ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Daily multidisciplinary rounds (DMRs) consist of systematic patient-centred discussions aiming to establish joint therapeutic goals for the next 24 hours of intensive care unit (ICU) care. The aim of the present study protocol is to evaluate whether an intervention consisting of guided DMRs, supported by a remote specialist and audit/feedback on care performance will reduce ICU length of stay compared with a control group. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised superiority trial including 30 ICUs in Brazil (15 intervention and 15 control), from August 2019 to June 2021. In a parallel assignment, ICUs are randomised to a complex-intervention composed by daily rounds carried out through Tele-ICU by a remote ICU physician; development of local quality indicators dashboards coupled with monthly meetings with local leadership; and dissemination of evidence-based clinical protocols versus usual care. Primary outcome is ICU length of stay. Secondary outcomes include classification of the unit according to the profiles defined by the standardised resource use and the standardised mortality rate, hospital mortality, incidence of healthcare-associated infections, ventilator-free days at 28 days, patient-days receiving oral or enteral feeding, patient-days under light sedation or alert and calm, rate of patients under normoxaemia. All adult patients admitted after the beginning of the study in each participant ICU will be enrolled. Inclusion criteria (clusters): public Brazilian ICUs with a minimum of 8 ICU beds interested/committed to participating in the study. Exclusion criteria (clusters): units with fully established DMRs by an intensivist, specialised or step-down units. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) of the coordinator centre, and by IRBs of each enrolled hospital/ICU. Statistical analysis protocol is being prepared for submission before the end of patient's enrolment. Results will be disseminated through conferences, peer-reviewed journals and to each participating unit. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03920501; Pre-results.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Telescopes , Adult , Brazil , Critical Care , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is used in critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) to avoid endotracheal intubation. However, the impact of NIV use on ARF patient's outcomes is still unclear. Our objectives were to evaluate the rate of NIV failure in hypoxemic patients with an arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure (PaCO2) < 45 mmHg or ≥ 45 mmHg at ICU admission, the predictors of NIV failure, ICU and hospital length of stay and 28-day mortality. METHODS: Prospective single center cohort study. All consecutive patients admitted to a mixed ICU during a three-month period who received NIV, except for palliative care purposes, were included in this study. Demographic data, APACHE II score, cause of ARF, number of patients that received NIV, incidence of NIV failure, length of ICU, hospital stay and mortality rate were compared between NIV failure and success groups. RESULTS: Eighty-five from 462 patients (18.4 %) received NIV and 26/85 (30.6 %) required invasive mechanical ventilation. NIV failure patients were comparatively younger (67 ± 21 vs. 77 ± 14 years; p = 0.031), had lower arterial bicarbonate (p = 0.005), lower PaCO2 levels (p = 0.032), higher arterial lactate levels (p = 0.046) and APACHE II score (p = 0.034) compared to NIV success patients. NIV failure occurred in 25.0 % of patients with PaCO2 ≥ 45 mmHg and in 33.3 % of patients with PaCO2 < 45 mmHg (p = 0.435). NIV failure was associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death (OR 4.64, 95 % CI 1.52 to 14.18; p = 0.007) and length [median (IQR)] of ICU [12 days (8-31) vs. 2 days (1-4); p < 0.001] and hospital [30 (19-42) vs. 15 (9-33) days; p = 0.010] stay. Predictors of NIV failure included age (OR 0.96, 95 % CI 0.93 to 0.99; p = 0.007) and APACHE II score (OR 1.13, 95 % CI 1.02 to 1.25; p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: NIV failure was associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death, ICU and hospital stay and was not affected by baseline PaCO2 levels. Patients that failed were comparatively younger and had higher APACHE II score, suggesting the need for a careful selection of patients that might benefit from NIV. A well-designed study on the impact of a short monitored NIV trial on outcomes is needed.
