Dataset Information

Anticoagulation in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation suffering from COVID-19 disease, The ANTI-CO trial: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess the effect of anticoagulation with bivalirudin administered intravenously on gas-exchange in patients with COVID-19 and respiratory failure using invasive mechanical ventilation.

Trial design

This is a single centre parallel group, superiority, randomized (1:1 allocation ratio) controlled trial.

Participants

All patients admitted to the Hamad Medical Corporation -ICU in Qatar for COVID-19 associated respiratory distress and in need of mechanical ventilation are screened for eligibility.

Inclusion criteria

all adult patients admitted to the ICU who test positive for COVID-19 by PCR-test and in need for mechanical ventilation are eligible for inclusion. Upon crossing the limit of D-dimers (1.2 mg/L) these patients are routinely treated with an increased dose of anticoagulant according to our local protocol. This will be the start of randomization.

Exclusion criteria

pregnancy, allergic to the drug, inherited coagulation abnormalities, no informed consent.

Intervention and comparator

The intervention group will receive the anticoagulant bivalirudin intravenously with a target aPTT of 45-70 sec for three days while the control group will stay on the standard treatment with low-molecular-weight heparins /unfractionated heparin subcutaneously (see scheme in Additional file 1). All other treatment will be unchanged and left to the attending physicians.

Main outcomes

As a surrogate parameter for clinical improvement and primary outcome we will use the PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ratio.

Randomisation

After inclusion, the patients will be randomized using a closed envelope method into the conventional treatment group, which uses the standard strategy and the experimental group which receives anticoagulation treatment with bivalirudin using an allocation ratio of 1:1.

Blinding (masking)

Due to logistical and safety reasons (assessment of aPTT to titrate the study drug) only the data-analyst will be blinded to the groups.

Numbers to be randomised (sample size)

We performed a sample size calculation and assumed the data for P/F ratio (according to literature) is normally distributed and used the mean which would be: 160 and SD is 80. We expect the treatment will improve this by 30%. In order to reach a power of 80% we would need 44 patients per group (in total 88 patients). Taking approximately 10% of dropout into account we will include 100 patients (50 in each group).

Trial status

The local registration number is MRC-05-082 with the protocol version number 2. The date of approval is 18th June 2020. Recruitment started on 28^th June and is expected to end in November 2020.

Trial registration

The protocol is registered before starting subject recruitment under the title: "Anticoagulation in patients suffering from COVID-19 disease. The ANTI-CO Trial" in ClinicalTrials.org with the registration number: NCT04445935 . Registered on 24 June 2020.

Full protocol

The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 2). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

SUBMITTER: Kharma N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7476433 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In hypoxemic patients at risk for developing respiratory failure, the decision to initiate invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) may be extremely difficult, even more so among patients suffering from COVID-19. Delayed recognition of respiratory failure may translate into poor outcomes, emphasizing the need for stronger predictive models for IMV necessity. We developed a two-step model; the first step was to train a machine learning predictive model on a large dataset of non-COVID-19 critically ill hypoxemic patients from the United States (MIMIC-III). The second step was to apply transfer learning and adapt the model to a smaller COVID-19 cohort. An XGBoost algorithm was trained on data from the MIMIC-III database to predict if a patient would require IMV within the next 6, 12, 18 or 24 h. Patients' datasets were used to construct the model as time series of dynamic measurements and laboratory results obtained during the previous 6 h with additional static variables, applying a sliding time-window once every hour. We validated the adaptation algorithm on a cohort of 1061 COVID-19 patients from a single center in Israel, of whom 160 later deteriorated and required IMV. The new XGBoost model for the prediction of the IMV onset was trained and tested on MIMIC-III data and proved to be predictive, with an AUC of 0.83 on a shortened set of features, excluding the clinician's settings, and an AUC of 0.91 when the clinician settings were included. Applying these models "as is" (no adaptation applied) on the dataset of COVID-19 patients degraded the prediction results to AUCs of 0.78 and 0.80, without and with the clinician's settings, respectively. Applying the adaptation on the COVID-19 dataset increased the prediction power to an AUC of 0.94 and 0.97, respectively. Good AUC results get worse with low overall precision. We show that precision of the prediction increased as prediction probability was higher. Our model was successfully trained on a specific dataset, and after adaptation it showed promise in predicting outcome on a completely different dataset. This two-step model successfully predicted the need for invasive mechanical ventilation 6, 12, 18 or 24 h in advance in both general ICU population and COVID-19 patients. Using the prediction probability as an indicator of the precision carries the potential to aid the decision-making process in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure despite the low overall precision.

