Defining The Difficult-To-Sedate Clinical Phenotype In Critically Ill Children

Each year thousands of critically-ill children receive sedation to help them tolerate intensive care therapies. A significant number of these children do not respond as expected to appropriately dosed sedation and remain agitated for some period, leading to iatrogenic injury and increased stress, as well as increased resource use. Children who remain under-sedated despite optimal therapy are considered “difficult-to-sedate”, but, to date, little data have been available to support an accurate description of this group of children. Recent attention to heterogeneity of treatment effect has spurred the development of clinical phenotypes that describe subgroups of patients within a disease process who differ in their clinical attributes and responses to therapy. Defining the difficult-to-sedate clinical phenotype in critically ill children is important because it will allow the use of sedation therapy targeted to the unique clinical, physiological, and developmental characteristics of the child. The three papers developed in this dissertation study explored the concept of the difficult-to-sedate child clinical phenotype. A comprehensive review of the literature identified the lack of an operational definition and identified factors contributing to the clinical phenotype. These factors were used to develop an initial operational definition and to construct a conceptual model. Expert critical care clinicians validated the elements of the operational definition through an assessment of face and content validity and proposed additional factors for inclusion in the model. A refined definition was tested using data from the RESTORE study. Characteristics identified through latent class and classification and regression tree analysis were consistent with the conceptual model proposed. Decreasing the ambiguity that currently exists around the concept of the difficult-to-sedate child clinical phenotype is a major achievement of this study. A clear operational definition of the concept promotes its consistent measurement and facilitates future investigation, and allows useful comparisons across studies. The conceptual model and operational definition require further investigation and refinement, as well as prospective validation by other investigators. This study suggests that a clinically meaningful population of difficult-to-sedate children requiring mechanical ventilation for a critical illness exists. Documentation of this phenotype promotes the development of evidence to support best practices in the care of these children

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Parental Refusal of Consent in a Large, Multisite Pediatric Critical Care Clinical Trial.

ObjectiveTo evaluate whether race or ethnicity was independently associated with parental refusal of consent for their child's participation in a multisite pediatric critical care clinical trial.Study designWe performed a secondary analyses of data from Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure (RESTORE), a 31-center cluster randomized trial of sedation management in critically ill children with acute respiratory failure supported on mechanical ventilation. Multivariable logistic regression modeling estimated associations between patient race and ethnicity and parental refusal of study consent.ResultAmong the 3438 children meeting enrollment criteria and approached for consent, 2954 had documented race/ethnicity of non-Hispanic White (White), non-Hispanic Black (Black), or Hispanic of any race. Inability to approach for consent was more common for parents of Black (19.5%) compared with White (11.7%) or Hispanic children (13.2%). Among those offered consent, parents of Black (29.5%) and Hispanic children (25.9%) more frequently refused consent than parents of White children (18.2%, P < .0167 for each). Compared with parents of White children, parents of Black (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.56-2.95, P < .001) and Hispanic (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.10-1.88, P = .01) children were more likely to refuse consent. Parents of children offered participation in the intervention arm were more likely to refuse consent than parents in the control arm (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.37-3.36, P < .001).ConclusionsParents of Black and Hispanic children were less likely to be approached for, and more frequently declined consent for, their child's participation in a multisite critical care clinical trial. Ameliorating this racial disparity may improve the validity and generalizability of study findings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00814099

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Parental Refusal of Consent in a Large, Multisite Pediatric Critical Care Clinical Trial.

ObjectiveTo evaluate whether race or ethnicity was independently associated with parental refusal of consent for their child's participation in a multisite pediatric critical care clinical trial.Study designWe performed a secondary analyses of data from Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure (RESTORE), a 31-center cluster randomized trial of sedation management in critically ill children with acute respiratory failure supported on mechanical ventilation. Multivariable logistic regression modeling estimated associations between patient race and ethnicity and parental refusal of study consent.ResultAmong the 3438 children meeting enrollment criteria and approached for consent, 2954 had documented race/ethnicity of non-Hispanic White (White), non-Hispanic Black (Black), or Hispanic of any race. Inability to approach for consent was more common for parents of Black (19.5%) compared with White (11.7%) or Hispanic children (13.2%). Among those offered consent, parents of Black (29.5%) and Hispanic children (25.9%) more frequently refused consent than parents of White children (18.2%, P < .0167 for each). Compared with parents of White children, parents of Black (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.56-2.95, P < .001) and Hispanic (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.10-1.88, P = .01) children were more likely to refuse consent. Parents of children offered participation in the intervention arm were more likely to refuse consent than parents in the control arm (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.37-3.36, P < .001).ConclusionsParents of Black and Hispanic children were less likely to be approached for, and more frequently declined consent for, their child's participation in a multisite critical care clinical trial. Ameliorating this racial disparity may improve the validity and generalizability of study findings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00814099

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Parental Refusal of Consent in a Large, Multisite Pediatric Critical Care Clinical Trial

