Effect of Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract on Hospital Mortality in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: Whether selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) reduces mortality in critically ill patients remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether SDD reduces in-hospital mortality in critically ill adults. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cluster, crossover, randomized clinical trial that recruited 5982 mechanically ventilated adults from 19 intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia between April 2018 and May 2021 (final follow-up, August 2021). A contemporaneous ecological assessment recruited 8599 patients from participating ICUs between May 2017 and August 2021. INTERVENTIONS: ICUs were randomly assigned to adopt or not adopt a SDD strategy for 2 alternating 12-month periods, separated by a 3-month interperiod gap. Patients in the SDD group (n = 2791) received a 6-hourly application of an oral paste and administration of a gastric suspension containing colistin, tobramycin, and nystatin for the duration of mechanical ventilation, plus a 4-day course of an intravenous antibiotic with a suitable antimicrobial spectrum. Patients in the control group (n = 3191) received standard care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality within 90 days. There were 8 secondary outcomes, including the proportion of patients with new positive blood cultures, antibiotic-resistant organisms (AROs), and Clostridioides difficile infections. For the ecological assessment, a noninferiority margin of 2% was prespecified for 3 outcomes including new cultures of AROs. RESULTS: Of 5982 patients (mean age, 58.3 years; 36.8% women) enrolled from 19 ICUs, all patients completed the trial. There were 753/2791 (27.0%) and 928/3191 (29.1%) in-hospital deaths in the SDD and standard care groups, respectively (mean difference, -1.7% [95% CI, -4.8% to 1.3%]; odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.82-1.02]; P = .12). Of 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 showed no significant differences. In the SDD vs standard care groups, 23.1% vs 34.6% had new ARO cultures (absolute difference, -11.0%; 95% CI, -14.7% to -7.3%), 5.6% vs 8.1% had new positive blood cultures (absolute difference, -1.95%; 95% CI, -3.5% to -0.4%), and 0.5% vs 0.9% had new C difficile infections (absolute difference, -0.24%; 95% CI, -0.6% to 0.1%). In 8599 patients enrolled in the ecological assessment, use of SDD was not shown to be noninferior with regard to the change in the proportion of patients who developed new AROs (-3.3% vs -1.59%; mean difference, -1.71% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 4.31%] and 0.88% vs 0.55%; mean difference, -0.32% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 5.47%]) in the first and second periods, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation, SDD, compared with standard care without SDD, did not significantly reduce in-hospital mortality. However, the confidence interval around the effect estimate includes a clinically important benefit

Statistical analysis plan for the NITric oxide during cardiopulmonary bypass to improve Recovery in Infants with Congenital heart defects (NITRIC) trial

Background: The NITric oxide during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) to improve Recovery in Infants with Congenital heart defects (NITRIC) trial, a 1320-patient, multicentre, randomised controlled trial, is aiming to improve survival free of ventilation after CPB by using nitric oxide delivered into the oxygenator of the CPB. Objective: To provide a statistical analysis plan before completion of patient recruitment and data monitoring. Final analyses for this study will adhere to this statistical analysis plan, which details all key pre-planned analyses. Stata scripts for analyses have been prepared alongside this statistical analysis plan. Methods: The statistical analysis plan was designed collaboratively by the chief investigators and trial statistician and builds on the previously published study protocol. All authors remain blinded to treatment allocation. Detail is provided on statistical analyses including cohort description, analysis of primary and secondary outcomes and adverse events. Statistical methods to compare outcomes are planned in detail to ensure methods are verifiable and reproducible. Results: The statistical analysis plan developed provides the trial outline, list of mock tables, and analysis scripts. The plan describes statistical analyses on cohort and baseline description, primary and secondary outcome analyses, process of care measures, physiological descriptors, and safety and adverse event reporting. We define the pre-specified subgroup analyses and the respective statistical tests used to compare subgroups. Conclusion: The statistical analysis plan for the NITRIC trial establishes detailed pre-planned analyses alongside Stata scripts to analyse the largest trial in the field of neonatal and paediatric heart surgery. The plan ensures standards for trial analysis validity aiming to minimise bias of analyses. Trial registration: ACTRN12617000821392

Dalteparin versus unfractionated heparin in critically ill patients

BACKGROUNDThe effects of thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin, as compared with unfractionated heparin, on venous thromboembolism, bleeding, and other outcomes are uncertain in critically ill patients.METHODSIn this multicenter trial, we tested the superiority of dalteparin over unfractionated heparin by randomly assigning 3764 patients to receive either subcutaneous dalteparin (at a dose of 5000 IU once daily) plus placebo once daily (for parallel-group twice-daily injections) or unfractionated heparin (at a dose of 5000 IU twice daily) while they were in the intensive care unit. The primary outcome, proximal leg deep-vein thrombosis, was diagnosed on compression ultrasonography performed within 2 days after admission, twice weekly, and as clinically indicated. Additional testing for venous thromboembolism was performed as clinically indicated. Data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle.RESULTSThere was no significant between-group difference in the rate of proximal leg deep-vein thrombosis, which occurred in 96 of 1873 patients (5.1%) receiving dalteparin versus 109 of 1873 patients (5.8%) receiving unfractionated heparin (hazard ratio in the dalteparin group, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.23; P=0.57). The proportion of patients with pulmonary emboli was significantly lower with dalteparin (24 patients, 1.3%) than with unfractionated heparin (43 patients, 2.3%) (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.88; P=0.01). There was no significant between-group difference in the rates of major bleeding (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.34; P=0.98) or death in the hospital (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.05; P=0.21). In prespecified per-protocol analyses, the results were similar to those of the main analyses, but fewer patients receiving dalteparin had heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.98; P=0.046).CONCLUSIONSAmong critically ill patients, dalteparin was not superior to unfractionated heparin in decreasing the incidence of proximal deep-vein thrombosis. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; PROTECT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00182143. opens in new tab.

Effect of Nitric Oxide via Cardiopulmonary Bypass on Ventilator-Free Days in Young Children Undergoing Congenital Heart Disease Surgery: The NITRIC Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: In children undergoing heart surgery, nitric oxide administered into the gas flow of the cardiopulmonary bypass oxygenator may reduce postoperative low cardiac output syndrome, leading to improved recovery and shorter duration of respiratory support. It remains uncertain whether nitric oxide administered into the cardiopulmonary bypass oxygenator improves ventilator-free days (days alive and free from mechanical ventilation). Objective: To determine the effect of nitric oxide applied into the cardiopulmonary bypass oxygenator vs standard care on ventilator-free days in children undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, multicenter, randomized clinical trial in 6 pediatric cardiac surgical centers in Australia, New Zealand, and the Netherlands. A total of 1371 children younger than 2 years undergoing congenital heart surgery were randomized between July 2017 and April 2021, with 28-day follow-up of the last participant completed on May 24, 2021. Interventions: Patients were assigned to receive nitric oxide at 20 ppm delivered into the cardiopulmonary bypass oxygenator (n = 679) or standard care cardiopulmonary bypass without nitric oxide (n = 685). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the number of ventilator-free days from commencement of bypass until day 28. There were 4 secondary end points including a composite of low cardiac output syndrome, extracorporeal life support, or death; length of stay in the intensive care unit; length of stay in the hospital; and postoperative troponin levels. Results: Among 1371 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 21.2 [23.5] weeks; 587 girls [42.8%]), 1364 (99.5%) completed the trial. The number of ventilator-free days did not differ significantly between the nitric oxide and standard care groups, with a median of 26.6 days (IQR, 24.4 to 27.4) vs 26.4 days (IQR, 24.0 to 27.2), respectively, for an absolute difference of -0.01 days (95% CI, -0.25 to 0.22; P = .92). A total of 22.5% of the nitric oxide group and 20.9% of the standard care group developed low cardiac output syndrome within 48 hours, needed extracorporeal support within 48 hours, or died by day 28, for an adjusted odds ratio of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.47). Other secondary outcomes were not significantly different between the groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In children younger than 2 years undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass surgery for congenital heart disease, the use of nitric oxide via cardiopulmonary bypass did not significantly affect the number of ventilator-free days. These findings do not support the use of nitric oxide delivered into the cardiopulmonary bypass oxygenator during heart surgery. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12617000821392

The use of interim data and Data Monitoring Committee recommendations in randomized controlled trial reports: frequency, implications and potential sources of bias

Background: Interim analysis of accumulating trial data is important to protect participant safety during randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs) often undertake such analyses, but their widening role may lead to extended use of interim analysis or recommendations that could potentially bias trial results.Methods: Systematic search of eight major publications: Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Circulation, CID, JAMA, JCO, Lancet and NEJM, including all randomised controlled trials ( RCTs) between June 2000 and May 2005 to identify RCTs that reported use of interim analysis, with or without DMC involvement. Recommendations made by the DMC or based on interim analysis were identified and potential sources of bias assessed. Independent double data extraction was performed on all included trials.Results: We identified 1772 RCTs, of which 470 (27%; 470/1772) reported the use of a DMC and a further 116 (7%; 116/1772) trials reported some form of interim analysis without explicit mention of a DMC. There were 28 trials ( 24 with a formal DMC), randomizing a total of 79396 participants, identified as recommending changes to the trial that may have lead to biased results. In most of these, some form of sample size re-estimation was recommended with four trials also reporting changes to trial endpoints. The review relied on information reported in the primary publications and methods papers relating to the trials, higher rates of use may have occurred but not been reported.Conclusion: The reported use of interim analysis and DMCs in clinical trials has been increasing in recent years. It is reassuring that in most cases recommendations were made in the interest of participant safety. However, in practice, recommendations that may lead to potentially biased trial results are being made