PROTEUS Study: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Stress Echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: Stress echocardiography (SE) is one of the most commonly used diagnostic imaging tests for coronary artery disease (CAD) but requires clinicians to visually assess scans to identify patients who may benefit from invasive investigation and treatment. EchoGo Pro provides an automated interpretation of SE based on artificial intelligence (AI) image analysis. In reader studies, use of EchoGo Pro when making clinical decisions improves diagnostic accuracy and confidence. Prospective evaluation in real world practice is now important to understand the impact of EchoGo Pro on the patient pathway and outcome. METHODS: PROTEUS is a randomized, multicenter, 2-armed, noninferiority study aiming to recruit 2,500 participants from National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in the UK referred to SE clinics for investigation of suspected CAD. All participants will undergo a stress echocardiogram protocol as per local hospital policy. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to a control group, representing current practice, or an intervention group, in which clinicians will receive an AI image analysis report (EchoGo Pro, Ultromics Ltd, Oxford, UK) to use during image interpretation, indicating the likelihood of severe CAD. The primary outcome will be appropriateness of clinician decision to refer for coronary angiography. Secondary outcomes will assess other health impacts including appropriate use of other clinical management approaches, impact on variability in decision making, patient and clinician qualitative experience and a health economic analysis. DISCUSSION: This will be the first study to assess the impact of introducing an AI medical diagnostic aid into the standard care pathway of patients with suspected CAD being investigated with SE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registration number NCT05028179, registered on 31 August 2021; ISRCTN: ISRCTN15113915; IRAS ref: 293515; REC ref: 21/NW/0199.

Controlled Trial of Two Incremental Milk-Feeding Rates in Preterm Infants.

BACKGROUND: Observational data have shown that slow advancement of enteral feeding volumes in preterm infants is associated with a reduced risk of necrotizing enterocolitis but an increased risk of late-onset sepsis. However, data from randomized trials are limited. METHODS: We randomly assigned very preterm or very-low-birth-weight infants to daily milk increments of 30 ml per kilogram of body weight (faster increment) or 18 ml per kilogram (slower increment) until reaching full feeding volumes. The primary outcome was survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months. Secondary outcomes included components of the primary outcome, confirmed or suspected late-onset sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis, and cerebral palsy. RESULTS: Among 2804 infants who underwent randomization, the primary outcome could be assessed in 1224 (87.4%) assigned to the faster increment and 1246 (88.7%) assigned to the slower increment. Survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months occurred in 802 of 1224 infants (65.5%) assigned to the faster increment and 848 of 1246 (68.1%) assigned to the slower increment (adjusted risk ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.01; P = 0.16). Late-onset sepsis occurred in 414 of 1389 infants (29.8%) in the faster-increment group and 434 of 1397 (31.1%) in the slower-increment group (adjusted risk ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.07). Necrotizing enterocolitis occurred in 70 of 1394 infants (5.0%) in the faster-increment group and 78 of 1399 (5.6%) in the slower-increment group (adjusted risk ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.16). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months in very preterm or very-low-birth-weight infants with a strategy of advancing milk feeding volumes in daily increments of 30 ml per kilogram as compared with 18 ml per kilogram. (Funded by the Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research; SIFT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN76463425.).

Frenotomy with breastfeeding support versus breastfeeding support alone for infants with tongue-tie and breastfeeding difficulties: the FROSTTIE RCT.

Background: Tongue-tie can be diagnosed in 3-11% of babies, with some studies reporting almost universal breastfeeding difficulties, and others reporting very few feeding difficulties that relate to the tongue-tie itself, instead noting that incorrect positioning and attachment are the primary reasons behind the observed breastfeeding difficulties and not the tongue-tie itself. The only existing trials of frenotomy are small and underpowered and/or include only very short-term or subjective outcomes. Objective: To investigate whether frenotomy is clinically and cost-effective to promote continuation of breastfeeding at 3 months in infants with breastfeeding difficulties diagnosed with tongue-tie. Design: A multicentre, unblinded, randomised, parallel group controlled trial. Setting: Twelve infant feeding services in the UK. Participants: Infants aged up to 10 weeks referred to an infant feeding service (by a parent, midwife or other breastfeeding support service) with breastfeeding difficulties and judged to have tongue-tie. Interventions: Infants were randomly allocated to frenotomy with standard breastfeeding support or standard breastfeeding support without frenotomy. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome was any breastmilk feeding at 3 months according to maternal self-report. Secondary outcomes included mother's pain, exclusive breastmilk feeding, exclusive direct breastfeeding, frenotomy, adverse events, maternal anxiety and depression, maternal and infant NHS health-care resource use, cost-effectiveness, and any breastmilk feeding at 6 months of age. Results: Between March 2019 and November 2020, 169 infants were randomised, 80 to the frenotomy with breastfeeding support arm and 89 to the breastfeeding support arm from a planned sample size of 870 infants. The trial was stopped in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic due to withdrawal of breastfeeding support services, slow recruitment and crossover between arms. In the frenotomy with breastfeeding support arm 74/80 infants (93%) received their allocated intervention, compared to 23/89 (26%) in the breastfeeding support arm. Primary outcome data were available for 163/169 infants (96%). There was no evidence of a difference between the arms in the rate of breastmilk feeding at 3 months, which was high in both groups (67/76, 88% vs. 75/87, 86%; adjusted risk ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.16). Adverse events were reported for three infants after surgery [bleeding (n = 1), salivary duct damage (n = 1), accidental cut to the tongue and salivary duct damage (n = 1)]. Cost-effectiveness could not be determined with the information available. Limitations: The statistical power of the analysis was extremely limited due to not achieving the target sample size and the high proportion of infants in the breastfeeding support arm who underwent frenotomy. Conclusions: This trial does not provide sufficient information to assess whether frenotomy in addition to breastfeeding support improves breastfeeding rates in infants diagnosed with tongue-tie. Future work: There is a clear lack of equipoise in the UK concerning the use of frenotomy, however, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the procedure still need to be established. Other study designs will need to be considered to address this objective. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN 10268851. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme (project number 16/143/01) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The funder had no role in study design or data collection, analysis and interpretation. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Many mothers and babies experience difficulties in establishing breastfeeding. In some babies it is thought that their difficulties may be linked to a condition called tongue-tie, in which a piece of skin tightly joins the middle part of the underside of the tongue to the base of the baby's mouth. This can be treated by an operation to divide the tight part/skin in the middle of the underneath of the tongue. We planned to carry out a trial of 870 babies to find out whether an operation together with breastfeeding support helps more mothers and babies with tongue-tie to continue breastfeeding until the baby is 3 months old compared to breastfeeding support on its own and whether the costs were different between the two groups of mothers and babies. We were only able to recruit 169 babies as the trial was stopped because of slow recruitment, changes to services in the COVID-19 pandemic and a high proportion of the babies in the breastfeeding support group going on to have an operation. There were no differences in the rate of breastfeeding at 3 months between the babies in the group who had an operation straightaway and those in the group that had breastfeeding support alone, or had an operation later. More than four in every five babies in both groups were still breastmilk feeding at 3 months. Three babies who had an operation, around 1 in 50 babies, had a complication of the operation (bleeding, scarring or a cut to the tube that makes saliva). Because of the small size of the study, we cannot say whether an operation to divide a tongue-tie along with breastfeeding support helps babies with tongue-tie and breastfeeding difficulties or has different costs. We will need to try different types of research to answer the question.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of an incentive strategy on the questionnaire response rate in parents of premature babies: a randomised controlled Study Within A Trial (SWAT) nested within SIFT.

BACKGROUND: Loss to follow-up resulting in missing outcomes compromises the validity of trial results by reducing statistical power, negatively affecting generalisability and undermining assumptions made at analysis, leading to potentially biased and misleading results. Evidence that incentives are effective at improving response rates exists, but there is little evidence regarding the best approach, especially in the field of perinatal medicine. The NIHR-funded SIFT trial follow-up of infants at 2 years of age provided an ideal opportunity to address this remaining uncertainty. METHODS: Participants: parents of infants from participating neonatal units in the UK and Ireland followed up for SIFT (multicentre RCT investigating two speeds of feeding in babies with gestational age at birth < 32 weeks and/or birthweight < 1500 g). INTERVENTIONS: parents were randomly allocated to receive incentives (£15 gift voucher) before or after questionnaire return. The objective was to establish whether offering an unconditional incentive in advance or promising an incentive on completion of a questionnaire (conditional) improved the response rate in parents of premature babies. The primary outcome was questionnaire response rate. Permuted block randomisation was performed (variable size blocks), stratified by SIFT allocation (slower/faster feeds) and single/multiple birth. Multiple births were given the same incentives allocation. Parents were unaware that they were in an incentives SWAT; SIFT office staff were not blinded to allocation. RESULTS: Parents of 923 infants were randomised: 459 infants allocated to receive incentive before, 464 infants allocated to receive incentive after; analysis was by intention to treat. Allocation to the incentive before completion led to a significantly higher response rate, 83.0% (381/459) compared to the after-completion group, 76.1% (353/464); adjusted absolute difference of 6.8% (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 12.0%). Giving an incentive in advance is the more costly approach, but the mean difference of ~£3 per infant is small given the higher return. CONCLUSIONS: An unconditional incentive in advance led to a significantly higher response rate compared to the promise of an incentive on completion. Against a backdrop of falling response rates to questionnaires, incentives can be an effective way to increase returns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SIFT ( ISRCTN76463425 ). Registered on March 5, 2013.; SWAT registration (SWAT 69 available from http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/TheNorthernIrelandNetworkforTrialsMethodologyResearch/FileStore/Filetoupload,864297,en.pdf ). Registered on June 27, 2016.

Economic evaluation alongside the Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial (SIFT).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two rates of enteral feed advancement (18 vs 30 mL/kg/day) in very preterm and very low birth weight infants. DESIGN: Within-trial economic evaluation alongside a multicentre, two-arm parallel group, randomised controlled trial (Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial). SETTING: 55 UK neonatal units from May 2013 to June 2015. PATIENTS: Infants born <32 weeks' gestation or <1500 g, receiving less than 30 mL/kg/day of milk at trial enrolment. Infants with a known severe congenital anomaly, no realistic chance of survival, or unlikely to be traceable for follow-up, were ineligible. INTERVENTIONS: When clinicians were ready to start advancing feed volumes, infants were randomised to receive daily increments in feed volume of 30 mL/kg (intervention) or 18 mL/kg (control). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cost per additional survivor without moderate to severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months of age corrected for prematurity. RESULTS: Average costs per infant were slightly higher for faster feeds compared with slower feeds (mean difference £267, 95% CI -6928 to 8117). Fewer infants achieved the principal outcome of survival without moderate to severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months in the faster feeds arm (802/1224 vs 848/1246). The stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis showed a likelihood of worse outcomes for faster feeds compared with slower feeds. CONCLUSIONS: The stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis shows faster feeds are broadly equivalent on cost grounds. However, in terms of outcomes at 24 months age (corrected for prematurity), faster feeds are harmful. Faster feeds should not be recommended on either cost or effectiveness grounds to achieve the primary outcome.

Two speeds of increasing milk feeds for very preterm or very low-birthweight infants: the SIFT RCT.

BACKGROUND: Observational data suggest that slowly advancing enteral feeds in preterm infants may reduce necrotising enterocolitis but increase late-onset sepsis. The Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial (SIFT) compared two rates of feed advancement. OBJECTIVE: To determine if faster (30 ml/kg/day) or slower (18 ml/kg/day) daily feed increments improve survival without moderate or severe disability and other morbidities in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Randomisation was via a web-hosted minimisation algorithm. It was not possible to safely and completely blind caregivers and parents. SETTING: The setting was 55 UK neonatal units, from May 2013 to June 2015. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were infants born at < 32 weeks' gestation or a weight of < 1500 g, who were receiving < 30 ml/kg/day of milk at trial enrolment. INTERVENTIONS: When clinicians were ready to start advancing feed volumes, the infant was randomised to receive daily feed increments of either 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In total, 1400 infants were allocated to fast feeds and 1404 infants were allocated to slow feeds. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months of age, corrected for gestational age. The secondary outcomes were mortality; moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months corrected for gestational age; death before discharge home; microbiologically confirmed or clinically suspected late-onset sepsis; necrotising enterocolitis (Bell's stage 2 or 3); time taken to reach full milk feeds (tolerating 150 ml/kg/day for 3 consecutive days); growth from birth to discharge; duration of parenteral feeding; time in intensive care; duration of hospital stay; diagnosis of cerebral palsy by a doctor or other health professional; and individual components of the definition of moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability. RESULTS: The results showed that survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months occurred in 802 out of 1224 (65.5%) infants allocated to faster increments and 848 out of 1246 (68.1%) infants allocated to slower increments (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.01). There was no significant difference between groups in the risk of the individual components of the primary outcome or in the important hospital outcomes: late-onset sepsis (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.07) or necrotising enterocolitis (adjusted risk ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.16). Cost-consequence analysis showed that the faster feed increment rate was less costly but also less effective than the slower rate in terms of achieving the primary outcome, so was therefore found to not be cost-effective. Four unexpected serious adverse events were reported, two in each group. None was assessed as being causally related to the intervention. LIMITATIONS: The study could not be blinded, so care may have been affected by knowledge of allocation. Although well powered for comparisons of all infants, subgroup comparisons were underpowered. CONCLUSIONS: No clear advantage was identified for the important outcomes in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants when milk feeds were advanced in daily volume increments of 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In terms of future work, the interaction of different milk types with increments merits further examination, as may different increments in infants at the extremes of gestation or birthweight. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76463425. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Some infants who are born early need to be fed through a tube into their stomach. A small volume of milk is given to begin with, which is gradually increased. To determine whether infants do better if they are fed faster or slower, this study compared increasing the milk feeds by 30 ml/kg/day with increasing the milk feeds by 18 ml/kg/day, aiming to get to full feeds (when other fluids are not needed) in 5 or 9 days. We compared results from the two groups at discharge from hospital and at 24 months of age, after correcting for prematurity. We also assessed the economic impact of the two daily feed increments, interviewed parents about taking part in multiple studies and tested methods for improving questionnaire returns. The faster-fed group reached full milk feeds sooner and needed less intravenous nutrition, and the proportion of infants developing bowel inflammation or bloodstream infection were similar. At 24 months of age, we found an unexpected increase in the risk of moderate or severe motor impairment in the faster-fed group, which is difficult to explain. We also saw that other types of disability were more frequent in the faster group, although this was not significantly different mathematically. This means that no clear advantage of increasing feeds at faster or slower rates was identified and health professionals will need to carefully consider how to increase feeds. After accepting the increased risk of disability, an economic evaluation showed that increasing milk feed volumes at a faster rate was not a cost-effective strategy. Interviews with parents showed that they valued opportunities for their infant to take part in studies, but this interaction is complex and difficult to remember at a stressful and confusing time and made worse by considering multiple studies. More questionnaires were returned when vouchers were given before rather than after receiving them.