1
|
Mouncey PR, Richards-Belle A, Thomas K, Harrison DA, Sadique MZ, Grieve RD, Camsooksai J, Darnell R, Gordon AC, Henry D, Hudson N, Mason AJ, Saull M, Whitman C, Young JD, Lamontagne F, Rowan KM. Reduced exposure to vasopressors through permissive hypotension to reduce mortality in critically ill people aged 65 and over: the 65 RCT. Health Technol Assess 2021; 25:1-90. [PMID: 33648623 PMCID: PMC7957458 DOI: 10.3310/hta25140] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Vasopressors are administered to critical care patients to avoid hypotension, which is associated with myocardial injury, kidney injury and death. However, they work by causing vasoconstriction, which may reduce blood flow and cause other adverse effects. A mean arterial pressure target typically guides administration. An individual patient data meta-analysis (Lamontagne F, Day AG, Meade MO, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Hylands M, et al. Pooled analysis of higher versus lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy septic and vasodilatory shock. Intensive Care Med 2018;44:12-21) suggested that greater exposure, through higher mean arterial pressure targets, may increase risk of death in older patients. OBJECTIVE To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of reduced vasopressor exposure through permissive hypotension (i.e. a lower mean arterial pressure target of 60-65 mmHg) in older critically ill patients. DESIGN A pragmatic, randomised clinical trial with integrated economic evaluation. SETTING Sixty-five NHS adult general critical care units. PARTICIPANTS Critically ill patients aged ≥ 65 years receiving vasopressors for vasodilatory hypotension. INTERVENTIONS Intervention - permissive hypotension (i.e. a mean arterial pressure target of 60-65 mmHg). Control (usual care) - a mean arterial pressure target at the treating clinician's discretion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary clinical outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. The primary cost-effectiveness outcome was 90-day incremental net monetary benefit. Secondary outcomes included receipt and duration of advanced respiratory and renal support, mortality at critical care and acute hospital discharge, and questionnaire assessment of cognitive decline and health-related quality of life at 90 days and 1 year. RESULTS Of 2600 patients randomised, 2463 (permissive hypotension, n = 1221; usual care, n = 1242) were analysed for the primary clinical outcome. Permissive hypotension resulted in lower exposure to vasopressors than usual care [mean duration 46.0 vs. 55.9 hours, difference -9.9 hours (95% confidence interval -14.3 to -5.5 hours); total noradrenaline-equivalent dose 31.5 mg vs. 44.3 mg, difference -12.8 mg (95% CI -18.0 mg to -17.6 mg)]. By 90 days, 500 (41.0%) patients in the permissive hypotension group and 544 (43.8%) patients in the usual-care group had died (absolute risk difference -2.85%, 95% confidence interval -6.75% to 1.05%; p = 0.154). Adjustment for prespecified baseline variables resulted in an odds ratio for 90-day mortality of 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98) favouring permissive hypotension. There were no significant differences in prespecified secondary outcomes or subgroups; however, patients with chronic hypertension showed a mortality difference favourable to permissive hypotension. At 90 days, permissive hypotension showed similar costs to usual care. However, with higher incremental life-years and quality-adjusted life-years in the permissive hypotension group, the incremental net monetary benefit was positive, but with high statistical uncertainty (£378, 95% confidence interval -£1347 to £2103). LIMITATIONS The intervention was unblinded, with risk of bias minimised through central allocation concealment and a primary outcome not subject to observer bias. The control group event rate was higher than anticipated. CONCLUSIONS In critically ill patients aged ≥ 65 years receiving vasopressors for vasodilatory hypotension, permissive hypotension did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality compared with usual care. The absolute treatment effect on 90-day mortality, based on 95% confidence intervals, was between a 6.8-percentage reduction and a 1.1-percentage increase in mortality. FUTURE WORK Future work should (1) update the individual patient data meta-analysis, (2) explore approaches for evaluating heterogeneity of treatment effect and (3) explore 65 trial conduct, including use of deferred consent, to inform future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10580502. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul R Mouncey
- Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, London, UK
| | - Alvin Richards-Belle
- Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, London, UK
| | - Karen Thomas
- Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, London, UK
| | - David A Harrison
- Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, London, UK
| | - M Zia Sadique
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Richard D Grieve
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Julie Camsooksai
- Critical Care, Research and Innovation, Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Poole, UK
| | - Robert Darnell
- Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, London, UK
| | - Anthony C Gordon
- Division of Anaesthetics, Pain Medicine and Intensive Care, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Intensive Care Unit, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK
| | | | - Nicholas Hudson
- Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, London, UK
| | - Alexina J Mason
- Division of Anaesthetics, Pain Medicine and Intensive Care, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Michelle Saull
- Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, London, UK
| | | | - J Duncan Young
- Kadoorie Centre for Critical Care Research and Education, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - François Lamontagne
- Department of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
