Protocolised non-invasive compared with invasive weaning from mechanical ventilation for adults in intensive care : the Breathe RCT

Background: Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is a life-saving intervention. Following resolution of the condition that necessitated IMV, a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) is used to determine patient readiness for IMV discontinuation. In patients who fail one or more SBTs, there is uncertainty as to the optimum management strategy. Objective: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using non-invasive ventilation (NIV) as an intermediate step in the protocolised weaning of patients from IMV. Design: Pragmatic, open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial, with cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting: A total of 51 critical care units across the UK. Participants: Adult intensive care patients who had received IMV for at least 48 hours, who were categorised as ready to wean from ventilation, and who failed a SBT. Interventions: Control group (invasive weaning): patients continued to receive IMV with daily SBTs. A weaning protocol was used to wean pressure support based on the patient’s condition. Intervention group (non-invasive weaning): patients were extubated to NIV. A weaning protocol was used to wean inspiratory positive airway pressure, based on the patient’s condition. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was time to liberation from ventilation. Secondary outcome measures included mortality, duration of IMV, proportion of patients receiving antibiotics for a presumed respiratory infection and health-related quality of life. Results: A total of 364 patients (invasive weaning, n = 182; non-invasive weaning, n = 182) were randomised. Groups were well matched at baseline. There was no difference between the invasive weaning and non-invasive weaning groups in median time to liberation from ventilation {invasive weaning 108 hours [interquartile range (IQR) 57–351 hours] vs. non-invasive weaning 104.3 hours [IQR 34.5–297 hours]; hazard ratio 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89 to 1.39; p = 0.352}. There was also no difference in mortality between groups at any time point. Patients in the non-invasive weaning group had fewer IMV days [invasive weaning 4 days (IQR 2–11 days) vs. non-invasive weaning 1 day (IQR 0–7 days); adjusted mean difference –3.1 days, 95% CI –5.75 to –0.51 days]. In addition, fewer non-invasive weaning patients required antibiotics for a respiratory infection [odds ratio (OR) 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.00; p = 0.048]. A higher proportion of non-invasive weaning patients required reintubation than those in the invasive weaning group (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.24). The within-trial economic evaluation showed that NIV was associated with a lower net cost and a higher net effect, and was dominant in health economic terms. The probability that NIV was cost-effective was estimated at 0.58 at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Conclusions: A protocolised non-invasive weaning strategy did not reduce time to liberation from ventilation. However, patients who underwent non-invasive weaning had fewer days requiring IMV and required fewer antibiotics for respiratory infections. Future work: In patients who fail a SBT, which factors predict an adverse outcome (reintubation, tracheostomy, death) if extubated and weaned using NIV? Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15635197. 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. 23, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Don Eugenio Onell, irlandés antiguo en el estado seglar en "Breve relación de Irlanda y de las diferencias de irlandeses que en ella hay", por ¿O'Sullivan Beare?

Fecha del documento: 1611-01-01. 7 páginasIrlandeses antiguos en el estado seglar en Flandes: "Don Eugenio Onell, sargento mayor del tercio" Corresponde a: Eoghan Ó Néill/Eugene O’NeillProyecto Proyección Política y Social de la Comunidad Irlandesa en la Monarquía hispánica y en la América Colonial de la Edad Moderna(siglos XVI-XVIII) (HAR2009-11339 - subprograma HIST) del Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad en colaboración con el Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Embajada de Irlanda en Madrid, National University of Ireland (NUI) Maynooth, University College Dublin y Trinity College DublinNoNoN

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% Cl, 0.49–0.60), and for proximate cause of death List B, kappa was 0.58 (95% Cl, 0.53–0.63). For the underlying cause of death, kappa was 0.48 (95% Cl, 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