Dataset Information

Rapidly Improving ARDS in Therapeutic Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Observational studies suggest that some patients meeting criteria for ARDS no longer fulfill the oxygenation criterion early in the course of their illness. This subphenotype of rapidly improving ARDS has not been well characterized. We attempted to assess the prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes of rapidly improving ARDS and to identify which variables are useful to predict it.

Methods

A secondary analysis was performed of patient level data from six ARDS Network randomized controlled trials. We defined rapidly improving ARDS, contrasted with ARDS > 1 day, as extubation or a Pao₂ to Fio₂ ratio (Pao₂:Fio₂) > 300 on the first study day following enrollment.

Results

The prevalence of rapidly improving ARDS was 10.5% (458 of 4,361 patients) and increased over time. Of the 1,909 patients enrolled in the three most recently published trials, 197 (10.3%) were extubated on the first study day, and 265 (13.9%) in total had rapidly improving ARDS. Patients with rapidly improving ARDS had lower baseline severity of illness and lower 60-day mortality (10.2% vs 26.3%; P < .0001) than ARDS > 1 day. Pao₂:Fio₂ at screening, change in Pao₂:Fio₂ from screening to enrollment, use of vasopressor agents, Fio₂ at enrollment, and serum bilirubin levels were useful predictive variables.

Conclusions

Rapidly improving ARDS, mostly defined by early extubation, is an increasingly prevalent and distinct subphenotype, associated with better outcomes than ARDS > 1 day. Enrollment of patients with rapidly improving ARDS may negatively affect the prognostic enrichment and contribute to the failure of therapeutic trials.

SUBMITTER: Schenck EJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6414787 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeparate trials to evaluate therapeutic hypothermia after paediatric cardiac arrest for out-of-hospital and in-hospital settings reported no statistically significant differences in survival with favourable neurobehavioral outcome or safety compared to therapeutic normothermia. However, larger sample sizes might detect smaller clinical effects. Our aim was to pool data from identically conducted trials to approximately double the sample size of the individual trials yielding greater statistical power to compare outcomes.MethodsCombine individual patient data from two clinical trials set in forty-one paediatric intensive care units in USA, Canada and UK. Children aged at least 48 h up to 18 years old, who remained comatose after resuscitation, were randomized within 6 h of return of circulation to hypothermia or normothermia (target 33.0 °C or 36.8 °C). The primary outcome, survival 12 months post-arrest with Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) score at least 70 (scored from 20 to 160, higher scores reflecting better function, population mean = 100, SD = 15), was evaluated among patients with pre-arrest scores ≥70.Results624 patients were randomized. Among 517 with pre-arrest VABS-II scores ≥70, the primary outcome did not significantly differ between hypothermia and normothermia groups (28% [75/271] and 26% [63/246], respectively; relative risk, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.42; p = 0.61). Among 602 evaluable patients, the change in VABS-II score from baseline to 12 months did not differ significantly between groups (p = 0.20), nor did, proportion of cases with declines no more than 15 points or improvement from baseline [22% (hypothermia) and 21% (normothermia)]. One-year survival did not differ significantly between hypothermia and normothermia groups (44% [138/317] and 38% [113/ 297], respectively; relative risk, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.38; p = 0.15). Incidences of blood-product use, infection, and serious cardiac arrhythmia adverse events, and 28-day mortality, did not differ between groups.ConclusionsAnalysis of combined data from two paediatric cardiac arrest targeted temperature management trials including both in-hospital and out-of-hospital cases revealed that hypothermia, as compared with normothermia, did not confer a significant benefit in survival with favourable functional outcome at one year.

