HIT substudy. Enrollment was predicated on one of the following occurring in ICU: platelets less than 50×10(9)/L, platelets decreased to 50% of ICU admission value (if admission value<100×10(9)/L), any venous thrombosis, or if HIT was otherwise clinically suspected. Independently, 4Ts scores were completed in real time by research coordinators blinded to study drug and laboratory HIT results, and retrospectively by 2 adjudicators blinded to study drug, laboratory HIT results, and research coordinators' scores; the adjudicators arrived at consensus in all cases. Of the 763 patients, 474 had a central or local laboratory HIT test performed and had 4Ts scoring by adjudicators; 432 were scored by trained research coordinators. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia was defined by a centrally performed positive serotonin release assay (SRA)., Results: Of the 474 patients with central adjudication, 407 (85.9%) had a 4Ts score of 3 or lower, conferring a low pretest probability (PTP) of HIT; of these, 6 (1.5% [95% confidence interval, 0.7%-3.2%) had a positive SRA. Fifty-nine (12.4%) had a moderate PTP (4Ts score of 4-5); of these, 4 (6.8%) had a positive SRA. Eight patients had a high PTP (4Ts score of ≥6); of these, 1 (12.5%) had a positive SRA. Raw agreement between research coordinators and central adjudication on each domain of the 4Ts score and low, intermediate, and high PTP was good. However, chance-corrected agreement was variable between adjudicators (weighted κ values of 0.31-0.93) and between the adjudicator consensus and research coordinators (weighted κ values of 0.13 and 0.78). Post hoc review of the 6 SRA-positive cases with an adjudicated low PTP demonstrated that their scores would have been increased if the adjudicators had had additional information on heparin exposure prior to ICU admission. In general, the fourth domain of 4Ts (oTher causes of thrombocytopenia) generated the most disagreement., Conclusions: Real-time 4Ts scoring by research coordinators at the time of testing for HIT was not consistent with 4Ts scores obtained by central adjudicators. The results of this comprehensive HIT testing highlight the need for further research to improve the assessment of PTP scoring of HIT for critically ill patients., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Bleeding frequently complicates critical illness and may have serious consequences. Our objectives are to describe the predictors of major bleeding and the association between bleeding and mortality in medical-surgical critically ill patients receiving heparin thromboprophylaxis., Methods: We prospectively studied patients from 67 intensive care units and six countries enrolled in a thromboprophylaxis trial (NCT00182143) comparing dalteparin with unfractionated heparin. Patients with trauma, orthopedic surgery or neurosurgery were excluded. Trained research coordinators used a validated tool to document bleeding, which underwent duplicate independent blinded adjudication. Major bleeding was defined as hypovolemic shock, bleeding into critical sites, requiring an invasive intervention or transfusion of at least two units of red blood cells, or associated with hypotension or tachycardia in the absence of other causes. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to identify major bleeding predictors and the association between bleeding and mortality., Results: Among 3,746 patients, bleeding occurred in 208 [5.6 %, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 4.9-6.3 %]. Time-dependent predictors were prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time [hazard ratio (HR) 1.10, 1.05-1.14 per 10 s increase], lower platelet count (HR 1.16, 1.09-1.24 per 50 × 10(9)/L decrease), therapeutic heparin (HR 3.26, 1.72-6.17), antiplatelet agents (HR 1.38, 1.02-1.88), renal replacement therapy (HR 1.75, 1.20-2.56), and recent surgery (HR 1.64, 1.01-2.65). Type of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis was not associated with bleeding. Patients with bleeding had a higher risk of in-hospital death (HR 2.09, 1.69-2.57)., Conclusions: As major bleeding has modifiable risk factors and is associated with in-hospital mortality, strategies to mitigate these factors should be evaluated in critically ill patients.

Background: Thrombocytopenia is the most common hemostatic disorder in critically ill patients. The objective of this study was to describe the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of thrombocytopenia in patients admitted to medical-surgical ICUs., Methods: Three thousand seven hundred forty-six patients in 67 centers were enrolled in a randomized trial in which unfractionated heparin was compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for thromboprophylaxis. Patients who had baseline platelet counts < 75 × 10(9)/L or severe coagulopathy at screening were excluded. We analyzed the risk of developing mild (100-149 × 10(9)/L), moderate (50-99 × 10(9)/L), and severe (< 50 × 109/L) thrombocytopenia during an ICU stay. We also assessed independent and time-varying predictors of thrombocytopenia and the effect of thrombocytopenia on major bleeding, transfusions, and death., Results: The incidences of mild, moderate, and severe thrombocytopenia were 15.3%, 5.1%, and 1.6%, respectively. The predictors of each category of thrombocytopenia were APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) II score, use of inotropes or vasopressors, and renal replacement therapy. The risk of moderate thrombocytopenia was lower in patients who received LMWH thromboprophylaxis but higher in surgical patients and in patients who had liver disease. Each category of thrombocytopenia was associated with subsequent bleeding and transfusions. Moderate and severe thrombocytopenia were associated with increased ICU and hospital mortality., Conclusion: A high severity of illness, prior surgery, use of inotropes or vasopressors, renal replacement therapy, and liver dysfunction are associated with a higher risk of thrombocytopenia developing in the ICU, whereas LMWH thromboprophylaxis is associated with a lower risk. Patients who develop thrombocytopenia in the ICU are more likely to bleed, receive transfusions, and die.

Background: The effects of thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin, as compared with unfractionated heparin, on venous thromboembolism, bleeding, and other outcomes are uncertain in critically ill patients., Methods: In this multicenter trial, we tested the superiority of dalteparin over unfractionated heparin by randomly assigning 3764 patients to receive either subcutaneous dalteparin (at a dose of 5000 IU once daily) plus placebo once daily (for parallel-group twice-daily injections) or unfractionated heparin (at a dose of 5000 IU twice daily) while they were in the intensive care unit. The primary outcome, proximal leg deep-vein thrombosis, was diagnosed on compression ultrasonography performed within 2 days after admission, twice weekly, and as clinically indicated. Additional testing for venous thromboembolism was performed as clinically indicated. Data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle., Results: There was no significant between-group difference in the rate of proximal leg deep-vein thrombosis, which occurred in 96 of 1873 patients (5.1%) receiving dalteparin versus 109 of 1873 patients (5.8%) receiving unfractionated heparin (hazard ratio in the dalteparin group, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.23; P=0.57). The proportion of patients with pulmonary emboli was significantly lower with dalteparin (24 patients, 1.3%) than with unfractionated heparin (43 patients, 2.3%) (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.88; P=0.01). There was no significant between-group difference in the rates of major bleeding (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.34; P=0.98) or death in the hospital (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.05; P=0.21). In prespecified per-protocol analyses, the results were similar to those of the main analyses, but fewer patients receiving dalteparin had heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.98; P=0.046)., Conclusions: Among critically ill patients, dalteparin was not superior to unfractionated heparin in decreasing the incidence of proximal deep-vein thrombosis. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; PROTECT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00182143.).

Background: This article reports the preparatory studies as well as the design, implementation, and a priori analysis plans of PROphylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT) before dissemination of results. PROphylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial (NCT00182143) is a randomized, stratified, concealed international trial comparing subcutaneous injection of unfractionated heparin (UFH) 5000 IU or the low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin 5000 IU once daily plus once-daily placebo for the duration of the intensive care unit stay., Methods: The objective of PROTECT is to examine, among medical-surgical critically ill patients, the effect of the LMWH vs heparin on the primary outcome of proximal leg deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and the following secondary outcomes: DVT elsewhere, pulmonary embolism, any venous thromboembolism (DVT or pulmonary embolism), the composite of venous thromboembolism or death, bleeding, and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Patients are followed up to death or hospital discharge. Venous thromboembolism events were included after intensive care unit discharge. All patients, families, clinicians, research personnel, and the trial biostatistician are blind to allocation., Results: We describe the pilot work, large trial methodology, implementation methods, and the analytic plan. Patient recruitment is complete, but 2 patients remain in the hospital. The rigorous design of PROTECT suggests that the risk of systematic error will be low. The sample size suggests that the risk of random error will be low. PROTECT will be the largest investigator-initiated peer-review funded thromboprophylaxis trial in critical care in the world., Conclusions: If PROTECT shows that LMWH is more effective than UFH, this trial will change practice in that LMWH may be the anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis of choice for this population. If the results show that UFH is as effective or more effective than LMWH, intensivists in many parts of the world may continue to use UFH, whereas those currently using LMWH may reconsider and change to use UFH. Unfavorable consequences such as major bleeding, ease of use, and the costs of complications will also factor into such decisions., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: There is concern about excessive bleeding when low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are used for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in renal dysfunction. Our objective was to evaluate whether LMWH VTE prophylaxis was safe and effective in critically ill patients with renal dysfunction by conducting a subgroup analysis of PROTECT, a randomized blinded trial. Methods: We studied intensive care unit (ICU) patients with pre-ICU dialysis-dependent end-stage renal disease (ESRD; pre-specified subgroup; n = 118), or severe renal dysfunction at ICU admission (defined as ESRD or non-dialysis dependent with creatinine clearance [CrCl] <30 ml/min; post hoc subgroup; n = 590). We compared dalteparin, 5000 IU daily, with unfractionated heparin (UFH), 5000 IU twice daily, and considered outcomes of proximal leg deep vein thrombosis (DVT); pulmonary embolism (PE); any VTE; and major bleeding. Adjusted hazard ratios [HR] were calculated using Cox regression. Results: In patients with ESRD, there was no significant difference in DVT (8.3% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.76), any VTE (10.0% vs. 6.9%; p = 0.39) or major bleeding (5.0% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.32) between UFH and dalteparin. In patients with severe renal dysfunction, there was no significant difference in any VTE (10.0% vs. 6.4%; p = 0.07) or major bleeding (8.9% vs. 11.0%; p = 0.66) but an increase in DVT with dalteparin (7.6% vs. 3.7%; p = 0.04). Interaction p-values for comparisons of HRs (ESRD versus not) were non-significant. Conclusions: In critically ill patients with ESRD, or severe renal dysfunction, there was no significant difference in any VTE or major bleeding between UFH and dalteparin. Patients with severe renal dysfunction who received dalteparin had more proximal DVTs than those on UFH; this finding did not hold in patients with ESRD alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of critical illness with important clinical consequences. The Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT) is a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of the two most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, in medical-surgical patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). E-PROTECT is a prospective and concurrent economic evaluation of the PROTECT trial. Methods/Design The primary objective of E-PROTECT is to identify and quantify the total (direct and indirect, variable and fixed) costs associated with the management of critically ill patients participating in the PROTECT trial, and, to combine costs and outcome results to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH versus UFH, from the acute healthcare system perspective, over a data-rich time horizon of ICU admission and hospital admission. We derive baseline characteristics and probabilities of in-ICU and in-hospital events from all enrolled patients. Total costs are derived from centers, proportional to the numbers of patients enrolled in each country. Direct costs include medication, physician and other personnel costs, diagnostic radiology and laboratory testing, operative and non-operative procedures, costs associated with bleeding, transfusions and treatment-related complications. Indirect costs include ICU and hospital ward overhead costs. Outcomes are the ratio of incremental costs per incremental effects of LMWH versus UFH during hospitalization; incremental cost to prevent a thrombosis at any site (primary outcome); incremental cost to prevent a pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, major bleeding event or episode of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (secondary outcomes) and incremental cost per life-year gained (tertiary outcome). Pre-specified subgroups and sensitivity analyses will be performed and confidence intervals for the estimates of incremental cost-effectiveness will be obtained using bootstrapping. Discussion This economic evaluation employs a prospective costing methodology concurrent with a randomized controlled blinded clinical trial, with a pre-specified analytic plan, outcome measures, subgroup and sensitivity analyses. This economic evaluation has received only peer-reviewed funding and funders will not play a role in the generation, analysis or decision to submit the manuscripts for publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study on heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and the potential for therapy of dalteparin thromboprophylaxis in reducing HIT frequency in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The results show that dalteparin was associated with fewer study drug-attributable HIT-related events. The authors attribute this lowered risk for HIT in patients receiving dalteparin to decreased antibody formation and clinical breakthrough of HIT in patients forming antibodies.

Background: Successful completion of randomized trials depends upon efficiently and ethically screening patients and obtaining informed consent. Awareness of modifiable barriers to obtaining consent may inform ongoing and future trials. Objective: The objective of this study is to describe and examine determinants of consent rates in an international heparin thromboprophylaxis trial (Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial, clinicaltrials.gov NCT00182143). Design: Throughout the 4-year trial, research personnel approached eligible critically ill patients or their substitute decision makers for informed consent. Whether consent was obtained or declined was documented daily. Setting: The trial was conducted in 67 centers in 6 countries. Measurements and main results: A total of 3764 patients were randomized. The overall consent rate was 82.2% (range, 50%-100%) across participating centers. Consent was obtained from substitute decision makers and patients in 90.1% and 9.9% of cases, respectively. Five factors were independently associated with consent rates. Research coordinators with more experience achieved higher consent rates (odds ratio [OR], 3.43; 95% confidence interval, 2.42-4.86; P b .001 for those with N10 years of experience). Consent rates were higher in smaller intensive care units with less than 15 beds compared with intensive care units with 15 to 20 beds, 21 to 25 beds, and greater than 25 beds (all ORs, b0.5; P b .001) and were higher in centers with more than 1 full-time research staff (OR, 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.99; P b .001). Consent rates were lower in centers affiliated with the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group or the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group compared with other centers (OR, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.77; P b .001). Finally, consent rates were highest during the pilot trial, lowest during the initiation of the full trial, and increased over years of recruitment (P b .001). Conclusions: Characteristics of study centers, research infrastructure, and experience were important factors associated with successfully procuring informed consent to participate in this thromboprophylaxis trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To identify risk factors for failure of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients in the ICU. Design: Multivariable regression analysis of thrombosis predictors from a randomized thromboprophylaxis trial. Setting: Sixty-seven medical-surgical ICUs in six countries. Patients: Three thousand seven hundred forty-six medical-surgical critically ill patients. Interventions: All patients received anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin at standard doses. Measurements and Main Results: Independent predictors for venous thromboembolism, proximal leg deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism developing during critical illness were assessed. A total of 289 patients (7.7%) developed venous thromboembolism. Predictors of thromboprophylaxis failure as measured by development of venous thromboembolism included a personal or family history of venous thromboembolism (hazard ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.03-2.59; p = 0.04) and body mass index (hazard ratio, 1.18 per 10-point increase; 95% CI, 1.04-1.35; p = 0.01). Increasing body mass index was also a predictor for developing proximal leg deep vein thrombosis (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.06-1.46; p = 0.007), which occurred in 182 patients (4.9%). Pulmonary embolism occurred in 47 patients (1.3%) and was associated with body mass index (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.02-1.83; p = 0.035) and vasopressor use (hazard ratio, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.01-3.35; p = 0.046). Low-molecular-weight heparin (in comparison to unfractionated heparin) thromboprophylaxis lowered pulmonary embolism risk (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27-0.95; p = 0.034) while statin use in the preceding week lowered the risk of proximal leg deep vein thrombosis (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.77; p = 0.004). Conclusions: Failure of standard thromboprophylaxis using lowmolecular- weight heparin or unfractionated heparin is more likely in ICU patients with elevated body mass index, those with a personal or family history of venous thromboembolism, and those receiving vasopressors. Alternate management or incremental risk reduction strategies may be needed in such patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]