Bleeding during critical illness: A prospective cohort study using a new measurement tool

Donald M. Arnold, Laura Donahoe, France J. Clarke, Andrea J. Tkaczyk, Diane Heels-Ansdell, Nicole Zytaruk, Richard Cook, Kathryn E. Webert, Ellen McDonald, Deborah J. Cook

Abstract


Purpose: To estimate the incidence, severity, duration and consequences of bleeding during critical illness, and to test the performance characteristics of a new bleeding assessment tool.

Methods: Clinical bleeding assessments were performed prospectively on 100 consecutive patients admitted to a medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) using a novel bleeding measurement tool called HEmorrhage MEasurement (HEME). Bleeding assessments were done daily in duplicate and independently by blinded, trained assessors. Inter-rater agreement and construct validity of the HEME tool were calculated using φ. Risk factors for major bleeding were identified using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model.

Results: Overall, 90% of patients experienced a total of 480 bleeds of which 94.8% were minor and 5.2% were major. Inter-rater reliability of the HEME tool was excellent (φ = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96 to 0.99). A decrease in platelet count and a prolongation of partial thromboplastin time were independent risk factors for major bleeding but neither were renal failure nor prophylactic anticoagulation. Patients with major bleeding received more blood transfusions and had longer ICU stays compared to patients with minor or no bleeding.

Conclusions: Bleeding, although primarily minor, occurred in the majority of ICU patients. One of five patients experienced a major bleed which was associated with abnormal coagulation tests but not with prophylactic anticoagulants. These baseline bleeding rates can inform the design of future clinical trials in critical care that use bleeding as an outcome and HEME is a useful tool to measure bleeding in critically ill patients.

Full Text:

PDF


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25011/cim.v30i2.985

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.

Comments on this article

View all comments


© 2007-2017 Canadian Society for Clinical Investigation.
C.I.M. provides open access to all of its content 6 months after the date of publication