Assessment and report of individual symptoms in studies of delirium in postoperative populations: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Delirium is most often reported as present or absent. Patients with symptoms falling short of the diagnostic criteria for delirium fall into 'no delirium' or 'control' groups. This binary classification neglects individual symptoms and may be hindering identification of the pathophysiology underlying delirium. This systematic review investigates which individual symptoms of delirium are reported by studies of postoperative delirium in adults. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched on 03 June 2021 and 06 April 2023. Two reviewers independently examined titles and abstracts. Each paper was screened in duplicate and conflicting decisions settled by consensus discussion. Data were extracted, qualitatively synthesised and narratively reported. All included studies were quality assessed. RESULTS: These searches yielded 4,367 results. After title and abstract screening, 694 full-text studies were reviewed, and 62 deemed eligible for inclusion. This review details 11,377 patients including 2,049 patients with delirium. In total, 78 differently described delirium symptoms were reported. The most reported symptoms were inattention (N = 29), disorientation (N = 27), psychomotor agitation/retardation (N = 22), hallucination (N = 22) and memory impairment (N = 18). Notably, psychomotor agitation and hallucinations are not listed in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders-5-Text Revision delirium definition. CONCLUSIONS: The 78 symptoms reported in this systematic review cover domains of attention, awareness, disorientation and other cognitive changes. There is a lack of standardisation of terms, and many recorded symptoms are synonyms of each other. This systematic review provides a library of individual delirium symptoms, which may be used to inform future reporting.

Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal compared to ventilation alone in patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: cost-utility analysis of the REST RCT.

Background: Acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and has significant resource implications in terms of intensive care unit and hospital stay. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal compared to ventilation alone in patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. Design: A cost-utility analysis embedded within a pragmatic, multicentre, allocation-concealed, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Participants: Four hundred and twelve (of a planned sample size of 1120) adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation for acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, were recruited between May 2016 and December 2019 from 51 intensive care units in the UK. Interventions: Participants were randomised (1 : 1) to receive extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal for at least 48 hours (n = 202) or standard care with ventilation alone (n = 210). Outcomes: Health-related quality of life via the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, health resource use and associated costs were measured over the study period. The cost per quality-adjusted life-year was estimated at 12 months post randomisation. Results: Mean EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version utility scores were low and similar for each group. Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated for those patients with complete EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version data (extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal n = 140, ventilation alone n = 143) and there was no discernible difference in quality-adjusted life-years at 12 months (mean difference -0.01; 95% confidence interval -0.06 to 0.05; 140). Total 12-month health resource use cost (including intervention costs) was calculated for those patients with complete cost data (extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal n = 125, ventilation alone n = 126) and costs were statistically significantly higher in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group (mean difference £7668.76, 95% confidence interval 159.75, 15,177.77). Multiple imputation was used for missing total cost and quality-adjusted life-year data in the cost-utility analysis. Ventilation alone dominated extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal and there was 0% probability of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal being cost-effective compared to ventilation alone for all willingness to pay thresholds per quality-adjusted life-year considered (£0-50,000). Conclusions: Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal was associated with significantly higher costs, but no benefit in health-related quality of life. Given the data, extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal is not considered to be a cost-effective approach to treating patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. Limitations: These included the absence of a baseline healthy utility score, minor data loss related to not obtaining complete intensive care unit readmission data for Scottish participants, and not estimating long-term cost-effectiveness due to the study closing early. Future work: Measuring baseline health-related quality of life in critical care studies is difficult; future economic evaluations in this setting should consider measuring health-related quality of life as soon as possible after the patients regain capacity. Trial registration: This trial is registered as NCT02654327 and ISRCTN 31262122. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 13/143/02.

Early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy in patients with cancer who have low-risk neutropenic sepsis (the EASI-SWITCH trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neutropenic sepsis remains a common treatment complication for patients receiving systemic anti-cancer treatment. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence have not recommended switching from empirical intravenous antibiotics to oral antibiotics within 48 h for patients assessed as low risk for septic complications because of uncertainty about whether this would achieve comparable outcomes to using intravenous antibiotics for longer. The UK National Institute for Health Research funded the EASI-SWITCH trial to tackle this uncertainty. METHODS: The trial is a pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial that aims to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of early switching from intravenous to oral antibiotics in cancer patients with low-risk neutropenic sepsis. Patients ≥ 16 years, receiving systemic anti-cancer treatment (acute leukaemics/stem cell transplants excluded), with a temperature of > 38 °C, neutrophil count ≤ 1.0 × 109/L, MASCC (Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer) score ≥ 21 and receiving IV piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem for less than 24 h are eligible to participate. Patients are randomised 1:1 either (i) to switch to oral ciprofloxacin and co-amoxiclav within 12-24 h of commencing intravenous antibiotics, completing at least 5 days total antibiotics (intervention), or (ii) to continue intravenous antibiotics for at least 48 h, with ongoing antibiotics being continued at the physician's discretion (control). Patients are discharged home when their physician deems it appropriate. The primary outcome measure is a composite of treatment failures as assessed at day 14. The criteria for treatment failure include fever persistence or recurrence 72 h after starting intravenous antibiotics, escalation from protocolised antibiotics, hospital readmission related to infection/antibiotics, critical care support or death. Based on a 15% treatment failure rate in the control group and a 15% non-inferiority margin, the recruitment target is 230 patients. DISCUSSION: If the trial demonstrates non-inferiority of early switching to oral antibiotics, with potential benefits for patient quality of life and resource savings, this finding will have significant implications for the routine clinical management of those with low-risk neutropenic sepsis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 84288963. Registered on the 1 July 2015. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN84288963. EudraCT: 2015-002830-35.

A 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, open-label trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of hypertonic saline (HTS 6%) and carbocisteine for airway clearance versus usual care over 52 weeks in adults with bronchiectasis: a protocol for the CLEAR clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for the management of bronchiectasis (BE) highlight the lack of evidence to recommend mucoactive agents, such as hypertonic saline (HTS) and carbocisteine, to aid sputum removal as part of standard care. We hypothesise that mucoactive agents (HTS or carbocisteine, or a combination) are effective in reducing exacerbations over a 52-week period, compared to usual care. METHODS: This is a 52-week, 2 × 2 factorial, randomized, open-label trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of HTS 6% and carbocisteine for airway clearance versus usual care - the Clinical and cost-effectiveness of hypertonic saline (HTS 6%) and carbocisteine for airway clearance versus usual care (CLEAR) trial. Patients will be randomised to (1) standard care and twice-daily nebulised HTS (6%), (2) standard care and carbocisteine (750 mg three times per day until visit 3, reducing to 750 mg twice per day), (3) standard care and combination of twice-daily nebulised HTS and carbocisteine, or (4) standard care. The primary outcome is the mean number of exacerbations over 52 weeks. Key inclusion criteria are as follows: adults with a diagnosis of BE on computed tomography, BE as the primary respiratory diagnosis, and two or more pulmonary exacerbations in the last year requiring antibiotics and production of daily sputum. DISCUSSION: This trial's pragmatic research design avoids the significant costs associated with double-blind trials whilst optimising rigour in other areas of trial delivery. The CLEAR trial will provide evidence as to whether HTS, carbocisteine or both are effective and cost effective for patients with BE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2017-000664-14 (first entered in the database on 20 October 2017). ISRCTN.com, ISRCTN89040295. Registered on 6 July/2018. Funder: National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme (15/100/01). SPONSOR: Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. Ethics Reference Number: 17/NE/0339. Protocol version: v3.0 Final_14052018.

Automated versus non-automated weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation for critically ill adults and children.

BACKGROUND: Automated closed loop systems may improve adaptation of mechanical support for a patient's ventilatory needs and facilitate systematic and early recognition of their ability to breathe spontaneously and the potential for discontinuation of ventilation. This review was originally published in 2013 with an update published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective for this review was to compare the total duration of weaning from mechanical ventilation, defined as the time from study randomization to successful extubation (as defined by study authors), for critically ill ventilated patients managed with an automated weaning system versus no automated weaning system (usual care).Secondary objectives for this review were to determine differences in the duration of ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital lengths of stay (LOS), mortality, and adverse events related to early or delayed extubation with the use of automated weaning systems compared to weaning in the absence of an automated weaning system. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 8); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1948 to September 2013); EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to September 2013); CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (1982 to September 2013); and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). Relevant published reviews were sought using the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA Database). We also searched the Web of Science Proceedings; conference proceedings; trial registration websites; and reference lists of relevant articles. The original search was run in August 2011, with database auto-alerts up to August 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing automated closed loop ventilator applications to non-automated weaning strategies including non-protocolized usual care and protocolized weaning in patients over four weeks of age receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in an ICU. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. We combined data in forest plots using random-effects modelling. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted according to a priori criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 trials (19 adult, two paediatric) totaling 1676 participants (1628 adults, 48 children) in this updated review. Pooled data from 16 eligible trials reporting weaning duration indicated that automated closed loop systems reduced the geometric mean duration of weaning by 30% (95% confidence interval (CI) 13% to 45%), however heterogeneity was substantial (I(2) = 87%, P < 0.00001). Reduced weaning duration was found with mixed or medical ICU populations (42%, 95% CI 10% to 63%) and Smartcare/PS™ (28%, 95% CI 7% to 49%) but not in surgical populations or using other systems. Automated closed loop systems reduced the duration of ventilation (10%, 95% CI 3% to 16%) and ICU LOS (8%, 95% CI 0% to 15%). There was no strong evidence of an effect on mortality rates, hospital LOS, reintubation rates, self-extubation and use of non-invasive ventilation following extubation. Prolonged mechanical ventilation > 21 days and tracheostomy were reduced in favour of automated systems (relative risk (RR) 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.95 and RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90 respectively). Overall the quality of the evidence was high with the majority of trials rated as low risk. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Automated closed loop systems may result in reduced duration of weaning, ventilation and ICU stay. Reductions are more likely to occur in mixed or medical ICU populations. Due to the lack of, or limited, evidence on automated systems other than Smartcare/PS™ and Adaptive Support Ventilation no conclusions can be drawn regarding their influence on these outcomes. Due to substantial heterogeneity in trials there is a need for an adequately powered, high quality, multi-centre randomized controlled trial in adults that excludes 'simple to wean' patients. There is a pressing need for further technological development and research in the paediatric population.

Automated versus non-automated weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation for critically ill adults and children.

BACKGROUND: Automated closed loop systems may improve adaptation of the mechanical support to a patient's ventilatory needs and facilitate systematic and early recognition of their ability to breathe spontaneously and the potential for discontinuation of ventilation. OBJECTIVES: To compare the duration of weaning from mechanical ventilation for critically ill ventilated adults and children when managed with automated closed loop systems versus non-automated strategies. Secondary objectives were to determine differences in duration of ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), mortality, and adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1948 to August 2011); EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to August 2011); CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (1982 to August 2011); and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). In addition we received and reviewed auto-alerts for our search strategy in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL up to August 2012. Relevant published reviews were sought using the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA Database). We also searched the Web of Science Proceedings; conference proceedings; trial registration websites; and reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing automated closed loop ventilator applications to non-automated weaning strategies including non-protocolized usual care and protocolized weaning in patients over four weeks of age receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit (ICU). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. We combined data into forest plots using random-effects modelling. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted according to a priori criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Pooled data from 15 eligible trials (14 adult, one paediatric) totalling 1173 participants (1143 adults, 30 children) indicated that automated closed loop systems reduced the geometric mean duration of weaning by 32% (95% CI 19% to 46%, P = 0.002), however heterogeneity was substantial (I(2) = 89%, P < 0.00001). Reduced weaning duration was found with mixed or medical ICU populations (43%, 95% CI 8% to 65%, P = 0.02) and Smartcare/PS™ (31%, 95% CI 7% to 49%, P = 0.02) but not in surgical populations or using other systems. Automated closed loop systems reduced the duration of ventilation (17%, 95% CI 8% to 26%) and ICU length of stay (LOS) (11%, 95% CI 0% to 21%). There was no difference in mortality rates or hospital LOS. Overall the quality of evidence was high with the majority of trials rated as low risk. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Automated closed loop systems may result in reduced duration of weaning, ventilation, and ICU stay. Reductions are more likely to occur in mixed or medical ICU populations. Due to the lack of, or limited, evidence on automated systems other than Smartcare/PS™ and Adaptive Support Ventilation no conclusions can be drawn regarding their influence on these outcomes. Due to substantial heterogeneity in trials there is a need for an adequately powered, high quality, multi-centre randomized controlled trial in adults that excludes 'simple to wean' patients. There is a pressing need for further technological development and research in the paediatric population.

Accuracy of LightCycler(R) SeptiFast for the detection and identification of pathogens in the blood of patients with suspected sepsis: a systematic review protocol.

UNLABELLED: Background There is growing interest in the potential utility of molecular diagnostics in improving the detection of life-threatening infection (sepsis). LightCycler® SeptiFast is a multipathogen probe-based real-time PCR system targeting DNA sequences of bacteria and fungi present in blood samples within a few hours. We report here the protocol of the first systematic review of published clinical diagnostic accuracy studies of this technology when compared with blood culture in the setting of suspected sepsis. Methods/design Data sources: the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA), the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHSEED), The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, BIOSIS Previews, MEDION and the Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility Database (ARIF). STUDY SELECTION: diagnostic accuracy studies that compare the real-time PCR technology with standard culture results performed on a patient's blood sample during the management of sepsis. DATA EXTRACTION: three reviewers, working independently, will determine the level of evidence, methodological quality and a standard data set relating to demographics and diagnostic accuracy metrics for each study. Statistical analysis/data synthesis: heterogeneity of studies will be investigated using a coupled forest plot of sensitivity and specificity and a scatter plot in Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) space. Bivariate model method will be used to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity. The authors will investigate reporting biases using funnel plots based on effective sample size and regression tests of asymmetry. Subgroup analyses are planned for adults, children and infection setting (hospital vs community) if sufficient data are uncovered. Dissemination Recommendations will be made to the Department of Health (as part of an open-access HTA report) as to whether the real-time PCR technology has sufficient clinical diagnostic accuracy potential to move forward to efficacy testing during the provision of routine clinical care. Registration PROSPERO-NIHR Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42011001289).

A randomized controlled trial of tea tree oil (5%) body wash versus standard body wash to prevent colonization with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in critically ill adults: research protocol.

BACKGROUND: Over the past ten years MRSA has become endemic in hospitals and is associated with increased healthcare costs. Critically ill patients are most at risk, in part because of the number of invasive therapies that they require in the intensive care unit (ICU). Washing with 5% tea tree oil (TTO) has been shown to be effective in removing MRSA on the skin. However, to date, no trials have evaluated the potential of TTO body wash to prevent MRSA colonization or infection. In addition, detecting MRSA by usual culture methods is slow. A faster method using a PCR assay has been developed in the laboratory, but requires evaluation in a large number of patients. METHODS/DESIGN: This study protocol describes the design of a multicentre, phase II/III prospective open-label randomized controlled clinical trial to evaluate whether a concentration of 5% TTO is effective in preventing MRSA colonization in comparison with a standard body wash (Johnsons Baby Softwash) in the ICU. In addition we will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TTO body wash and assess the effectiveness of the PCR assay in detecting MRSA in critically ill patients. On admission to intensive care, swabs from the nose and groin will be taken to screen for MRSA as per current practice. Patients will be randomly assigned to be washed with the standard body wash or TTO body wash. On discharge from the unit, swabs will be taken again to identify whether there is a difference in MRSA colonization between the two groups. DISCUSSION: If TTO body wash is found to be effective, widespread implementation of such a simple colonization prevention tool has the potential to impact on patient outcomes, healthcare resource use and patient confidence both nationally and internationally.