Dataset Information

A feasibility randomised controlled trial of targeted oxygen therapy in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite oxygen being the commonest drug administered to critically ill patients we do not know which oxygen saturation (SpO₂) target results in optimal survival outcomes in those receiving mechanical ventilation. We therefore conducted a feasibility randomised controlled trial in the United Kingdom (UK) to assess whether it would be possible to host a larger national multi-centre trial to evaluate oxygenation targets in mechanically ventilated patients.

Methods

We set out to recruit 60 participants across two sites into a trial in which they were randomised to receive conservative oxygenation (SpO₂ 88-92%) or usual care (control - SpO₂ ≥96%). The primary outcome was feasibility; factors related to safety and clinical outcomes were also assessed.

Results

A total of 34 patients were recruited into the study until it was stopped due to time constraints. A number of key barriers to success were identified during the course of the study. The conservative oxygenation intervention was feasible and appeared to be safe in this small patient cohort and it achieved wide separation of the median time-weighted average (IQR) SpO₂ at 91% (90-92%) in conservative oxygenation group versus 97% (96-97%) in control group.

Conclusion

Whilst conservative oxygenation was a feasible and safe intervention which achieved clear group separation in oxygenation levels, the model used in this trial will require alterations to improve future participant recruitment rates in the UK.

SUBMITTER: Martin DS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8829765 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A feasibility randomised controlled trial of targeted oxygen therapy in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.

Martin Daniel S DS McNeil Margaret M Brew-Graves Chris C Filipe Helder H O'Driscoll Ronan R Stevens Jia Liu JL Burnish Rachel R Cumpstey Andrew F AF Williams Norman R NR Mythen Michael G MG Grocott Michael Pw MP

Journal of the Intensive Care Society 20210408 4

<h4>Background</h4>Despite oxygen being the commonest drug administered to critically ill patients we do not know which oxygen saturation (SpO<sub>2</sub>) target results in optimal survival outcomes in those receiving mechanical ventilation. We therefore conducted a feasibility randomised controlled trial in the United Kingdom (UK) to assess whether it would be possible to host a larger national multi-centre trial to evaluate oxygenation targets in mechanically ventilated patients.<h4>Methods</ ...[more]

PMID: 35154365

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionOxygen is the most commonly administered drug to mechanically ventilated critically ill adults, yet little is known about the optimum oxygen saturation (SpO2) target for these patients; the current standard of care is an SpO2 of 96% or above. Small pilot studies have demonstrated that permissive hypoxaemia (aiming for a lower SpO2 than normal by using a lower fractional inspired oxygen concentration (FIO2)) can be achieved in the critically ill and appears to be safe. This approach has not been evaluated in a National Health Service setting. It is possible that permissive hypoxaemia may be beneficial to critically ill patients thus it requires robust evaluation.Methods and analysisTargeted OXygen therapY in Critical illness (TOXYC) is a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate whether recruiting patients to a study of permissive hypoxaemia is possible in the UK. It will also investigate biological mechanisms that may underlie the links between oxygenation and patient outcomes. Mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory failure will be recruited from critical care units at two sites and randomised (1:1 ratio) to an SpO2 target of either 88%-92% or ≥96% while intubated with an endotracheal tube. Clinical teams can adjust FIO2 and ventilator settings as they wish to achieve these targets. Clinical information will be collected before, during and after the intervention and blood samples taken to measure markers of systemic oxidative stress. The primary outcome of this study is feasibility, which will be assessed by recruitment rate, protocol adherence and withdrawal rates. Secondary outcomes will include a comparison of standard critical care outcome measures between the two intervention groups, and the measurement of biomarkers of systemic oxidative stress. The results will be used to calculate a sample size, likely number of sites and overall length of time required for a subsequent large multicentre RCT.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the London - Harrow Research Ethics Committee on 2 November 2017 (REC Reference 17/LO/1334) and received HRA approval on 13 November 2017. Results from this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, at medical and scientific meetings, in the NIHR Journals Library and patient information websites.Trial registration numberNCT03287466; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundLong-term complications of critical illness include intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired weakness and neuropsychiatric disease. Immobilisation secondary to sedation might potentiate these problems. We assessed the efficacy of combining daily interruption of sedation with physical and occupational therapy on functional outcomes in patients receiving mechanical ventilation in intensive care.MethodsSedated adults (>/=18 years of age) in the ICU who had been on mechanical ventilation for less than 72 h, were expected to continue for at least 24 h, and who met criteria for baseline functional independence were eligible for enrolment in this randomised controlled trial at two university hospitals. We randomly assigned 104 patients by computer-generated, permuted block randomisation to early exercise and mobilisation (physical and occupational therapy) during periods of daily interruption of sedation (intervention; n=49) or to daily interruption of sedation with therapy as ordered by the primary care team (control; n=55). The primary endpoint-the number of patients returning to independent functional status at hospital discharge-was defined as the ability to perform six activities of daily living and the ability to walk independently. Therapists who undertook patient assessments were blinded to treatment assignment. Secondary endpoints included duration of delirium and ventilator-free days during the first 28 days of hospital stay. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00322010.FindingsAll 104 patients were included in the analysis. Return to independent functional status at hospital discharge occurred in 29 (59%) patients in the intervention group compared with 19 (35%) patients in the control group (p=0.02; odds ratio 2.7 [95% CI 1.2-6.1]). Patients in the intervention group had shorter duration of delirium (median 2.0 days, IQR 0.0-6.0 vs 4.0 days, 2.0-8.0; p=0.02), and more ventilator-free days (23.5 days, 7.4-25.6 vs 21.1 days, 0.0-23.8; p=0.05) during the 28-day follow-up period than did controls. There was one serious adverse event in 498 therapy sessions (desaturation less than 80%). Discontinuation of therapy as a result of patient instability occurred in 19 (4%) of all sessions, most commonly for perceived patient-ventilator asynchrony.InterpretationA strategy for whole-body rehabilitation-consisting of interruption of sedation and physical and occupational therapy in the earliest days of critical illness-was safe and well tolerated, and resulted in better functional outcomes at hospital discharge, a shorter duration of delirium, and more ventilator-free days compared with standard care.FundingNone.

