Dataset Information

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.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

In-bed cycling with patients with critical illness has been shown to be safe and feasible, 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.

Trial registration number

This trial has been prospectively registered on the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12616000948493); Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Nickels MR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5665265 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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.

Nickels Marc R MR Aitken Leanne M LM Walsham James J Barnett Adrian G AG McPhail Steven M SM

BMJ open 20171022 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>In-bed cycling with patients with critical illness has been shown to be safe and feasible, 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.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>A single-centre randomised controlled trial in a mixed medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) will be conducted. Adult patients (n=68) who ar ...[more]

PMID: 29061618

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThe prolonged use of benzodiazepines and opioids can lead to an increase in the incidence of withdrawal syndrome. One of the known risk factors is the lack of a sedative-weaning protocol. This study established a sedative-weaning protocol and compared this protocol with the usual care of weaning in high-risk critically ill children.Materials and methodsThis was an open-label, randomized controlled trial in a tertiary-care hospital. We recruited children aged 1 month to 18 years who had received intravenous sedative or analgesic drugs for at least 5 days. The exclusion criteria were patients who had already experienced the withdrawal syndrome. We established a weaning protocol. Eligible patients were randomly divided into the protocolized (intervention) and usual care (control) groups. The primary objective was to determine the prevalence of the withdrawal syndrome compared between two groups.ResultsThirty eligible patients were enrolled (19 in the intervention and 11 in the control group). Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between both the groups. The prevalence of the withdrawal syndrome was 84% and 81% of patients in the intervention and control group, respectively. The duration of the initial weaning phase was shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (p value = 0.026). The cumulative dose of morphine solution for rescue therapy in the intervention group was statistically lower than that in the control group (p value = 0.016).ConclusionThe implementation of the sedative-weaning protocol led to a significant reduction in the percentage of withdrawal days and length of intensive care unit stay without any adverse drug reactions. External validation would be needed to validate this protocol.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT03018977.How to cite this articleTiacharoen D, Lertbunrian R, Veawpanich J, Suppalarkbunlue N, Anantasit N. Protocolized Sedative Weaning vs Usual Care in Pediatric Critically Ill Patients: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(6):451-458.

Project description:BackgroundIn-bed cycling is a novel modality for the initiation of early mobilization in the intensive care unit. No study has investigated its use in the critically ill, off-track post cardiac surgery population. Before conducting an effectiveness trial, feasibility data are needed. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of in-bed cycling in a population of off-track cardiac surgery patients.MethodsWe conducted a prospective feasibility study in a 16-bed adult cardiac surgery intensive care unit in Ontario, Canada. Previously ambulatory adults (≥ 18 years) who were mechanically ventilated for ≥ 72 h were enrolled within 3 to 7 days post cardiac surgery. Twenty minutes of in-bed cycling was delivered by ICU physiotherapists 5 days/week. The primary outcome, feasibility, was the percent of patient-cycling sessions that occurred when cycling was appropriate. The secondary outcome was cycling safety, measured as cycling discontinuation due to predetermined adverse events.ResultsWe screened 2074 patients, 29 met eligibility criteria, and 23 (92%) consented. Patients were male (78.26%) with a median [IQR] age of 76 [11] years, underwent isolated coronary bypass (39.1%), and had a median EuroScore II of 5.4 [7.8]. The mean (SD) time post-surgery to start of cycling was 5.9 (1.4) days. Patients were cycled on 80.5% (136/169) of eligible days, with limited physiotherapy staffing accounting for 48.5% of the missed patient-cycling sessions. During 136 sessions of cycling, 3 adverse events occurred in 3 individual patients. The incidence of an adverse event was 2.2 per 100 patient-cycling sessions (95% CI 0.50, 6.4).ConclusionsIn-bed cycling with critically ill cardiac surgery patients is feasible with adequate physiotherapy staffing and appears to be safe. Future studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of this intervention in a larger sample.Trial registrationThis trial was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02976415 ). Registered November 29, 2016.

Project description:ImportanceEarly in-bed cycling and electrical muscle stimulation may improve the benefits of rehabilitation in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).ObjectiveTo investigate whether early in-bed leg cycling plus electrical stimulation of the quadriceps muscles added to standardized early rehabilitation would result in greater muscle strength at discharge from the ICU.Design, setting, and participantsSingle-center, randomized clinical trial enrolling critically ill adult patients at 1 ICU within an 1100-bed hospital in France. Enrollment lasted from July 2014 to June 2016 and there was a 6-month follow-up, which ended on November 24, 2016.InterventionsPatients were randomized to early in-bed leg cycling plus electrical stimulation of the quadriceps muscles added to standardized early rehabilitation (n = 159) or standardized early rehabilitation alone (usual care) (n = 155).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was muscle strength at discharge from the ICU assessed by physiotherapists blinded to treatment group using the Medical Research Council grading system (score range, 0-60 points; a higher score reflects better muscle strength; minimal clinically important difference of 4 points). Secondary outcomes at ICU discharge included the number of ventilator-free days and ICU Mobility Scale score (range, 0-10; a higher score reflects better walking capability). Functional autonomy and health-related quality of life were assessed at 6 months.ResultsAmong 314 randomized patients, 312 (mean age, 66 years; women, 36%; receiving mechanical ventilation at study inclusion, 78%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The median global Medical Research Council score at ICU discharge was 48 (interquartile range [IQR], 29 to 58) in the intervention group and 51 (IQR, 37 to 58) in the usual care group (median difference, -3.0 [95% CI, -7.0 to 2.8]; P = .28). The ICU Mobility Scale score at ICU discharge was 6 (IQR, 3 to 9) in both groups (median difference, 0 [95% CI, -1 to 2]; P = .52). The median number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was 21 (IQR, 6 to 25) in the intervention group and 22 (IQR, 10 to 25) in the usual care group (median difference, 1 [95% CI, -2 to 3]; P = .24). Clinically significant events occurred during mobilization sessions in 7 patients (4.4%) in the intervention group and in 9 patients (5.8%) in the usual care group. There were no significant between-group differences in the outcomes assessed at 6 months.Conclusions and relevanceIn this single-center randomized clinical trial involving patients admitted to the ICU, adding early in-bed leg cycling exercises and electrical stimulation of the quadriceps muscles to a standardized early rehabilitation program did not improve global muscle strength at discharge from the ICU.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02185989.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In the critically ill, energy delivery from enteral nutrition (EN) is often less than the estimated energy requirement. Parenteral nutrition (PN) as a supplement to EN may increase energy delivery. We aimed to determine if an individually titrated supplemental PN strategy commenced 48-72 hours following ICU admission and continued for up to 7 days would increase energy delivery to critically ill adults compared to usual care EN delivery. METHODS:This study was a prospective, parallel group, phase II pilot trial conducted in six intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand. Mechanically ventilated adults with at least one organ failure and EN delivery below 80% of estimated energy requirement in the previous 24 hours received either a supplemental PN strategy (intervention group) or usual care EN delivery. EN in the usual care group could be supplemented with PN if EN remained insufficient after usual methods to optimise delivery were attempted. RESULTS:There were 100 patients included in the study and 99 analysed. Overall, 71% of the study population were male, with a mean (SD) age of 59 (17) years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 18.2 (6.7) and body mass index of 29.6 (5.8) kg/m2. Significantly greater energy (mean (SD) 1712 (511) calories vs. 1130 (601) calories, p?<?0.0001) and proportion of estimated energy requirement (mean (SD) 83 (25) % vs. 53 (29) %, p?<?0.0001) from EN and/or PN was delivered to the intervention group compared to usual care. Delivery of protein and proportion of estimated protein requirements were also greater in the intervention group (mean (SD) 86 (25) g, 86 (23) %) compared to usual care (mean (SD) 53 (29) g, 51 (25) %, p?<?0.0001). Antibiotic use, ICU and hospital length of stay, mortality and functional outcomes were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:This individually titrated supplemental PN strategy applied over 7 days significantly increased energy delivery when compared to usual care delivery. Clinical and functional outcomes were similar between the two patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinical Trial registry details: NCT01847534 (First registered 22 April 2013, last updated 31 July 2016).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Observational and interventional studies in patients with both acute medical conditions and long-standing diabetes have shown that improved blood glucose control confers a survival advantage or reduces complication rates. Policies of "tight" glycaemic control were rapidly adopted by many general intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide in the mid 00's, even though the results of the studies were not generalizable to mixed medical/surgical ICUs with different intravenous feeding policies. OBJECTIVE:The primary objective of the study is to assess the safety of mandatory insulin infusion in critically ill patients in a general ICU setting. METHODS:This protocol summarizes the rationale and design of a randomized, controlled, single-center trial investigating the effect of mandatory insulin therapy versus usual care insulin therapy for those patients admitted for a stay of longer than 48 hours. In total, 109 critically ill adults predicted to stay in intensive care for longer than 48 hours consented. The primary outcome is to determine the safety of mandatory insulin therapy in critically ill patients using the number of episodes of hypoglycaemia and hypokalaemia per unit length of stay in intensive care. Secondary outcomes include the duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU and hospital stay, hospital mortality, and measures of renal, hepatic, and haematological dysfunction. RESULTS:The project was funded in 2005 and enrolment was completed 2007. Data analysis is currently underway and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2018. CONCLUSIONS:This protocol for a randomized controlled trial investigating the effect of mandatory insulin therapy should provide an answer to a key question for the management of patients in the ICU and ultimately improving outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION:International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN00550641; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN00550641 (Archived at WebCite: http://www.webcitation.org/6xk8NXxNv).

