Bronagh Blackwood1, Lyvonne N Tume2,3, Kevin P Morris4,5, Mike Clarke6, Clíona McDowell7, Karla Hemming8, Mark J Peters9,10, Lisa McIlmurray1, Joanne Jordan1, Ashley Agus7, Margaret Murray7, Roger Parslow11, Timothy S Walsh12, Duncan Macrae13, Christina Easter8, Richard G Feltbower11, Daniel F McAuley1. 1. Wellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Ireland. 2. School of Health and Society, University of Salford, Manchester, England. 3. Alder Hey Children's NHS Trust, Liverpool, England. 4. Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, England. 5. Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England. 6. Centre for Public Health, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Ireland. 7. Northern Ireland Clinical Trials Unit, Royal Hospitals, Belfast, Ireland. 8. University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England. 9. Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, England. 10. University College London, Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, London, England. 11. Leeds Institute for Data Analytics, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, England. 12. Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland. 13. Royal Brompton Hospital, London, England.
Abstract
Importance: There is limited evidence on the optimal strategy for liberating infants and children from invasive mechanical ventilation in the pediatric intensive care unit. Objective: To determine if a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention reduces the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pragmatic multicenter, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted that included 17 hospital sites (18 pediatric intensive care units) in the UK sequentially randomized from usual care to the protocol intervention. From February 2018 to October 2019, 8843 critically ill infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation were recruited. The last date of follow-up was November 11, 2019. Interventions: Pediatric intensive care units provided usual care (n = 4155 infants and children) or a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention (n = 4688 infants and children) that consisted of assessment of sedation level, daily screening for readiness to undertake a spontaneous breathing trial, a spontaneous breathing trial to test ventilator liberation potential, and daily rounds to review sedation and readiness screening and set patient-relevant targets. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation from initiation of ventilation until the first successful extubation. The primary estimate of the treatment effect was a hazard ratio (with a 95% CI) adjusted for calendar time and cluster (hospital site) for infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation. Results: There were a total of 8843 infants and children (median age, 8 months [interquartile range, 1 to 46 months]; 42% were female) who completed the trial. There was a significantly shorter median time to successful extubation for the protocol intervention compared with usual care (64.8 hours vs 66.2 hours, respectively; adjusted median difference, -6.1 hours [interquartile range, -8.2 to -5.3 hours]; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.02 to 1.20], P = .02). The serious adverse event of hypoxia occurred in 9 (0.2%) infants and children for the protocol intervention vs 11 (0.3%) for usual care; nonvascular device dislodgement occurred in 2 (0.04%) vs 7 (0.1%), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation, a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention compared with usual care resulted in a statistically significant reduction in time to first successful extubation. However, the clinical importance of the effect size is uncertain. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16998143.
Importance: There is limited evidence on the optimal strategy for liberating infants and children from invasive mechanical ventilation in the pediatric intensive care unit. Objective: To determine if a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention reduces the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pragmatic multicenter, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted that included 17 hospital sites (18 pediatric intensive care units) in the UK sequentially randomized from usual care to the protocol intervention. From February 2018 to October 2019, 8843 critically ill infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation were recruited. The last date of follow-up was November 11, 2019. Interventions: Pediatric intensive care units provided usual care (n = 4155 infants and children) or a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention (n = 4688 infants and children) that consisted of assessment of sedation level, daily screening for readiness to undertake a spontaneous breathing trial, a spontaneous breathing trial to test ventilator liberation potential, and daily rounds to review sedation and readiness screening and set patient-relevant targets. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation from initiation of ventilation until the first successful extubation. The primary estimate of the treatment effect was a hazard ratio (with a 95% CI) adjusted for calendar time and cluster (hospital site) for infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation. Results: There were a total of 8843 infants and children (median age, 8 months [interquartile range, 1 to 46 months]; 42% were female) who completed the trial. There was a significantly shorter median time to successful extubation for the protocol intervention compared with usual care (64.8 hours vs 66.2 hours, respectively; adjusted median difference, -6.1 hours [interquartile range, -8.2 to -5.3 hours]; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.02 to 1.20], P = .02). The serious adverse event of hypoxia occurred in 9 (0.2%) infants and children for the protocol intervention vs 11 (0.3%) for usual care; nonvascular device dislodgement occurred in 2 (0.04%) vs 7 (0.1%), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation, a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention compared with usual care resulted in a statistically significant reduction in time to first successful extubation. However, the clinical importance of the effect size is uncertain. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16998143.
Authors: Julio A Farias; Analía Fernández; Ezequiel Monteverde; Juan C Flores; Arístides Baltodano; Amanda Menchaca; Rossana Poterala; Flavia Pánico; María Johnson; Bettina von Dessauer; Alejandro Donoso; Inés Zavala; Cesar Zavala; Eduardo Troster; Yolanda Peña; Carlos Flamenco; Helena Almeida; Vidal Nilda; Andrés Esteban Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Flávia K Foronda; Eduardo J Troster; Julio A Farias; Carmen S Barbas; Alexandre A Ferraro; Lucília S Faria; Albert Bousso; Flávia F Panico; Artur F Delgado Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Adrienne G Randolph; David Wypij; Shekhar T Venkataraman; James H Hanson; Rainer G Gedeit; Kathleen L Meert; Peter M Luckett; Peter Forbes; Michelle Lilley; John Thompson; Ira M Cheifetz; Patricia Hibberd; Randall Wetzel; Peter N Cox; John H Arnold Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-11-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Stephen C Kurachek; Christopher J Newth; Michael W Quasney; Tom Rice; Ramesh C Sachdeva; Neal R Patel; Jeanne Takano; Larry Easterling; Matthew Scanlon; Ndidiamaka Musa; Richard J Brilli; Dan Wells; Gary S Park; Scott Penfil; Kris G Bysani; Michael A Nares; Lia Lowrie; Michael Billow; Emilie Chiochetti; Bruce Lindgren; Mathew Scanlon Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Noah M Ivers; Ilana J Halperin; Jan Barnsley; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Baiju R Shah; Karen Tu; Ross Upshur; Merrick Zwarenstein Journal: Trials Date: 2012-08-01 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Padmanabhan Ramnarayan; Alvin Richards-Belle; Laura Drikite; Michelle Saull; Izabella Orzechowska; Robert Darnell; Zia Sadique; Julie Lester; Kevin P Morris; Lyvonne N Tume; Peter J Davis; Mark J Peters; Richard G Feltbower; Richard Grieve; Karen Thomas; Paul R Mouncey; David A Harrison; Kathryn M Rowan Journal: JAMA Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Jeremy M Loberger; Caitlin M Campbell; José Colleti; Santiago Borasino; Samer Abu-Sultaneh; Robinder G Khemani Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2022-05-27
Authors: Marco Daverio; Florian von Borell; Angela Amigoni; Erwin Ista; Anne-Sylvie Ramelet; Francesca Sperotto; Paula Pokorna; Sebastian Brenner; Maria Cristina Mondardini; Dick Tibboel Journal: Crit Care Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Jeremy M Loberger; Caitlin M Campbell; José Colleti; Santiago Borasino; Samer Abu-Sultaneh; Robinder G Khemani Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2022-09-02