Project description:ImportanceAmong critically ill adults, randomized trials have not found oxygenation targets to affect outcomes overall. Whether the effects of oxygenation targets differ based on an individual's characteristics is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine whether an individual's characteristics modify the effect of lower vs higher peripheral oxygenation-saturation (Spo2) targets on mortality.Design, setting, and participantsA machine learning model to predict the effect of treatment with a lower vs higher Spo2 target on mortality for individual patients was derived in the Pragmatic Investigation of Optimal Oxygen Targets (PILOT) trial and externally validated in the Intensive Care Unit Randomized Trial Comparing Two Approaches to Oxygen Therapy (ICU-ROX) trial. Critically ill adults received invasive mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit (ICU) in the United States between July 2018 and August 2021 for PILOT (n = 1682) and in 21 ICUs in Australia and New Zealand between September 2015 and May 2018 for ICU-ROX (n = 965).ExposuresRandomization to a lower vs higher Spo2 target group.Main outcome and measure28-Day mortality.ResultsIn the ICU-ROX validation cohort, the predicted effect of treatment with a lower vs higher Spo2 target for individual patients ranged from a 27.2% absolute reduction to a 34.4% absolute increase in 28-day mortality. For example, patients predicted to benefit from a lower Spo2 target had a higher prevalence of acute brain injury, whereas patients predicted to benefit from a higher Spo2 target had a higher prevalence of sepsis and abnormally elevated vital signs. Patients predicted to benefit from a lower Spo2 target experienced lower mortality when randomized to the lower Spo2 group, whereas patients predicted to benefit from a higher Spo2 target experienced lower mortality when randomized to the higher Spo2 group (likelihood ratio test for effect modification P = .02). The use of a Spo2 target predicted to be best for each patient, instead of the randomized Spo2 target, would have reduced the absolute overall mortality by 6.4% (95% CI, 1.9%-10.9%).Conclusion and relevanceOxygenation targets that are individualized using machine learning analyses of randomized trials may reduce mortality for critically ill adults. A prospective trial evaluating the use of individualized oxygenation targets is needed.

