2004
DOI: 10.1378/chest.125.6.2206
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Extended Evaluation of Recombinant Human Activated Protein C United States Trial (ENHANCE US)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0
1

Year Published

2006
2006
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 144 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
16
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Despite confirmation of the results for severe sepsis patients with a high risk of death in the ENHANCE US trial, the absence of an effect of APC on mortality in patients with sepsis with a lower risk of death in the ADDRESS trial indicates that the currently employed APC therapeutic regimen has its limitations (49,50). Implementation of more aggressive APC dosing regimen to increase its therapeutic efficacy is hampered by a low but significant increase in serious bleeding events associated with administration of APC for sepsis (18,51).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite confirmation of the results for severe sepsis patients with a high risk of death in the ENHANCE US trial, the absence of an effect of APC on mortality in patients with sepsis with a lower risk of death in the ADDRESS trial indicates that the currently employed APC therapeutic regimen has its limitations (49,50). Implementation of more aggressive APC dosing regimen to increase its therapeutic efficacy is hampered by a low but significant increase in serious bleeding events associated with administration of APC for sepsis (18,51).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A 36-hour window was allowed to establish a clinical diagnosis of sepsis, obtain the necessary written informed consent from the patients and randomize the patients. The diagnosis of sepsis was made on the basis of the criteria previously defined by Bone et al [24] and as modified by Bernard et al [25]. The following were considered exclusion criteria: severe sepsis (sepsis associated with at least one organ failure) and septic shock (sepsis associated with hypotension despite adequate fluid resuscitation) at baseline, a clinical diagnosis of sepsis for more than 36 hours, pregnancy or breastfeeding, patients younger than 18 years of age, significant limitation of survival prognosis (patients expecting with a life survival expectancy less than 28 days because of a chronic and/or incurable disease such as uncontrolled cancer or other terminal disease), preexisting chronic renal insufficiency and need of hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, body mass index (BMI) ≄ 29, acute pancreatitis without established origin, participation in other clinical trials less than 6 months before this trial, head trauma with a Glasgow Coma Scale score ≀ 5, recent stroke or subarachnoid hemorrhage (less than 3 months), severe immunologic suppression (defined as a leukocyte count below 5,000 cells/mm 3 ), HIV infection, no indication for enteral feeding or imminent need for parenteral nutrition, partial parenteral nutrition to achieve caloric goals, presence of uncontrolled diarrhea, recent gastrointestinal bleeding, physician's decision to exclude patients on the basis of the study protocol, or the presence of respiratory failure (defined as evidence of acute pulmonary dysfunction with a ratio of partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio) < 300 and, if measured, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure not suggestive of central volume overload).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One would then expect sepsis therapies to have differential success depending on the primary site of infection, which has been confirmed clinically (Bernard et al 2001). Adding to the difficulty is that timing of therapy is critical in a rapidly evolving disease, also eloquently demonstrated in sepsis (Rivers et al 2001; Bernard et al 2004). Unfortunately, time zero of an infection is truly not known in a typical patient, in contrast to an animal experiment.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%