Clinical recommendations for pain, sedation, withdrawal and delirium assessment in critically ill infants and children: an ESPNIC position statement for healthcare professionals

Background: This position statement provides clinical recommendations for the assessment of pain, level of sedation, iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome and delirium in critically ill infants and children. Admission to a neonatal or paediatric intensive care unit (NICU, PICU) exposes a child to a series of painful and stressful events. Accurate assessment of the presence of pain and non-pain related distress (adequacy of sedation, iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome, and delirium) is essential to good clinical management and to monitoring the effectiveness of interventions to relieve or prevent pain and distress in the individual patient. Methods: A multidisciplinary group of experts was recruited from the members of the European Society of Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC). The group formulated clinical questions regarding assessment of pain and non-pain related distress in critically ill and non-verbal children, and searched the PubMed/Medline, Cinahl, and Embase databases for studies describing the psychometric properties of assessment instruments. Further, level of evidence of selected studies was assigned and recommendations were formulated, and grade or recommendations were added based on the level of evidence. Results: An ESPNIC Position Statement was drafted which provides clinical recommendations on assessment of pain (n=5), distress and/or level of sedation (n=4), iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (n=3), and delirium (n=3). These recommendations were based on the available evidence and consensus amongst the experts and other members of the ESPNIC society. Conclusions: This multidisciplinary ESPNIC Position Statement guides professionals in the assessment and re-assessment of the effectiveness of treatment interventions for pain, distress, inadequate sedation, withdrawal syndrome and delirium

First-line support for assistance in breathing in children: statistical and health economic analysis plan for the FIRST-ABC trial

BACKGROUND: The FIRST-ABC trial comprises of two pragmatic, multicentre, parallel groups, non-inferiority randomised clinical trials designed to evaluate the clinical non-inferiority of first-line use of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in critically ill children who require non-invasive respiratory support (NRS). OBJECTIVES: To describe the pre-specified statistical and health economic analysis for the FIRST-ABC trial before completion of patient recruitment and data collection. METHODS: The statistical analysis plan was designed by the chief investigators and statisticians. We define the primary and secondary outcomes, summarise methods for data collection and safety monitoring, and present a detailed description of the planned statistical and health economic analysis. RESULTS: The primary clinical outcome is time to liberation from respiratory support. The primary effect estimate will be the adjusted hazard ratio, reported with a 95% confidence interval. As a sensitivity analysis, the primary analysis will be repeated using time to start weaning of NRS. Subgroup analyses will be performed to test for interactions between the effect of allocated treatment group and pre-specified baseline covariates. The health economic analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle and report the mean (95% confidence interval) incremental costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness up to 6 months. All analyses will be performed separately for each of the two trials, and any results will not be combined. CONCLUSION: The FIRST-ABC trial will assess the non-inferiority of HFNC compared to CPAP in two parallel trials with shared infrastructure (step-up RCT and step-down RCT). We have developed a pre-specified statistical and health economics analysis plan for the FIRST-ABC study before trial completion to minimise analytical bias. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN60048867 . Registered on 19 June 2019

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

Establishing and augmenting acceptability of the Fever trial: a mixed methods feasibility study

Introduction: Paediatric clinical trials in critical care settings are challenging to conduct. Establishing trial acceptability can help inform trial design and avoid research waste. This paper reports on how research with parents and staff established and augmented perspectives and the design of a trial investigating temperature thresholds in critically ill children with fever and infection (Fever trial). // Methods: We used a mixed methods approach to explore perspectives at three time points: 1) before, 2) during and 3) after a pilot trial. This included: 1) pre-trial focus groups with staff and interviews with parents; 2) questionnaires with parents of randomised children following trial recruitment; 3) post-trial interviews with parents and focus groups and a survey with staff. Data analysis drew on Sekhon et al (2017) theoretical framework of acceptability. // Results: 1) 25 parents were interviewed and 56 staff took part focus groups, 2) 60 parents of 57 randomised children took part in questionnaires, 3) 19 parents were interviewed and 50 staff took part in focus group and 48 in a survey. There was initial support for the trial, although both groups raised concerns regarding proposed thresholds and not using paracetamol for pain or discomfort. Pre-trial findings informed pilot trial protocol changes and training, which assisted practitioner ‘buy in’. However, concerns about children being in pain or discomfort when weaned from ventilation led to cases of withdrawal and protocol non-adherence. Nevertheless, 95% of parents provided consent and all supported the trial. Those trained by the Fever team found the trial more acceptable than those trained by colleagues. Trusting parent and staff relationships were linked to trial acceptability. // Conclusions: Pre-trial findings and pilot trial experience augmented perspectives, providing insight into how challenges may be overcome. The proposed trial was deemed feasible. We present an adapted theoretical framework of acceptability to inform the design of future trial feasibility studies

Establishing and augmenting views on the acceptability of a paediatric critical care randomised controlled trial (the FEVER trial): a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVE: To explore parent and staff views on the acceptability of a randomised controlled trial investigating temperature thresholds for antipyretic intervention in critically ill children with fever and infection (the FEVER trial) during a multi-phase pilot study. DESIGN: Mixed methods study with data collected at three time points: (1) before, (2) during and (3) after a pilot trial. SETTING: English, Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs). PARTICIPANTS: (1) Pre-pilot trial focus groups with pilot site staff (n=56) and interviews with parents (n=25) whose child had been admitted to PICU in the last 3 years with a fever and suspected infection, (2) Questionnaires with parents of randomised children following pilot trial recruitment (n=48 from 47 families) and (3) post-pilot trial interviews with parents (n=19), focus groups (n=50) and a survey (n=48) with site staff. Analysis drew on Sekhon et al's theoretical framework of acceptability. RESULTS: There was initial support for the trial, yet some held concerns regarding the proposed temperature thresholds and not using paracetamol for pain or discomfort. Pre-trial findings informed protocol changes and training, which influenced views on trial acceptability. Staff trained by the FEVER team found the trial more acceptable than those trained by colleagues. Parents and staff found the trial acceptable. Some concerns about pain or discomfort during weaning from ventilation remained. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-trial findings and pilot trial experience influenced acceptability, providing insight into how challenges may be overcome. We present an adapted theoretical framework of acceptability to inform future trial feasibility studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISRCTN16022198 and NCT03028818

The implausibility of ‘usual care’ in an open system: sedation and weaning practices in Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs) in the United Kingdom (UK)

Background: The power of the randomised controlled trial depends upon its capacity to operate in a closed system whereby the intervention is the only causal force acting upon the experimental group and absent in the control group, permitting a valid assessment of intervention efficacy. Conversely, clinical arenas are open systems where factors relating to context, resources, interpretation and actions of individuals will affect implementation and effectiveness of interventions. Consequently, the comparator (usual care) can be difficult to define and variable in multi-centre trials. Hence outcomes cannot be understood without considering usual care and factors that may affect implementation and impact on the intervention. Methods: Using a fieldwork approach, we describe PICU context, ‘usual’ practice in sedation and weaning from mechanical ventilation, and factors affecting implementation prior to designing a trial involving a sedation and ventilation weaning intervention. We collected data from 23 UK PICUs between June and November 2014 using observation, individual and multi-disciplinary group interviews with staff. Results: Pain and sedation practices were broadly similar in terms of drug usage and assessment tools. Sedation protocols linking assessment to appropriate titration of sedatives and sedation holds were rarely used (9 % and 4 % of PICUs respectively). Ventilator weaning was primarily a medical-led process with 39 % of PICUs engaging senior nurses in the process: weaning protocols were rarely used (9 % of PICUs). Weaning methods were variably based on clinician preference. No formal criteria or use of spontaneous breathing trials were used to test weaning readiness. Seventeen PICUs (74 %) had prior engagement in multi-centre trials, but limited research nurse availability. Barriers to previous trial implementation were intervention complexity, lack of belief in the evidence and inadequate training. Facilitating factors were senior staff buy-in and dedicated research nurse provision. Conclusions: We examined and identified contextual and organisational factors that may impact on the implementation of our intervention. We found usual practice relating to sedation, analgesia and ventilator weaning broadly similar, yet distinctively different from our proposed intervention, providing assurance in our ability to evaluate intervention effects. The data will enable us to develop an implementation plan; considering these factors we can more fully understand their impact on study outcomes

Gastric point-of-care ultrasound in acutely and critically ill children (POCUS-ped): a scoping review

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) use is increasing in pediatric clinical settings. However, gastric POCUS is rarely used, despite its potential value in optimizing the diagnosis and management in several clinical scenarios (i.e., assessing gastric emptying and gastric volume/content, gastric foreign bodies, confirming nasogastric tube placement, and hypertrophic pyloric stenosis). This review aimed to assess how gastric POCUS may be used in acute and critically ill children. An international expert group was established, composed of pediatricians, pediatric intensivists, anesthesiologists, radiologists, nurses, and a methodologist. A scoping review was conducted with an aim to describe the use of gastric POCUS in pediatrics in acute and critical care settings. A literature search was conducted in three databases, to identify studies published between 1998 and 2022. Abstracts and relevant full texts were screened for eligibility, and data were extracted, according to the JBI methodology (Johanna Briggs Institute). A total of 70 studies were included. Most studies ( = 47; 67%) were conducted to assess gastric emptying and gastric volume/contents. The studies assessed gastric volume, the impact of different feed types (breast milk, fortifiers, and thickeners) and feed administration modes on gastric emptying, and gastric volume/content prior to sedation or anesthesia or during surgery. Other studies described the use of gastric POCUS in foreign body ingestion ( = 6), nasogastric tube placement ( = 5), hypertrophic pyloric stenosis ( = 8), and gastric insufflation during mechanical ventilatory support ( = 4). POCUS was performed by neonatologists, anesthesiologists, emergency department physicians, and surgeons. Their learning curve was rapid, and the accuracy was high when compared to that of the ultrasound performed by radiologists (RADUS) or other gold standards (e.g., endoscopy, radiography, and MRI). No study conducted in critically ill children was found apart from that in neonatal intensive care in preterms. Gastric POCUS appears useful and reliable in a variety of pediatric clinical settings. It may help optimize induction in emergency sedation/anesthesia, diagnose foreign bodies and hypertrophic pyloric stenosis, and assist in confirming nasogastric tube placement, avoiding delays in obtaining confirmatory examinations (RADUS, x-rays, etc.) and reducing radiation exposure. It may be useful in pediatric intensive care but requires further investigation. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2022 Valla, Tume, Jotterand Chaparro, Arnold, Alrayashi, Morice, Nabialek, Rouchaud, Cercueil and Bouvet.

Co-ordinated multidisciplinary intervention to reduce time to successful extubation for children on mechanical ventilation: the SANDWICH cluster stepped-wedge RCT

BACKGROUND: Daily assessment of patient readiness for liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation can reduce the duration of ventilation. However, there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of this in a paediatric population. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of a ventilation liberation intervention in critically ill children who are anticipated to have a prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation (primary objective) and in all children (secondary objective). DESIGN: A pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster randomised trial with economic and process evaluations. SETTING: Paediatric intensive care units in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Invasively mechanically ventilated children (aged < 16 years). INTERVENTIONS: The intervention incorporated co-ordinated multidisciplinary care, patient-relevant sedation plans linked to sedation assessment, assessment of ventilation parameters with a higher than usual trigger for undertaking an extubation readiness test and a spontaneous breathing trial on low levels of respiratory support to test extubation readiness. The comparator was usual care. Hospital sites were randomised sequentially to transition from control to intervention and were non-blinded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation until the first successful extubation. The secondary outcome measures were successful extubation, unplanned extubation and reintubation, post-extubation use of non-invasive ventilation, tracheostomy, post-extubation stridor, adverse events, length of intensive care and hospital stay, mortality and cost per respiratory complication avoided at 28 days. RESULTS: The trial included 10,495 patient admissions from 18 paediatric intensive care units from 5 February 2018 to 14 October 2019. In children with anticipated prolonged ventilation (n = 8843 admissions: control, n = 4155; intervention, n = 4688), the intervention resulted in a significantly shorter time to successful extubation [cluster and time-adjusted median difference -6.1 hours (interquartile range -8.2 to -5.3 hours); adjusted hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.20; p = 0.02] and a higher incidence of successful extubation (adjusted relative risk 1.01, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.02; p = 0.03) and unplanned extubation (adjusted relative risk 1.62, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.51; p = 0.03), but not reintubation (adjusted relative risk 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.36; p = 0.38). In the intervention period, the use of post-extubation non-invasive ventilation was significantly higher (adjusted relative risk 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.49; p = 0.04), with no evidence of a difference in intensive care length of stay or other harms, but hospital length of stay was longer (adjusted hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 0.97; p = 0.01). Findings for all children were broadly similar. The control period was associated with lower, but not statistically significantly lower, total costs (cost difference, mean £929.05, 95% confidence interval -£516.54 to £2374.64) and significantly fewer respiratory complications avoided (mean difference -0.10, 95% confidence interval -0.16 to -0.03). LIMITATIONS: The unblinded intervention assignment may have resulted in performance or detection bias. It was not possible to determine which components were primarily responsible for the observed effect. Treatment effect in a more homogeneous group remains to be determined. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention resulted in a statistically significant small reduction in time to first successful extubation; thus, the clinical importance of the effect size is uncertain. FUTURE WORK: Future work should explore intervention sustainability and effects of the intervention in other paediatric populations

FIRST-line support for assistance in breathing in children (FIRST-ABC) : a master protocol of two randomised trials to evaluate the non-inferiority of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care

Introduction Even though respiratory support is a common intervention in paediatric critical care, there is no randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence regarding the effectiveness of two commonly used modes of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC). FIRST-ABC is a master protocol of two pragmatic non-inferiority RCTs to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of HFNC (compared to CPAP) as the first-line mode of support in critically ill children. Methods and analysis We will recruit participants over a 30-month period at 25 UK paediatric critical care units (paediatric intensive care units/high dependency units). Patients are eligible if admitted/accepted for admission, aged >36 weeks corrected gestational age and <16 years, and assessed by the treating clinician to require non-invasive respiratory support for an acute illness (step-up RCT) or within 72 hours of extubation following a period of invasive ventilation (step-down RCT). Due to the emergency nature of the treatment, written informed consent will be deferred to after randomisation. Randomisation will occur 1:1 to CPAP or HFNC, stratified by site and age (<12 vs. ≥12 months). The primary outcome is time to liberation from respiratory support for a continuous period of 48 hours. A total sample size of 600 patients in each RCT will provide 90% power with a type I error rate of 2.5% (one-sided) to exclude the pre-specified noninferiority margin of hazard ratio of 0.75. Primary analyses will be undertaken separately in each RCT in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. Ethics and dissemination This master protocol received favourable ethical opinion from NHS East of England - Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee (reference: 19/EE/0185) and approval from the Health Research Authority (reference: 260536). Results will be disseminated via publications in peer reviewed medical journals and presentations at national and international conferences. Trial registration ISRCTN60048867; Pre-results

Establishing and augmenting views on the acceptability of a paediatric critical care randomised controlled trial (the FEVER trial) : a mixed methods study

Objective: To explore parent and staff views on the acceptability of a randomised controlled trial investigating temperature thresholds for antipyretic intervention in critically ill children with fever and infection (the FEVER trial) during a multi-phase pilot study. Design: Mixed methods study with data collected at three time points: (1) before, (2) during and (3) after a pilot trial. Setting: English, Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs). Participants: (1) Pre-pilot trial focus groups with pilot site staff (n=56) and interviews with parents (n=25) whose child had been admitted to PICU in the last 3 years with a fever and suspected infection, (2) Questionnaires with parents of randomised children following pilot trial recruitment (n=48 from 47 families) and (3) post-pilot trial interviews with parents (n=19), focus groups (n=50) and a survey (n=48) with site staff. Analysis drew on Sekhon et al’s theoretical framework of acceptability. Results: There was initial support for the trial, yet some held concerns regarding the proposed temperature thresholds and not using paracetamol for pain or discomfort. Pre-trial findings informed protocol changes and training, which influenced views on trial acceptability. Staff trained by the FEVER team found the trial more acceptable than those trained by colleagues. Parents and staff found the trial acceptable. Some concerns about pain or discomfort during weaning from ventilation remained. Conclusions: Pre-trial findings and pilot trial experience influenced acceptability, providing insight into how challenges may be overcome. We present an adapted theoretical framework of acceptability to inform future trial feasibility studies. Trial registration numbers: ISRCTN16022198 and NCT03028818