Project description:ObjectiveKetamine has been shown to decrease sedative requirements in intensive care unit (ICU). Randomized trials are limited on patient-centered outcomes. We designed this pilot trial to evaluate the feasibility of a large randomized controlled trial (RCT) testing the effect of ketamine as an adjunct analgosedative compared with standard of care alone as a control group (CG) in critically ill patients with mechanical ventilation (MV). We also provided preliminary evidence on clinically relevant outcomes to plan a larger trial.Material and methodsPilot, active-controlled, open-label RCT was conducted at medical, surgical, and transplant ICUs at a large tertiary and quaternary care medical institution (King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Saudi Arabia). The study included adult patients who were intubated within 24 h, expected to require MV for the next calendar day, and had institutional pain and sedation protocol initiated. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to adjunct ketamine infusion 1-2 μg/kg/min for 48 h or CG alone.ResultsOf 437 patients screened from September 2019 through November 2020, 83 (18.9%) patients were included (43 in CG and 40 in ketamine) and 352 (80.5%) were excluded. Average enrollment rate was 3-4 patients/month. Consent and protocol adherence rates were adequate (89.24% and 76%, respectively). Demographics were balanced between groups. Median MV duration was 7 (interquartile range [IQR] 3-9.25 days) in ketamine and 5 (IQR 2-8 days) in CG. Median VFDs was 19 (IQR 0-24.75 days) in ketamine and 19 (IQR 0-24 days) in the CG (p = 0.70). More patients attained goal Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale at 24 and 48 h in ketamine (67.5% and 73.5%, respectively) compared with CG (52.4% and 66.7%, respectively). Sedatives and vasopressors cumulative use, and hemodynamic changes were similar. ICU length-of-stay was 12.5 (IQR 6-21.2 days) in ketamine, compared with 12 (IQR 5.5-23 days) in CG. No serious adverse events were observed in either group.ConclusionsKetamine as an adjunct analgosedative agent appeared to be feasible and safe with no negative impact on outcomes, including hemodynamics. This pilot RCT identified areas of improvement in study protocol before conducting a large, adequately powered, multicenter RCT which is likely justified to investigate ketamine association with patient-centered outcomes further. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04075006. Registered on 30 August 2019. Current controlled trials: ISRCTN14730035. Registered on 3 February 2020.

Project description:IntroductionSleep deprivation, which is a common complication in the intensive care unit (ICU), is associated with delirium and increased mortality. Sedation with gamma-aminobutyric acid agonists (propofol, benzodiazepine) results in significant disturbance of the sleep architecture. Dexmedetomidine is a lipophilic imidazole with an affinity for α2-adrenoceptors and it has sedative and analgesic properties. It has been reported to enhance sleep efficiency, thus sedate while preserving sleep architecture.Methods and analysisThirty consecutive patients are planned to be included, at the Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care at the Hospital of Southwest Jutland, Denmark. The study is a double-blinded, randomised, controlled trial with two parallel groups (2:1 allocation ratio). Screening and inclusion will be done on day 1 from 8:00 to 16:00. Two 16 hours PSG (polysomnography) recording will be done starting at 16:00 on day 1 and day 2. Randomisation is performed if the first recording is of acceptable quality, otherwise the patient is excluded before randomisation. Dexmedetomidine/placebo will be administered during the second recording from 18:00 on day 2 to 6:00 on day 3.Primary endpointImprovement of total sleep time and sleep quality of clinical significance determined by PSG.Secondary endpointsSleep phases determined by PSG. Daytime function and delirium determined by Confusion Assessment Method-ICU. Alertness and wakefulness determined by Richmonde Agitation Sedation Scale. The objective is to compare the effect of dexmedetomidine versus placebo on sleep quality in critical ill mechanically ventilated patients.Ethics and disseminationThe trial investigate the potential benefit of dexmedetomidine on clinically relevant endpoints. If a beneficial effect is shown, this would have a large impact on future treatment of mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Publication in peer-reviewed journal are plannedand the study has been approved by the National Committee on Health Research Ethics (ID:S-20180214).Trial registration numberEudraCT (2017-001612-11DK) and Danish National Committee on Health Research Ethics (ID:S-20180214). The study related to pre-results.

