Evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a conservative approach to oxygen therapy for invasively ventilated adults in intensive care: Protocol for the UK-ROX trial

Background

In the United Kingdom, around 184,000 adults are admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) each year with over 30% receiving mechanical ventilation. Oxygen is the commonest therapeutic intervention provided to these patients but it is unclear how much oxygen should be administered for the best clinical outcomes.

Methods

The UK-ROX trial will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of conservative oxygen therapy (the minimum oxygen concentration required to maintain an oxygen saturation of 90% ± 2%) versus usual oxygen therapy in critically ill adults receiving supplemental oxygen when invasively mechanically ventilated in ICUs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The trial will recruit 16,500 patients from approximately 100 UK adult ICUs. Using a deferred consent model, enrolled participants will be randomly allocated (1:1) to conservative or usual oxygen therapy until ICU discharge or 90 days after randomisation.

Objectives

The primary clinical outcome is all cause mortality at 90 days following randomisation.

Discussion

The UK-ROX trial has received ethical approval from the South Central - Oxford C Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 20/SC/0423) and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (Reference: 22/CAG/0154). The trial commenced in May 2021 and, at the time of publication, 95 sites had opened to recruitment.

Longitudinal associations between stroke and psychosis: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

The co-occurrence of stroke and psychosis is a serious neuropsychiatric condition but little is known about the course of this comorbidity. We aimed to estimate longitudinal associations between stroke and psychosis over 10 years.

METHODS

A 10-year population-based study using data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. A structured health assessment recorded (i) first-occurrence stroke and (ii) psychosis, at each wave. Each were considered exposures and outcomes in separate analyses. Logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier methods were used. Models were adjusted for demographic and health behaviour covariates, with missing covariates imputed using random forest multiple imputation.

RESULTS

Of 19 808 participants, 24 reported both stroke and psychosis (median Wave 1 age 63, 71% female, 50% lowest quintile of net financial wealth) at any point during follow-up. By 10 years, the probability of an incident first stroke in participants with psychosis was 21.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.1-29.6] compared to 8.3% (95% CI 7.8-8.8) in those without psychosis (absolute difference: 13.1%; 95% CI 20.8-4.3, log rank p < 0.001; fully-adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 3.57; 95% CI 2.18-5.84). The probability of reporting incident psychosis in participants with stroke was 2.3% (95% CI 1.4-3.2) compared to 0.9% (95% CI 0.7-1.1) in those without (absolute difference: 1.4%; 95% CI 0.7-2.1, log rank p < 0.001; fully-adjusted HR: 4.98; 95% CI 2.55-9.72).

CONCLUSIONS

Stroke is an independent predictor of psychosis (and vice versa), after adjustment for potential confounders.

Schizophrenia and cardiometabolic abnormalities: A Mendelian randomization study

Background: Individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia are known to be at high risk of premature mortality due to poor physical health, especially cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity. The reasons for these physical health outcomes within this patient population are complex. Despite well-documented cardiometabolic adverse effects of certain antipsychotic drugs and lifestyle factors, schizophrenia may have an independent effect. Aims: To investigate if there is evidence that schizophrenia is causally related to cardiometabolic traits (blood lipids, anthropometric traits, glycaemic traits, blood pressure) and vice versa using bi-directional two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis. Methods: We used 185 genetic variants associated with schizophrenia from the latest Psychiatric Genomics Consortium GWAS (n = 130,644) in the forward analysis (schizophrenia to cardiometabolic traits) and genetic variants associated with the cardiometabolic traits from various consortia in the reverse analysis (cardiometabolic traits to schizophrenia), both at genome-wide significance (5 × 10-8). The primary method was inverse-variance weighted MR, supported by supplementary methods such as MR-Egger, as well as median and mode-based methods. Results: In the forward analysis, schizophrenia was associated with slightly higher low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels (0.013 SD change in LDL per log odds increase in schizophrenia risk, 95% CI, 0.001-0.024 SD; p = 0.027) and total cholesterol levels (0.013 SD change in total cholesterol per log odds increase in schizophrenia risk, 95% CI, 0.002-0.025 SD; p = 0.023). However, these associations did not survive multiple testing corrections. There was no evidence of a causal effect of cardiometabolic traits on schizophrenia in the reverse analysis. Discussion: Dyslipidemia and obesity in schizophrenia patients are unlikely to be driven primarily by schizophrenia itself. Therefore, lifestyle, diet, antipsychotic drugs side effects, as well as shared mechanisms for metabolic dysfunction and schizophrenia such as low-grade systemic inflammation could be possible reasons for the apparent increased risk of metabolic disease in people with schizophrenia. Further research is needed to examine the shared immune mechanism hypothesis.

Associations of antidepressants and antipsychotics with lipid parameters: Do CYP2C19/CYP2D6 genes play a role? A UK population-based study

BACKGROUND

Dyslipidaemia is an important cardiovascular risk factor for people with severe mental illness, contributing to premature mortality. The link between antipsychotics and dyslipidaemia is well established, while evidence on antidepressants is mixed.

AIMS

To investigate if antidepressant/antipsychotic use was associated with lipid parameters in UK Biobank participants and if CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 genetic variation plays a role.

METHODS

Review of self-reported prescription medications identified participants taking antidepressants/antipsychotics. Total, low-, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (L/HDL-C) and triglycerides derived from blood samples. CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 metabolic phenotypes were assigned from genetic data. Linear regression investigated aims, adjusted for key covariates.

RESULTS

Of 469,739 participants, 36,043 took antidepressants (53% female, median age 58, 17% taking cholesterol-lowering medications) and 3255 took antipsychotics (58% female, median age 57, 27% taking cholesterol-lowering medications). Significant associations were found between use of each amitriptyline, fluoxetine, citalopram/escitalopram, sertraline, paroxetine and venlafaxine with higher total cholesterol, LDL-C, and triglycerides and lower HDL-C, compared to participants not taking each medication. Venlafaxine was associated with the worst lipid profile (total cholesterol, adjusted mean difference: 0.21 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.17 to 0.26, p < 0.001). Antipsychotic use was significantly associated with lower HDL-C and higher triglycerides. In participants taking sertraline, CYP2C19 intermediate metabolisers had higher HDL-C (0.05 mmol/L, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.09, p = 0.007) and lower triglycerides (-0.17 mmol/L, 95% CI: -0.29 to -0.05, p = 0.007), compared to normal metabolisers.

CONCLUSIONS

Antidepressants were significantly associated with adverse lipid profiles, potentially warranting baseline and regular monitoring. Further research should investigate the mechanistic pathways underlying the protective effects of the CYP2C19 intermediate metaboliser phenotype on HDL-C and triglycerides in people taking sertraline.

Lower Versus Higher Exposure to Vasopressor Therapy in Vasodilatory Hypotension: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Balancing the risks of hypotension and vasopressor-associated adverse effects is a daily challenge in ICUs. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to examine the effect of lower versus higher exposure to vasopressor therapy on mortality among adult ICU patients with vasodilatory hypotension.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published from inception to October 15, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized controlled trials of lower versus higher exposure to vasopressor therapy in adult ICU patients with vasodilatory hypotension without language or publication status limits.

DATA EXTRACTION

The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality, with seven prespecified subgroups. Secondary outcomes included shorter- and longer-term mortality, use of life-sustaining therapies, vasopressor-related complications, neurologic outcome, and quality of life at longest reported follow-up. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to calculate summary effect measures across individual studies (risk ratio [RR] for dichotomous variables, mean difference for continuous variables, both with 95% CIs). The certainty of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. We registered this review on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021224434).

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 3,403 records retrieved, 68 full-text articles were reviewed and three eligible studies included. Lower exposure to vasopressors probably lowers 90-day mortality but this is based on moderate-certainty evidence, lowered for imprecision (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87-1.02). There was no credible subgroup effect. Lower vasopressor exposure may also decrease the risk of supraventricular arrhythmia (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.86; low certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with vasodilatory hypotension who are started on vasopressors, moderate-certainty evidence from three randomized trials showed that lower vasopressor exposure probably lowers mortality. However, additional trial data are needed to reach an optimal information size to detect a clinically important 10% relative reduction in mortality with this approach.

Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy vs Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Therapy on Liberation From Respiratory Support in Acutely Ill Children Admitted to Pediatric Critical Care Units: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The optimal first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support for acutely ill children is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the noninferiority of high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support for acute illness, compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), for time to liberation from all forms of respiratory support.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Pragmatic, multicenter, randomized noninferiority clinical trial conducted in 24 pediatric critical care units in the United Kingdom among 600 acutely ill children aged 0 to 15 years who were clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support, recruited between August 2019 and November 2021, with last follow-up completed in March 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized 1:1 to commence either HFNC at a flow rate based on patient weight (n = 301) or CPAP of 7 to 8 cm H2O (n = 299).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was time from randomization to liberation from respiratory support, defined as the start of a 48-hour period during which a participant was free from all forms of respiratory support (invasive or noninvasive), assessed against a noninferiority margin of an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.75. Seven secondary outcomes were assessed, including mortality at critical care unit discharge, intubation within 48 hours, and use of sedation.

RESULTS

Of the 600 randomized children, consent was not obtained for 5 (HFNC: 1; CPAP: 4) and respiratory support was not started in 22 (HFNC: 5; CPAP: 17); 573 children (HFNC: 295; CPAP: 278) were included in the primary analysis (median age, 9 months; 226 girls [39%]). The median time to liberation in the HFNC group was 52.9 hours (95% CI, 46.0-60.9 hours) vs 47.9 hours (95% CI, 40.5-55.7 hours) in the CPAP group (absolute difference, 5.0 hours [95% CI -10.1 to 17.4 hours]; adjusted hazard ratio 1.03 [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.86-∞]). This met the criterion for noninferiority. Of the 7 prespecified secondary outcomes, 3 were significantly lower in the HFNC group: use of sedation (27.7% vs 37%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.88]); mean duration of critical care stay (5 days vs 7.4 days; adjusted mean difference, -3 days [95% CI, -5.1 to -1 days]); and mean duration of acute hospital stay (13.8 days vs 19.5 days; adjusted mean difference, -7.6 days [95% CI, -13.2 to -1.9 days]). The most common adverse event was nasal trauma (HFNC: 6/295 [2.0%]; CPAP: 18/278 [6.5%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among acutely ill children clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support in a pediatric critical care unit, HFNC compared with CPAP met the criterion for noninferiority for time to liberation from respiratory support.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN.org Identifier: ISRCTN60048867.

Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy vs Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Following Extubation on Liberation From Respiratory Support in Critically Ill Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The optimal first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support following extubation of critically ill children is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the noninferiority of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support following extubation, compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), on time to liberation from respiratory support.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial conducted at 22 pediatric intensive care units in the United Kingdom. Six hundred children aged 0 to 15 years clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support within 72 hours of extubation were recruited between August 8, 2019, and May 18, 2020, with last follow-up completed on November 22, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized 1:1 to start either HFNC at a flow rate based on patient weight (n = 299) or CPAP of 7 to 8 cm H2O (n = 301).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was time from randomization to liberation from respiratory support, defined as the start of a 48-hour period during which the child was free from all forms of respiratory support (invasive or noninvasive), assessed against a noninferiority margin of an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75. There were 6 secondary outcomes, including mortality at day 180 and reintubation within 48 hours.

RESULTS

Of the 600 children who were randomized, 553 children (HFNC, 281; CPAP, 272) were included in the primary analysis (median age, 3 months; 241 girls [44%]). HFNC failed to meet noninferiority, with a median time to liberation of 50.5 hours (95% CI, 43.0-67.9) vs 42.9 hours (95% CI, 30.5-48.2) for CPAP (adjusted HR, 0.83; 1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.70-∞). Similar results were seen across prespecified subgroups. Of the 6 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 showed no significant difference, including the rate of reintubation within 48 hours (13.3% for HFNC vs 11.5 % for CPAP). Mortality at day 180 was significantly higher for HFNC (5.6% vs 2.4% for CPAP; adjusted odds ratio, 3.07 [95% CI, 1.1-8.8]). The most common adverse events were abdominal distension (HFNC: 8/281 [2.8%] vs CPAP: 7/272 [2.6%]) and nasal/facial trauma (HFNC: 14/281 [5.0%] vs CPAP: 15/272 [5.5%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among critically ill children requiring noninvasive respiratory support following extubation, HFNC compared with CPAP following extubation failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for time to liberation from respiratory support.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN60048867.

Reduced exposure to vasopressors through permissive hypotension to reduce mortality in critically ill people aged 65 and over: the 65 RCT

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.

Evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of permissive hypotension in critically ill patients aged 65 years or over with vasodilatory hypotension: Protocol for the 65 randomised clinical trial

Vasodilatory shock is common in critically ill patients and vasopressors are a mainstay of therapy. A meta-analysis suggested that use of a higher, as opposed to a lower, mean arterial pressure target to guide titration of vasopressor therapy, could be associated with a higher risk of death in older critically ill patients. The 65 trial is a pragmatic, multi-centre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised clinical trial of permissive hypotension (a mean arterial pressure target of 60 -65 mmHg during vasopressor therapy) versus usual care in critically ill patients aged 65 years or over with vasodilatory hypotension. The trial is conducted in 2600 patients from 65 United Kingdom adult, general critical care units. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality at 90 days. An economic evaluation is embedded. The 65 trial received favourable ethical opinion from the South Central - Oxford C Research Ethics Committee and approval from the Health Research Authority. The results will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed medical journals. Trial registration: ISRCTN10580502.

COVID-19 in critical care: epidemiology of the first epidemic wave across England, Wales and Northern Ireland

PURPOSE

To describe critical care patients with COVID-19 across England, Wales and Northern Ireland and compare them with a historic cohort of patients with other viral pneumonias (non-COVID-19) and with international cohorts of COVID-19.

METHODS

Extracted data on patient characteristics, acute illness severity, organ support and outcomes from the Case Mix Programme, the national clinical audit for adult critical care, for a prospective cohort of patients with COVID-19 (February to August 2020) are compared with a recent retrospective cohort of patients with other viral pneumonias (non-COVID-19) (2017-2019) and with other international cohorts of critical care patients with COVID-19, the latter identified from published reports.

RESULTS

10,834 patients with COVID-19 (70.1% male, median age 60 years, 32.6% non-white ethnicity, 39.4% obese, 8.2% at least one serious comorbidity) were admitted across 289 critical care units. Of these, 36.9% had a PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio of ≤ 13.3 kPa (≤ 100 mmHg) consistent with severe ARDS and 72% received invasive ventilation. Acute hospital mortality was 42%, higher than for 5782 critical care patients with other viral pneumonias (non-COVID-19) (24.7%), and most COVID-19 deaths (88.7%) occurred before 30 days. Meaningful international comparisons were limited due to lack of standardised reporting.

CONCLUSION

Critical care patients with COVID-19 were disproportionately non-white, from more deprived areas and more likely to be male and obese. Conventional severity scoring appeared not to adequately reflect their acute severity, with the distribution across PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio categories indicating acutely severe respiratory disease. Critical care patients with COVID-19 experience high mortality and place a great burden on critical care services.

Critical care outcomes, for the first 200 patients with confirmed COVID-19, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: A report from the ICNARC Case Mix Programme

Background

Early in a pandemic, outcomes are biased towards patients with shorter durations of critical illness. We describe 60-day outcomes for patients critically ill with confirmed COVID-19 and explore the potential bias in the weekly reported data by ICNARC.

Methods

First 200 consecutive patients with confirmed COVID-19, admitted for critical care in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, followed-up for a minimum of 60 days from admission. Outcomes included survival and duration of critical care, receipt/duration of organ support in critical care and hospital survival.

Results

Mean age was 62.6 years, 70.5% were male, 52.0% were white, 39.2% obese and 9.0% had serious comorbidities. Median APACHE II score was 16 (IQR 12, 19). After 60 days, 83 (41.5%) patients had been discharged from hospital, 15 (7.5%) had been discharged from critical care but remained in hospital, 1 (0.5%) was still receiving critical care, 90 (45.0%) had died while receiving critical care and 11 (5.5%) had died in hospital after discharge from critical care. Median duration of critical care was 14.0 days (IQR 6.1, 23.0) for survivors and 10.0 days (IQR 5.0, 16.0) for non-survivors of critical care. Overall, 158 (79.0%) patients received advanced respiratory support for a median of 13 (IQR 8, 20) calendar days. Compared with weekly reports during the pandemic, critical care mortality started higher than but then decreased below that of the first 200 consecutive patients. Duration of critical care, for both survivors and non-survivors increased over time; however, both were still lower than those for the first 200 consecutive patients. Receipt and duration of organ support increased to values similar to those for the first 200 consecutive patients.

Conclusion

COVID-19 in critical care has high mortality and places a large burden on resources. Analysis of preliminary data with limited follow-up should be interpreted with caution, particularly for future planning in a pandemic.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%).

RESULTS

After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%).

RESULTS

After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

FIRST-line support for assistance in breathing in children (FIRST-ABC): a master protocol of two randomised trials to evaluate the non-inferiority of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care

INTRODUCTION

Even though respiratory support is a common intervention in paediatric critical care, there is no randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence regarding the effectiveness of two commonly used modes of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC). FIRST-line support for assistance in breathing in children is a master protocol of two pragmatic non-inferiority RCTs to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of HFNC (compared with CPAP) as the first-line mode of support in critically ill children.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will recruit participants over a 30-month period at 25 UK paediatric critical care units (paediatric intensive care units/high-dependency units). Patients are eligible if admitted/accepted for admission, aged >36 weeks corrected gestational age and <16 years, and assessed by the treating clinician to require NRS for an acute illness (step-up RCT) or within 72 hours of extubation following a period of invasive ventilation (step-down RCT). Due to the emergency nature of the treatment, written informed consent will be deferred to after randomisation. Randomisation will occur 1:1 to CPAP or HFNC, stratified by site and age (<12 vs ≥12 months). The primary outcome is time to liberation from respiratory support for a continuous period of 48 hours. A total sample size of 600 patients in each RCT will provide 90% power with a type I error rate of 2.5% (one sided) to exclude the prespecified non-inferiority margin of HR of 0.75. Primary analyses will be undertaken separately in each RCT in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This master protocol received favourable ethical opinion from National Health Service East of England-Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee (reference: 19/EE/0185) and approval from the Health Research Authority (reference: 260536). Results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed medical journals and presentations at national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN60048867.

A framework for extending trial design to facilitate missing data sensitivity analyses

BACKGROUND

Missing data are an inevitable challenge in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), particularly those with Patient Reported Outcome Measures. Methodological guidance suggests that to avoid incorrect conclusions, studies should undertake sensitivity analyses which recognise that data may be 'missing not at random' (MNAR). A recommended approach is to elicit expert opinion about the likely outcome differences for those with missing versus observed data. However, few published trials plan and undertake these elicitation exercises, and so lack the external information required for these sensitivity analyses. The aim of this paper is to provide a framework that anticipates and allows for MNAR data in the design and analysis of clinical trials.

METHODS

We developed a framework for performing and using expert elicitation to frame sensitivity analysis in RCTs with missing outcome data. The framework includes the following steps: first defining the scope of the elicitation exercise, second developing the elicitation tool, third eliciting expert opinion about the missing outcomes, fourth evaluating the elicitation results, and fifth analysing the trial data. We provide guidance on key practical challenges that arise when adopting this approach in trials: the criteria for identifying relevant experts, the outcome scale for presenting data to experts, the appropriate representation of expert opinion, and the evaluation of the elicitation results.The framework was developed within the POPPI trial, which investigated whether a preventive, complex psychological intervention, commenced early in ICU, would reduce the development of patient-reported post-traumatic stress disorder symptom severity, and improve health-related quality of life. We illustrate the key aspects of the proposed framework using the POPPI trial.

RESULTS

For the POPPI trial, 113 experts were identified with potentially suitable knowledge and asked to participate in the elicitation exercise. The 113 experts provided 59 usable elicitation questionnaires. The sensitivity analysis found that the results from the primary analysis were robust to alternative MNAR mechanisms.

CONCLUSIONS

Future studies can adopt this framework to embed expert elicitation within the design of clinical trials. This will provide the information required for MNAR sensitivity analyses that examine the robustness of the trial conclusions to alternative, but realistic assumptions about the missing data.

Effect of Reduced Exposure to Vasopressors on 90-Day Mortality in Older Critically Ill Patients With Vasodilatory Hypotension: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Vasopressors are commonly administered to intensive care unit (ICU) patients to raise blood pressure. Balancing risks and benefits of vasopressors is a challenge, particularly in older patients.

Objective

To determine whether reducing exposure to vasopressors through permissive hypotension (mean arterial pressure [MAP] target, 60-65 mm Hg) reduces mortality at 90 days in ICU patients aged 65 years or older with vasodilatory hypotension.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A multicenter, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial was conducted in 65 ICUs in the United Kingdom and included 2600 randomized patients aged 65 years or older with vasodilatory hypotension (assessed by treating clinician). The study was conducted from July 2017 to March 2019, and follow-up was completed in August 2019.

Interventions

Patients were randomized 1:1 to vasopressors guided either by MAP target (60-65 mm Hg, permissive hypotension) (n = 1291) or according to usual care (at the discretion of treating clinicians) (n = 1307).

Main Outcome and Measures

The primary clinical outcome was all-cause mortality at 90 days.

Results

Of 2600 randomized patients, after removal of those who declined or had withdrawn consent, 2463 (95%) were included in the analysis of the primary outcome (mean [SD] age 75 years [7 years]; 1387 [57%] men). Patients randomized to the permissive hypotension group had lower exposure to vasopressors compared with those in the usual care group (median duration 33 hours vs 38 hours; difference in medians, -5.0; 95% CI, -7.8 to -2.2 hours; total dose in norepinephrine equivalents median, 17.7 mg vs 26.4 mg; difference in medians, -8.7 mg; 95% CI, -12.8 to -4.6 mg). At 90 days, 500 of 1221 (41.0%) in the permissive hypotension compared with 544 of 1242 (43.8%) in the usual care group had died (absolute risk difference, -2.85%; 95% CI, -6.75 to 1.05; P = .15) (unadjusted relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.03). When adjusted for prespecified baseline variables, the odds ratio for 90-day mortality was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.98). Serious adverse events were reported for 79 patients (6.2%) in the permissive care group and 75 patients (5.8%) in the usual care group. The most common serious adverse events were acute renal failure (41 [3.2%] vs 33 [2.5%]) and supraventricular cardiac arrhythmia (12 [0.9%] vs 13 [1.0%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients 65 years or older receiving vasopressors for vasodilatory hypotension, permissive hypotension compared with usual care did not result in a statistically significant reduction in mortality at 90 days. However, the confidence interval around the point estimate for the primary outcome should be considered when interpreting the clinical importance of the study.

Trial Registration

isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN10580502.

Can the UK 24-item family satisfaction in the intensive care unit questionnaire be used to evaluate quality improvement strategies aimed at improving family satisfaction with the ICU? A qualitative study

Background

The experiences and satisfaction of family members of patients are important indicators of healthcare quality in the intensive care unit. The family satisfaction in the intensive care unit (FS-ICU-24) questionnaire, developed in Canada and now validated in the UK, is becoming the gold standard measure to evaluate family members' satisfaction with the intensive care unit. To inform future use of the UK FS-ICU-24 to evaluate quality improvement strategies aimed at improving family satisfaction with the intensive care unit, we set out to explore the extent to which the 24-scored items and domains of the UK FS-ICU-24 reflect common suggestions and priorities for quality improvement self-reported as important to family members in the UK.

Methods

Two data sources were thematically analysed - (1) open-text responses from family members who completed the UK FS-ICU-24 in a large observational cohort study; (2) a set of quality improvement activities generated by patients, family members and staff through experience-based co-design in a mixed-methods' intensive care unit quality improvement study. Summarised themes were then mapped to the 24-scored items and domains of the UK FS-ICU-24 to assess coverage by the UK FS-ICU-24.

Results

We found a good degree of coverage between the topics and themes identified as important to family members with the 24-scored items and domains of the UK FS-ICU-24.

Conclusion

Our study confirms the face validity of the UK FS-ICU-24 and indicates that its inclusion as an outcome measure for evaluating quality improvement strategies aimed at improving family satisfaction with the intensive care unit is appropriate.

Evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of permissive hypotension in critically ill patients aged 65 years or over with vasodilatory hypotension: Protocol for the 65 randomised clinical trial

Vasodilatory shock is common in critically ill patients and vasopressors are a mainstay of therapy. A meta-analysis suggested that use of a higher, as opposed to a lower, mean arterial pressure target to guide titration of vasopressor therapy, could be associated with a higher risk of death in older critically ill patients. The 65 trial is a pragmatic, multi-centre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised clinical trial of permissive hypotension (a mean arterial pressure target of 60–65 mmHg during vasopressor therapy) versus usual care in critically ill patients aged 65 years or over with vasodilatory hypotension. The trial is conducted in 2600 patients from 65 United Kingdom adult, general critical care units. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality at 90 days. An economic evaluation is embedded. The 65 trial received favourable ethical opinion from the South Central – Oxford C Research Ethics Committee and approval from the Health Research Authority. The results will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed medical journals.

Trial registration: ISRCTN10580502

Family satisfaction with critical care in the UK: a multicentre cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To assess family satisfaction with intensive care units (ICUs) in the UK using the Family Satisfaction in the Intensive Care Unit 24-item (FS-ICU-24) questionnaire, and to investigate how characteristics of patients and their family members impact on family satisfaction.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study nested within a national clinical audit database.

SETTING

Stratified, random sample of 20 adult general ICUs participating in the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre Case Mix Programme.

PARTICIPANTS

Family members of patients staying at least 24 hours in ICU were recruited between May 2013 and June 2014.

INTERVENTIONS

Consenting family members were sent a postal questionnaire 3 weeks after the patient died or was discharged from ICU. Up to four family members were recruited per patient.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Family satisfaction was measured using the FS-ICU-24 questionnaire.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 12 346 family members of 6380 patients were recruited and 7173 (58%) family members of 4615 patients returned a completed questionnaire. Overall and domain-specific family satisfaction scores were high (mean overall family satisfaction 80, satisfaction with care 83, satisfaction with information 76 and satisfaction with decision-making 73 out of 100) but varied significantly across adult general ICUs studied and by whether the patient survived ICU. For family members of ICU survivors, characteristics of both the family member (age, ethnicity, relationship to patient (next-of-kin and/or lived with patient) and visit frequency) and the patient (acute severity of illness and receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation) were significant determinants of family satisfaction, whereas, for family members of ICU non-survivors, only patient characteristics (age, acute severity of illness and duration of stay) were significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall family satisfaction in UK adult general ICUs was high but varied significantly. Adjustment for differences in family member/patient characteristics is important to avoid falsely identifying ICUs as statistical outliers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN47363549.

A nurse-led, preventive, psychological intervention to reduce PTSD symptom severity in critically ill patients: the POPPI feasibility study and cluster RCT

Background

High numbers of patients experience severe acute stress in critical care units. Acute stress has been linked to post-critical care psychological morbidity, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Previously, a preventive, complex psychological intervention [Psychological Outcomes following a nurse-led Preventative Psychological Intervention for critically ill patients (POPPI)] was developed by this research team, to be led by nurses, to reduce the development of PTSD symptom severity at 6 months.

Objectives

The objectives were to (1) standardise and refine the POPPI intervention, and, if feasible, (2) evaluate it in a cluster randomised clinical trial (RCT).

Design

Two designs were used – (1) two feasibility studies to test the delivery and acceptability (to patients and staff) of the intervention, education package and support tools, and to test the trial procedures (i.e. recruitment and retention), and (2) a multicentre, parallel-group, cluster RCT with a baseline period and staggered roll-out of the intervention.

Setting

This study was set in NHS adult, general critical care units.

Participants

The participants were adult patients who were > 48 hours in a critical care unit, receiving level 3 care and able to consent.

Interventions

The intervention comprised three elements – (1) creating a therapeutic environment in critical care, (2) three stress support sessions for patients identified as acutely stressed and (3) a relaxation and recovery programme for patients identified as acutely stressed.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcome – patient-reported symptom severity using the PTSD Symptom Scale – Self Report (PSS-SR) questionnaire (to measure clinical effectiveness) and incremental costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and net monetary benefit at 6 months (to measure cost-effectiveness). Secondary outcomes – days alive and free from sedation to day 30; duration of critical care unit stay; PSS-SR score of > 18 points; depression, anxiety and health-related quality of life at 6 months; and lifetime cost-effectiveness.

Results

(1) A total of 127 participants were recruited to the intervention feasibility study from two sites and 86 were recruited to the RCT procedures feasibility study from another two sites. The education package, support tools and intervention were refined. (2) A total of 24 sites were randomised to the intervention or control arms. A total of 1458 participants were recruited. Twelve sites delivered the intervention during the intervention period: > 80% of patients received two or more stress support sessions and all 12 sites achieved the target of > 80% of clinical staff completing the POPPI online training. There was, however, variation in delivery across sites. There was little difference between baseline and intervention periods in the development of PTSD symptom severity (measured by mean PSS-SR score) at 6 months for surviving patients in either the intervention or the control group: treatment effect estimate −0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) −2.58 to 2.52; p = 0.98. On average, the intervention decreased costs and slightly improved QALYs, leading to a positive incremental net benefit at 6 months (£835, 95% CI −£4322 to £5992), but with considerable statistical uncertainty surrounding these results. There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes or in the prespecified subgroup analyses.

Limitations

There was a risk of bias because different consent processes were used and as a result of the lack of blinding, which was mitigated as far as possible within the study design. The intervention started later than anticipated. Patients were not routinely monitored for delirium.

Conclusions

Among level 3 patients who stayed > 48 hours in critical care, the delivery of a preventive, complex psychological intervention, led by nurses, did not reduce the development of PTSD symptom severity at 6 months, when compared with usual care.

Future work

Prior to development and evaluation of subsequent psychological interventions, there is much to learn from post hoc analyses of the cluster RCT rich quantitative and qualitative data.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN61088114 and ISRCTN53448131.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 23, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effect of a Nurse-Led Preventive Psychological Intervention on Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Among Critically Ill Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

A meta-analysis of outcomes during the 6 months after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge indicate a prevalence for clinically important posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms of 25%.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a nurse-led preventive, complex psychological intervention, initiated in the ICU, reduces patient-reported PTSD symptom severity at 6 months.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicenter, parallel-group, cluster-randomized clinical trial with integrated economic and process evaluations conducted in 24 ICUs in the United Kingdom. Participants were critically ill patients who regained mental capacity following receipt of level 3 (intensive) care. A total of 2961 eligible patients were identified from September 2015 to January 2017. A total of 2048 were approached for participation in the ICU, of which 1458 provided informed consent. Follow-up was completed December 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

Twenty four ICUs were randomized 1:1 to the intervention or control group. Intervention ICUs (n = 12; 669 participants) delivered usual care during a baseline period followed by an intervention period. The preventive, complex psychological intervention comprised promotion of a therapeutic ICU environment plus 3 stress support sessions and a relaxation and recovery program delivered by trained ICU nurses to high-risk (acutely stressed) patients. Control ICUs (n = 12; 789 participants) delivered usual care in both baseline and intervention periods.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary clinical outcome was PTSD symptom severity among survivors at 6 months measured using the PTSD Symptom Scale-Self-Report questionnaire (score range, 0-51, with higher scores indicating greater symptom severity; the minimal clinically important difference was considered to be 4.2 points).

RESULTS

Among 1458 enrolled patients (mean [SD] age, 58 [16] years; 599 women [41%]), 1353 (93%) completed the study and were included in the final analysis. At 6 months, the mean PTSD Symptom Scale-Self-Report questionnaire score in intervention ICUs was 11.8 (baseline period) compared with 11.5 (intervention period) (difference, -0.40 [95% CI, -2.46 to 1.67]) and in control ICUs, 10.1 (baseline period) compared with 10.2 (intervention period) (difference, 0.06 [95% CI, -1.74 to 1.85]) between periods. There was no significant difference in PTSD symptom severity at 6 months (treatment effect estimate [difference in differences] of -0.03 [95% CI, -2.58 to 2.52]; P = .98).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among critically ill patients in the ICU, a nurse-led preventive, complex psychological intervention did not significantly reduce patient-reported PTSD symptom severity at 6 months. These findings do not support the use of this psychological intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN53448131.

Providing psychological support to people in intensive care: development and feasibility study of a nurse-led intervention to prevent acute stress and long-term morbidity

OBJECTIVES

Adverse psychological outcomes, following stressful experiences in critical care, affect up to 50% of patients. We aimed to develop and test the feasibility of a psychological intervention to reduce acute stress and prevent future morbidity.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods intervention development study, using two stages of the UK Medical Research Council framework for developing and testing complex interventions. Stage one (development) involved identifying an evidence base for the intervention, developing a theoretical understanding of likely processes of change and modelling change processes and outcomes. Stage two comprised two linked feasibility studies.

SETTING

Four UK general adult critical care units.

PARTICIPANTS

Stage one: former and current patients, and psychology, nursing and education experts. Stage two: current patients and staff.

OUTCOMES

Feasibility and acceptability to staff and patients of content and delivery of a psychological intervention, assessed using quantitative and qualitative data. Estimated recruitment and retention rates for a clinical trial.

RESULTS

Building on prior work, we standardised the preventative, nurse-led Provision Of Psychological support to People in Intensive Care (POPPI) intervention. We devised courses and materials to train staff to create a therapeutic environment, to identify patients with acute stress and to deliver three stress support sessions and a relaxation and recovery programme to them. 127 awake, orientated patients took part in an intervention feasibility study in two hospitals. Patient and staff data indicated the complex intervention was feasible and acceptable. Feedback was used to refine the intervention. 86 different patients entered a separate trial procedures study in two other hospitals, of which 66 (80% of surviving patients) completed questionnaires on post-traumatic stress, depression and health 5 months after recruitment.

CONCLUSION

The 'POPPI' psychological intervention to reduce acute patient stress in critical care and prevent future psychological morbidity was feasible and acceptable. It was refined for evaluation in a cluster randomised clinical trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN61088114; Results.

Psychological Outcomes following a nurse-led Preventative Psychological Intervention for critically ill patients (POPPI): protocol for a cluster-randomised clinical trial of a complex intervention

INTRODUCTION

Acute psychological stress, as well as unusual experiences including hallucinations and delusions, are common in critical care unit patients and have been linked to post-critical care psychological morbidity such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety. Little high-quality research has been conducted to evaluate psychological interventions that could alleviate longer-term psychological morbidity in the critical care unit setting. Our research team developed and piloted a nurse-led psychological intervention, aimed at reducing patient-reported PTSD symptom severity and other adverse psychological outcomes at 6 months, for evaluation in the POPPI trial.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre, parallel group, cluster-randomised clinical trial with a staggered roll-out of the intervention. The trial is being carried out at 24 (12 intervention, 12 control) NHS adult, general, critical care units in the UK and is evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led preventative psychological intervention in reducing patient-reported PTSD symptom severity and other psychological morbidity at 6 months. All sites deliver usual care for 5 months (baseline period). Intervention group sites are then trained to carry out the POPPI intervention, and transition to delivering the intervention for the rest of the recruitment period. Control group sites deliver usual care for the duration of the recruitment period. The trial also includes a process evaluation conducted independently of the trial team.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol was reviewed and approved by the National Research Ethics Service South Central - Oxford B Research Ethics Committee (reference: 15/SC/0287). The first patient was recruited in September 2015 and results will be disseminated in 2018. The results will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer reviewed medical journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN53448131; Pre-results.

National survey and point prevalence study of sedation practice in UK critical care

Background

The present study was designed to (1) establish current sedation practice in UK critical care to inform evidence synthesis and potential future primary research and (2) to compare practice reported via a survey with actual practice assessed in a point prevalence study (PPS).

Methods

UK adult general critical care units were invited to participate in a survey of current sedation practice, and a representative sample of units was invited to participate in a PPS of sedation practice at the patient level. Survey responses were compared with PPS data where both were available.

Results

Survey responses were received from 214 (91 %) of 235 eligible critical care units. Of these respondents, 57 % reported having a written sedation protocol, 94 % having a policy of daily sedation holds and 94 % using a sedation scale to assess depth of sedation. In the PPS, across units reporting a policy of daily sedation holds, a median of 50 % (IQR 33–75 %) of sedated patients were considered for a sedation hold. A median of 88 % (IQR 63–100 %) of patients were assessed using the same sedation scale as reported in the survey. Both the survey and the PPS indicated propofol as the preferred sedative and alfentanil, fentanyl and morphine as the preferred analgesics. In most of the PPS units, all patients had received the unit’s reported first-choice sedative (median across units 100 %, IQR 64–100 %), and a median of 80 % (IQR 67–100 %) of patients had received the unit’s reported first-choice analgesic. Most units (83 %) reported in the survey that sedatives are usually administered in combination with analgesics. Across units that participated in the PPS, 69 % of patients had received a combination of agents – most frequently propofol combined with either alfentanil or fentanyl.

Conclusions

Clinical practice reported in the national survey did not accurately reflect actual clinical practice at the patient level observed in the PPS. Employing a mixed methods approach provided a more complete picture of sedation practice in terms of breadth and depth of information.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1532-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.