Ruth R Canter

Early, Goal-Directed Therapy for Septic Shock - A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND After a single‐center trial and observational studies suggesting that early, goal‐directed therapy (EGDT) reduced mortality from septic shock, three multicenter trials (ProCESS, ARISE, and ProMISe) showed no benefit. This meta‐analysis of individual patient data from the three recent trials was designed prospectively to improve statistical power and explore heterogeneity of treatment effect of EGDT. METHODS We harmonized entry criteria, intervention protocols, outcomes, resource‐use measures, and data collection across the trials and specified all analyses before unblinding. After completion of the trials, we pooled data, excluding the protocol‐based standard‐therapy group from the ProCESS trial, and resolved residual differences. The primary outcome was 90‐day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 1‐year survival, organ support, and hospitalization costs. We tested for treatment‐by‐subgroup interactions for 16 patient characteristics and 6 care‐delivery characteristics. RESULTS We studied 3723 patients at 138 hospitals in seven countries. Mortality at 90 days was similar for EGDT (462 of 1852 patients [24.9%]) and usual care (475 of 1871 patients [25.4%]); the adjusted odds ratio was 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.14; P=0.68). EGDT was associated with greater mean (±SD) use of intensive care (5.3±7.1 vs. 4.9±7.0 days, P=0.04) and cardiovascular support (1.9±3.7 vs. 1.6±2.9 days, P=0.01) than was usual care; other outcomes did not differ significantly, although average costs were higher with EGDT. Subgroup analyses showed no benefit from EGDT for patients with worse shock (higher serum lactate level, combined hypotension and hyperlactatemia, or higher predicted risk of death) or for hospitals with a lower propensity to use vasopressors or fluids during usual resuscitation. CONCLUSIONS In this meta‐analysis of individual patient data, EGDT did not result in better outcomes than usual care and was associated with higher hospitalization costs across a broad range of patient and hospital characteristics. (Funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and others; PRISM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02030158.)

A multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early nutritional support via the parenteral versus the enteral route in critically ill patients (CALORIES)

BACKGROUND Malnutrition is a common problem in critically ill patients in UK NHS critical care units. Early nutritional support is therefore recommended to address deficiencies in nutritional state and related disorders in metabolism. However, evidence is conflicting regarding the optimum route (parenteral or enteral) of delivery. OBJECTIVES To estimate the effect of early nutritional support via the parenteral route compared with the enteral route on mortality at 30 days and on incremental cost-effectiveness at 1 year. Secondary objectives were to compare the route of early nutritional support on duration of organ support; infectious and non-infectious complications; critical care unit and acute hospital length of stay; all-cause mortality at critical care unit and acute hospital discharge, at 90 days and 1 year; survival to 90 days and 1 year; nutritional and health-related quality of life, resource use and costs at 90 days and 1 year; and estimated lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness. DESIGN A pragmatic, open, multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with an integrated economic evaluation. SETTING Adult general critical care units in 33 NHS hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS 2400 eligible patients. INTERVENTIONS Five days of early nutritional support delivered via the parenteral (n = 1200) and enteral (n = 1200) route. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES All-cause mortality at 30 days after randomisation and incremental net benefit (INB) (at £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year) at 1 year. RESULTS By 30 days, 393 of 1188 (33.1%) patients assigned to receive early nutritional support via the parenteral route and 409 of 1195 (34.2%) assigned to the enteral route had died [p = 0.57; absolute risk reduction 1.15%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.65 to 4.94; relative risk 0.97 (0.86 to 1.08)]. At 1 year, INB for the parenteral route compared with the enteral route was negative at -£1320 (95% CI -£3709 to £1069). The probability that early nutritional support via the parenteral route is more cost-effective - given the data - is < 20%. The proportion of patients in the parenteral group who experienced episodes of hypoglycaemia (p = 0.006) and of vomiting (p < 0.001) was significantly lower than in the enteral group. There were no significant differences in the 15 other secondary outcomes and no significant interactions with pre-specified subgroups. LIMITATIONS Blinding of nutritional support was deemed to be impractical and, although the primary outcome was objective, some secondary outcomes, although defined and objectively assessed, may have been more vulnerable to observer bias. CONCLUSIONS There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days for early nutritional support via the parenteral route compared with the enteral route among adults admitted to critical care units in England. On average, costs were higher for the parenteral route, which, combined with similar survival and quality of life, resulted in negative INBs at 1 year. FUTURE WORK Nutritional support is a complex combination of timing, dose, duration, delivery and type, all of which may affect outcomes and costs. Conflicting evidence remains regarding optimum provision to critically ill patients. There is a need to utilise rigorous consensus methods to establish future priorities for basic and clinical research in this area. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17386141. FUNDING This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Observational study of current use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in UK Critical Care units

BACKGROUND Evidence supporting selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is reasonably strong. We set out to determine use in UK critical care units and to compare patient outcomes between units that do and those that do not use SDD. METHODS A total of 250 UK general critical care units were surveyed. Case mix, outcomes, and lengths of stay for admissions to SDD units (with and without an i.v. component) and non-SDD units were compared using data from the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre Case Mix Programme database. RESULTS A response was received from all the 250 critical care units surveyed. Of these, 13 (5.2%) reported using SDD on some or all admissions, and of these, 3 reported using an i.v. component. Data on 284,690 admissions (April 2008-March 2011) from units reporting to the ICNARC Case Mix Programme (CMP) were included in the analyses. Admissions to SDD (n=196) and non-SDD (n=9) units were a similar case mix with similar infection rates and average lengths of stay in the unit and hospital. There was no difference in risk-adjusted unit or hospital mortality. The rate of unit-acquired infections in blood was significantly lower in SDD units using an i.v. component. CONCLUSIONS Use of SDD in UK critical care is very low. The rate of unit-acquired infections in blood was significantly lower in SDD units using an i.v. component, but did not translate into a difference in acute hospital mortality or length of stay. There is a need to better understand the barriers to adoption of SDD into clinical practice and such work is underway.

A qualitative feasibility study to inform a randomised controlled trial of fluid bolus therapy in septic shock

Objective The Fluids in Shock (FiSh) Trial proposes to evaluate whether restrictive fluid bolus therapy (10 mL/kg) is more beneficial than current recommended practice (20 mL/kg) in the resuscitation of children with septic shock in the UK. This qualitative feasibility study aimed to explore acceptability of the FiSh Trial, including research without prior consent (RWPC), potential barriers to recruitment and participant information for a pilot trial. Design Qualitative interview study involving parents of children who had presented to a UK emergency department or been admitted to a paediatric intensive care unit with severe infection in the previous 3 years. Participants Twenty-one parents (seven bereaved) were interviewed 16 (median) months since their child’s hospital admission (range: 1–41). Results All parents said they would have provided consent for the use of their child’s data in the FiSh Trial. The majority were unfamiliar with RWPC, yet supported its use. Parents were initially concerned about the change from currently recommended treatment, yet were reassured by explanations of the current evidence base, fluid bolus therapy and monitoring procedures. Parents made recommendations about the timing of the research discussion and content of participant information. Bereaved parents stated that recruiters should not discuss research immediately after a child’s death, but supported a personalised postal ‘opt-out’ approach to consent. Conclusions Findings show that parents whose child has experienced severe infection supported the proposed FiSh Trial, including the use of RWPC. Parents’ views informed the development of the pilot trial protocol and site staff training. Trial registration number ISRCTN15244462—results.

Restricted fluid bolus volume in early septic shock: results of the Fluids in Shock pilot trial

Objective To determine the feasibility of Fluids in Shock, a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of restricted fluid bolus volume (10 mL/kg) versus recommended practice (20 mL/kg). Design Nine-month pilot RCT with embedded mixed-method perspectives study. Setting 13 hospitals in England. Patients Children presenting to emergency departments with suspected infection and shock after 20 mL/kg fluid. Interventions Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to further 10 or 20 mL/kg fluid boluses every 15 min for up to 4 hours if still in shock. Main outcome measures These were based on progression criteria, including recruitment and retention, protocol adherence, separation, potential trial outcome measures, and parent and staff perspectives. Results Seventy-five participants were randomised; two were withdrawn. 23 (59%) of 39 in the 10 mL/kg arm and 25 (74%) of 34 in the 20 mL/kg arm required a single trial bolus before the shock resolved. 79% of boluses were delivered per protocol in the 10 mL/kg arm and 55% in the 20 mL/kg arm. The volume of study bolus fluid after 4 hours was 44% lower in the 10 mL/kg group (mean 14.5 vs 27.5 mL/kg). The Paediatric Index of Mortality-2 score was 2.1 (IQR 1.6–2.7) in the 10 mL/kg group and 2.0 (IQR 1.6–2.5) in the 20 mL/kg group. There were no deaths. Length of hospital stay, paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admissions and PICU-free days at 30 days did not differ significantly between the groups. In the perspectives study, the trial was generally supported, although some problems with protocol adherence were described. Conclusions Participants were not as unwell as expected. A larger trial is not feasible in its current design in the UK. Trial registration number ISRCTN15244462.

FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC): protocol for a multicentre randomised feasibility trial of non-invasive respiratory support in critically ill children

Introduction Over 18 000 children are admitted annually to UK paediatric intensive care units (PICUs), of whom nearly 75% receive respiratory support (invasive and/or non-invasive). Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has traditionally been used to provide first-line non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) in PICUs; however, high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC), a novel mode of NRS, has recently gained popularity despite the lack of high-quality trial evidence to support its effectiveness. This feasibility study aims to inform the design and conduct of a future definitive randomised clinical trial (RCT) comparing the two modes of respiratory support. Methods and analysis We will conduct a three-centre randomised feasibility study over 12 months. Patients admitted to participating PICUs who satisfy eligibility criteria will be recruited to either group A (primary respiratory failure) or group B (postextubation). Consent will be obtained from parents/guardians prior to randomisation in ‘planned’ group B, and deferred in emergency situations (group A and ‘rescue’ group B). Participants will be randomised (1:1) to either CPAP or HFNC using sealed, opaque envelopes, from a computer-generated randomisation sequence with variable block sizes. The study protocol specifies algorithms for the initiation, maintenance and weaning of HFNC and CPAP. The primary outcomes are related to feasibility, including the number of eligible patients in each group, feasibility of randomising >50% of eligible patients and measures of adherence to the treatment protocols. Data will also be collected on patient outcomes (eg, mortality and length of PICU stay) to inform the selection of an appropriate outcome measure in a future RCT. We aim to recruit 120 patients to the study. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was granted by the National Research Ethics Service Committee North East—Tyne&Wear South (15/NE/0296). Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, national and international conferences. Trials registration number NCT02612415; pre-results.

Reply from the authors: Reply: SDD and contextual effect

control group patients, partially accounts for the increase in VAP rates as a contextual effect of SDD. I askCanter and colleagueswhether their surveyfindingsmay have a different interpretation. Is it possible that through a contextual effect, SDD, regardless of formulation, increases the risk of VAPand bacteremia infection for patients concurrently located in the ICU and not receiving SDD. In this regard, are the bacteremia rates among the units using SDD without an i.v. component known? Is the proportion of bacteremia isolates that were coagulase negative staphylococci (CNS) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa known for units using vs units not using SDD known? With this information it would be possible to determine how much of the differences seen in the survey results represent a direct effect of SDD in recipients vs indirect or contextual effects of SDD in collocated ICU patients.