Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate a Permissive Blood Pressure Target Versus Usual Care in Critically Ill Children with Hypotension (PRESSURE).

OBJECTIVES: Management of hypotension is a fundamental part of pediatric critical care, with cardiovascular support in the form of fluids or vasoactive drugs offered to every hypotensive child. However, optimal blood pressure (BP) targets are unknown. The PRotocolised Evaluation of PermiSSive BP Targets Versus Usual CaRE (PRESSURE) trial aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a permissive mean arterial pressure (MAP) target of greater than a fifth centile for age compared with usual care. DESIGN: Pragmatic, open, multicenter, parallel-group randomized control trial (RCT) with integrated economic evaluation. SETTING: Eighteen PICUs across the United Kingdom. PATIENTS: Infants and children older than 37 weeks corrected gestational age to 16 years accepted to a participating PICU, on mechanical ventilation and receiving vasoactive drugs for hypotension. INTERVENTIONS: Adjustment of hemodynamic support to achieve a permissive MAP target greater than fifth centile for age during invasive mechanical ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Randomization is 1:1 to a permissive MAP target or usual care, stratified by site and age group. Due to the emergency nature of the treatment, approaching patients for written informed consent will be deferred until after randomization. The primary clinical outcome is a composite of death and days of ventilatory support at 30 days. Baseline demographics and clinical status will be recorded as well as daily measures of BP and organ support, and discharge outcomes. This RCT received Health Research Authority approval (reference 289545), and a favorable ethical opinion from the East of England-Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee on May 10, 2021 (reference number 21/EE/0084). The trial is registered and has an International Standard RCT Number (reference 20609635). CONCLUSIONS: Trial findings will be disseminated in U.K. national and international conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.

Emergency research without prior consent in the United States, Canada, European Union and United Kingdom: How regulatory differences affect study design and implementation in cardiac arrest trials.

Aim: A major barrier to performing cardiac arrest trials is the requirement for prospective informed consent, which is often infeasible during individual medical emergencies. In an effort to improve outcomes, some governments have adopted legislation permitting research without prior consent (RWPC) in these circumstances. We aimed to outline key differences between legislation in four Western locations and explore the effects of these differences on trial design and implementation in cardiac arrest research. Data sources: We performed a narrative review of RWPC legislation in the United States (US), Canada, the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK). Results: The primary criteria required to perform RWPC was similar across locations: the study must involve an individual medical emergency during which neither the prospective subject nor their authorized representative can provide informed consent. The US regulations were unique in their requirements for performing Community Consultation and Public Disclosure in the communities in which the research takes place. Another major difference was the requirement for consent for ongoing participation in Canada, the EU and the UK, while only notification of enrollment and the opportunity to discontinue participation are required in the US. Additionally, only Canada and the EU explicitly state that the subject or their representative may request withdrawal of their data. Conclusion: Regulations governing RWPC in the US, Canada, the EU and the UK have similar goals and protections for vulnerable populations during medical emergencies. Differences in the qualifying criteria and implementation procedures exist across locations and may affect study design.

ILCOR pediatric life support recommendations translation to constituent council guidelines: An emphasis on similarities and differences.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) performs rigorous scientific evidence evaluation and publishes Consensus on Science with Treatment Recommendations. These evidence-based recommendations are incorporated by ILCOR constituent resuscitation councils to inform regional guidelines, and further translated into training approaches and materials and implemented by laypersons and healthcare providers in- and out-of-hospital. There is variation in council guidelines as a result of the weak strength of evidence and interpretation. In this manuscript, we highlight ten important similarities and differences in regional council pediatric resuscitation guidelines, and further emphasize three differences that identify key knowledge gaps and opportunity for "natural experiments."