Impact of High Dose Early Mobilization on Outcomes for Patients with Diabetes: A Secondary Analysis of the TEAM Trial.

RATIONALE: Patients with diabetes represent almost 20% of all ICU admissions and might respond differently to high dose early active mobilization. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether diabetes modified the relationship between the dose of early mobilization on clinical outcomes in the TEAM trial. METHODS: All TEAM trial patients were included. The primary outcome was days alive and out of hospital at day 180. Secondary outcomes included 180-day mortality and long-term functional outcomes at day 180. Logistic and median regression models were used to explore the effect of high dose early mobilization on outcomes by diabetes status. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All 741 patients from the original trial were included. Of these, 159 patients (21.4%) had diabetes. Patients with diabetes had a lower number of days alive and out of hospital at day 180 (124 [0-153] vs. 147 [82-164], p = 0.013), and higher 180-day mortality (30% vs. 18%, p = 0.044). In patients receiving high dose early mobilization, days alive and out of hospital at day 180 was 73.0 (0.0 - 144.5) in patients with diabetes and 146.5 (95.8 - 163.0) in patients without diabetes (p for interaction = 0.108). However, in patients with diabetes, high dose early mobilization increased the odds of mortality at 180 days (adjusted odds ratio 3.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.67-7.61, p value for interaction, 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis of the TEAM trial, in patients with diabetes, a high dose early mobilization strategy did not significantly decrease the number of days alive and out of hospital at day 180 but it increased 180-day mortality.

Study protocol for TARGET protein: The effect of augmented administration of enteral protein to critically ill adults on clinical outcomes: A cluster randomised, cross-sectional, double cross-over, clinical trial.

Background: It is unknown whether increasing dietary protein to 1.2-2.0 g/kg/day as recommended in international guidelines compared to current practice improves outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The TARGET Protein trial will evaluate this. Objective: To describe the study protocol for the TARGET Protein trial. Design setting and participants: TARGET Protein is a cluster randomised, cross-sectional, double cross-over, pragmatic clinical trial undertaken in eight ICUs in Australia and New Zealand. Each ICU will be randomised to use one of two trial enteral formulae for three months before crossing over to the other formula, which is then repeated, with enrolment continuing at each ICU for 12 months. All patients aged ≥16 years in their index ICU admission commencing enteral nutrition will be eligible for inclusion. Eligible patients will receive the trial enteral formula to which their ICU is allocated. The two trial enteral formulae are isocaloric with a difference in protein dose: intervention 100g/1000 ml and comparator 63g/1000 ml. Staggered recruitment commenced in May 2022. Main outcomes measures: The primary outcome is days free of the index hospital and alive at day 90. Secondary outcomes include days free of the index hospital at day 90 in survivors, alive at day 90, duration of invasive ventilation, ICU and hospital length of stay, incidence of tracheostomy insertion, renal replacement therapy, and discharge destination. Conclusion: TARGET Protein aims to determine whether augmented enteral protein delivery reduces days free of the index hospital and alive at day 90. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621001484831).

Prehospital Tranexamic Acid for Severe Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Whether prehospital administration of tranexamic acid increases the likelihood of survival with a favorable functional outcome among patients with major trauma and suspected trauma-induced coagulopathy who are being treated in advanced trauma systems is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults with major trauma who were at risk for trauma-induced coagulopathy to receive tranexamic acid (administered intravenously as a bolus dose of 1 g before hospital admission, followed by a 1-g infusion over a period of 8 hours after arrival at the hospital) or matched placebo. The primary outcome was survival with a favorable functional outcome at 6 months after injury, as assessed with the use of the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E). Levels on the GOS-E range from 1 (death) to 8 ("upper good recovery" [no injury-related problems]). We defined survival with a favorable functional outcome as a GOS-E level of 5 ("lower moderate disability") or higher. Secondary outcomes included death from any cause within 28 days and within 6 months after injury. RESULTS: A total of 1310 patients were recruited by 15 emergency medical services in Australia, New Zealand, and Germany. Of these patients, 661 were assigned to receive tranexamic acid, and 646 were assigned to receive placebo; the trial-group assignment was unknown for 3 patients. Survival with a favorable functional outcome at 6 months occurred in 307 of 572 patients (53.7%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 299 of 559 (53.5%) in the placebo group (risk ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.12; P = 0.95). At 28 days after injury, 113 of 653 patients (17.3%) in the tranexamic acid group and 139 of 637 (21.8%) in the placebo group had died (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). By 6 months, 123 of 648 patients (19.0%) in the tranexamic acid group and 144 of 629 (22.9%) in the placebo group had died (risk ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.03). The number of serious adverse events, including vascular occlusive events, did not differ meaningfully between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with major trauma and suspected trauma-induced coagulopathy who were being treated in advanced trauma systems, prehospital administration of tranexamic acid followed by an infusion over 8 hours did not result in a greater number of patients surviving with a favorable functional outcome at 6 months than placebo. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and others; PATCH-Trauma ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02187120.).

Early Active Mobilization during Mechanical Ventilation in the ICU.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired weakness often develops in patients who are undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation. Early active mobilization may mitigate ICU-acquired weakness, increase survival, and reduce disability. METHODS: We randomly assigned 750 adult patients in the ICU who were undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation to receive increased early mobilization (sedation minimization and daily physiotherapy) or usual care (the level of mobilization that was normally provided in each ICU). The primary outcome was the number of days that the patients were alive and out of the hospital at 180 days after randomization. RESULTS: The median number of days that patients were alive and out of the hospital was 143 (interquartile range, 21 to 161) in the early-mobilization group and 145 days (interquartile range, 51 to 164) in the usual-care group (absolute difference, -2.0 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -10 to 6; P = 0.62). The mean (±SD) daily duration of active mobilization was 20.8±14.6 minutes and 8.8±9.0 minutes in the two groups, respectively (difference, 12.0 minutes per day; 95% CI, 10.4 to 13.6). A total of 77% of the patients in both groups were able to stand by a median interval of 3 days and 5 days, respectively (difference, -2 days; 95% CI, -3.4 to -0.6). By day 180, death had occurred in 22.5% of the patients in the early-mobilization group and in 19.5% of those in the usual-care group (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.65). Among survivors, quality of life, activities of daily living, disability, cognitive function, and psychological function were similar in the two groups. Serious adverse events were reported in 7 patients in the early-mobilization group and in 1 patient in the usual-care group. Adverse events that were potentially due to mobilization (arrhythmias, altered blood pressure, and desaturation) were reported in 34 of 371 patients (9.2%) in the early-mobilization group and in 15 of 370 patients (4.1%) in the usual-care group (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Among adults undergoing mechanical ventilation in the ICU, an increase in early active mobilization did not result in a significantly greater number of days that patients were alive and out of the hospital than did the usual level of mobilization in the ICU. The intervention was associated with increased adverse events. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Health Research Council of New Zealand; TEAM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03133377.).

Use of a High-Protein Enteral Nutrition Formula to Increase Protein Delivery to Critically Ill Patients: A Randomized, Blinded, Parallel-Group, Feasibility Trial.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend critically ill adults receive more protein than most receive. We aimed to establish the feasibility of a trial to evaluate whether feeding protein to international recommendations would improve outcomes, in which 1 group received protein doses representative of international guideline recommendations (high protein) and the other received doses similar to usual practice. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, blinded, parallel-group, feasibility trial across 6 intensive care units. Critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults expected to receive enteral nutrition (EN) for ≥2 days were randomized to receive EN containing 63 or 100 g/L protein for ≤28 days. Data are mean (SD) or median (interquartile range). RESULTS: The recruitment rate was 0.35 (0.13) patients per day, with 120 patients randomized and data available for 116 (n = 58 per group). Protein delivery was greater in the high-protein group (1.52 [0.52] vs 0.99 [0.27] grams of protein per kilogram of ideal body weight per day; difference, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.38-0.69] g/kg/d protein), with no difference in energy delivery (difference, -26 [95% CI, -190 to 137] kcal/kg/d). There were no between-group differences in the duration of feeding (8.7 [7.3] vs 8.1 [6.3] days), and blinding of the intervention was confirmed. There were no differences in clinical outcomes, including 90-day mortality (14/55 [26%] vs 15/56 [27%]; risk difference, -1.3% [95% CI, -17.7% to 15.0%]). CONCLUSION: Conducting a multicenter blinded trial is feasible to compare protein delivery at international guideline-recommended levels with doses similar to usual care during critical illness.

Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the phase 3 randomised controlled Treatment of Invasively Ventilated Adults with Early Activity and Mobilisation (TEAM III) trial.

Objective: To describe the protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Treatment of Invasively Ventilated Adults with Early Activity and Mobilisation (TEAM III) trial. Design: An international, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Setting: Intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Brazil. Patients: 750 adult patients expected to receive mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours. Interventions: Early activity and mobilisation delivered to critically ill patients in an ICU for up to 28 days compared with standard care. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome is the number of days alive and out of hospital at 180 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include ICU-free days, ventilator-free days, delirium-free days, all-cause mortality at 28 and 180 days after randomisation, and functional outcome at 180 days after randomisation. Results: Recruitment at 46 research sites passed 576 patients in March 2021. Final collection of all 180-day outcome data for the target of 750 patients is anticipated by May 2022. Conclusions: Consistent with international guidelines, a detailed protocol and prospective analysis plan has been developed for the TEAM III trial. This plan specifies the statistical models for evaluating primary and secondary outcomes, defines covariates for adjusted analyses, and defines methods for exploratory analyses. Application of this protocol and statistical analysis plan to the forthcoming TEAM III trial will facilitate unbiased analyses of the clinical data collected. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03133377.

Protein delivery in mechanically ventilated adults in Australia and New Zealand: current practice.

Objective: To quantify current protein prescription and delivery in critically ill adults in Australia and New Zealand and compare it with international guidelines. Design: Prospective, multicentre, observational study. Setting: Five intensive care units (ICUs) across Australia and New Zealand. Participants: Mechanically ventilated adults who were anticipated to receive enteral nutrition for ≥ 24 hours. Main outcome measures: Baseline demographic and nutrition data in ICU, including assessment of requirements, prescription and delivery of enteral nutrition, parenteral nutrition and protein supplementation, were collected. The primary outcome was enteral nutrition protein delivery (g/kg ideal body weight [IBW] per day). Data are reported as mean ± standard deviation or n (%). Results: 120 patients were studied (sex, 60% male; mean age, 59 ± 16 years; mean admission APACHE II score, 20 ± 8). Enteral nutrition was delivered on 88%, parenteral nutrition on 6.8%, and protein supplements on 0.3% of 1156 study days. For the 73% (88/120) of patients who had a nutritional assessment, the mean estimated protein requirements were 99 ± 22 g/day (1.46 ± 0.55 g/kg IBW per day). The mean daily protein delivery was 54 ± 23 g (0.85 ± 0.35 g/kg IBW per day) from enteral nutrition and 56 ± 23 g (0.88 ± 0.35 g/kg IBW per day) from all sources (enteral nutrition, parenteral nutrition, protein supplements). Protein delivery was ≥ 1.2 g/kg IBW per day on 29% of the total study days per patient. Conclusions: Protein delivery as a part of current usual care to critically ill adults in Australia and New Zealand remains below that recommended in international guidelines.

Patient preferences for asthma management: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Preference for asthma management and the use of medications is motivated by the interplay between lived experiences of asthma and patients' attitudes towards medications. Many previous studies have focused on individual aspects of asthma management, such as the use of preventer and reliever inhalers. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the preferences of patients with mild-moderate asthma for asthma management as a whole and factors that influenced these preferences. DESIGN: A qualitative study employing qualitative descriptive analysis situated within a constructionist epistemology to analyse transcribed audio recordings from focus groups. SETTING: Three locations within the greater Wellington area in New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven adults with self-reported doctor's diagnosis of asthma, taking short-acting beta-agonists alone or inhaled corticosteroids with or without long-acting beta2-agonist, who had used any inhaled asthma medication within the last month. RESULTS: Four key areas described preferences for asthma management. Preferences for self-management: participants wanted to be in control of their asthma and developed personal strategies to achieve this. Preferences for the specific medications or treatment regimen: participants preferred regimens that were convenient and reliably relieved symptoms. Preferences for inhaler devices: devices that had dose counters and were easy to use and portable were important. Preferences for asthma services: participants wanted easier access to their inhalers and to be empowered by their healthcare providers. Participant preferences within each of these four areas were influenced by the impact asthma had on their life, their health beliefs, emotional consequences of asthma and perceived barriers to asthma management. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates the interaction of the lived experience of asthma, factors specific to the individual, and factors relating to asthma treatments in shaping patient preferences for asthma management. This aids our understanding of preferences for asthma management from the patient perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619000601134).

Energy-dense vs routine enteral nutrition in New Zealand Europeans, Maori, and Pacific Peoples who are critically ill.

AIMS: To evaluate the effect of energy-dense vs routine enteral nutrition on day-90 mortality by ethnic group in critically ill adults. METHODS: Pre-planned subgroup analysis of the 1,257 New Zealanders in a 4,000-participant randomised trial comparing energy-dense enteral nutrition (1.5kcal/mL) with routine enteral nutrition (1kcal/mL) in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The primary purpose of this analysis was to evaluate responses to study treatment by ethnic group (European, Maori, and Pacific Peoples) using ethnicity data recorded in the clinical records. The secondary purpose was to compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients by ethnic group. The primary outcome was day-90 mortality. RESULTS: Among 1,138 patients included in the primary outcome analysis, 165 of 569 (29.0%) assigned to energy-dense nutrition and 156 of 569 patients (27.4%) assigned to routine nutrition died by day 90 (odds ratio; 1.06; 95% CI, 0.92-1.22). There was no statistically significant interaction between treatment allocation and ethnicity with respect to day-90 mortality. Day-90 mortality rates did not vary statistically significantly by ethnic group. CONCLUSIONS: Among mechanically ventilated adults in New Zealand ICUs, the effect on day-90 mortality of energy-dense vs routine enteral nutrition did not vary by ethnicity.

Outcomes Six Months after Delivering 100% or 70% of Enteral Calorie Requirements during Critical Illness (TARGET). A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Rationale: The long-term effects of delivering approximately 100% of recommended calorie intake via the enteral route during critical illness compared with a lesser amount of calories are unknown.Objectives: Our hypotheses were that achieving approximately 100% of recommended calorie intake during critical illness would increase quality-of-life scores, return to work, and key life activities and reduce death and disability 6 months later.Methods: We conducted a multicenter, blinded, parallel group, randomized clinical trial, with 3,957 mechanically ventilated critically ill adults allocated to energy-dense (1.5 kcal/ml) or routine (1.0 kcal/ml) enteral nutrition.Measurements and Main Results: Participants assigned energy-dense nutrition received more calories (percent recommended energy intake, mean [SD]; energy-dense: 103% [28] vs. usual: 69% [18]). Mortality at Day 180 was similar (560/1,895 [29.6%] vs. 539/1,920 [28.1%]; relative risk 1.05 [95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.16]). At a median (interquartile range) of 185 (182-193) days after randomization, 2,492 survivors were surveyed and reported similar quality of life (EuroQol five dimensions five-level quality-of-life questionnaire visual analog scale, median [interquartile range]: 75 [60-85]; group difference: 0 [95% confidence interval, 0-0]). Similar numbers of participants returned to work with no difference in hours worked or effectiveness at work (n = 818). There was no observed difference in disability (n = 1,208) or participation in key life activities (n = 705).Conclusions: The delivery of approximately 100% compared with 70% of recommended calorie intake during critical illness does not improve quality of life or functional outcomes or increase the number of survivors 6 months later.

Energy-Dense versus Routine Enteral Nutrition in the Critically Ill.

BACKGROUND: The effect of delivering nutrition at different calorie levels during critical illness is uncertain, and patients typically receive less than the recommended amount. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial, involving adults undergoing mechanical ventilation in 46 Australian and New Zealand intensive care units (ICUs), to evaluate energy-dense (1.5 kcal per milliliter) as compared with routine (1.0 kcal per milliliter) enteral nutrition at a dose of 1 ml per kilogram of ideal body weight per hour, commencing at or within 12 hours of the initiation of nutrition support and continuing for up to 28 days while the patient was in the ICU. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 90 days. RESULTS: There were 3957 patients included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (1971 in the 1.5-kcal group and 1986 in the 1.0-kcal group). The volume of enteral nutrition delivered during the trial was similar in the two groups; however, patients in the 1.5-kcal group received a mean (±SD) of 1863±478 kcal per day as compared with 1262±313 kcal per day in the 1.0-kcal group (mean difference, 601 kcal per day; 95% confidence interval [CI], 576 to 626). By day 90, a total of 523 of 1948 patients (26.8%) in the 1.5-kcal group and 505 of 1966 patients (25.7%) in the 1.0-kcal group had died (relative risk, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.16; P=0.41). The results were similar in seven predefined subgroups. Higher calorie delivery did not affect survival time, receipt of organ support, number of days alive and out of the ICU and hospital or free of organ support, or the incidence of infective complications or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing mechanical ventilation, the rate of survival at 90 days associated with the use of an energy-dense formulation for enteral delivery of nutrition was not higher than that with routine enteral nutrition. (Funded by National Health and Medical Research Institute of Australia and the Health Research Council of New Zealand; TARGET ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02306746 .).

A review of rapid response team activation parameters in New Zealand hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To review current systems for recognising and responding to clinically deteriorating patients in all New Zealand public hospitals. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study of recognition and response systems in all New Zealand public hospitals was conducted in October 2011. Copies of all current vital sign charts and/or relevant policies were requested. These were examined for vital sign based recognition and response systems. The charts or policies were also used to determine the type of system in use and the vital sign parameters and trigger thresholds that provoke a call to the rapid response team. SETTING: All New Zealand District Health Boards (DHBs). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physiological parameters used to trigger rapid response, the weighting of any early warning score assigned to them, type of system used, values of physiological derangement that trigger maximal system response. RESULTS: All DHBs use aggregate scoring systems to assess deterioration and respond. A total of 9 different physiological parameters were scored with most charts (21%) scoring 6 different parameters. All scored respiratory rate, heart rate, systolic blood pressure and conscious level. 86% scored oliguria, 14% polyuria, 33% oxygen saturation and 24% oxygen administration. All systems used either aggregate scores or a single extreme parameter to elicit a maximal system response. The extremes of physiological derangement to which scores were assigned varied greatly with bradypnoea having the greatest range for what was considered grossly abnormal. CONCLUSION: A large variance exists in the criteria used to detect deteriorating patients within New Zealand hospitals. Standardising both the vital signs chart and escalation criteria is likely to be of significant benefit in the early detection of and response to patient deterioration.