Dataset Information

Epidural analgesia in critically ill patients with acute pancreatitis: the multicentre randomised controlled EPIPAN study protocol.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Acute pancreatitis (AP) is associated with high morbidity and mortality in its most severe forms. Most patients with severe AP require intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation, frequently for more than 7 days, which is associated with the worst outcome. Recent increasing evidence from preclinical and clinical studies support the beneficial effects of epidural analgesia (EA) in AP, such as increased gut barrier function and splanchnic, pancreatic and renal perfusion, decreased liver damage and inflammatory response, and reduced mortality. Because recent studies suggest that EA might be a safe procedure in the critically ill, we sought to determine whether EA reduced AP-associated respiratory failure and other major clinical outcomes in patients with AP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The Epidural Analgesia for Pancreatitis (EPIPAN) trial is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled two-arm trial with assessor-blinded outcome assessment. The EPIPAN trial will randomise 148 patients with AP requiring admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) to receive EA (with patient-controlled epidural administration of ropivacaine and sufentanil) combined with standard care based on current recommendations on the treatment of AP (interventional group), or standard care alone (reference group). The primary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days at day 30. Secondary outcomes include main complications of AP (eg, organ failure and mortality, among others), levels of biological markers of systemic inflammation, epithelial lung injury, renal failure, and healthcare-associated costs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study was approved by the appropriate ethics committee (CPP Sud-Est VI). Informed consent is required. If the combined application of EA and standard care proves superior to standard care alone in patients with AP in the ICU, the use of EA may become standard practice in experienced centres, thereby decreasing potential complications related to AP and its burden in critically ill patients. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02126332.

SUBMITTER: Bulyez S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5730003 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Epidural analgesia in critically ill patients with acute pancreatitis: the multicentre randomised controlled EPIPAN study protocol.

Bulyez Stéphanie S Pereira Bruno B Caumon Elodie E Imhoff Etienne E Roszyk Laurence L Bernard Lise L Bühler Leo L Heidegger Claudia C Jaber Samir S Lefrant Jean-Yves JY Chabanne Russell R Bertrand Pierre-Marie PM Laterre Pierre-François PF Guerci Philippe P Danin Pierre-Eric PE Escudier Etienne E Sossou Achille A Morand Dominique D Sapin Vincent V Constantin Jean-Michel JM Jabaudon Matthieu M

BMJ open 20170529 5

<h4>Background</h4>Acute pancreatitis (AP) is associated with high morbidity and mortality in its most severe forms. Most patients with severe AP require intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation, frequently for more than 7 days, which is associated with the worst outcome. Recent increasing evidence from preclinical and clinical studies support the beneficial effects of epidural analgesia (EA) in AP, such as increased gut barrier function and splanchnic, pancreatic and renal perfusion, decr ...[more]

PMID: 28554928

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine women's satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour. DESIGN:Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial. SETTING:15 hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS:Women with an intermediate to high obstetric risk with an intention to deliver vaginally. To exclude a clinically relevant difference in satisfaction with pain relief of more than 10%, we needed to include 1136 women. Because of missing values for satisfaction this number was increased to 1400 before any analysis. We used multiple imputation to correct for missing data. INTERVENTION:Before the onset of active labour consenting women were randomised to a pain relief strategy with patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia if they requested pain relief during labour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary outcome was satisfaction with pain relief, measured hourly on a visual analogue scale and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), thus providing a time weighted measure of total satisfaction with pain relief. A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity scores, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The study was defined as an equivalence study for the primary outcome. RESULTS:1414 women were randomised, of whom 709 were allocated to patient controlled remifentanil and 705 to epidural analgesia. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Pain relief was ultimately used in 65% (447/687) in the remifentanil group and 52% (347/671) in the epidural analgesia group (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48). Cross over occurred in 7% (45/687) and 8% (51/671) of women, respectively. Of women primarily treated with remifentanil, 13% (53/402) converted to epidural analgesia, while in women primarily treated with epidural analgesia 1% (3/296) converted to remifentanil. The area under the curve for total satisfaction with pain relief was 30.9 in the remifentanil group versus 33.7 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -2.8, 95% confidence interval -6.9 to 1.3). For who actually received pain relief the area under the curve for satisfaction with pain relief after the start of pain relief was 25.6 in the remifentanil group versus 36.1 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -10.4, -13.9 to -7.0). The rate of caesarean section was 15% in both groups. Oxygen saturation was significantly lower (SpO2 <92%) in women who used remifentanil (relative risk 1.5, 1.4 to 1.7). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between both groups. CONCLUSION:In women in labour, patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to scores on satisfaction with pain relief. Satisfaction with pain relief was significantly higher in women who were allocated to and received epidural analgesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Netherlands Trial Register NTR2551.

Project description:BackgroundThe effect of analgesic modalities on short-term outcomes in acute pancreatitis remains unknown. However, preclinical models have raised safety concerns regarding opioid use in patients with acute pancreatitis.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the association between analgesics, particularly opioids, and severity and mortality in hospitalised patients with acute pancreatitis.MethodsThis prospective multicentre cohort study recruited consecutive patients admitted with a first episode of acute pancreatitis between April 1 and 30 June 2022, with a 1-month follow-up. Data on aetiology, clinical course, and analgesic treatment were collected. The primary outcome was the association between opioid analgesia and acute pancreatitis severity, which was analysed using univariate and multivariate analyses.ResultsAmong a total of 1768 patients, included from 118 centres across 27 countries, 1036 (59%) had opioids administered on admission day, and 167 (9%) received opioids after admission day. On univariate analysis, moderately severe or severe acute pancreatitis was associated with male sex, Asian ethnicity, alcohol aetiology, comorbidity, predicted severe acute pancreatitis, higher pain scores, longer pain duration and opioid treatment (all p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, comorbidity, alcohol aetiology, longer pain duration and higher pain scores increased the risk of moderately severe or severe acute pancreatitis (all p < 0.001). Furthermore, opioids administered after admission day (but not on admission day) doubled the risk of moderately severe or severe disease (OR 2.07 (95% CI, 1.29-3.33); p = 0.003). Opioid treatment for 6 days or more was an independent risk factor for moderately severe or severe acute pancreatitis (OR 3.21 (95% CI, 2.16-4.79; p < 0.001). On univariate analysis, longer opioid duration was associated with mortality.ConclusionOpioid treatment increased the risk of more severe acute pancreatitis only when administered after admission day or for 6 days or more. Future randomised studies should re-evaluate whether opioids might be safe in acute pancreatitis.

Project description:IntroductionAcute kidney injury (AKI) is a well-recognised complication of critical illness which is of crucial importance for morbidity, mortality and health resource utilisation. Renal replacement therapy (RRT) inevitably entails an escalation of treatment complexity and increases costs for those patients with severe AKI. However, it is still not clear whether regional citrate anticoagulation or systemic heparin anticoagulation for continuous RRT (CRRT) is most appropriate. We hypothesise that, in contrast to systemic heparin anticoagulation, regional citrate anticoagulation for CRRT prolongs filter life span and improves overall survival in a 90-day follow-up period (coprimary endpoints).Methods and analysisWe will conduct a prospective, randomised, multicentre, clinical trial including up to 1450 critically ill patients with AKI requiring CRRT. We suggest to investigate the effect of regional citrate anticoagulation for CRRT as compared with systemic heparin anticoagulation. The two coprimary outcomes are filter life span and overall survival in a 90-day follow-up period. Secondary outcomes are length of stay in the intensive care unit; length of hospitalisation; duration of CRRT; recovery of renal function at days 28, 60, 90 and 1 year; requirement for RRT after days 28, 60, 90 and 1 year; 28 days, 60 days, 90 days and 1-year all-cause mortality; major adverse kidney events at days 28, 60, 90 and 1 year; bleeding complications; transfusion requirements; infection rate and costs of RRT. Additionally, in an add-on study involving several of the participating centres, blood samples from recruited patients will be collected at different time points to analyse whether the anticoagulation strategy has an impact on immune response as evidenced by leucocyte recruitment and function.Ethics and disseminationThe RICH trial has been approved by the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, the leading Ethics Committee of the University of Münster and the corresponding Ethics Committee at each participating site.Trial registration numberNCT02669589.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Some critically ill patients are confirmed by continuous electroencephalography (cEEG) monitoring that non-convulsive seizure (NCS) and/or non-convulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) are causes of their depressed level of consciousness. Shortage of epilepsy specialists, especially in developing countries, is a major limiting factor in implementing cEEG in general practice. Delivery of care with tele-continous EEG (tele-cEEG) may be a potential solution as this allows specialists from a central facility to remotely assist local neurologists from distant areas in interpreting EEG findings and suggest proper treatment. No tele-cEEG programme has been implemented to help improve quality of care. Therefore, this study is conducted to assess the efficacy and cost utility of implementing tele-cEEG in critical care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The Tele-cRCT study is a 3-year prospective, randomised, controlled, parallel, multicentre, superiority trial comparing delivery of care through 'Tele-cEEG' intervention with 'Tele-routine EEG (Tele-rEEG)' in patients with clinical suspicion of NCS/NCSE. A group of EEG specialists and a tele-EEG system were set up to remotely interpret EEG findings in six regional government hospitals across Thailand. The primary outcomes are functional neurological outcome (modified Rankin Scale, mRS), mortality rate and incidence of seizures. The secondary outcomes are cost utility, length of stay, emergency visit/readmission, impact on changing medical decisions and health professionals' perceptions about tele-cEEG implementation. Functional outcome (mRS) will be assessed at 3 and 7 days after recruitment, and again at time of hospital discharge, and at 90 days, 6 months, 9 months and 1?year. Costs and health-related quality of life will be assessed using the Thai version of the EuroQol-five dimensions-five levels (EQ-5D-5L) at hospital discharge, and at 90 days, 6 months, 9 months and 1?year. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study has been approved by the ethics committees of the Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, and of Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, and registered on Thai Clinical Trials Registry. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:TCTR20181022002; preresults.

Dataset Information

Epidural analgesia in critically ill patients with acute pancreatitis: the multicentre randomised controlled EPIPAN study protocol.

Publications

Epidural analgesia in critically ill patients with acute pancreatitis: the multicentre randomised controlled EPIPAN study protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets