Conservative management versus invasive management of significant traumatic pneumothoraces in the emergency department (the CoMiTED trial): a study protocol for a randomised non-inferiority trial.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic pneumothoraces are present in one of five victims of severe trauma. Current guidelines advise chest drain insertion for most traumatic pneumothoraces, although very small pneumothoraces can be managed with observation at the treating clinician's discretion. There remains a large proportion of patients in whom there is clinical uncertainty as to whether an immediate chest drain is required, with no robust evidence to inform practice. Chest drains carry a high risk of complications such as bleeding and infection. The default to invasive treatment may be causing potentially avoidable pain, distress and complications. We are evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an initial conservative approach to the management of patients with traumatic pneumothoraces. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The CoMiTED (Conservative Management in Traumatic Pneumothoraces in the Emergency Department) trial is a multicentre, pragmatic parallel group, individually randomised controlled non-inferiority trial to establish whether initial conservative management of significant traumatic pneumothoraces is non-inferior to invasive management in terms of subsequent emergency pleural interventions, complications, pain, breathlessness and quality of life. We aim to recruit 750 patients from at least 40 UK National Health Service hospitals. Patients allocated to the control (invasive management) group will have a chest drain inserted in the emergency department. For those in the intervention (initial conservative management) group, the treating clinician will be advised to manage the participant without chest drain insertion and undertake observation. The primary outcome is a binary measure of the need for one or more subsequent emergency pleural interventions within 30 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes include complications, cost-effectiveness, patient-reported quality of life and patient and clinician views of the two treatment options; participants are followed up for 6 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial received approval from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 4 (reference: 22/WA/0118) and the Health Research Authority. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN35574247.

Getting our ducks in a row: The need for data utility comparisons of healthcare systems data for clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Better use of healthcare systems data, collected as part of interactions between patients and the healthcare system, could transform planning and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Multiple challenges to widespread use include whether healthcare systems data captures sufficiently well the data traditionally captured on case report forms. "Data Utility Comparison Studies" (DUCkS) assess the utility of healthcare systems data for RCTs by comparison to data collected by the trial. Despite their importance, there are few published UK examples of DUCkS. METHODS-AND-RESULTS: Building from ongoing and selected recent examples of UK-led DUCkS in the literature, we set out experience-based considerations for the conduct of future DUCkS. Developed through informal iterative discussions in many forums, considerations are offered for planning, protocol development, data, analysis and reporting, with comparisons at "patient-level" or "trial-level", depending on the item of interest and trial status. DISCUSSION: DUCkS could be a valuable tool in assessing where healthcare systems data can be used for trials and in which trial teams can play a leading role. There is a pressing need for trials to be more efficient in their delivery and research waste must be reduced. Trials have been making inconsistent use of healthcare systems data, not least because of an absence of evidence of utility. DUCkS can also help to identify challenges in using healthcare systems data, such as linkage (access and timing) and data quality. We encourage trial teams to incorporate and report DUCkS in trials and funders and data providers to support them.

Supraglottic airway device versus tracheal intubation in the initial airway management of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the AIRWAYS-2 cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: When a cardiac arrest occurs, cardiopulmonary resuscitation should be started immediately. However, there is limited evidence about the best approach to airway management during cardiac arrest. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to determine whether or not the i-gel® (Intersurgical Ltd, Wokingham, UK) supraglottic airway is superior to tracheal intubation as the initial advanced airway management strategy in adults with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, open, parallel, two-group, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial. A cost-effectiveness analysis accompanied the trial. SETTING: The setting was four ambulance services in England. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years who had a non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and were attended by a participating paramedic were enrolled automatically under a waiver of consent between June 2015 and August 2017. Follow-up ended in February 2018. INTERVENTION: Paramedics were randomised 1 : 1 to use tracheal intubation (764 paramedics) or i-gel (759 paramedics) for their initial advanced airway management and were unblinded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was modified Rankin Scale score at hospital discharge or 30 days after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, whichever occurred earlier, collected by assessors blinded to allocation. The modified Rankin Scale, a measure of neurological disability, was dichotomised: a score of 0-3 (good outcome) or 4-6 (poor outcome/death). The primary outcome for the economic evaluation was quality-adjusted life-years, estimated using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version. RESULTS: A total of 9296 patients (supraglottic airway group, 4886; tracheal intubation group, 4410) were enrolled [median age 73 years; 3373 (36.3%) women]; modified Rankin Scale score was known for 9289 patients. Characteristics were similar between groups. A total of 6.4% (311/4882) of patients in the supraglottic airway group and 6.8% (300/4407) of patients in the tracheal intubation group had a good outcome (adjusted difference in proportions of patients experiencing a good outcome: -0.6%, 95% confidence interval -1.6% to 0.4%). The supraglottic airway group had a higher initial ventilation success rate than the tracheal intubation group [87.4% (4255/4868) vs. 79.0% (3473/4397), respectively; adjusted difference in proportions of patients: 8.3%, 95% confidence interval 6.3% to 10.2%]; however, patients in the tracheal intubation group were less likely to receive advanced airway management than patients in the supraglottic airway group [77.6% (3419/4404) vs. 85.2% (4161/4883), respectively]. Regurgitation rate was similar between the groups [supraglottic airway group, 26.1% (1268/4865); tracheal intubation group, 24.5% (1072/4372); adjusted difference in proportions of patients: 1.4%, 95% confidence interval -0.6% to 3.4%], as was aspiration rate [supraglottic airway group, 15.1% (729/4824); tracheal intubation group, 14.9% (647/4337); adjusted difference in proportions of patients: 0.1%, 95% confidence interval -1.5% to 1.8%]. The longer-term outcomes were also similar between the groups (modified Rankin Scale: at 3 months, odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 1.14; at 6 months, odds ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 1.16). Sensitivity analyses did not alter the overall findings. There were no unexpected serious adverse events. Mean quality-adjusted life-years to 6 months were 0.03 in both groups (supraglottic airway group minus tracheal intubation group difference -0.0015, 95% confidence interval -0.0059 to 0.0028), and total costs were £157 (95% confidence interval -£270 to £583) lower in the tracheal intubation group. Although the point estimate of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio suggested that tracheal intubation may be cost-effective, the huge uncertainty around this result indicates no evidence of a difference between groups. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included imbalance in the number of patients in each group, caused by unequal distribution of high-enrolling paramedics; crossover between groups; and the fact that participating paramedics, who were volunteers, might not be representative of all paramedics in the UK. Findings may not be applicable to other countries. CONCLUSION: Among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, randomisation to the supraglottic airway group compared with the tracheal intubation group did not result in a difference in outcome at 30 days. There were no notable differences in costs, outcomes and overall cost-effectiveness between the groups. FUTURE WORK: Future work could compare alternative supraglottic airway types with tracheal intubation; include a randomised trial of bag mask ventilation versus supraglottic airways; and involve other patient populations, including children, people with trauma and people in hospital. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN08256118. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and supported by the NIHR Comprehensive Research Networks and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest is a serious medical emergency in which the heartbeat and breathing stop suddenly. Every year in the UK, a large number of patients (around 123 per 100,000) suffer a cardiac arrest outside hospital. Only 7­9% of these patients survive to leave hospital. The best initial treatment in cardiac arrest is cardiopulmonary resuscitation (commonly known as CPR), during which it is vital to give chest compressions and maintain a clear airway. Two main techniques are used to keep the airway clear: tracheal intubation (inserting a breathing tube into the windpipe) and a supraglottic airway device (a newer device that is inserted less deeply and sits just above the voicebox). Both techniques are used routinely by paramedics in the UK when treating a cardiac arrest, but there is no evidence about which technique is best. The AIRWAYS-2 trial aimed to find out whether or not a supraglottic airway device is better than tracheal intubation. WHO PARTICIPATED AND WHAT WAS INVOLVED?: Paramedics from four UK ambulance services were put into one of two groups at random. One group was randomly chosen to use tracheal intubation and the other group was randomly chosen to use a supraglottic airway device at all adult cardiac arrests they attended for approximately 2 years. Paramedics were able to apply their clinical judgement and use a different device if they felt that this would be best for the patient. A total of 1523 paramedics took part and enrolled 9296 patients. Following cardiac arrest, a patient's recovery was assessed as good or poor (including patients who did not survive). WHAT DID THE TRIAL FIND?: A similar percentage of patients in both groups had a good recovery. There was no evidence to suggest that the supraglottic airway device was any better than tracheal intubation for treating a cardiac arrest.

Making large-scale surgical trials possible: collaboration and the role of surgical trainees.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment to surgical randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be challenging. The Sunflower study is a large-scale multi-centre RCT that seeks to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of pre-operative imaging versus expectant management in patients with symptomatic gallstones undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy at low or moderate risk of common bile duct stones. Trials such as Sunflower, with a large recruitment target, rely on teamworking. Recruitment can be optimised by embedding a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI). Additionally, engaging surgical trainees can contribute to successful recruitment, and the NIHR Associate Principal Investigator (API) scheme provides a framework to acknowledge their contributions. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods study that formed a component part of an embedded QRI for the Sunflower RCT. The aim of this study was to understand factors that supported and hindered the participation of surgical trainees in a large-scale RCT and their participation in the API scheme. It comprised semi-structured telephone interviews with consultant surgeons and surgical trainees involved in screening and recruitment of patients, and descriptive analysis of screening and recruitment data. Interviews were analysed thematically to explore the perspectives of-and roles undertaken by-surgical trainees. RESULTS: Interviews were undertaken with 34 clinicians (17 consultant surgeons, 17 surgical trainees) from 22 UK hospital trusts. Surgical trainees contributed to patient screening, approaches and randomisation, with a major contribution to the randomisation of patients from acute admissions. They were often encouraged to participate in the study by their centre principal investigator, and career development was a typical motivating factor for their participation in the study. The study was registered with the API scheme, and a majority of the trainees interviewed (n = 14) were participating in the scheme. CONCLUSION: Surgical trainees can contribute substantial activity to a large-scale multi-centre RCT. Benefits of trainee engagement were identified for trainees themselves, for local sites and for the study as a whole. The API scheme provided a formal framework to acknowledge engagement. Ensuring that training and support for trainees are provided by the trial team is key to optimise success for all stakeholders.

Cost-effectiveness of the i-gel supraglottic airway device compared to tracheal intubation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Findings from the AIRWAYS-2 randomised controlled trial.

AIM: Optimal airway management during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is uncertain. Complications from tracheal intubation (TI) may be avoided with supraglottic airway (SGA) devices. The AIRWAYS-2 cluster randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN08256118) compared the i-gel SGA with TI as the initial advanced airway management (AAM) strategy by paramedics treating adults with non-traumatic OHCA. This paper reports the trial cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of the i-gel compared with TI was conducted, with a six-month time horizon, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services. The primary outcome measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), estimated using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Multilevel linear regression modelling was used to account for clustering by paramedic when combining costs and outcomes. RESULTS: 9296 eligible patients were attended by 1382 trial paramedics and enrolled in the AIRWAYS-2 trial (4410 TI, 4886 i-gel). Mean QALYs to six months were 0.03 in both groups (i-gel minus TI difference -0.0015, 95% CI -0.0059 to 0.0028). Total costs per participant up to six months post-OHCA were £3570 and £3413 in the i-gel and TI groups respectively (mean difference £157, 95% CI -£270 to £583). Based on mean difference point estimates, TI was more effective and less costly than i-gel; however differences were small and there was great uncertainty around these results. CONCLUSION: The small differences between groups in QALYs and costs shows no difference in the cost-effectiveness of the i-gel and TI when used as the initial AAM strategy in adults with non-traumatic OHCA.

Randomised controlled trial to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of expectant management versus preoperative imaging with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in patients with symptomatic gallbladder disease undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy at low or moderate risk of common bile duct stones (The Sunflower Study): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery to remove the gallbladder (laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)) is the standard treatment for symptomatic gallbladder disease. One potential complication of gallbladder disease is that gallstones can pass into the common bile duct (CBD) where they may remain dormant, pass spontaneously into the bowel or cause problems such as obstructive jaundice or pancreatitis. Patients requiring LC are assessed preoperatively for their risk of CBD stones using liver function tests and imaging. If the risk is high, guidelines recommend further investigation and treatment. Further investigation of patients at low or moderate risk of CBD stones is not standardised, and the practice of imaging the CBD using magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in these patients varies across the UK. The consequences of these decisions may lead to overtreatment or undertreatment of patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are conducting a UK multicentre, pragmatic, open, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot phase to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of preoperative imaging with MRCP versus expectant management (ie, no preoperative imaging) in adult patients with symptomatic gallbladder disease undergoing urgent or elective LC who are at low or moderate risk of CBD stones. We aim to recruit 13 680 patients over 48 months. The primary outcome is any hospital admission within 18 months of randomisation for a complication of gallstones. This includes complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for the treatment of gallstones and complications of LC. This will be determined using routine data sources, for example, National Health Service Digital Hospital Episode Statistics for participants in England. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness and patient-reported quality of life, with participants followed up for a median of 18 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received approval from Yorkshire & The Humber - South Yorkshire Research Ethics Committee. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10378861.