Project description:Driving pressure (?Prs) across the respiratory system is suggested as the strongest predictor of hospital mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We wonder whether this result is related to the range of tidal volume (VT). Therefore, we investigated ?Prs in two trials in which strict lung-protective mechanical ventilation was applied in ARDS. Our working hypothesis was that ?Prs is a risk factor for mortality just like compliance (Crs) or plateau pressure (Pplat,rs) of the respiratory system.We performed secondary analysis of data from 787 ARDS patients enrolled in two independent randomized controlled trials evaluating distinct adjunctive techniques while they were ventilated as in the low VT arm of the ARDSnet trial. For this study, we used VT, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), Pplat,rs, Crs, ?Prs, and respiratory rate recorded 24 hours after randomization, and compared them between survivors and nonsurvivors at day 90. Patients were followed for 90 days after inclusion. Cox proportional hazard modeling was used for mortality at day 90. If colinearity between ?Prs, Crs, and Pplat,rs was verified, specific Cox models were used for each of them.Both trials enrolled 805 patients of whom 787 had day-1 data available, and 533 of these survived. In the univariate analysis, ?Prs averaged 13.7?±?3.7 and 12.8?±?3.7 cmH2O (P?=?0.002) in nonsurvivors and survivors, respectively. Colinearity between ?Prs, Crs and Pplat,rs, which was expected as these variables are mathematically coupled, was statistically significant. Hazard ratios from the Cox models for day-90 mortality were 1.05 (1.02-1.08) (P?=?0.005), 1.05 (1.01-1.08) (P?=?0.008) and 0.985 (0.972-0.985) (P?=?0.029) for ?Prs, Pplat,rs and Crs, respectively. PEEP and VT were not associated with death in any model.When ventilating patients with low VT, ?Prs is a risk factor for death in ARDS patients, as is Pplat,rs or Crs. As our data originated from trials from which most ARDS patients were excluded due to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, these findings must be validated in independent observational studies in patients ventilated with a lung protective strategy.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00299650 . Registered 6 March 2006 for the Acurasys trial. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00527813 . Registered 10 September 2007 for the Proseva trial.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic health (eHealth) refers to the use of information and communication technologies for health. It plays an increasingly important role in patients' medication management.ObjectiveTo assess evidence on (1) whether eHealth for patients' medication management can improve drug adherence and health outcomes in nonhospital settings and (2) which eHealth functions are commonly used and are effective in improving drug adherence.MethodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, EmCare, ProQuest, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore, in addition to other published sources between 2000 and 2018. We evaluated the studies against the primary outcome measure of medication adherence and multiple secondary health care outcome measures relating to adverse events, quality of life, patient satisfaction, and health expenditure. The quality of the studies included was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias (RoB) tool.ResultsOur initial search yielded 9909 records, and 24 studies met the selection criteria. Of these, 13 indicated improvement in medication adherence at the significance level of P<.1 and 2 indicated an improved quality of life at the significance level of P<.01. The top 3 functions that were employed included mechanisms to communicate with caregivers, monitoring health features, and reminders and alerts. eHealth functions of providing information and education, and dispensing treatment and administration support tended to favor improved medication adherence outcomes (Fisher exact test, P=.02). There were differences in the characteristics of the study population, intervention design, functionality provided, reporting adherence, and outcome measures among the included studies. RoB assessment items, including blinding of outcome assessment and method for allocation concealment, were not explicitly reported in a large number of studies.ConclusionsAll the studies included were designed for patient home-based care application and provided a mechanism to communicate with caregivers. A targeted study population such as older patients should be considered to maximize the public health impact on the self-management of diseases.Trial registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42018096627; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=96627.

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of process interventions (education for clinicians, parent presence, education of parents [before and on day of vaccination], and education of patients on day of vaccination) on reducing vaccination pain, fear, and distress and increasing the use of interventions during vaccination.Design/methodsDatabases were searched using a broad search strategy to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Critical outcomes were pain, fear, distress (when applicable), and use of pain management interventions. Data were extracted according to procedure phase (preprocedure, acute, recovery, combinations of these) and pooled using established methods. Analyses were conducted using standardized mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios (RR).ResultsThirteen studies were included. Results were generally mixed. On the basis of low to very low-quality evidence, the following specific critical outcomes showed significant effects suggesting: (1) clinicians should be educated about vaccine injection pain management (use of interventions: SMD 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47, 0.85); (2) parents should be present (distress preprocedure: SMD -0.85; 95% CI: -1.35, -0.35); (3) parents should be educated before the vaccination day (use of intervention preprocedure: SMD 0.83; 95% CI: 0.25, 1.41 and RR, 2.08; 95% CI: 1.51, 2.86; distress acute: SMD, -0.35; 95% CI: -0.57, -0.13); (4) parents should be educated on the vaccination day (use of interventions: SMD 1.02; 95% CI: 0.22, 1.83 and RR, 2.42; 95% CI: 1.47, 3.99; distress preprocedure+acute+recovery: SMD -0.48; 95% CI: -0.82, -0.15); and (5) individuals 3 years of age and above should be educated on the day of vaccination (fear preprocedure: SMD -0.67; 95% CI: -1.28, -0.07).ConclusionsEducating individuals involved in the vaccination procedure (clinicians, parents of children being vaccinated; individuals above 3 y of age) is beneficial to increase use of pain management strategies, reduce distress surrounding with vaccination, and to reduce fear. When possible, parent presence is also recommended for children undergoing vaccination.