Correction to: Methods in the design and implementation of the Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure (RESTORE) clinical trial.

AbstractFollowing publication of the original article [1], the authors notified us of a typing error in spelling Dr. Asario's name. The original publication has been corrected.

Methods in the design and implementation of the Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure (RESTORE) clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Few papers discuss the pragmatics of conducting large, cluster randomized clinical trials. Here we describe the sequential steps taken to develop methods to implement the Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure (RESTORE) trial that tested the effect of a nurse-implemented, goal-directed, comfort algorithm on clinical outcomes in pediatric patients with acute respiratory failure. METHODS: After development in a single institution, the RESTORE intervention was pilot-tested in two pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) to evaluate safety and feasibility. After the pilot, the RESTORE intervention was simplified to enhance reproducibility across multiple PICUs. The final RESTORE trial was developed as a cluster randomized clinical trial where the unit of randomization was the PICU, stratified by PICU size, and the unit of inference was the patient. Study execution was revised based on our Data and Safety Monitoring Board's recommendation to consult with the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP) on how best to consent eligible subjects. OHRP deemed that the RESTORE intervention posed greater than minimal risk and that all enrolled subjects provide consent reflecting their level of participation. RESULTS: Thirty-one PICUs of varying size, organization and academic affiliation participated and over 2800 critically ill infants and children supported on mechanical ventilation for acute pulmonary disease were enrolled. The primary outcome for the trial was the duration of mechanical ventilation; secondary outcomes included time awake and comfortable, total sedative exposure and iatrogenic withdrawal symptoms. Throughout the clinical trial the investigative team worked to maintain treatment fidelity, enrollment milestones and co-investigator enthusiasm. We considered the potential impact of competing clinical trials through a decision-making framework. CONCLUSIONS: The RESTORE clinical trial was a large and complex multicenter study that has provided the necessary evidence to guide sedation practices in the field of pediatric critical care. Specific issues that were unique to this trial included level of consent, adding clinical sites to augment enrollment and evaluating the potential impact of competing clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , Identifiers: Pilot trial: NCT00142766 ; Retrospectively registerd on 2 September 2005. Cluster randomized trial: NCT00814099 . Registered on 23 December 2008.

Dexmedetomidine Use in Critically Ill Children With Acute Respiratory Failure.

OBJECTIVE: Care of critically ill children includes sedation but current therapies are suboptimal. To describe dexmedetomidine use in children supported on mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from the Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure clinical trial. SETTING: Thirty-one PICUs. PATIENTS: Data from 2,449 children; 2 weeks to 17 years old. INTERVENTIONS: Sedation practices were unrestrained in the usual care arm. Patients were categorized as receiving dexmedetomidine as a primary sedative, secondary sedative, periextubation agent, or never prescribed. Dexmedetomidine exposure and sedation and clinical profiles are described. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 1,224 usual care patients, 596 (49%) received dexmedetomidine. Dexmedetomidine as a primary sedative patients (n = 138; 11%) were less critically ill (Pediatric Risk of Mortality III-12 score median, 6 [interquartile range, 3-11]) and when compared with all other cohorts, experienced more episodic agitation. In the intervention group, time in sedation target improved from 28% to 50% within 1 day of initiating dexmedetomidine as a primary sedative. Dexmedetomidine as a secondary sedative usual care patients (n = 280; 23%) included more children with severe pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome or organ failure. Dexmedetomidine as a secondary sedative patients experienced more inadequate pain (22% vs 11%) and sedation (31% vs 16%) events. Dexmedetomidine as a periextubation agent patients (n = 178; 15%) were those known to not tolerate an awake, intubated state and experienced a shorter ventilator weaning process (2.1 vs 2.3 d). CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the use of dexmedetomidine as a primary agent in low criticality patients offering the benefit of rapid achievement of targeted sedation levels. Dexmedetomidine as a secondary agent does not appear to add benefit. The use of dexmedetomidine to facilitate extubation in children intolerant of an awake, intubated state may abbreviate ventilator weaning. These data support a broader armamentarium of pediatric critical care sedation.

Protocolized sedation vs usual care in pediatric patients mechanically ventilated for acute respiratory failure: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Protocolized sedation improves clinical outcomes in critically ill adults, but its effect in children is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether critically ill children managed with a nurse-implemented, goal-directed sedation protocol experience fewer days of mechanical ventilation than patients receiving usual care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cluster randomized trial conducted in 31 US pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). A total of 2449 children (mean age, 4.7 years; range, 2 weeks to 17 years) mechanically ventilated for acute respiratory failure were enrolled in 2009-2013 and followed up until 72 hours after opioids were discontinued, 28 days, or hospital discharge. INTERVENTION: Intervention PICUs (17 sites; n = 1225 patients) used a protocol that included targeted sedation, arousal assessments, extubation readiness testing, sedation adjustment every 8 hours, and sedation weaning. Control PICUs (14 sites; n = 1224 patients) managed sedation per usual care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included time to recovery from acute respiratory failure, duration of weaning from mechanical ventilation, neurological testing, PICU and hospital lengths of stay, in-hospital mortality, sedation-related adverse events, measures of sedative exposure (wakefulness, pain, and agitation), and occurrence of iatrogenic withdrawal. RESULTS: Duration of mechanical ventilation was not different between the 2 groups (intervention: median, 6.5 [IQR, 4.1-11.2] days; control: median, 6.5 [IQR, 3.7-12.1] days). Sedation-related adverse events including inadequate pain and sedation management, clinically significant iatrogenic withdrawal, and unplanned endotracheal tube/invasive line removal were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Intervention patients experienced more postextubation stridor (7% vs 4%; P = .03) and fewer stage 2 or worse immobility-related pressure ulcers (<1% vs 2%; P = .001). In exploratory analyses, intervention patients had fewer days of opioid administration (median, 9 [IQR, 5-15] days vs 10 [IQR, 4-21] days; P = .01), were exposed to fewer sedative classes (median, 2 [IQR, 2-3] classes vs 3 [IQR, 2-4] classes; P < .001), and were more often awake and calm while intubated (median, 86% [IQR, 67%-100%] of days vs 75% [IQR, 50%-100%] of days; P = .004) than control patients, respectively; however, intervention patients had more days with any report of a pain score ≥ 4 (median, 50% [IQR, 27%-67%] of days vs 23% [IQR, 0%-46%] of days; P < .001) and any report of agitation (median, 60% [IQR, 33%-80%] vs 40% [IQR, 13%-67%]; P = .003), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among children undergoing mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure, the use of a sedation protocol compared with usual care did not reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation. Exploratory analyses of secondary outcomes suggest a complex relationship among wakefulness, pain, and agitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00814099.

Potential drug sequestration during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: results from an ex vivo experiment.

OBJECTIVE: Using an ex vivo simulation model we set out to estimate the amount of drug lost due to sequestration within the extracorporeal circuit over time. DESIGN: Simulated closed-loop extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) circuits were prepared using a 1.5-m2 silicone membrane oxygenator. Group A consisted of heparin, dopamine, ampicillin, vancomycin, phenobarbital and fentanyl. Group B consisted of epinephrine, cefazolin, hydrocortisone, fosphenytoin and morphine. Drugs were tested in crystalloid and blood-primed circuits. After administration of a one-time dose of drugs in the priming fluid, baseline drug concentrations were obtained (P0). A simultaneous specimen was stored for stability testing at 24 h (P4). Serial post-membrane drug concentrations were then obtained at 30 min (P1), 3 h (P2) and 24 h (P3) from circuit fluid. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: One hundred and one samples were analyzed. At the end of 24 h in crystalloid-primed circuits, 71.8% of ampicillin, 96.7% of epinephrine, 17.6% of fosphenytoin, 33.3% of heparin, 17.5% of morphine and 87% of fentanyl was lost. At the end of 24 h in blood-primed extracorporeal circuits, 15.4% of ampicillin, 21% of cefazolin, 71% of voriconazole, 31.4% of fosphenytoin, 53.3% of heparin and 100% of fentanyl was lost. There was a significant decrease in overall drug concentrations from 30 min to 24 h for both crystalloid-primed circuits (p = 0.023) and blood-primed circuits (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Our ex vivo study demonstrates serial losses of several drugs commonly used during ECMO therapy. Therapeutic concentrations of fentanyl, voriconazole, antimicrobials and heparin cannot be guaranteed in patients on ECMO.