Project description:BackgroundThrough many years, the standard care has been to use continuous sedation of critically ill patients during mechanical ventilation. However, preliminary randomised clinical trials indicate that it is beneficial to reduce the sedation level. No randomised trial has been conducted comparing sedation with no sedation, a priori powered to have all-cause mortality as primary outcome.The objective is to assess the benefits and harms of non-sedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up trial in critically ill patients.Methods/designThe non-sedation (NONSEDA) trial is an investigator-initiated, randomised, clinical, parallel-group, multinational trial designed to include 700 patients from at least six ICUs in Denmark, Norway and Sweden.Inclusion criteria are mechanically ventilated patients with expected duration of mechanical ventilation >24 hours.Exclusion criteria are non-intubated patients, patients with severe head trauma, coma at admission or status epilepticus, patients treated with therapeutic hypothermia, patients with PaO2/FiO2?<?9 where sedation might be necessary to ensure sufficient oxygenation or place the patient in prone position.Experimental intervention is non-sedation supplemented with pain management during mechanical ventilation.Control intervention is sedation with a daily wake-up trial.The primary outcome will be all cause mortality at 90 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes will be: days until death throughout the total observation period; coma- and delirium-free days; highest RIFLE score; days until discharge from the intensive care unit (within 28 days); days until the participant is without mechanical ventilation (within 28 days); and proportion of patients with a major cardiovascular outcome. Explorative outcomes will be: all cause mortality at 28 days after randomisation; days until discharge from the intensive care unit; days until the participant is without mechanical ventilation; days until discharge from the hospital; organ failure.Trial size: we will include 700 participants (2?×?350) in order to detect or reject 25% relative risk reduction in mortality with a type I error risk of 5% and a type II error risk of 20% (power at 80%).DiscussionThe trial investigates potential benefits of non-sedation. This might have large impact on the future treatment of mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.Trial registerClinicalTrials.gov NCT0196768, 09.01.2014.

Project description:ObjectivesAssessing the effect of surfactant on clinical outcome in patients with COVID-19 under mechanical ventilation TRIAL DESIGN: Single centre, two arm, parallel group (1:1 allocation ratio), randomised superiority trial with blinded care and outcome assessment.ParticipantsInclusion criteria: Adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU in Modarres hospital, Tehran, Iran (age range of 18 to 99 years) with moderate to severe ARDS (based on definition of P/F ratio) requiring auxiliary respiratory devices (either intubation or face mask).Exclusion criteria● Existence of a major underlying pulmonary disease in addition to COVID-19 ● Underlying congenital heart disease ● Patients needing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) ● ARDS primarily due to any other reason rather than COVID-19 ● The primary source of pulmonary involvement was bacterial pneumonia or any other etiology except for COVID-10 induced lung involvement ● Those who refused to continue the study (either the patient or their family) ● any patient had any sign of healing before entering the study leading to discharge from ICU in less than 12 hours INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: In the intervention group, the dose of the drug is a vial containing 4 ml, equivalent to 100 mg, which is prescribed for an adult weighing about 70 kg each time, and if the patient's weight is much lower or higher, it will be adjusted accordingly. Surfactant is prescribed inside the trachea in two doses, starting on the day of intubation with a second dose 6 hours later. The control group will receive the same volume of normal saline, based on weight, administered into the trachea with the same time schedule.Main outcomes30 days mortality; patient mortality during stay in ICU up to 30 days; ICU length of stay up to 30 days; Time under mechanical ventilation up to 30 days.RandomisationAfter the participant enters the study, i.e. after the qualification of the patients in the trial is confirmed and their informed written consent is taken, we will use a simple randomisation method using a table of random numbers. In order to hide the random allocation process, a central randomisation approach will be used and the random sequence will be at the disposal of one of the researchers, excluding the principal investigator.Blinding (masking)Participants, healthcare providers and the principal investigator assessing the outcomes will all be blinded to the group assignment.Numbers to be randomised (sample size)A total of 60 participants will be randomised in a 1:1 allocation ratio (30 patients allocated to the intervention group and 30 patients allocated to the control group).Trial statusThe protocol is Version 1.0, May 31, 2020. Recruitment began July 30, 2020, and is anticipated to be completed by October 30, 2020.Trial registrationIRCT registration number: IRCT20091201002804N12 Registration date: 1st June 2020, 1399/03/12 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Project description:Studying interhospital transfer of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia in the spring 2020 surge may help inform future pandemic management.ObjectivesTo compare outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 transferred to a tertiary referral center with increased surge capacity with patients admitted from the emergency department.Design setting participantsObservational cohort study of single center urban academic medical center ICUs. All patients admitted and discharged with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia who received invasive ventilation between March 17, 2020, and October 14, 2020.Main outcome and measuresDemographic and clinical variables were obtained from the electronic medical record. Patients were classified as emergency department admits or interhospital transfers. Regression models tested the association between transfer status and survival, adjusting for demographics and presentation severity.ResultsIn total, 298 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia were admitted to the ICU and received mechanical ventilation. Of these, 117 were transferred from another facility and 181 were admitted through the emergency department. Patients were primarily male (64%) and Black (38%) or Hispanic (45%). Transfer patients differed from emergency department admits in having English as a preferred language (71% vs 56%; p = 0.008) and younger age (median 57 vs 61 yr; p < 0.001). There were no differences in race/ethnicity or primary payor. Transfers were more likely to receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (12% vs 3%; p = 0.004). Overall, 50 (43%) transferred patients and 78 (43%) emergency department admits died prior to discharge. There was no significant difference in hospital mortality or days from intubation to discharge between the two groups.Conclusions and relevanceIn a single-center retrospective cohort, no significant differences in hospital mortality or length of stay between interhospital transfers and emergency department admits were found. While more study is needed, this suggests that interhospital transfer of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 can be done safely and effectively.