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.).

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 the 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 fewer days alive and out of the 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, the number of days alive and out of the 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 value 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, 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 the hospital at Day 180, but it increased 180-day mortality.

Maximal Recruitment Open Lung Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (PHARLAP). A Phase II, Multicenter Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Open lung ventilation strategies have been recommended in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).Objectives: To determine whether a maximal lung recruitment strategy reduces ventilator-free days in patients with ARDS.Methods: A phase II, multicenter randomized controlled trial in adults with moderate to severe ARDS. Patients received maximal lung recruitment, titrated positive end expiratory pressure and further Vt limitation, or control "protective" ventilation.Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome was ventilator-free days at Day 28. Secondary outcomes included mortality, barotrauma, new use of hypoxemic adjuvant therapies, and ICU and hospital stay. Enrollment halted October 2, 2017, after publication of ART (Alveolar Recruitment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Trial), when 115 of a planned 340 patients had been randomized (57% male; mean age, 53.6 yr). At 28 days after randomization, there was no difference between the maximal lung recruitment and control ventilation strategies in ventilator-free days (median, 16 d [interquartile range (IQR), 0-21 d], n = 57, vs. 14.5 d [IQR, 0-21.5 d], n = 56; P = 0.95), mortality (24.6% [n = 14/56] vs. 26.8% [n = 15/56]; P = 0.79), or the rate of barotrauma (5.2% [n = 3/57] vs. 10.7% [n = 6/56]; P = 0.32). However, the intervention group showed reduced use of new hypoxemic adjuvant therapies (i.e., inhaled nitric oxide, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, prone; median change from baseline 0 [IQR, 0-1] vs. 1 [IQR, 0-1]; P = 0.004) and increased rates of new cardiac arrhythmia (n = 17 [29%] vs. n = 7 [13%]; P = 0.03).Conclusions: Compared with control ventilation, maximal lung recruitment did not reduce the duration of ventilation-free days or mortality and was associated with increased cardiovascular adverse events but lower use of hypoxemic adjuvant therapies.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01667146).

Effect of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis With Proton Pump Inhibitors vs Histamine-2 Receptor Blockers on In-Hospital Mortality Among ICU Patients Receiving Invasive Mechanical Ventilation: The PEPTIC Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor blockers (H2RBs) are often prescribed for patients as stress ulcer prophylaxis drugs in the intensive care unit (ICU). The comparative effect of these drugs on mortality is unknown. Objective: To compare in-hospital mortality rates using PPIs vs H2RBs for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster crossover randomized clinical trial conducted at 50 ICUs in 5 countries between August 2016 and January 2019. Patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation within 24 hours of ICU admission were followed up for 90 days at the hospital. Interventions: Two stress ulcer prophylaxis strategies were compared (preferential use with PPIs vs preferential use with H2RBs). Each ICU used each strategy sequentially for 6 months in random order; 25 ICUs were randomized to the sequence with use of PPIs and then use of H2RBs and 25 ICUs were randomized to the sequence with use of H2RBs and then use of PPIs (13 436 patients randomized by site to PPIs and 13 392 randomized by site to H2RBs). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 90 days during index hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding, Clostridioides difficile infection, and ICU and hospital lengths of stay. Results: Among 26 982 patients who were randomized, 154 opted out, and 26 828 were analyzed (mean [SD] age, 58 [17.0] years; 9691 [36.1%] were women). There were 26 771 patients (99.2%) included in the mortality analysis; 2459 of 13 415 patients (18.3%) in the PPI group died at the hospital by day 90 and 2333 of 13 356 patients (17.5%) in the H2RB group died at the hospital by day 90 (risk ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.10]; absolute risk difference, 0.93 percentage points [95% CI, -0.01 to 1.88] percentage points; P = .054). An estimated 4.1% of patients randomized by ICU site to PPIs actually received H2RBs and an estimated 20.1% of patients randomized by ICU site to H2RBs actually received PPIs. Clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 1.3% of the PPI group and 1.8% of the H2RB group (risk ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.92]; absolute risk difference, -0.51 percentage points [95% CI, -0.90 to -0.12 percentage points]; P = .009). Rates of Clostridioides difficile infection and ICU and hospital lengths of stay were not significantly different by treatment group. One adverse event (an allergic reaction) was reported in 1 patient in the PPI group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among ICU patients requiring mechanical ventilation, a strategy of stress ulcer prophylaxis with use of proton pump inhibitors vs histamine-2 receptor blockers resulted in hospital mortality rates of 18.3% vs 17.5%, respectively, a difference that did not reach the significance threshold. However, study interpretation may be limited by crossover in the use of the assigned medication. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12616000481471.

Protocol summary and statistical analysis plan for the low oxygen intervention for cardiac arrest injury limitation (LOGICAL) trial.

Background: The effect of conservative vs. liberal oxygen therapy on outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE) is uncertain and will be evaluated in the Low Oxygen Intervention for Cardiac Arrest injury Limitation (LOGICAL) trial. Objective: The objective of this study was to summarise the protocol and statistical analysis plans for the LOGICAL trial. Design setting and participants: LOGICAL is a randomised clinical trial in adults in the ICU who are comatose with suspected HIE (i.e., those who have not obeyed commands following return of spontaneous circulation after a cardiac arrest where there is clinical concern about possible brain damage). The LOGICAL trial will include 1400 participants and is being conducted as a substudy of the Mega Randomised registry trial comparing conservative vs. liberal oxygenation targets in adults receiving unplanned invasive mechanical ventilation in the ICU (Mega-ROX). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome is survival with favourable neurological function at 180 days after randomisation as measured with the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E). A favourable neurological outcome will be defined as a GOS-E score of lower moderate disability or better (i.e. a GOS-E score of 5-8). Secondary outcomes include survival time, day 180 mortality, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, the proportion of patients discharged home, quality of life assessed at day 180 using the EQ-5D-5L, and cognitive function assessed at day 180 using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-blind). Conclusions: The LOGICAL trial will provide reliable data on the impact of conservative vs. liberal oxygen therapy in ICU patients with suspected HIE following resuscitation from a cardiac arrest. Prepublication of the LOGICAL protocol and statistical analysis plan prior to trial conclusion will reduce the potential for outcome-reporting or analysis bias. Trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621000518864).

Prophylaxis in healthcare workers during a pandemic: a model for a multi-centre international randomised controlled trial using Bayesian analyses.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has exposed the disproportionate effects of pandemics on frontline workers and the ethical imperative to provide effective prophylaxis. We present a model for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) that utilises Bayesian methods to rapidly determine the efficacy or futility of a prophylactic agent. METHODS: We initially planned to undertake a multicentre, phase III, parallel-group, open-label RCT, to determine if hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) taken once a week was effective in preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in healthcare workers (HCW) aged ≥ 18 years in New Zealand (NZ) and Ireland. Participants were to be randomised 2:1 to either HCQ (800 mg stat then 400 mg weekly) or no prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was time to Nucleic Acid Amplification Test-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection. Secondary outcome variables included mortality, hospitalisation, intensive care unit admissions and length of mechanical ventilation. The trial had no fixed sample size or duration of intervention. Bayesian adaptive analyses were planned to occur fortnightly, commencing with a weakly informative prior for the no prophylaxis group hazard rate and a moderately informative prior on the intervention log hazard ratio centred on 'no effect'. Stopping for expected success would be executed if the intervention had a greater than 0.975 posterior probability of reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by more than 10%. Final success would be declared if, after completion of 8 weeks of follow-up (reflecting the long half-life of HCQ), the prophylaxis had at least a 0.95 posterior probability of reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by more than 10%. Futility would be declared if HCQ was shown to have less than a 0.10 posterior probability of reducing acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 infection by more than 20%. DISCUSSION: This study did not begin recruitment due to the marked reduction in COVID-19 cases in NZ and concerns regarding the efficacy and risks of HCQ treatment in COVID-19. Nonetheless, the model presented can be easily adapted for other potential prophylactic agents and pathogens, and pre-established collaborative models like this should be shared and incorporated into future pandemic preparedness planning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The decision not to proceed with the study was made before trial registration occurred.

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.

The long path to pregnancy: early experience with dual anonymous gamete donation in a European in vitro fertilisation referral centre.

BACKGROUND: This investigation describes features of patients undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and embryo transfer (ET) where both gametes were obtained from anonymous donors. METHODS: Gamete unsuitability or loss was confirmed in both members of seven otherwise healthy couples presenting for reproductive endocrinology consultation over a 12-month interval in Ireland. IVF was undertaken with fresh oocytes provided by anonymous donors in Ukraine; frozen sperm (anonymous donor) was obtained from a licensed tissue establishment. For recipients, saline-enhanced sonography was used to assess intrauterine contour with endometrial preparation via transdermal estrogen. RESULTS: Among commissioning couples, mean+/-SD female and male age was 41.9 +/- 3.7 and 44.6 +/- 3.5 yrs, respectively. During this period, female age for non dual anonymous gamete donation IVF patients was 37.9 +/- 3 yrs (p < 0.001). Infertility duration was >/=3 yrs for couples enrolling in dual gamete donation, and each had >/=2 prior failed fertility treatments using native oocytes. All seven recipient couples proceeded to embryo transfer, although one patient had two transfers. Clinical pregnancy was achieved for 5/7 (71.4%) patients. Non-transferred cryopreserved embryos were available for all seven couples. CONCLUSIONS: Mean age of females undergoing dual anonymous donor gamete donation with IVF is significantly higher than the background IVF patient population. Even when neither partner is able to contribute any gametes for IVF, the clinical pregnancy rate per transfer can be satisfactory if both anonymous egg and sperm donation are used concurrently. Our report emphasises the role of pre-treatment counselling in dual anonymous gamete donation, and presents a coordinated screening and treatment approach in IVF where this option may be contemplated.

Permissive Hypercapnia, Alveolar Recruitment and Low Airway Pressure (PHARLAP): a protocol for a phase 2 trial in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is a life-saving intervention that maintains gas exchange in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); however, it is associated with high mortality and it may augment, or even initiate, lung injury. An open lung ventilation strategy that combines alveolar recruitment manoeuvres with individually titrated positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and targeting lower tidal volumes, or driving pressures by a permissive approach to hypercapnia, may reduce the lung injury associated with mechanical ventilation. This protocol reports the rationale, study design and analysis plan of the Permissive Hypercapnia, Alveolar Recruitment and Low Airway Pressure (PHARLAP) trial. METHODS AND DESIGN: PHARLAP is a phase 2, international, multicentre, prospective, randomised, controlled, parallel-group clinical trial, which aims to determine if staircase alveolar recruitment and individually titrated PEEP, when combined with permissive hypercapnia and low airway pressures, increases ventilator-free days to Day 28 when compared with conventional mechanical ventilation (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Clinical Network [ARDSNet] strategy) in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. This study will enrol 340 patients. The intervention group will receive daily staircase alveolar recruitment manoeuvres with incremental PEEP to a maximum of 40 cmH2O and peak pressures to a maximum of 55 cmH2O. PEEP will be titrated individually against peripheral oxygen saturation, targeting lower tidal volumes by a permissive approach to hypercapnia. In the control group, patients will receive mechanical ventilation following the ARDSNet-ARMA trial protocol, including PEEP titrated with a PEEP/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) chart. Both groups will receive airway pressures ≤30 cmH2O and tidal volumes of ≤ 6 mL/kg predicted bodyweight or less. The primary outcome is ventilator-free days to Day 28. Secondary outcomes include oxygenation and lung compliance, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, use of rescue therapies for refractory hypoxaemia, rate of barotrauma, mortality (ICU, hospital and at 28, 90 and 180 days), quality of life and a health economic analysis at 6 months. DISCUSSION: The PHARLAP trial will determine whether the intervention strategy is effective in increasing ventilator-free days in patients with ARDS. If the PHARLAP strategy is proven to improve ventilator-free days, it will provide a strong impetus to conduct an international phase 3 trial to determine the effects of this strategy on mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01667146.

Fertility patients and their prescriptions: a two-year audit of patient-pharmacist interactions in a reproductive endocrinology practice.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed pharmacy performance and satisfaction as reported by patients during ovulation induction therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 1269) receiving gonadotropin prescriptions for intrauterine insemination or in vitro fertilisation-embryo transfer in 2007-2008 were prospectively interviewed by nurses and/or completed a structured questionnaire to evaluate pharmacy performance. "Community" (n = 12) and "specialty" (n = 2) pharmacy status (C vs. S) was defined by each pharmacy, and all pharmacies were selected by patients before cycle start. Patient comments about their pharmacy were classified into five types: i) Dispensing error-gonadotropin, ii) Dispensing error-non gonadotropin, iii) Mistake in prescribed medical equipment/supplies, iv) Counselling/communication inaccuracy, and v) Inventory problem or other. RESULTS: 391 pharmacy concerns were reported from 150 fertility patients during the study period. The majority (75.9%) of patients selected a S pharmacy to fill their prescriptions, and this pharmacy type was identified in 2.8% of adverse pharmacy encounters (p < 0.0001). Non-gonadotropin prescriptions filled at C pharmacies accounted for 40.2% of all complaints, followed by problems with prescriptions for supplies (20.2%) and gonadotropins (18.7%) at C pharmacies. Patient conflict involving S pharmacies was limited (n = 11), and related to operating hours and medication delivery logistics. CONCLUSION: Fertility patients reported a disproportionate and significantly higher number of adverse pharmacy encounters from C pharmacies compared to S pharmacies. Although no licensing mechanism in Ireland currently recognises special training or certification in any area of pharmacy practice, informal self-designations by pharmacies remain a useful discriminator. Level of familiarity with fertility medicines and availability of inventory are important characteristics to be considered when counselling fertility patients about pharmacy choice. Those who select a C pharmacy should be advised to allow extra time for inventory verification, order confirmation, and additional counselling. Additional study is needed to determine if a minimum volume of fertility-related prescriptions is necessary to assure competence in this particular field of pharmacy practice.