- Centre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
| | - Kathryn M Rowan
- Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Masse MH, Battista MC, Wilcox ME, Pinto R, Marinoff N, D'Aragon F, St-Arnaud C, Mayette M, Leclair MA, Quiroz Martinez H, Grondin-Beaudoin B, Poulin Y, Carbonneau É, Seely AJE, Watpool I, Porteous R, Chassé M, Lebrasseur M, Lauzier F, Turgeon AF, Bellemare D, Mehta S, Charbonney E, Belley-Côté É, Botton É, Cohen D, Lamontagne F, Adhikari NKJ. Optimal VAsopressor TitraTION in patients 65 years and older (OVATION-65): protocol and statistical analysis plan for a randomised clinical trial. BMJ Open 2020; 10:e037947. [PMID: 33191251 PMCID: PMC7668371 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037947] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Vasodilatory hypotension is common among intensive care unit (ICU) patients; vasopressors are considered standard of care. However, optimal mean arterial pressure (MAP) targets for vasopressor titration are unknown. The objective of the Optimal VAsopressor TitraTION in patients 65 years and older (OVATION-65) trial is to ascertain the effect of permissive hypotension (vasopressor titration to achieve MAP 60-65 mm Hg) versus usual care on biomarkers of organ injury in hypotensive patients aged ≥65 years. METHODS AND ANALYSIS OVATION-65 is an allocation-concealed randomised trial in 7 Canadian hospitals. Eligible patients are ≥65 years of age, in an ICU with vasodilatory hypotension, receiving vasopressors for ≤12 hours to maintain MAP ≥65 mm Hg during or after adequate fluid resuscitation, and expected to receive vasopressors for ≥6 additional hours. Patients are excluded for any of the following: active treatment for spinal cord or acute brain injury; vasopressors given solely for bleeding, ventricular failure or postcardiopulmonary bypass vasoplegia; withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments expected within 48 hours; death perceived as imminent; previous enrolment in OVATION-65; organ transplant within the last year; receiving extracorporeal life support or lack of physician equipoise. Patients are randomised to permissive hypotension versus usual care for up to 28 days. The primary outcome is high-sensitivity troponin T, a biomarker of cardiac injury, on day 3. Secondary outcomes include biomarkers of injury to other organs (brain, liver, intestine, skeletal muscle); lactate (a biomarker of global tissue dysoxia); resource utilisation; adverse events; mortality (90 days and 6 months) and cognitive function (6 months). Assessors of biomarkers, mortality and cognitive function are blinded to allocation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This protocol has been approved at all sites. Consent is obtained from the eligible patient, the substitute decision-maker if the patient is incapable, or in a deferred fashion where permitted. End-of-grant dissemination plans include presentations, publications and social media platforms and discussion forums. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT03431181.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marie-Hélène Masse
- Centre de recherche, Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
| | - Marie-Claude Battista
- Centre de recherche, Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
- Department of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
| | - Mary Elizabeth Wilcox
- Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ruxandra Pinto
- Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Nicole Marinoff
- Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Frédérick D'Aragon
- Centre de recherche, Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
- Department of Anesthesiology, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
| | - Charles St-Arnaud
- Centre de recherche, Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
- Department of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
| | - Michael Mayette
- Centre de recherche, Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
- Department of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
| | - Marc-André Leclair
- Department of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
| | | | | | - Yannick Poulin
- Department of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
| | - Élaine Carbonneau
- Centre de recherche, Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
| | - Andrew J E Seely
- Departments of Surgery and Critical Care Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Irene Watpool
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Michaël Chassé
- Department of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Centre de recherche, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Martine Lebrasseur
- Centre de recherche, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - François Lauzier
- Population Health and Optimal Health Practices Research Unit, Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, Quebec, Canada
| | - Alexis F Turgeon
- Population Health and Optimal Health Practices Research Unit, Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, Quebec, Canada
| | - David Bellemare
- Population Health and Optimal Health Practices Research Unit, Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, Quebec, Canada
| | - Sangeeta Mehta
- Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Medicine, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Emmanuel Charbonney
- Department of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Centre de recherche, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Émilie Belley-Côté
- Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Dian Cohen
- Patient partners, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
| | - François Lamontagne
- Centre de recherche, Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
- Department of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
| | - Neill K J Adhikari
- Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine and Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|