Project description:BackgroundIn randomized clinical controlled trials, the choice of usual care as the comparator may be associated with better clinician uptake of the study protocol and lead to more generalizable results. However, if care processes evolve to resemble the intervention during the course of a trial, differences between the intervention group and usual care control group may narrow. We evaluated the effect on mean arterial pressure of an unblinded trial comparing a lower mean arterial pressure target to reduce vasopressor exposure, vs. a clinician-selected mean arterial pressure target, in critically ill patients at least 65 years old.MethodsFor this multicenter observational study using data collected both prospectively and retrospectively, patients were recruited from five of the seven trial sites. We compared the mean arterial pressure of patients receiving vasopressors, who met or would have met trial eligibility criteria, from two periods: [1] at least 1 month before the trial started, and [2] during the trial period and randomized to usual care, or not enrolled in the trial.ResultsWe included 200 patients treated before and 229 after trial initiation. There were no differences in age (mean 74.5 vs. 75.2 years; p = 0.28), baseline Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (median 26 vs. 26; p = 0.47) or history of chronic hypertension (n = 126 [63.0%] vs. n = 153 [66.8%]; p = 0.41). Mean of the mean arterial pressure was similar between the two periods (72.5 vs. 72.4 mmHg; p = 0.76).ConclusionsThe initiation of a trial of a prescribed lower mean arterial pressure target, compared to a usual clinician-selected target, was not associated with a change in mean arterial pressure, reflecting stability in the net effect of usual clinician practices over time. Comparing prior and concurrent control groups may alleviate concerns regarding drift in usual practices over the course of a trial or permit quantification of any change.

Project description:Background: Systemic inflammation is a whole body reaction that can have an infection-positive (i.e. sepsis) or infection-negative origin. It is important to distinguish between septic and non-septic presentations early and reliably, because this has significant therapeutic implications for critically ill patients. We hypothesized that a molecular classifier based on a small number of RNAs expressed in peripheral blood could be discovered that would: 1) determine which patients with systemic inflammation had sepsis; 2) be robust across independent patient cohorts; 3) be insensitive to disease severity; and 4) provide diagnostic utility. The overall goal of this study was to identify and validate such a molecular classifier. Methods and Findings: We conducted an observational, non-interventional study of adult patients recruited from tertiary intensive care units (ICU). Biomarker discovery was conducted with an Australian cohort (n = 105) consisting of sepsis patients and post -surgical patients with infection-negative systemic inflammation. Using this cohort, a four-gene classifier consisting of a combination of CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLA2G7 and PLAC8 RNA biomarkers was identified. This classifier, designated SeptiCyteÂ® Lab, was externally validated using RT-qPCR and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in five cohorts (n = 345) from the Netherlands. Cohort 1 (n=59) consisted of unambiguous septic cases and infection-negative systemic inflammation controls; SeptiCyteÂ® Lab gave an area under curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-1.00). ROC analysis of a more heterogeneous group of patients (Cohorts 2-5; 249 patients after excluding 37 patients with infection likelihood possible) gave an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93). Disease severity, as measured by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score or the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score, was not a significant confounding variable. The diagnostic utility o f SeptiCyteÂ® Lab was evaluated by comparison to various clinical and laboratory parameters that would be available to a clinician within 24 hours of ICU admission. SeptiCyteÂ® Lab was significantly better at differentiating sepsis from infection-negative systemic inflammation than all tested parameters, both singly and in various logistic combinations. SeptiCyteÂ® Lab more than halved the diagnostic error rate compared to PCT in all tested cohorts or cohort combinations. Conclusions: SeptiCyteÂ® Lab is a rapid molecular assay that may be clinically useful in the management of ICU patients with systemic inflammation. SIRS and Sepsis ICU patients, admission samples Retrospective, mutli-site sutdy using retrospective physician adjudication as a comparator

Dataset Information

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.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Trial registration number

Publications

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.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets