A cluster randomised, crossover, registry-embedded clinical trial of proton pump inhibitors versus histamine-2 receptor blockers for ulcer prophylaxis therapy in the intensive care unit (PEPTIC study): study protocol.

This article published in the September issue of Critical care and Resuscitation was produced by Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group on behalf of the PEPTIC investigators.

Background:  The balance of risks and benefits with using proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) versus histamine-2 receptor blockers (H2RB) for stress ulcer prophylaxis in patients who are invasively ventilated in the intensive care unit (ICU) is uncertain.

Objective:  To describe the study protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Proton Pump Inhibitors versus Histamine-2 Receptor Blockers for Ulcer Prophylaxis Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit (PEPTIC) study.

Design, setting and participants:  Protocol for a prospective, multicentre, randomised, open-label, cluster crossover, registry-embedded trial to be conducted in 50 ICUs in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The PEPTIC study will compare two approaches to stress ulcer prophylaxis in mechanically ventilated adults implemented at the level of the ICU. One approach is to use PPIs as the default therapy and the other approach is to use H2RBs as the default therapy when stress ulcer prophylaxis is prescribed. Each ICU, by random allocation, will use one approach for 6 months and will then switch to the opposite approach for the next 6 months. The PEPTIC study began recruitment in August 2016 and will complete recruitment in January 2019.

Main outcome measures:  The primary end point will be in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include clinically significant upper gastrointestinal bleeding, Clostridium difficile infection, ICU length of stay and hospital length of stay.

Results and conclusions:  The PEPTIC study will compare the effect on in-hospital mortality of implementing, at the level of the ICU, the use of PPI as the preferred agent for stress ulcer prophylaxis in mechanically ventilated adults in the ICU with using H2RB as the preferred agent.

The full text of this article is available freely three months after publication via this link.  Library members can order individual articles via the Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust Library and Knowledge Service using the article requests online via this link.

Advertisements

A Randomized Trial of a Family-Support Intervention in Intensive Care Units

This piece of experimental research by White and colleagues was published in the June 21st issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
Background:  Surrogate decision makers for incapacitated, critically ill patients often struggle with decisions related to goals of care. Such decisions cause psychological distress in surrogates and may lead to treatment that does not align with patients’ preferences.
Methods:  We conducted a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial involving patients with a high risk of death and their surrogates in five intensive care units (ICUs) to compare a multi-component family-support intervention delivered by the inter-professional ICU team with usual care. The primary outcome was the surrogates’ mean score on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at 6 months (scores range from 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms). Pre-specified secondary outcomes were the surrogates’ mean scores on the Impact of Event Scale (IES; scores range from 0 to 88, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms), the Quality of Communication (QOC) scale (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better clinician-family communication), and a modified Patient Perception of Patient Centeredness (PPPC) scale (scores range from 1 to 4, with lower scores indicating more patient- and family-centered care), as well as the mean length of ICU stay.
Results:  A total of 1420 patients were enrolled in the trial. There was no significant difference between the intervention group and the control group in the surrogates’ mean HADS score at 6 months (11.7 and 12.0, respectively; beta coefficient, -0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.67 to 0.99; P=0.61) or mean IES score (21.2 and 20.3; beta coefficient, 0.90; 95% CI, -1.66 to 3.47; P=0.49). The surrogates’ mean QOC score was better in the intervention group than in the control group (69.1 vs. 62.7; beta coefficient, 6.39; 95% CI, 2.57 to 10.20; P=0.001), as was the mean modified PPPC score (1.7 vs. 1.8; beta coefficient, -0.15; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.04; P=0.006). The mean length of stay in the ICU was shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (6.7 days vs. 7.4 days; incidence rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.00; P=0.045), a finding mediated by the shortened mean length of stay in the ICU among patients who died (4.4 days vs. 6.8 days; incidence rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.78; P<0.001).
Conclusions:  Among critically ill patients and their surrogates, a family-support intervention delivered by the inter-professional ICU team did not significantly affect the surrogates’ burden of psychological symptoms, but the surrogates’ ratings of the quality of communication and the patient- and family-centeredness of care were better and the length of stay in the ICU was shorter with the intervention than with usual care.
The printed copy of the New England Journal of Medicine is available in the Health Care Library on D Level of Rotherham Hospital.

A Randomized Trial of a Family-Support Intervention in Intensive Care Units.

This article was published online by the New England Journal of Medicine during May 2018.
Background:  Surrogate decision makers for incapacitated, critically ill patients often struggle with decisions related to goals of care. Such decisions cause psychological distress in surrogates and may lead to treatment that does not align with patients’ preferences.
Methods:  We conducted a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial involving patients with a high risk of death and their surrogates in five intensive care units (ICUs) to compare a multicomponent family-support intervention delivered by the interprofessional ICU team with usual care. The primary outcome was the surrogates’ mean score on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at 6 months (scores range from 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms). Prespecified secondary outcomes were the surrogates’ mean scores on the Impact of Event Scale (IES; scores range from 0 to 88, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms), the Quality of Communication (QOC) scale (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better clinician-family communication), and a modified Patient Perception of Patient Centeredness (PPPC) scale (scores range from 1 to 4, with lower scores indicating more patient- and family-centered care), as well as the mean length of ICU stay.
Results:   A total of 1420 patients were enrolled in the trial. There was no significant difference between the intervention group and the control group in the surrogates’ mean HADS score at 6 months (11.7 and 12.0, respectively; beta coefficient, -0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.67 to 0.99; P=0.61) or mean IES score (21.2 and 20.3; beta coefficient, 0.90; 95% CI, -1.66 to 3.47; P=0.49). The surrogates’ mean QOC score was better in the intervention group than in the control group (69.1 vs. 62.7; beta coefficient, 6.39; 95% CI, 2.57 to 10.20; P=0.001), as was the mean modified PPPC score (1.7 vs. 1.8; beta coefficient, -0.15; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.04; P=0.006). The mean length of stay in the ICU was shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (6.7 days vs. 7.4 days; incidence rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.00; P=0.045), a finding mediated by the shortened mean length of stay in the ICU among patients who died (4.4 days vs. 6.8 days; incidence rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.78; P<0.001).
Conclusions:  Among critically ill patients and their surrogates, a family-support intervention delivered by the interprofessional ICU team did not significantly affect the surrogates’ burden of psychological symptoms, but the surrogates’ ratings of the quality of communication and the patient- and family-centeredness of care were better and the length of stay in the ICU was shorter with the intervention than with usual care.
The print copy of this issue of “The New England Journal of Medicine” is available in the Healthcare Library on D Level of Rotherham General Hospital.

Effect of On-Demand vs Routine Nebulization of Acetylcysteine With Salbutamol on Ventilator-Free Days in Intensive Care Unit Patients Receiving Invasive Ventilation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

This research by van Meenen and colleagues was published in JAMA March 2018 volume 319 issue 10.
Importance:  It remains uncertain whether nebulization of mucolytics with bronchodilators should be applied for clinical indication or preventively in intensive care unit (ICU) patients receiving invasive ventilation.
Objective:  To determine if a strategy that uses nebulization for clinical indication (on-demand) is non-inferior to one that uses preventive (routine) nebulization.
Design, Setting, and Participants:  Randomized clinical trial enrolling adult patients expected to need invasive ventilation for more than 24 hours at 7 ICUs in the Netherlands.
Interventions:  On-demand nebulization of acetylcysteine or salbutamol (based on strict clinical indications, n = 471) or routine nebulization of acetylcysteine with salbutamol (every 6 hours until end of invasive ventilation, n = 473).
Main Outcomes and Measures:  The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days at day 28, with a non-inferiority margin for a difference between groups of -0.5 days. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, mortality rates, occurrence of pulmonary complications, and adverse events.
Results:  Nine hundred twenty-two patients (34% women; median age, 66 (interquartile range [IQR], 54-75 years) were enrolled and completed follow-up. At 28 days, patients in the on-demand group had a median 21 (IQR, 0-26) ventilator-free days, and patients in the routine group had a median 20 (IQR, 0-26) ventilator-free days (1-sided 95% CI, -0.00003 to ∞). There was no significant difference in length of stay or mortality, or in the proportion of patients developing pulmonary complications, between the 2 groups. Adverse events (13.8% vs 29.3%; difference, -15.5% [95% CI, -20.7% to -10.3%]; P #
The print copy of this issue JAMA is available in the Healthcare Library on D Level of Rotherham General Hospital.
The full text of the article will be available using a Rotherham NHS Athens password one month after publication via this link.

Balanced Crystalloids versus Saline in Critically Ill Adults

This research by Semler and colleagues, SMART Investigators and the Pragmatic Critical Care Research Group was published in the New England Journal of Medicine on 2nd March 2018.
Background:   Both balanced crystalloids and saline are used for intravenous fluid administration in critically ill adults, but it is not known which results in better clinical outcomhospital-834152_960_720es.
Methods:   In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover trial conducted in five intensive care units at an academic center, we assigned 15,802 adults to receive saline (0.9% sodium chloride) or balanced crystalloids (lactated Ringer’s solution or Plasma-Lyte A) according to the randomization of the unit to which they were admitted. The primary outcome was a major adverse kidney event within 30 days – a composite of death from any cause, new renal-replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction (defined as an elevation of the creatinine level to ≥200% of baseline) – all censored at hospital discharge or 30 days, whichever occurred first.
Results:   Among the 7942 patients in the balanced-crystalloids group, 1139 (14.3%) had a major adverse kidney event, as compared with 1211 of 7860 patients (15.4%) in the saline group (marginal odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 0.99; conditional odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.99; P=0.04). In-hospital mortality at 30 days was 10.3% in the balanced-crystalloids group and 11.1% in the saline group (P=0.06). The incidence of new renal-replacement therapy was 2.5% and 2.9%, respectively (P=0.08), and the incidence of persistent renal dysfunction was 6.4% and 6.6%, respectively (P=0.60).

Conclusions:   Among critically ill adults, the use of balanced crystalloids for intravenous fluid administration resulted in a lower rate of the composite outcome of death from any cause, new renal-replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction than the use of saline.
The print copy of this issue of “The New England Journal of Medicine” is available in the Healthcare Library on D Level of Rotherham General Hospital.

Effect of On-Demand vs Routine Nebulization of Acetylcysteine With Salbutamol on Ventilator-Free Days in Intensive Care Unit Patients Receiving Invasive Ventilation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

This research by van Meenen et al was published in JAMA in February 2018.
Importance:  It remains uncertain whether nebulization of mucolytics with bronchodilators should be applied for clinical indication or preventively in intensive care unit (ICU) patients receiving invasive ventilation.
Objective:  To determine if a strategy that uses nebulization for clinical indication (on-demand) is noninferior to one that uses preventive (routine) nebulization.
Design, Setting, and Participants:  Randomized clinical trial enrolling adult patients expected to need invasive ventilation for more than 24 hours at 7 ICUs in the Netherlands.
Interventions:  On-demand nebulization of acetylcysteine or salbutamol (based on strict clinical indications, n = 471) or routine nebulization of acetylcysteine with salbutamol (every 6 hours until end of invasive ventilation, n = 473).
Main Outcomes and Measures:  The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days at day 28, with a noninferiority margin for a difference between groups of -0.5 days. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, mortality rates, occurrence of pulmonary complications, and adverse events.
Results:  Nine hundred twenty-two patients (34% women; median age, 66 (interquartile range [IQR], 54-75 years) were enrolled and completed follow-up. At 28 days, patients in the on-demand group had a median 21 (IQR, 0-26) ventilator-free days, and patients in the routine group had a median 20 (IQR, 0-26) ventilator-free days (1-sided 95% CI, -0.00003 to ∞). There was no significant difference in length of stay or mortality, or in the proportion of patients developing pulmonary complications, between the 2 groups. Adverse events (13.8% vs 29.3%; difference, -15.5% [95% CI, -20.7% to -10.3%]; P < .001) were more frequent with routine nebulization and mainly related to tachyarrhythmia (12.5% vs 25.9%; difference, -13.4% [95% CI, -18.4% to -8.4%]; P < .001) and agitation (0.2% vs 4.3%; difference, -4.1% [95% CI, -5.9% to -2.2%]; P < .001).
Conclusions and Relevance:  Among ICU patients receiving invasive ventilation who were expected to not be extubated within 24 hours, on-demand compared with routine nebulization of acetylcysteine with salbutamol did not result in an inferior number of ventilator-free days. On-demand nebulization may be a reasonable alternative to routine nebulization.
The full text of this article is available via this link.  The print copy of this issue JAMA is available in the Healthcare Library on D Level of Rotherham General Hospital.

Critical Care Cycling Study (CYCLIST) trial protocol: a randomised controlled trial of usual care plus additional in-bed cycling sessions versus usual care in the critically ill

This article by Nickels and colleagues was published in BMJ Open during October 2017.  The full text of the article is available via this link.

Introduction:  In-bed cycling with patients with critical illness has been shown to be safe and feasicube-1002897_960_720ble, and improves physical function outcomes at hospital discharge. The effects of early in-bed cycling on reducing the rate of skeletal muscle atrophy, and associations with physical and cognitive function are unknown.

 

Methods and Analysis:  A single-centre randomised controlled trial in a mixed medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) will be conducted. Adult patients (n=68) who are expected to be

 

mechanically ventilated for more than 48 hours and remain in ICU for a further 48 hours from recruitment will be randomly allocated into either (1) a usual care group or (2) a group that receives usual care and additional in-bed cycling sessions. The primary outcome is change in rectus femoris cross-sectional area at day 10 in comparison to baseline measured by blinded assessors. Secondary outcome measures include muscle strength, incidence of ICU-acquired weakness, handgrip strength, time to achieve functional milestones (sitting out of bed, walking), Functional Status Score in ICU, ICU Mobility Scale, 6 min walk test 1 week post-ICU discharge, incidence of delirium and quality of life (EuroQol Five Dimensions questionnaire Five Levels scale). Quality of life assessments will be conducted post-ICU admission at day 10, 3 and 6 months after acute hospital discharge. Participants in the intervention group will complete an acceptability of intervention questionnaire.

Ethics and Dissemination:  Appropriate ethical approval from Metro South Health Human Research Ethics Committee has been attained. Results will be published in peer-reviewed publications and presented at scientific conferences to assist planning of future multicentre randomised controlled trials (if indicated) that will test in-bed cycling as an intervention to improve the physical, cognitive and health-related quality of life outcomes of patients with critical illness.