To evaluate whether race or ethnicity was independently associated with parental refusal of consent for their child's participation in a multisite pediatric critical care clinical trial. We performed a secondary analyses of data from Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure (RESTORE), a 31-center cluster randomized trial of sedation management in critically ill children with acute respiratory failure supported on mechanical ventilation. Multivariable logistic regression modeling estimated associations between patient race and ethnicity and parental refusal of study consent. Among the 3438 children meeting enrollment criteria and approached for consent, 2954 had documented race/ethnicity of non-Hispanic White (White), non-Hispanic Black (Black), or Hispanic of any race. Inability to approach for consent was more common for parents of Black (19.5%) compared with White (11.7%) or Hispanic children (13.2%). Among those offered consent, parents of Black (29.5%) and Hispanic children (25.9%) more frequently refused consent than parents of White children (18.2%, P < .0167 for each). Compared with parents of White children, parents of Black (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.56-2.95, P < .001) and Hispanic (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.10-1.88, P = .01) children were more likely to refuse consent. Parents of children offered participation in the intervention arm were more likely to refuse consent than parents in the control arm (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.37-3.36, P < .001). Parents of Black and Hispanic children were less likely to be approached for, and more frequently declined consent for, their child's participation in a multisite critical care clinical trial. Ameliorating this racial disparity may improve the validity and generalizability of study findings. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00814099

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Parental Refusal of Consent in a Large, Multisite Pediatric Critical Care Clinical Trial

To evaluate whether race or ethnicity was independently associated with parental refusal of consent for their child's participation in a multisite pediatric critical care clinical trial. We performed a secondary analyses of data from Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure (RESTORE), a 31-center cluster randomized trial of sedation management in critically ill children with acute respiratory failure supported on mechanical ventilation. Multivariable logistic regression modeling estimated associations between patient race and ethnicity and parental refusal of study consent. Among the 3438 children meeting enrollment criteria and approached for consent, 2954 had documented race/ethnicity of non-Hispanic White (White), non-Hispanic Black (Black), or Hispanic of any race. Inability to approach for consent was more common for parents of Black (19.5%) compared with White (11.7%) or Hispanic children (13.2%). Among those offered consent, parents of Black (29.5%) and Hispanic children (25.9%) more frequently refused consent than parents of White children (18.2%, P < .0167 for each). Compared with parents of White children, parents of Black (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.56-2.95, P < .001) and Hispanic (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.10-1.88, P = .01) children were more likely to refuse consent. Parents of children offered participation in the intervention arm were more likely to refuse consent than parents in the control arm (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.37-3.36, P < .001). Parents of Black and Hispanic children were less likely to be approached for, and more frequently declined consent for, their child's participation in a multisite critical care clinical trial. Ameliorating this racial disparity may improve the validity and generalizability of study findings. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00814099

Sedation Management for Critically Ill Children with Pre-Existing Cognitive Impairment

ObjectiveTo compare current analgesia and sedation management practices between critically ill children with pre-existing cognitive impairment and critically ill neurotypical children, including possible indicators of therapeutic efficacy.Study designThis study used secondary analysis of prospective data from the RESTORE clinical trial, with 2449 children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit and receiving mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure. Subjects with a baseline Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category ≥3 were defined as subjects with cognitive impairment, and differences between groups were explored using regression methods accounting for pediatric intensive care unit as a cluster variable.ResultsThis study identified 412 subjects (17%) with cognitive impairment. Compared with neurotypical subjects, subjects with cognitive impairment were older (median, years, 6.2 vs 1.4; P &lt; .001) with more severe pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (40% vs 33%; P = .009). They received significantly lower cumulative doses of opioids (median, mg/kg, 14.2 vs 16.2; P &lt; .001) and benzodiazepines (10.6 vs 14.4; P &lt; .001). Three nonverbal subjects with cognitive impairment received no analgesia or sedation. Subjects with cognitive impairment were assessed as having more study days awake and calm and fewer study days with an episode of pain. They were less likely to be assessed as having inadequate pain/sedation management or unplanned endotracheal/invasive tube removal. Subjects with cognitive impairment had more documented iatrogenic withdrawal symptoms than neurotypical subjects.ConclusionsSubjects with cognitive impairment in this study received less medication, but it is unclear whether they have authentically lower analgesic and/or sedative requirements or are vulnerable to inadequate assessment of discomfort because of the lack of validated assessment tools. We recommend the development of pain and sedation assessment tools specific to this patient population

Sedation Management for Critically Ill Children with Pre-Existing Cognitive Impairment

To compare current analgesia and sedation management practices between critically ill children with pre-existing cognitive impairment and critically ill neurotypical children, including possible indicators of therapeutic efficacy. This study used secondary analysis of prospective data from the RESTORE clinical trial, with 2449 children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit and receiving mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure. Subjects with a baseline Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category ≥3 were defined as subjects with cognitive impairment, and differences between groups were explored using regression methods accounting for pediatric intensive care unit as a cluster variable. This study identified 412 subjects (17%) with cognitive impairment. Compared with neurotypical subjects, subjects with cognitive impairment were older (median, years, 6.2 vs 1.4; P < .001) with more severe pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (40% vs 33%; P = .009). They received significantly lower cumulative doses of opioids (median, mg/kg, 14.2 vs 16.2; P < .001) and benzodiazepines (10.6 vs 14.4; P < .001). Three nonverbal subjects with cognitive impairment received no analgesia or sedation. Subjects with cognitive impairment were assessed as having more study days awake and calm and fewer study days with an episode of pain. They were less likely to be assessed as having inadequate pain/sedation management or unplanned endotracheal/invasive tube removal. Subjects with cognitive impairment had more documented iatrogenic withdrawal symptoms than neurotypical subjects. Subjects with cognitive impairment in this study received less medication, but it is unclear whether they have authentically lower analgesic and/or sedative requirements or are vulnerable to inadequate assessment of discomfort because of the lack of validated assessment tools. We recommend the development of pain and sedation assessment tools specific to this patient population