Project description:IntroductionNeuromuscular weakness resulting in severe functional impairment is common in critical care survivors. This study aimed to evaluate effects of an early progressive rehabilitation intervention in mechanically ventilated adults at risk.MethodsThis was a parallel, two-arm, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial with 6-months follow-up that was conducted in a mixed ICU of an academic centre in Switzerland. Previously independent, mechanically ventilated, critically ill adults with expected critical care stay ≥72 hours (n = 115) were randomised to a control group receiving standard physiotherapy including early mobilisation or to an experimental group with early endurance and resistance training combined with mobilisation. Primary endpoints were functional capacity (6-Minute Walk Distance) and functional independence (Functional Independence Measure) at hospital discharge. Secondary endpoints including muscle strength were assessed at critical care discharge. Safety was monitored closely by standard monitoring and predefined adverse events.ResultsPhysiotherapy started within 48 hours of critical care admission while 97% of participants were still ventilated and 68% on inotropes. Compared to the control group (n = 57), the experimental group (n = 58) received significantly more physiotherapy (sessions: 407 vs 377, p<0.001; time/session: 25min vs 18min, p<0.001) and had less days with sedation (p<0.001). Adverse events were rare (0.6%) and without consequences. There were no significant between-group differences in 6-Minute Walk Distance (experimental 123m (IQR 25-280) vs control 100m (IQR 0-300); p = 0.542) or functional independence (98 (IQR 66-119) vs 98 (IQR 18-115); p = 0.308). Likewise, no differences were found for the secondary outcomes, except a trend towards improved mental health in the experimental group after 6 months (84 (IQR 68-88) vs 70 (IQR 64-76); p = 0.023).ConclusionsEarly endurance and resistance training in mechanically ventilated, intensive care patients does not improve functional capacity or independence at hospital discharge compared to early standard physiotherapy but may improve mental health 6-months after critical care discharge.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): DRKS00004347, registered on 10 September 2012.

Project description:BackgroundVilobelimab, an anti-C5a monoclonal antibody, was shown to be safe in a phase 2 trial of invasively mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Here, we aimed to determine whether vilobelimab in addition to standard of care improves survival outcomes in this patient population.MethodsThis randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre phase 3 trial was performed at 46 hospitals in the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, Russia, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years or older who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, but not more than 48 h after intubation at time of first infusion, had a PaO2/FiO2 ratio of 60-200 mm Hg, and a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with any variant in the past 14 days were eligible for this study. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive standard of care and vilobelimab at a dose of 800 mg intravenously for a maximum of six doses (days 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, and 22) or standard of care and a matching placebo using permuted block randomisation. Treatment was not continued after hospital discharge. Participants, caregivers, and assessors were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was defined as all-cause mortality at 28 days in the full analysis set (defined as all randomly assigned participants regardless of whether a patient started treatment, excluding patients randomly assigned in error) and measured using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Safety analyses included all patients who had received at least one infusion of either vilobelimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04333420.FindingsFrom Oct 1, 2020, to Oct 4, 2021, we included 368 patients in the ITT analysis (full analysis set; 177 in the vilobelimab group and 191 in the placebo group). One patient in the vilobelimab group was excluded from the primary analysis due to random assignment in error without treatment. At least one dose of study treatment was given to 364 (99%) patients (safety analysis set). 54 patients (31%) of 177 in the vilobelimab group and 77 patients (40%) of 191 in the placebo group died in the first 28 days. The all-cause mortality rate at 28 days was 32% (95% CI 25-39) in the vilobelimab group and 42% (35-49) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·73, 95% CI 0·50-1·06; p=0·094). In the predefined analysis without site-stratification, vilobelimab significantly reduced all-cause mortality at 28 days (HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·48-0·96; p=0·027). The most common TEAEs were acute kidney injury (35 [20%] of 175 in the vilobelimab group vs 40 [21%] of 189 in the placebo), pneumonia (38 [22%] vs 26 [14%]), and septic shock (24 [14%] vs 31 [16%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 103 (59%) of 175 patients in the vilobelimab group versus 120 (63%) of 189 in the placebo group.InterpretationIn addition to standard of care, vilobelimab improves survival of invasive mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 and leads to a significant decrease in mortality. Vilobelimab could be considered as an additional therapy for patients in this setting and further research is needed on the role of vilobelimab and C5a in other acute respiratory distress syndrome-causing viral infections.FundingInflaRx and the German Federal Government.

Dataset Information

A feasibility randomised controlled trial of targeted oxygen therapy in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A feasibility randomised controlled trial of targeted oxygen therapy in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets