Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Michael Broadhead is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Michael Broadhead.


BMC Pediatrics | 2010

Control of hyperglycaemia in paediatric intensive care (CHiP): study protocol

Duncan Macrae; John Pappachan; Richard Grieve; Roger Parslow; Simon Nadel; Margrid Schindler; Peter-Marc Fortune; Zdenek Slavik; Allan Goldman; Ann Truesdale; Helen Betts; Elizabeth Allen; Claire Snowdon; Deborah Percy; Michael Broadhead; Tara Quick; Mark J. Peters; Kevin Morris; Robert C. Tasker; Diana Elbourne

BackgroundThere is increasing evidence that tight blood glucose (BG) control improves outcomes in critically ill adults. Children show similar hyperglycaemic responses to surgery or critical illness. However it is not known whether tight control will benefit children given maturational differences and different disease spectrum.Methods/DesignThe study is an randomised open trial with two parallel groups to assess whether, for children undergoing intensive care in the UK aged ≤ 16 years who are ventilated, have an arterial line in-situ and are receiving vasoactive support following injury, major surgery or in association with critical illness in whom it is anticipated such treatment will be required to continue for at least 12 hours, tight control will increase the numbers of days alive and free of mechanical ventilation at 30 days, and lead to improvement in a range of complications associated with intensive care treatment and be cost effective.Children in the tight control group will receive insulin by intravenous infusion titrated to maintain BG between 4 and 7.0 mmol/l. Children in the control group will be treated according to a standard current approach to BG management.Children will be followed up to determine vital status and healthcare resources usage between discharge and 12 months post-randomisation. Information regarding overall health status, global neurological outcome, attention and behavioural status will be sought from a subgroup with traumatic brain injury (TBI).A difference of 2 days in the number of ventilator-free days within the first 30 days post-randomisation is considered clinically important. Conservatively assuming a standard deviation of a week across both trial arms, a type I error of 1% (2-sided test), and allowing for non-compliance, a total sample size of 1000 patients would have 90% power to detect this difference. To detect effect differences between cardiac and non-cardiac patients, a target sample size of 1500 is required. An economic evaluation will assess whether the costs of achieving tight BG control are justified by subsequent reductions in hospitalisation costs.DiscussionThe relevance of tight glycaemic control in this population needs to be assessed formally before being accepted into standard practice.Trial RegistrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN61735247


Health Technology Assessment | 2014

A clinical and economic evaluation of Control of Hyperglycaemia in Paediatric intensive care (CHiP): a randomised controlled trial.

Duncan Macrae; Richard Grieve; Elizabeth Allen; Zia Sadique; Helen Betts; Kevin Morris; Vithayathil John Pappachan; Roger Parslow; Robert C. Tasker; Michael Broadhead; Mark L Duthie; Peter-Marc Fortune; David Inwald; Paddy McMaster; Mark J. Peters; Margrid Schindler; Carla Guerriero; Deborah Piercy; Zdenek Slavik; Claire Snowdon; Laura Van Dyck; Diana Elbourne

BACKGROUND Early research in adults admitted to intensive care suggested that tight control of blood glucose during acute illness can be associated with reductions in mortality, length of hospital stay and complications such as infection and renal failure. Prior to our study, it was unclear whether or not children could also benefit from tight control of blood glucose during critical illness. OBJECTIVES This study aimed to determine if controlling blood glucose using insulin in paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) reduces mortality and morbidity and is cost-effective, whether or not admission follows cardiac surgery. DESIGN Randomised open two-arm parallel group superiority design with central randomisation with minimisation. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. Following random allocation, care givers and outcome assessors were no longer blind to allocation. SETTING The setting was 13 English PICUs. PARTICIPANTS Patients who met the following criteria were eligible for inclusion: ≥ 36 weeks corrected gestational age; ≤ 16 years; in the PICU following injury, following major surgery or with critical illness; anticipated treatment > 12 hours; arterial line; mechanical ventilation; and vasoactive drugs. Exclusion criteria were as follows: diabetes mellitus; inborn error of metabolism; treatment withdrawal considered; in the PICU > 5 consecutive days; and already in CHiP (Control of Hyperglycaemia in Paediatric intensive care). INTERVENTION The intervention was tight glycaemic control (TGC): insulin by intravenous infusion titrated to maintain blood glucose between 4.0 and 7.0 mmol/l. CONVENTIONAL MANAGEMENT (CM) This consisted of insulin by intravenous infusion only if blood glucose exceeded 12.0 mmol/l on two samples at least 30 minutes apart; insulin was stopped when blood glucose fell below 10.0 mmol/l. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was the number of days alive and free from mechanical ventilation within 30 days of trial entry (VFD-30). The secondary outcomes comprised clinical and economic outcomes at 30 days and 12 months and lifetime cost-effectiveness, which included costs per quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS CHiP recruited from May 2008 to September 2011. In total, 19,924 children were screened and 1369 eligible patients were randomised (TGC, 694; CM, 675), 60% of whom were in the cardiac surgery stratum. The randomised groups were comparable at trial entry. More children in the TGC than in the CM arm received insulin (66% vs. 16%). The mean VFD-30 was 23 [mean difference 0.36; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.42 to 1.14]. The effect did not differ among prespecified subgroups. Hypoglycaemia occurred significantly more often in the TGC than in the CM arm (moderate, 12.5% vs. 3.1%; severe, 7.3% vs. 1.5%). Mean 30-day costs were similar between arms, but mean 12-month costs were lower in the TGC than in CM arm (incremental costs -£3620, 95% CI -£7743 to £502). For the non-cardiac surgery stratum, mean costs were lower in the TGC than in the CM arm (incremental cost -£9865, 95% CI -£18,558 to -£1172), but, in the cardiac surgery stratum, the costs were similar between the arms (incremental cost £133, 95% CI -£3568 to £3833). Lifetime incremental net benefits were positive overall (£3346, 95% CI -£11,203 to £17,894), but close to zero for the cardiac surgery stratum (-£919, 95% CI -£16,661 to £14,823). For the non-cardiac surgery stratum, the incremental net benefits were high (£11,322, 95% CI -£15,791 to £38,615). The probability that TGC is cost-effective is relatively high for the non-cardiac surgery stratum, but, for the cardiac surgery subgroup, the probability that TGC is cost-effective is around 0.5. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to a range of alternative assumptions. CONCLUSIONS CHiP found no differences in the clinical or cost-effectiveness of TGC compared with CM overall, or for prespecified subgroups. A higher proportion of the TGC arm had hypoglycaemia. This study did not provide any evidence to suggest that PICUs should stop providing CM for children admitted to PICUs following cardiac surgery. For the subgroup not admitted for cardiac surgery, TGC reduced average costs at 12 months and is likely to be cost-effective. Further research is required to refine the TGC protocol to minimise the risk of hypoglycaemic episodes and assess the long-term health benefits of TGC. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN61735247. FUNDING This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


Archive | 2014

Trial Management Group

Duncan Macrae; Richard Grieve; Elizabeth Allen; Zia Sadique; Helen Betts; Kevin Morris; Vithayathil John Pappachan; Roger Parslow; Robert C. Tasker; Michael Broadhead; Mark L Duthie; Peter-Marc Fortune; David Inwald; Paddy McMaster; Mark J. Peters; Margrid Schindler; Carla Guerriero; Deborah Piercy; Zdenek Slavik; Claire Snowdon; Laura Van Dyck; Diana Elbourne


Archive | 2014

Protocol version 6 (August 2010)

Duncan Macrae; Richard Grieve; Elizabeth Allen; Zia Sadique; Helen Betts; Kevin Morris; Vithayathil John Pappachan; Roger Parslow; Robert C. Tasker; Michael Broadhead; Mark L Duthie; Peter-Marc Fortune; David Inwald; Paddy McMaster; Mark J. Peters; Margrid Schindler; Carla Guerriero; Deborah Piercy; Zdenek Slavik; Claire Snowdon; Laura Van Dyck; Diana Elbourne


Archive | 2014

CHiP: summary of protocol amendments

Duncan Macrae; Richard Grieve; Elizabeth Allen; Zia Sadique; Helen Betts; Kevin Morris; Vithayathil John Pappachan; Roger Parslow; Robert C. Tasker; Michael Broadhead; Mark L Duthie; Peter-Marc Fortune; David Inwald; Paddy McMaster; Mark J. Peters; Margrid Schindler; Carla Guerriero; Deborah Piercy; Zdenek Slavik; Claire Snowdon; Laura Van Dyck; Diana Elbourne


Archive | 2014

Questionnaire on use of health services

Duncan Macrae; Richard Grieve; Elizabeth Allen; Zia Sadique; Helen Betts; Kevin Morris; Vithayathil John Pappachan; Roger Parslow; Robert C. Tasker; Michael Broadhead; Mark L Duthie; Peter-Marc Fortune; David Inwald; Paddy McMaster; Mark J. Peters; Margrid Schindler; Carla Guerriero; Deborah Piercy; Zdenek Slavik; Claire Snowdon; Laura Van Dyck; Diana Elbourne


Archive | 2014

Diary on use of health services

Duncan Macrae; Richard Grieve; Elizabeth Allen; Zia Sadique; Helen Betts; Kevin Morris; Vithayathil John Pappachan; Roger Parslow; Robert C. Tasker; Michael Broadhead; Mark L Duthie; Peter-Marc Fortune; David Inwald; Paddy McMaster; Mark J. Peters; Margrid Schindler; Carla Guerriero; Deborah Piercy; Zdenek Slavik; Claire Snowdon; Laura Van Dyck; Diana Elbourne


Archive | 2014

Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee

Duncan Macrae; Richard Grieve; Elizabeth Allen; Zia Sadique; Helen Betts; Kevin Morris; Vithayathil John Pappachan; Roger Parslow; Robert C. Tasker; Michael Broadhead; Mark L Duthie; Peter-Marc Fortune; David Inwald; Paddy McMaster; Mark J. Peters; Margrid Schindler; Carla Guerriero; Deborah Piercy; Zdenek Slavik; Claire Snowdon; Laura Van Dyck; Diana Elbourne


Archive | 2014

Principal investigator’s responsibilities

Duncan Macrae; Richard Grieve; Elizabeth Allen; Zia Sadique; Helen Betts; Kevin Morris; Vithayathil John Pappachan; Roger Parslow; Robert C. Tasker; Michael Broadhead; Mark L Duthie; Peter-Marc Fortune; David Inwald; Paddy McMaster; Mark J. Peters; Margrid Schindler; Carla Guerriero; Deborah Piercy; Zdenek Slavik; Claire Snowdon; Laura Van Dyck; Diana Elbourne


Archive | 2014

Trial Steering Committee: terms of reference and membership

Duncan Macrae; Richard Grieve; Elizabeth Allen; Zia Sadique; Helen Betts; Kevin Morris; Vithayathil John Pappachan; Roger Parslow; Robert C. Tasker; Michael Broadhead; Mark L Duthie; Peter-Marc Fortune; David Inwald; Paddy McMaster; Mark J. Peters; Margrid Schindler; Carla Guerriero; Deborah Piercy; Zdenek Slavik; Claire Snowdon; Laura Van Dyck; Diana Elbourne

Collaboration


Dive into the Michael Broadhead's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Duncan Macrae

Great Ormond Street Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Helen Betts

Imperial College London

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Margrid Schindler

Bristol Royal Hospital for Children

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Mark J. Peters

Great Ormond Street Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge