Maintenance of Serum Potassium Levels ≥3.6 mEq/L Versus ≥4.5 mEq/L After Isolated Elective Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and the Incidence of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation: Pilot and Feasibility Study Results.

OBJECTIVE: Serum potassium levels frequently are maintained at high levels (≥4.5 mEq/L) to prevent atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery (AFACS), with limited evidence. Before undertaking a noninferiority randomized controlled trial to investigate the noninferiority of maintaining levels ≥3.6 mEq/L compared with this strategy, the authors wanted to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and safety of recruiting for such a trial. DESIGN: Pilot and feasibility study of full trial protocol. SETTING: Two university tertiary-care hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 160 individuals undergoing first-time elective isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. INTERVENTIONS: Randomization (1:1) to protocols aiming to maintain serum potassium at either ≥3.6 mEq/L or ≥4.5 mEq/L after arrival in the postoperative care facility and for 120 hours or until discharge from the hospital or AFACS occurred, whichever happened first. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcomes: (1) whether it was possible to recruit and randomize 160 patients for six months (estimated 20% of those eligible); (2) maintaining supplementation protocol violation rate ≤10% (defined as potassium supplementation being inappropriately administered or withheld according to treatment allocation after a serum potassium measurement); and (3) retaining 28-day follow-up rates ≥90% after surgery. Between August 2017 and April 2018, 723 patients were screened and 160 (22%) were recruited. Potassium protocol violation rate = 9.8%. Follow-up rate at 28 days = 94.3%. Data on planned outcomes for the full trial also were collected. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to recruit and randomize patients to a study assessing the impact of maintaining serum potassium concentrations at either ≥3.6 mEq/L or ≥4.5 mEq/L on the incidence of AFACS.

Operationalising kangaroo Mother care before stabilisation amongst low birth Weight Neonates in Africa (OMWaNA): protocol for a randomised controlled trial to examine mortality impact in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: There are 2.5 million neonatal deaths each year; the majority occur within 48 h of birth, before stabilisation. Evidence from 11 trials shows that kangaroo mother care (KMC) significantly reduces mortality in stabilised neonates; however, data on its effect among neonates before stabilisation are lacking. The OMWaNA trial aims to determine the effect of initiating KMC before stabilisation on mortality within seven days relative to standard care. Secondary objectives include exploring pathways for the intervention's effects and assessing incremental costs and cost-effectiveness between arms. METHODS: We will conduct a four-centre, open-label, individually randomised, superiority trial in Uganda with two parallel groups: an intervention arm allocated to receive KMC and a control arm receiving standard care. We will enrol 2188 neonates (1094 per arm) for whom the indication for KMC is 'uncertain', defined as receiving ≥ 1 therapy (e.g. oxygen). Admitted singleton, twin and triplet neonates (triplet if demise before admission of ≥ 1 baby) weighing ≥ 700-≤ 2000 g and aged ≥ 1-< 48 h are eligible. Treatment allocation is random in a 1:1 ratio between groups, stratified by weight and recruitment site. The primary outcome is mortality within seven days. Secondary outcomes include mortality within 28 days, hypothermia prevalence at 24 h, time from randomisation to stabilisation or death, admission duration, time from randomisation to exclusive breastmilk feeding, readmission frequency, daily weight gain, infant-caregiver attachment and women's wellbeing at 28 days. Primary analyses will be by intention-to-treat. Quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated in a process evaluation. Cost data will be collected and used in economic modelling. DISCUSSION: The OMWaNA trial aims to assess the effectiveness of KMC in reducing mortality among neonates before stabilisation, a vulnerable population for whom its benefits are uncertain. The trial will improve understanding of pathways underlying the intervention's effects and will be among the first to rigorously compare the incremental cost and cost-effectiveness of KMC relative to standard care. The findings are expected to have broad applicability to hospitals in sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia, where three-quarters of global newborn deaths occur, as well as important policy and programme implications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811432. Registered on 23 June 2016.

Restricted fluid bolus versus current practice in children with septic shock: the FiSh feasibility study and pilot RCT.

BACKGROUND: There has been no randomised controlled trial (RCT) of fluid bolus therapy in paediatric sepsis in the developed world despite evidence that excess fluid may be associated with harm. OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of the Fluids in Shock (FiSh) trial - a RCT comparing restricted fluid bolus (10 ml/kg) with current practice (20 ml/kg) in children with septic shock in the UK. DESIGN: (1) Qualitative feasibility study exploring parents' views about the pilot RCT. (2) Pilot RCT over a 9-month period, including integrated parental and staff perspectives study. SETTING: (1) Recruitment took place across four NHS hospitals in England and on social media. (2) Recruitment took place across 13 NHS hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: (1) Parents of children admitted to a UK hospital with presumed septic shock in the previous 3 years. (2) Children presenting to an emergency department with clinical suspicion of infection and shock after 20 ml/kg of fluid. Exclusion criteria were receipt of > 20 ml/kg of fluid, conditions requiring fluid restriction and the patient not for full active treatment (i.e. palliative care plan in place). Site staff and parents of children in the pilot were recruited to the perspectives study. INTERVENTIONS: (1) None. (2) Children were randomly allocated (1 : 1) to 10- or 20-ml/kg fluid boluses every 15 minutes for 4 hours if in shock. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Acceptability of FiSh trial, proposed consent model and potential outcome measures. (2) Outcomes were based on progression criteria, including recruitment and retention rates, protocol adherence and separation between the groups, and collection and distribution of potential outcome measures. RESULTS: (1) Twenty-one parents were interviewed. All would have consented for the pilot study. (2) Seventy-five children were randomised, 40 to the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group and 35 to the 20-ml/kg fluid bolus group. Two children were withdrawn. Although the anticipated recruitment rate was achieved, there was variability across the sites. Fifty-nine per cent of children in the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group and 74% in the 20-ml/kg fluid bolus group required only a single trial bolus before shock resolved. The volume of fluid (in ml/kg) was 35% lower in the first hour and 44% lower over the 4-hour period in the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group. Fluid boluses were delivered per protocol (volume and timing) for 79% of participants in the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group and for 55% in the 20-ml/kg fluid bolus group, mainly as a result of delivery not being completed within 15 minutes. There were no deaths. Length of hospital stay, paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) transfers, and days alive and PICU free did not differ significantly between the groups. Two adverse events were reported in each group. A questionnaire was completed by 45 parents, 20 families and seven staff were interviewed and 20 staff participated in focus groups. Although a minority of site staff lacked equipoise in favour of more restricted boluses, all supported the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Even though a successful feasibility and pilot RCT were conducted, participants were not as unwell as expected. A larger trial is not feasible in its current design in the UK. FUTURE WORK: Further observational work is required to determine the epidemiology of severe childhood infection in the UK in the postvaccine era. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15244462. 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. 22, No. 51. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC): a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial of high-flow nasal cannula therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure in paediatric critical care.

BACKGROUND: Although high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) has become a popular mode of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) in critically ill children, there are no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing it with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). We performed a pilot RCT to explore the feasibility, and inform the design and conduct, of a future large pragmatic RCT comparing HFNC and CPAP in paediatric critical care. METHODS: In this multi-centre pilot RCT, eligible patients were recruited to either Group A (step-up NRS) or Group B (step-down NRS). Participants were randomised (1:1) using sealed opaque envelopes to either CPAP or HFNC as their first-line mode of NRS. Consent was sought after randomisation in emergency situations. The primary study outcomes were related to feasibility (number of eligible patients in each group, proportion of eligible patients randomised, consent rate, and measures of adherence to study algorithms). Data were collected on safety and a range of patient outcomes in order to inform the choice of a primary outcome measure for the future RCT. RESULTS: Overall, 121/254 eligible patients (47.6%) were randomised (Group A 60%, Group B 44.2%) over a 10-month period (recruitment rate for Group A, 1 patient/site/month; Group B, 2.8 patients/site/month). In Group A, consent was obtained in 29/33 parents/guardians approached (87.9%), while in Group B 84/118 consented (71.2%). Intention-to-treat analysis included 113 patients (HFNC 59, CPAP 54). Most reported adverse events were mild/moderate (HFNC 8/59, CPAP 9/54). More patients switched treatment from HFNC to CPAP (Group A: 7/16, 44%; Group B: 9/43, 21%) than from CPAP to HFNC (Group A: 3/13, 23%; Group B: 5/41, 12%). Intubation occurred within 72 h in 15/59 (25.4%) of HFNC patients and 10/54 (18.5%) of CPAP patients (p = 0.38). HFNC patients experienced fewer ventilator-free days at day 28 (Group A: 19.6 vs. 23.5; Group B: 21.8 vs. 22.2). CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot trial confirms that, following minor changes to consent procedures and treatment algorithms, it is feasible to conduct a large national RCT of non-invasive respiratory support in the paediatric critical care setting in both step-up and step-down NRS patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02612415 . Registered on 23 November 2015.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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