Evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a conservative approach to oxygen therapy for invasively ventilated adults in intensive care: Protocol for the UK-ROX trial.

Background: In the United Kingdom, around 184,000 adults are admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) each year with over 30% receiving mechanical ventilation. Oxygen is the commonest therapeutic intervention provided to these patients but it is unclear how much oxygen should be administered for the best clinical outcomes. Methods: The UK-ROX trial will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of conservative oxygen therapy (the minimum oxygen concentration required to maintain an oxygen saturation of 90% ± 2%) versus usual oxygen therapy in critically ill adults receiving supplemental oxygen when invasively mechanically ventilated in ICUs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The trial will recruit 16,500 patients from approximately 100 UK adult ICUs. Using a deferred consent model, enrolled participants will be randomly allocated (1:1) to conservative or usual oxygen therapy until ICU discharge or 90 days after randomisation. Objectives: The primary clinical outcome is all cause mortality at 90 days following randomisation. Discussion: The UK-ROX trial has received ethical approval from the South Central - Oxford C Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 20/SC/0423) and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (Reference: 22/CAG/0154). The trial commenced in May 2021 and, at the time of publication, 95 sites had opened to recruitment.

Reduced exposure to vasopressors through permissive hypotension to reduce mortality in critically ill people aged 65 and over: the 65 RCT.

BACKGROUND: Vasopressors are administered to critical care patients to avoid hypotension, which is associated with myocardial injury, kidney injury and death. However, they work by causing vasoconstriction, which may reduce blood flow and cause other adverse effects. A mean arterial pressure target typically guides administration. An individual patient data meta-analysis (Lamontagne F, Day AG, Meade MO, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Hylands M, et al. Pooled analysis of higher versus lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy septic and vasodilatory shock. Intensive Care Med 2018;44:12-21) suggested that greater exposure, through higher mean arterial pressure targets, may increase risk of death in older patients. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of reduced vasopressor exposure through permissive hypotension (i.e. a lower mean arterial pressure target of 60-65 mmHg) in older critically ill patients. DESIGN: A pragmatic, randomised clinical trial with integrated economic evaluation. SETTING: Sixty-five NHS adult general critical care units. PARTICIPANTS: Critically ill patients aged ≥ 65 years receiving vasopressors for vasodilatory hypotension. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention - permissive hypotension (i.e. a mean arterial pressure target of 60-65 mmHg). Control (usual care) - a mean arterial pressure target at the treating clinician's discretion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary clinical outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. The primary cost-effectiveness outcome was 90-day incremental net monetary benefit. Secondary outcomes included receipt and duration of advanced respiratory and renal support, mortality at critical care and acute hospital discharge, and questionnaire assessment of cognitive decline and health-related quality of life at 90 days and 1 year. RESULTS: Of 2600 patients randomised, 2463 (permissive hypotension, n = 1221; usual care, n = 1242) were analysed for the primary clinical outcome. Permissive hypotension resulted in lower exposure to vasopressors than usual care [mean duration 46.0 vs. 55.9 hours, difference -9.9 hours (95% confidence interval -14.3 to -5.5 hours); total noradrenaline-equivalent dose 31.5 mg vs. 44.3 mg, difference -12.8 mg (95% CI -18.0 mg to -17.6 mg)]. By 90 days, 500 (41.0%) patients in the permissive hypotension group and 544 (43.8%) patients in the usual-care group had died (absolute risk difference -2.85%, 95% confidence interval -6.75% to 1.05%; p = 0.154). Adjustment for prespecified baseline variables resulted in an odds ratio for 90-day mortality of 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98) favouring permissive hypotension. There were no significant differences in prespecified secondary outcomes or subgroups; however, patients with chronic hypertension showed a mortality difference favourable to permissive hypotension. At 90 days, permissive hypotension showed similar costs to usual care. However, with higher incremental life-years and quality-adjusted life-years in the permissive hypotension group, the incremental net monetary benefit was positive, but with high statistical uncertainty (£378, 95% confidence interval -£1347 to £2103). LIMITATIONS: The intervention was unblinded, with risk of bias minimised through central allocation concealment and a primary outcome not subject to observer bias. The control group event rate was higher than anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients aged ≥ 65 years receiving vasopressors for vasodilatory hypotension, permissive hypotension did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality compared with usual care. The absolute treatment effect on 90-day mortality, based on 95% confidence intervals, was between a 6.8-percentage reduction and a 1.1-percentage increase in mortality. FUTURE WORK: Future work should (1) update the individual patient data meta-analysis, (2) explore approaches for evaluating heterogeneity of treatment effect and (3) explore 65 trial conduct, including use of deferred consent, to inform future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10580502. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Low blood pressure is common in patients in intensive care. It is associated with a high risk of death. It can be treated with drugs called vasopressors. These drugs raise blood pressure, but also come with risks and side effects. Usually, a blood pressure target is used to guide how much of the drugs to give to patients. Two previous clinical trials suggested that using a lower blood pressure target (and therefore giving less of the drugs) might reduce the number of deaths among older patients. However, although these results were promising, more research was needed to find out if they were correct. The 65 trial was carried out to test if using a lower blood pressure target really did improve outcomes for older patients. The trial also looked at whether or not it would provide value for money for the NHS. A total of 2600 patients aged ≥ 65 years who had low blood pressure in intensive care joined the trial. Half were randomly assigned to the new lower blood pressure target (less drugs). The other half were assigned to usual care (control group). As we had hoped, patients in the low blood pressure target group received less vasopressor drugs than the usual-care group. After 90 days, 41% of patients in the new low blood pressure target group had died, compared with 44% in the usual-care group. Although fewer patients died in the low blood pressure target group, the difference was small and may have occurred by chance. On average, the new target saved a small amount of money for the NHS. Although we could not prove that use of a lower blood pressure target saves lives for older patients in intensive care, our trial suggests that it might. Receiving less vasopressor drugs appeared safe for patients.

Effect of Reduced Exposure to Vasopressors on 90-Day Mortality in Older Critically Ill Patients With Vasodilatory Hypotension: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Vasopressors are commonly administered to intensive care unit (ICU) patients to raise blood pressure. Balancing risks and benefits of vasopressors is a challenge, particularly in older patients. Objective: To determine whether reducing exposure to vasopressors through permissive hypotension (mean arterial pressure [MAP] target, 60-65 mm Hg) reduces mortality at 90 days in ICU patients aged 65 years or older with vasodilatory hypotension. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial was conducted in 65 ICUs in the United Kingdom and included 2600 randomized patients aged 65 years or older with vasodilatory hypotension (assessed by treating clinician). The study was conducted from July 2017 to March 2019, and follow-up was completed in August 2019. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to vasopressors guided either by MAP target (60-65 mm Hg, permissive hypotension) (n = 1291) or according to usual care (at the discretion of treating clinicians) (n = 1307). Main Outcome and Measures: The primary clinical outcome was all-cause mortality at 90 days. Results: Of 2600 randomized patients, after removal of those who declined or had withdrawn consent, 2463 (95%) were included in the analysis of the primary outcome (mean [SD] age 75 years [7 years]; 1387 [57%] men). Patients randomized to the permissive hypotension group had lower exposure to vasopressors compared with those in the usual care group (median duration 33 hours vs 38 hours; difference in medians, -5.0; 95% CI, -7.8 to -2.2 hours; total dose in norepinephrine equivalents median, 17.7 mg vs 26.4 mg; difference in medians, -8.7 mg; 95% CI, -12.8 to -4.6 mg). At 90 days, 500 of 1221 (41.0%) in the permissive hypotension compared with 544 of 1242 (43.8%) in the usual care group had died (absolute risk difference, -2.85%; 95% CI, -6.75 to 1.05; P = .15) (unadjusted relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.03). When adjusted for prespecified baseline variables, the odds ratio for 90-day mortality was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.98). Serious adverse events were reported for 79 patients (6.2%) in the permissive care group and 75 patients (5.8%) in the usual care group. The most common serious adverse events were acute renal failure (41 [3.2%] vs 33 [2.5%]) and supraventricular cardiac arrhythmia (12 [0.9%] vs 13 [1.0%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients 65 years or older receiving vasopressors for vasodilatory hypotension, permissive hypotension compared with usual care did not result in a statistically significant reduction in mortality at 90 days. However, the confidence interval around the point estimate for the primary outcome should be considered when interpreting the clinical importance of the study. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN10580502.

Gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis for critically ill patients: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (stress ulcer prophylaxis) in critically ill patients? This guideline was prompted by the publication of a new large randomised controlled trial. CURRENT PRACTICE: Gastric acid suppression with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) is commonly done to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Existing guidelines vary in their recommendations of which population to treat and which agent to use. RECOMMENDATIONS: This guideline panel makes a weak recommendation for using gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients at high risk (>4%) of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, and a weak recommendation for not using prophylaxis in patients at lower risk of clinically important bleeding (≤4%). The panel identified risk categories based on evidence, with variable certainty regarding risk factors. The panel suggests using a PPI rather than a H2RA (weak recommendation) and recommends against using sucralfate (strong recommendation). HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations using standards for trustworthy guidelines and the GRADE approach. The recommendations are based on a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis. A weak recommendation means that both options are reasonable. THE EVIDENCE: The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis estimated the benefit and harm of these medications in 12 660 critically ill patients in 72 trials. Both PPIs and H2RAs reduce the risk of clinically important bleeding. The effect is larger in patients at higher bleeding risk (those with a coagulopathy, chronic liver disease, or receiving mechanical ventilation but not enteral nutrition or two or more of mechanical ventilation with enteral nutrition, acute kidney injury, sepsis, and shock) (moderate certainty). PPIs and H2RAs might increase the risk of pneumonia (low certainty). They probably do not have an effect on mortality (moderate certainty), length of hospital stay, or any other important outcomes. PPIs probably reduce the risk of bleeding more than H2RAs (moderate certainty). UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: In most critically ill patients, the reduction in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding from gastric acid suppressants is closely balanced with the possibility of pneumonia. Clinicians should consider individual patient values, risk of bleeding, and other factors such as medication availability when deciding whether to use gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis. Visual overviews provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of the options in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available on MAGICapp.

Evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of permissive hypotension in critically ill patients aged 65 years or over with vasodilatory hypotension: Protocol for the 65 randomised clinical trial.

Vasodilatory shock is common in critically ill patients and vasopressors are a mainstay of therapy. A meta-analysis suggested that use of a higher, as opposed to a lower, mean arterial pressure target to guide titration of vasopressor therapy, could be associated with a higher risk of death in older critically ill patients. The 65 trial is a pragmatic, multi-centre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised clinical trial of permissive hypotension (a mean arterial pressure target of 60 -65 mmHg during vasopressor therapy) versus usual care in critically ill patients aged 65 years or over with vasodilatory hypotension. The trial is conducted in 2600 patients from 65 United Kingdom adult, general critical care units. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality at 90 days. An economic evaluation is embedded. The 65 trial received favourable ethical opinion from the South Central - Oxford C Research Ethics Committee and approval from the Health Research Authority. The results will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed medical journals. Trial registration: ISRCTN10580502.

Validation of a classification system for causes of death in critical care: an assessment of inter-rater reliability.

OBJECTIVE: Trials in critical care have previously used unvalidated systems to classify cause of death. We aimed to provide initial validation of a method to classify cause of death in intensive care unit patients. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: One hundred case scenarios of patients who died in an ICU were presented online to raters, who were asked to select a proximate and an underlying cause of death for each, using the ICU Deaths Classification and Reason (ICU-DECLARE) system. We evaluated two methods of categorising proximate cause of death (designated Lists A and B) and one method of categorising underlying cause of death. Raters were ICU specialists and research coordinators from Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Inter-rater reliability, as measured by the Fleiss multirater kappa, and the median proportion of raters choosing the most likely diagnosis (defined as the most popular classification choice in each case). RESULTS: Across all raters and cases, for proximate cause of death List A, kappa was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.49-0.60), and for proximate cause of death List B, kappa was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.53-0.63). For the underlying cause of death, kappa was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.44-0.53). The median proportion of raters choosing the most likely diagnosis for proximate cause of death, List A, was 77.5% (interquartile range [IQR], 60.0%-93.8%), and the median proportion choosing the most likely diagnosis for proximate cause of death, List B, was 82.5% (IQR, 60.0%-92.5%). The median proportion choosing the most likely diagnosis for underlying cause was 65.0% (IQR, 50.0%-81.3%). Kappa and median agreement were similar between countries. ICU specialists showed higher kappa and median agreement than research coordinators. CONCLUSIONS: The ICU-DECLARE system allowed ICU doctors to classify the proximate cause of death of patients who died in the ICU with substantial reliability.

Critical care research in a district general hospital: the first year.

Until recently, research in critical care units has usually taken place in university teaching hospitals. The 'general' critical care unit patient population is broader than this and the research needs to reflect this. As a general critical care unit in a district general hospital we wanted to set-up research within our own department, as part of the critical care team and part of our culture. With extensive background communication, drive and hard work, the support of the hospital Research and Development department was gained and Comprehensive Local Research Network funding successfully applied for. A research team was established and a model for the Research Nurse role was developed and implemented. This model is described. Participation in national trials commenced and the research portfolio is growing. Networking with other teams also proved valuable. Research has been established as part of the 'culture' of the day-to-day work and the staff have embraced this. Dedicated Research Nurse posts and education of the whole team have ensured successful implementation and recruitment of the studies. Experiences of the first year are shared and discussed here. Sharing experience of developing research within a critical care unit in a district general hospital, and a suggested model for a new Research Nurse role, may benefit other similar units in their efforts to establish research.

The role of the Lecturer Practitioner in interprofessional education.

A Lecturer Practitioner (LP) is a joint appointment between a hospital/NHS Trust and a university with a responsibility for nurse education - in academia and in practice. The LP is a member of the multi-disciplinary team, often within a speciality, and bridging the 'theory-practice' gap is at the core of his/her role. Interprofessional education involves interactive learning between members of different professional groups, who are likely to form part of a multi-disciplinary team in a clinical area. The unique position of the LP within this team is ideal for providing a link between education and practice for the team. Although LPs were established to facilitate nurse education, this paper proposes that there are good reasons why they can help facilitate learning of all health-care professionals, particularly interprofessional education.