Determining optimal outcome measures in a trial investigating no routine gastric residual volume measurement in critically ill children

Background Choosing trial outcome measures is important. When outcomes are not clinically relevant or important to parents/patients, trial evidence is less likely to be implemented into practice. This study aimed to determine optimal outcome measures for a trial of no routine gastric residual volume measurement in critically ill children. Methods: A mixed methods approach: a focused literature review, parent and clinician interviews, a modified two-round Delphi and a stakeholder consensus meeting. Results: The review generated 13 outcomes. 14 Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) parents proposed 3 additional outcomes, these 16 were then rated by 28 clinicians in Delphi round 1. Six further outcomes were proposed, and 22 outcomes were rated in the second round. No items were voted ‘consensus out’. The 18 ‘no-consensus’ items were voted in a face-to-face meeting by 30 participants. The final 12 outcome measures were: Time to reach energy targets; ventilator associated pneumonia; vomiting; time enteral feeds withheld per 24 hour; necrotizing enterocolitis; length of invasive ventilation; PICU length of stay; mortality; change in weight and markers of feed intolerance: parenteral nutrition administered; feed formula altered and changing to post-pyloric feeds all secondary to feed intolerance. Conclusion: We have identified 12 outcomes for a trial of no gastric residual volume measurement through a multi-stage process, seeking views of parents and clinicians. Clinical Relevancy statement: Twelve relevant outcomes have been identified for a trial of no routine gastric residual volume measurement in critically ill children

Can they stomach it? Parent and practitioner acceptability of a trial comparing gastric residual volume measurement versus no gastric residual volume in UK NNU and PICUs: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Routine measurement of gastric residual volume (GRV) to guide feeding in neonatal and paediatric intensive care is widespread. However, this practice is not evidence based and may cause harm. As part of a feasibility study, we explored parent and practitioner views on the acceptability of a trial comparing GRV measurement or no GRV measurement. METHODS: A mixed-methods study involving interviews and focus groups with practitioners and interviews with parents with experience of tube feeding in neonatal and/or paediatric intensive care. A voting system recorded closed question responses during practitioner data collection, enabling the collection of quantitative and qualitative data. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We interviewed 31 parents and nine practitioners and ran five practitioner focus groups (n=42). Participants described how the research question was logical, and the intervention would not be invasive and potential benefits of not withholding the child's feeds. However, both groups held concerns about the potential risk of not measuring GRV, including delayed diagnosis of infection and gut problems, increased risk of vomiting into lungs and causing discomfort or pain. Parent's views on GRV measurement and consent decision making were influenced by their views on the importance of feeding in the ICU, their child's prognosis and associated comorbidities or complications. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of parents and practitioners viewed the proposed trial as acceptable. Potential concerns and preferences were identified that will need careful consideration to inform the development of the proposed trial protocol and staff training

Gastric residual volume measurement in British neonatal intensive care units: a survey of practice.

OBJECTIVE: Despite little evidence, the practice of routine gastric residual volume (GRV) measurement to guide enteral feeding in neonatal units is widespread. Due to increased interest in this practice, and to examine trial feasibility, we aimed to determine enteral feeding and GRV measurement practices in British neonatal units. DESIGN AND SETTING: An online survey was distributed via email to all neonatal units and networks in England, Scotland and Wales. A clinical nurse, senior doctor and dietitian were invited to collaboratively complete the survey and submit a copy of relevant guidelines. RESULTS: 95/184 (51.6%) approached units completed the survey, 81/95 (85.3%) reported having feeding guidelines and 28 guidelines were submitted for review. The majority of units used intermittent (90/95) gastric feeds as their primary feeding method. 42/95 units reported specific guidance for measuring and interpreting GRV. 20/90 units measured GRV before every feed, 39/90 at regular time intervals (most commonly four to six hourly 35/39) and 26/90 when felt to be clinically indicated. Most units reported uncertainty on the utility of aspirate volume for guiding feeding decisions; 13/90 reported that aspirate volume affected decisions 'very much'. In contrast, aspirate colour was reported to affect decisions 'very much' by 37/90 of responding units. Almost half, 44/90, routinely returned aspirates to the stomach. CONCLUSIONS: Routine GRV measurement is part of standard practice in British neonatal units, although there was inconsistency in how frequently to measure or how to interpret the aspirate. Volume was considered less important than colour of the aspirate

Optimal outcome measures for a trial of not routinely measuring gastric residual volume in neonatal care: a mixed methods consensus process.

BACKGROUND: Routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide feeding is widespread in neonatal units but not supported by high-quality evidence. Outcome selection is critical to trial design. OBJECTIVE: To determine optimal outcome measures for a trial of not routinely measuring gastric residual volume in neonatal care. DESIGN: A focused literature review, parent interviews, modified two-round Delphi survey and stakeholder consensus meeting. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-one neonatal healthcare professionals participated in an eDelphi survey; 17 parents were interviewed. 19 parents and neonatal healthcare professionals took part in the consensus meeting. RESULTS: Literature review generated 14 outcomes, and parent interviews contributed eight additional outcomes; these 22 outcomes were then ranked by 74 healthcare professionals in the first Delphi round where four further outcomes were proposed; 26 outcomes were ranked in the second round by 61 healthcare professionals. Five outcomes were categorised as 'consensus in', and no outcomes were voted 'consensus out'. 'No consensus' outcomes were discussed and voted on in a face-to-face meeting by 19 participants, where four were voted 'consensus in'. The final nine consensus outcomes were: mortality, necrotising enterocolitis, time to full enteral feeds, duration of parenteral nutrition, time feeds stopped per 24 hours, healthcare-associated infection; catheter-associated bloodstream infection, change in weight between birth and neonatal discharge and pneumonia due to milk aspiration. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We have identified outcomes for a trial of no routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide feeding in neonatal care. This outcome set will ensure outcomes are important to healthcare professionals and parents

Can they stomach it? Parent and practitioner acceptability of a trial comparing gastric residual volume measurement versus no gastric residual volume in UK NNU and PICUs: a feasibility study

Background: routine measurement of gastric residual volume (GRV) to guide feeding in neonatal and paediatric intensive care is widespread. However, this practice is not evidence based and may cause harm. As part of a feasibility study, we explored parent and practitioner views on the acceptability of a trial comparing GRV measurement or no GRV measurement. Methods: a mixed-methods study involving interviews and focus groups with practitioners and interviews with parents with experience of tube feeding in neonatal and/or paediatric intensive care. A voting system recorded closed question responses during practitioner data collection, enabling the collection of quantitative and qualitative data. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. Results: we interviewed 31 parents and nine practitioners and ran five practitioner focus groups (n=42). Participants described how the research question was logical, and the intervention would not be invasive and potential benefits of not withholding the child’s feeds. However, both groups held concerns about the potential risk of not measuring GRV, including delayed diagnosis of infection and gut problems, increased risk of vomiting into lungs and causing discomfort or pain. Parent’s views on GRV measurement and consent decision making were influenced by their views on the importance of feeding in the ICU, their child’s prognosis and associated comorbidities or complications. Conclusions: the majority of parents and practitioners viewed the proposed trial as acceptable. Potential concerns and preferences were identified that will need careful consideration to inform the development of the proposed trial protocol and staff training.</p

Gastric residual volume measurement in British neonatal intensive care units: a survey of practice

Objective: despite little evidence, the practice of routine gastric residual volume (GRV) measurement to guide enteral feeding in neonatal units is widespread. Due to increased interest in this practice, and to examine trial feasibility, we aimed to determine enteral feeding and GRV measurement practices in British neonatal units. Design and setting: an online survey was distributed via email to all neonatal units and networks in England, Scotland and Wales. A clinical nurse, senior doctor and dietitian were invited to collaboratively complete the survey and submit a copy of relevant guidelines. Results: 95/184 (51.6%) approached units completed the survey, 81/95 (85.3%) reported having feeding guidelines and 28 guidelines were submitted for review. The majority of units used intermittent (90/95) gastric feeds as their primary feeding method. 42/95 units reported specific guidance for measuring and interpreting GRV. 20/90 units measured GRV before every feed, 39/90 at regular time intervals (most commonly four to six hourly 35/39) and 26/90 when felt to be clinically indicated. Most units reported uncertainty on the utility of aspirate volume for guiding feeding decisions; 13/90 reported that aspirate volume affected decisions 'very much'. In contrast, aspirate colour was reported to affect decisions 'very much' by 37/90 of responding units. Almost half, 44/90, routinely returned aspirates to the stomach. Conclusions: routine GRV measurement is part of standard practice in British neonatal units, although there was inconsistency in how frequently to measure or how to interpret the aspirate. Volume was considered less important than colour of the aspirate.</p

Pirfenidone in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a randomized phase 2 trial.

From PubMed via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2020-12-24, accepted 2021-06-25Publication status: ppublishFunder: DH | National Institute for Health Research (NIHR); Grant(s): CS-2015-15-003In heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), the occurrence of myocardial fibrosis is associated with adverse outcome. Whether pirfenidone, an oral antifibrotic agent without hemodynamic effect, is efficacious and safe for the treatment of HFpEF is unknown. In this double-blind, phase 2 trial ( NCT02932566 ), we enrolled patients with heart failure, an ejection fraction of 45% or higher and elevated levels of natriuretic peptides. Eligible patients underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance and those with evidence of myocardial fibrosis, defined as a myocardial extracellular volume of 27% or greater, were randomly assigned to receive pirfenidone or placebo for 52 weeks. Forty-seven patients were randomized to each of the pirfenidone and placebo groups. The primary outcome was change in myocardial extracellular volume, from baseline to 52 weeks. In comparison to placebo, pirfenidone reduced myocardial extracellular volume (between-group difference, -1.21%; 95% confidence interval, -2.12 to -0.31; P = 0.009), meeting the predefined primary outcome. Twelve patients (26%) in the pirfenidone group and 14 patients (30%) in the placebo group experienced one or more serious adverse events. The most common adverse events in the pirfenidone group were nausea, insomnia and rash. In conclusion, among patients with HFpEF and myocardial fibrosis, administration of pirfenidone for 52 weeks reduced myocardial fibrosis. The favorable effects of pirfenidone in patients with HFpEF will need to be confirmed in future trials. [Abstract copyright: © 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.