Dataset Information

A multicentre, randomised trial of stabilisation with nasal high flow during neonatal endotracheal intubation (the SHINE trial): a study protocol

ABSTRACT: Introduction Neonatal endotracheal intubation is an essential but potentially destabilising procedure. With an increased focus on avoiding mechanical ventilation, particularly in preterm infants, there are fewer opportunities for clinicians to gain proficiency in this important emergency skill. Rates of successful intubation at the first attempt are relatively low, and adverse event rates are high, when compared with intubations in paediatric and adult populations. Interventions to improve operator success and patient stability during neonatal endotracheal intubations are needed. Using nasal high flow therapy extends the safe apnoea time of adults undergoing upper airway surgery and during endotracheal intubation. This technique is untested in neonates. Methods and analysis The Stabilisation with nasal High flow during Intubation of NEonates (SHINE) trial is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing the use of nasal high flow during neonatal intubation with standard care (no nasal high flow). Intubations are randomised individually, and stratified by site, use of premedications, and postmenstrual age (<28 weeks’ gestation; ?28 weeks’ gestation). The primary outcome is the incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt without physiological instability of the infant. Physiological instability is defined as an absolute decrease in peripheral oxygen saturation >20% from preintubation baseline and/or bradycardia (<100 beats per minute). Ethics and dissemination The SHINE trial received ethical approval from the Human Research Ethics Committees of The Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia and Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia. The trial is currently recruiting in these two sites. The findings of this study will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences. Trial registration number ACTRN12618001498280.

SUBMITTER: Hodgson K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7537449 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The benefits of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) as primary intervention in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) are still a matter in debate. Our objective was to compare HFNC therapy versus conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in the prevention of endotracheal intubation in this group of patients. METHODS:An open-label, controlled and single-centre clinical trial was conducted in patients with severe AHRF, defined by a PaO2/FIO2 ratio ?200, to compare HFNC with a control group (CG) treated by COT delivered through a face mask, with the need to perform intubation as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included tolerance of the HFNC device and to look for the predictive factors for intubation in these patients. RESULTS:A total of 46 patients were included (22 in the COT group and 24 in the HFNC group) 48% of whom needed intubation: 63% in the COT group and 33% in the HFNC group, with significant differences both in intention to treat [?2?=?4.2; p?=?0.04, relative risk (RR)?=?0.5; confidence interval (CI) 95%: 0.3-1.0] and also in treatment analysis (?2?=?4.7; p?=?0.03; RR?=?0.5; IC 95%: 0.3-0.9) We obtained a number needed to treat (NNT)?=?3 patients treated to avoid an intubation. Intubation occurred significantly later in the HFNC group. Estimated PaO2/FIO2, respiratory rate and dyspnea were significantly better in the HFNC group. Patients treated with HFNC who required intubation presented significant worsening after the first 8?h, as compared with non-intubated HFNC group patients. Mortality was 22% with no differences. The HFNC group patients were hospitalized for almost half of the time in the intensive care unit (ICU) and in the ward, with significantly less hospital length of stay. A total of 14 patients in the HFNC group (58%) complained of excessive heat and 17% of noise; 3 patients did not tolerate HFNC. CONCLUSION:Patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure who tolerate HFNC present a significantly lower need for endotracheal intubation compared with conventional oxygen therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTER:EUDRA CT number: 2012-001671-36The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Project description:BackgroundsHigh flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an alternative therapy for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed first to describe outcomes of patients suffering from COVID-19-related ARDS treated with HFNC; secondly to evaluate safety of HFNC (patients and healthcare workers) and compare patients according to respiratory outcome.MethodsA retrospective cohort was conducted in French general hospital intensive care unit (ICU). Patients were included if receiving HFNC for hypoxemia (saturation pulse oxygen (SpO2) <92% under oxygen ⩾6 L/min) associated with ARDS and positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Main clinical characteristics and outcomes are described in patients: (a) with do not intubate order (HFNC-DNIO); (b) who did not need intubation (HFNC-only); and (c) eventually intubated (HFNC-intubation). Medians are presented with (1st-3rd) interquartile range.ResultsFrom 26 February to 30 June 2020, 46 patients of median age 75 (70-79) years were included. In the HFNC-DNIO group (n = 11), partial arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2)/inhaled fraction of oxygen (FiO2) ratio median worst PaO2/FiO2 ratio was 109 (102-172) and hospital mortality was 54.5%. Except the HFNC-DNIO patients (n = 35), 20 patients (57%) were eventually intubated (HFNC-intubation group) and 15 were only treated by HFNC (HFNC-only). HFNC-intubation patients presented higher worst respiratory rates per minute in ICU [37 (34-41) versus 33 (24-34) min, p < 0.05] and worsened ICU admission PaO2/FiO2 ratios [121 (103-169) versus 191 (162-219), p < 0.001] compared with HFNC-only patients. Hospital mortality was 35% (n = 7/20) in HFNC-intubation group, 0% in HFNC-only group with a global mortality of these two groups of 20% (n = 7/35). Among tests performed in healthcare workers, 1/12 PCR in symptomatic healthcare workers and 1.8% serologies in asymptomatic healthcare workers were positive. After review of each case, COVID-19 was likely to be acquired outside hospital.ConclusionsHFNC seems to be useful for COVID-19-related ARDS and safe for healthcare workers. ARDS severity with PaO2/FiO2 <150 associated with respiratory rate >35/min could be regarded as a predictor of intubation.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Tracheal intubation is one of the most daily practiced procedures performed in intensive care unit (ICU). It is associated with severe life-threatening complications, which can lead to intubation-related cardiac arrest. Using a preshaped endotracheal tube plus stylet may have potential advantages over endotracheal tube without stylet. The stylet is a rigid but malleable introducer which fits inside the endotracheal tube and allows for manipulation of the tube shape; to facilitate passage of the tube through the laryngeal inlet. However, some complications from stylets have been reported including mucosal bleeding, perforation of the trachea or oesophagus and sore throat. The use of a stylet for first-attempt intubation has never been assessed in ICU and benefit remains to be established. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The endotracheal tube plus stylet to increase first-attempt success during orotracheal intubation compared with endotracheal tube alone in ICU patients (STYLETO) trial is an investigator-initiated, multicentre, stratified, parallel-group unblinded trial with an electronic system-based randomisation. Patients will be randomly assigned to undergo the initial intubation attempt with endotracheal tube alone (ie,without stylet, control group) or endotracheal tube + stylet (experimental group). The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with successful first-attempt orotracheal intubation. The single, prespecified, secondary outcome is the incidence of complications related to intubation, in the hour following intubation. Other outcomes analysed will include safety, exploratory procedural and clinical outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study project has been approved by the appropriate ethics committee 'Comité-de-Protection-des-Personnes Nord-Ouest3-19.04.26.65808 Cat2 RECHMPL19_0216/STYLETO2019-A01180-57'". Informed consent is required. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at one or more scientific conferences. If combined use of endotracheal tube plus stylet facilitates tracheal intubation of ICU patients compared with endotracheal tube alone, its use will become standard practice, thereby decreasing first-attempt intubation failure rates and, potentially, the frequency of intubation-related complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04079387; Pre-results.

Project description:IntroductionApnoeic oxygenation is a process of delivering continuous oxygen through nasal cannula during direct laryngoscopy. The oxygen that is delivered through these nasal cannulas is either low flow or high flow. Although the effectiveness of apnoeic oxygenation has been shown through systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials, a comparison of high-flow versus low-flow oxygen delivery has not been tested through a superiority study design. In this study we propose to assess the effectiveness of giving low-flow oxygen with head side elevation versus high-flow oxygen with head side elevation against the usual practice of care in which no oxygen is provided during direct laryngoscopy.Methods and analysisThis will be a three-arm study instituting a block randomisation technique with a sample size of 46 in each arm (see table 1). Due to the nature of the intervention, no blinding will be introduced. The primary outcomes will be lowest non-invasive oxygen saturation measurement during direct laryngoscopy and during the 2 min after the placement of the tube and the first pass success rate. The intervention constitutes head side elevation up to 30° for improving glottis visualisation together with low-flow or high-flow oxygen delivery through nasal cannula to increase safe apnoea time for participants undergoing endotracheal intubation. Primary analysis will be intention to treat.Ethics and disseminationThe study is approved by the Ethical Review Committee of Aga Khan University Hospital (2019-0726-2463). The project is an institution University Research Committee grant recipient 192 002ER-PK. The results of the study will be disseminated among participants, patient communities and healthcare professionals in the institution through seminars, presentations and emails. Further, the findings will be published in a highly accessed peer-reviewed medical journal and will be presented at both national and international conferences.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04242537).

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine which bedside method of detecting inadvertent endobronchial intubation in adults has the highest sensitivity and specificity.DesignProspective randomised blinded study.SettingDepartment of anaesthesia in tertiary academic hospital.Participants160 consecutive patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists category I or II) aged 19-75 scheduled for elective gynaecological or urological surgery.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to eight study groups. In four groups, an endotracheal tube was fibreoptically positioned 2.5-4.0 cm above the carina, whereas in the other four groups the tube was positioned in the right mainstem bronchus. The four groups differed in the bedside test used to verify the position of the endotracheal tube. To determine whether the tube was properly positioned in the trachea, in each patient first year residents and experienced anaesthetists were randomly assigned to independently perform bilateral auscultation of the chest (auscultation); observation and palpation of symmetrical chest movements (observation); estimation of the position of the tube by the insertion depth (tube depth); or a combination of all three (all three).Main outcome measuresCorrect and incorrect judgments of endotracheal tube position.Results160 patients underwent 320 observations by experienced and inexperienced anaesthetists. First year residents missed endobronchial intubation by auscultation in 55% of cases and performed significantly worse than experienced anaesthetists with this bedside test (odds ratio 10.0, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 434). With a sensitivity of 88% (95% confidence interval 75% to 100%) and 100%, respectively, tube depth and the three tests combined were significantly more sensitive for detecting endobronchial intubation than auscultation (65%, 49% to 81%) or observation(43%, 25% to 60%) (P<0.001). The four tested methods had the same specificity for ruling out endobronchial intubation (that is, confirming correct tracheal intubation). The average correct tube insertion depth was 21 cm in women and 23 cm in men. By inserting the tube to these distances, however, the distal tip of the tube was less than 2.5 cm away from the carina (the recommended safety distance, to prevent inadvertent endobronchial intubation with changes in the position of the head in intubated patients) in 20% (24/118) of women and 18% (7/42) of men. Therefore optimal tube insertion depth was considered to be 20 cm in women and 22 cm in men.ConclusionLess experienced clinicians should rely more on tube insertion depth than on auscultation to detect inadvertent endobronchial intubation. But even experienced physicians will benefit from inserting tubes to 20-21 cm in women and 22-23 cm in men, especially when high ambient noise precludes accurate auscultation (such as in emergency situations or helicopter transport). The highest sensitivity and specificity for ruling out endobronchial intubation, however, is achieved by combining tube depth, auscultation of the lungs, and observation of symmetrical chest movements.Trial registrationNCT01232166.

Dataset Information

A multicentre, randomised trial of stabilisation with nasal high flow during neonatal endotracheal intubation (the SHINE trial): a study protocol

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets