Dataset Information

Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) statistical analysis plan.

ABSTRACT: The Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock study is a randomised, multicentre, prospective, three-arm, parallel-group trial of alternative resuscitation strategies for early septic shock.To state our analysis plan for trial data.Our plan is to guide data collection and analysis using pre-existing definitions and testing, with local consensus-based efforts where needed. We examine protocolised care (two experimental approaches) and compare this to usual "wild type" care.Our plan is to address three aims (clinical efficacy, biology of illness and recovery, and costs and cost-effectiveness) and four hypotheses, and we specify rules for handling data and determining outcomes.By using measures to maintain study conduct and analysis rigour, we hope to improve understanding of early septic shock resuscitation and care of patients.

SUBMITTER: Pike F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4081520 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) statistical analysis plan.

Pike Francis F Yealy Donald M DM Kellum John A JA Huang David T DT Barnato Amber E AE Eaton Tammy L TL Angus Derek C DC Weissfeld Lisa A LA

Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine 20131201 4

<h4>Background</h4>The Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock study is a randomised, multicentre, prospective, three-arm, parallel-group trial of alternative resuscitation strategies for early septic shock.<h4>Objective</h4>To state our analysis plan for trial data.<h4>Methods</h4>Our plan is to guide data collection and analysis using pre-existing definitions and testing, with local consensus-based efforts where needed. We examine protocolised care (two experimental approaches) and compare th ...[more]

PMID: 24289512

Similar Datasets

Project description:Septic shock has a 90-day mortality risk of up to 50 %. The hemodynamic targets, including mean arterial pressure (MAP) are not based on robust clinical data. Both severe hypotension and high doses of vasopressors may be harmful. Hence, re-evaluation of hemodynamic targets in septic shock is relevant.The targeted tissue perfusion versus macrocirculation-guided standard care in patients with septic shock (TARTARE-2S) trial is a prospective, two-parallel-group, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial with assessor-blinded outcome evaluation. We will randomize at least 200 patients with septic shock in four European intensive care units (ICUs) to test whether a tissue perfusion-guided treatment strategy based on capillary refill time, peripheral temperature, arterial lactate concentrations, and accepting lower MAP levels, leads to a faster resolution of shock than macrocirculation target-guided standard care. The primary outcome measure is days alive in 30 days with normal arterial blood lactate (first value of <2 mmol/L) and without any inotropic or vasopressor agent. Secondary outcomes include individual components of the primary outcome, days alive without renal replacement, days alive without mechanical ventilation in 30 days, and new acute kidney injury. The sample size enables detection of a 13.5-h difference in the primary outcome with a type 1 error of 5 % and power of 80 %, assuming 25 % mortality and a mean of 650 h (SD 30) among the 30-day survivors. After 150 included patients the statistician masked for allocation group will recalculate the sample size potentially increasing the sample up to 300. The Data Safety and Monitoring Board (DSMB) will review the safety data after 100 patients.The TARTARE-2S trial will provide important clinical data on treatment targets in septic shock, evaluating the impact of clinical tissue perfusion-guided hemodynamic treatment on a surrogate outcome combining resolution of shock (hyperlactatemia and vasopressors/inotropes), and 30-day mortality.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02579525 . Registered on 19 October 2015.

Project description:IntroductionFollowing extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation, nearly one in seven critically ill adults requires reintubation. Reintubation is independently associated with increased mortality. Postextubation respiratory support (non-invasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula applied at the time of extubation) has been reported in small-to-moderate-sized trials to reduce reintubation rates among hypercapnic patients, high-risk patients without hypercapnia and low-risk patients without hypercapnia. It is unknown whether protocolised provision of postextubation respiratory support to every patient undergoing extubation would reduce the overall reintubation rate, compared with usual care.Methods and analysisThe Protocolized Post-Extubation Respiratory Support (PROPER) trial is a pragmatic, cluster cross-over trial being conducted between 1 October 2017 and 31 March 2019 in the medical intensive care unit of Vanderbilt University Medical Center. PROPER compares usual care versus protocolized post-extubation respiratory support (a respiratory therapist-driven protocol that advises the provision of non-invasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula based on patient characteristics). For the duration of the trial, the unit is divided into two clusters. One cluster receives protocolised support and the other receives usual care. Each cluster crosses over between treatment group assignments every 3 months. All adults undergoing extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation are enrolled except those who received less than 12 hours of mechanical ventilation, have 'Do Not Intubate' orders, or have been previously reintubated during the hospitalisation. The anticipated enrolment is approximately 630 patients. The primary outcome is reintubation within 96 hours of extubation.Ethics and disseminationThe trial was approved by the Vanderbilt Institutional Review Board. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at one or more scientific conferences.Trial registration numberNCT03288311.

Project description:BackgroundIn a single-center study published more than a decade ago involving patients presenting to the emergency department with severe sepsis and septic shock, mortality was markedly lower among those who were treated according to a 6-hour protocol of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), in which intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions were adjusted to reach central hemodynamic targets, than among those receiving usual care. We conducted a trial to determine whether these findings were generalizable and whether all aspects of the protocol were necessary.MethodsIn 31 emergency departments in the United States, we randomly assigned patients with septic shock to one of three groups for 6 hours of resuscitation: protocol-based EGDT; protocol-based standard therapy that did not require the placement of a central venous catheter, administration of inotropes, or blood transfusions; or usual care. The primary end point was 60-day in-hospital mortality. We tested sequentially whether protocol-based care (EGDT and standard-therapy groups combined) was superior to usual care and whether protocol-based EGDT was superior to protocol-based standard therapy. Secondary outcomes included longer-term mortality and the need for organ support.ResultsWe enrolled 1341 patients, of whom 439 were randomly assigned to protocol-based EGDT, 446 to protocol-based standard therapy, and 456 to usual care. Resuscitation strategies differed significantly with respect to the monitoring of central venous pressure and oxygen and the use of intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions. By 60 days, there were 92 deaths in the protocol-based EGDT group (21.0%), 81 in the protocol-based standard-therapy group (18.2%), and 86 in the usual-care group (18.9%) (relative risk with protocol-based therapy vs. usual care, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.31; P=0.83; relative risk with protocol-based EGDT vs. protocol-based standard therapy, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.51; P=0.31). There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality, 1-year mortality, or the need for organ support.ConclusionsIn a multicenter trial conducted in the tertiary care setting, protocol-based resuscitation of patients in whom septic shock was diagnosed in the emergency department did not improve outcomes. (Funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences; ProCESS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00510835.).

Project description:The Protocol-based Care for Early Septic Shock trial found no differences across alternative resuscitation strategies in all-cause mortality. A separate aim was to determine whether differences in resuscitation strategies affected trajectories of biomarkers of key pathways associated with downstream clinical outcomes of sepsis and whether there were differences in survival across treatment arms for patients with different baseline biomarker profiles.Secondary analysis of a large randomized clinical trial.Thirty-one U.S. hospitals.Six hundred twenty-eight patients with septic shock.Two resuscitation protocols versus usual care.We measured a panel of biomarkers representing four pathophysiologic domains: "inflammation" (tumor necrosis factor, interleukin-6, and -10); "coagulation" (D-dimers, thrombin-antithrombin complex); "oxidative stress" (urine isoprostane); and "tissue hypoxia" (lactate) at 0, 6, 24, and 72 hours after treatment. We analyzed whether alternative resuscitation strategies affected biomarker trajectories over 72 hours and whether effects on 90-day hospital mortality varied by baseline (time 0) biomarker profiles-both using regression models with interaction terms for treatment arms. For all baseline biomarkers, higher concentrations were associated with increased risk of death by 90 days. However, there was no significant effect of treatment assignment on subsequent biomarker trajectories. We did find evidence for heterogeneity of treatment effect of protocol-based care on mortality for patients with different baseline [interleukin-6] and [interleukin-6] × [interleukin-10] profiles, whereas patients with the lowest quartiles fared better with protocol-based care (odds ratios, 0.32 [0.13-075]; p = 0.01 and 0.32 [0.14-0.73]; p = 0.01, respectively).In patients with septic shock, alterations in inflammation, coagulation, oxidative stress, and tissue hypoxia are common and associated with adverse outcomes but are not influenced by protocol-based resuscitation compared with usual care. However, contrary to expectation, protocol-based resuscitation appeared to be superior in patients with lower concentrations of inflammatory biomarkers. The mechanisms responsible for this effect are unclear.

Project description:ContextSepsis bundles have been developed to improve patient outcomes by combining component therapies. Valid bundles require effective components with additive benefits. Proponents encourage evaluation of bundles, both as a whole and based on the performance of each component.ObjectiveAssess the association between outcome and the utilization of component therapies in studies of sepsis bundles.Data sourceDatabase searches (January 1980 to July 2008) of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, using the terms sepsis, bundles, guidelines, and early goal directed therapy.Data extractionInclusion required comparison of septic adults who received bundled care vs. nonprotocolized care. Survival and use rates for individual interventions were abstracted.Main resultsEight unblinded trials, one randomized and seven with historical controls, were identified. Sepsis bundles were associated with a consistent (I2 = 0%, p = .87) and significant increase in survival (odds ratio, 1.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.49-2.45; p < .0001). For all studies reporting such data, there were consistent (I2 = 0%, p > or = .64) decreases in time to antibiotics, and increases in the appropriateness of antibiotics (p < or = .0002 for both). In contrast, significant heterogeneity was seen across trials for all other treatments (antibiotic use within a specified time period; administration of fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and packed red blood cells titrated to hemodynamic goals; corticosteroids and human recombinant activated protein C use) (all I2 > or = 67%, p < .002). Except for antibiotics, sepsis bundle components are still being investigated for efficacy in randomized controlled trials.ConclusionBundle use was associated with consistent and significant improvement in survival and antibiotic use. Use of other bundle components changed heterogeneously across studies, making their impact on survival uncertain. However, this analysis should be interpreted cautiously as these studies were unblinded, and only one was randomized.

Dataset Information

Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) statistical analysis plan.

Publications

Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) statistical analysis plan.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets