Exercise rehabilitation following intensive care unit discharge for recovery from critical illness:executive summary of a Cochrane Collaboration systematic review

Skeletal muscle wasting and weakness are major complications of critical illness and underlie the profound physical and func-\ud tional impairments experienced by survivors after discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU). Exercise-based rehabilitation\ud has been shown to be bene\ud fi\ud cial when delivered during ICU admission. This review aimed to determine the effectiveness of\ud exercise rehabilitation initiated after ICU discharge on primary outcomes of functional exercise capacity and health-related\ud quality of life. We sought randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, and controlled clinical trials compar-\ud ing an exercise intervention commenced after ICU discharge vs. any other intervention or a control or\ud ‘\ud usual care\ud ’\ud programme\ud in adult survivors of critical illness. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval Sys-\ud tem Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases\ud were searched up to February 2015. Dual, independent screening of results, data extraction, and quality appraisal were per-\ud formed. We included six trials involving 483 patients. Overall quality of evidence for both outcomes was very low. All studies\ud evaluated functional exercise capacity, with three reporting positive effects in favour of the intervention. Only two studies\ud evaluated health-related quality of life and neither reported differences between intervention and control groups. Meta-\ud analyses of data were precluded due to variation in study design, types of interventions, and selection and reporting of out-\ud come measurements. We were unable to determine an overall effect on functional exercise capacity or health-related quality\ud of life of interventions initiated after ICU discharge for survivors of critical illness. Findings from ongoing studies are awaited.\ud Future studies need to address methodological aspects of study design and conduct to enhance rigour, quality, and synthesis

Inconsistent relationship between depth of sedation and intensive care outcome: systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: To determine the effect of depth of sedation on intensive care mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and other clinically important outcomes. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO from 2000 - 2020. Randomised controlled trials and cohort studies that examined the effect of sedation depth were included. Two reviewers independently screened, selected articles, extracted data and appraised quality. Data on study design, population, setting, patient characteristics, study interventions, depth of sedation and relevant outcomes were extracted. Quality was assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools. Results: We included data from 26 studies (n=7865 patients): 8 RCTs and 18 cohort studies. Heterogeneity of studies was substantial. There was no significant effect of lighter sedation on intensive care mortality. Lighter sedation did not affect duration of mechanical ventilation in RCTs (mean difference [MD]: -1.44 days [95% CI -3.79 to 0.91]) but did in cohort studies (MD: -1.54 days [95% CI -2.68 to -0.39]). No statistically significant benefit of lighter sedation was identified in RCTs. In cohort studies lighter sedation improved time to extubation, intensive care and hospital length of stay and Ventilator Associated Pneumonia. We found no significant effects for hospital mortality, delirium or adverse events. Conclusion: Evidence of benefit from lighter sedation is limited, with inconsistency between observational and randomised studies. Positive effects were mainly limited to low quality evidence from observational studies, which could be attributable to bias and confounding factors

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

Delivery of a novel intervention to facilitate liberation from mechanical ventilation in paediatric intensive care: A process evaluation

Background: Prolonged mechanical ventilation increases the risk of mortality and morbidity. Optimising sedation and early testing for possible liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) has been shown to reduce time on the ventilator. Alongside a multicentre trial of sedation and ventilation weaning, we conducted a mixed method process evaluation to understand how the intervention content and delivery was linked to trial outcomes. Methods: 10,495 children admitted to 18 paediatric intensive care units (ICUs) in the United Kingdom participated in a stepped-wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial, with 1955 clinical staff trained to deliver the intervention. The intervention comprised assessment and optimisation of sedation levels, and bedside screening of respiratory parameters to indicate readiness for a spontaneous breathing trial prior to liberation from ventilation. 193 clinical staff were interviewed towards the end of the trial. Interview data were thematically analysed, and quantitative adherence data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results: The intervention led to a reduced duration of IMV (adjusted median difference– 7.1 hours, 95% CI -9.6 to -5.3, p = 0.01). Overall intervention adherence was 75% (range 59–85%). Ease and flexibility of the intervention promoted it use; designated responsibilities, explicit pathways of decision-making and a shared language for communication fostered proactivity and consistency towards extubation. Delivery of the intervention was hindered by established hospital and unit organisational and patient care routines, clinician preference and absence of clinical leadership. Conclusions: The SANDWICH trial showed a significant, although small, reduction in duration of IMV. Findings suggest that greater direction in decision-making pathways, robust embedment of new practice in unit routine, and capitalising on the skills of Advanced Nurse Practitioners and physiotherapists would have contributed to greater intervention effect. Trial registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16998143

Effectiveness of biomarker-based exclusion of ventilator-acquired pneumonia to reduce antibiotic use (VAPrapid-2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-acquired pneumonia (VAP) is a common reason for antimicrobial therapy in the intensive care unit (ICU). Biomarker-based diagnostics could improve antimicrobial stewardship through rapid exclusion of VAP. Bronchoalveloar lavage (BAL) fluid biomarkers have previously been shown to allow the exclusion of VAP with high confidence. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, multi-centre, randomised, controlled trial to determine whether a rapid biomarker-based exclusion of VAP results in fewer antibiotics and improved antimicrobial management. Patients with clinically suspected VAP undergo BAL, and VAP is confirmed by growth of a potential pathogen at [≥] 10(4) colony-forming units per millilitre (CFU/ml). Patients are randomised 1:1, to either a 'biomarker-guided recommendation on antibiotics' in which BAL fluid is tested for IL-1β and IL-8 in addition to routine microbiology testing, or to 'routine use of antibiotics' in which BAL undergoes routine microbiology testing only. Clinical teams are blinded to intervention until 6 hours after randomisation, when biomarker results are reported to the clinician. The primary outcome is a change in the frequency distribution of antibiotic-free days (AFD) in the 7 days following BAL. Secondary outcome measures include antibiotic use at 14 and 28 days; ventilator-free days; 28-day mortality and ICU mortality; sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) at days 3, 7 and 14; duration of stay in critical care and the hospital; antibiotic-associated infections; and antibiotic-resistant pathogen cultures up to hospital discharge, death or 56 days. A healthcare-resource-utilisation analysis will be calculated from the duration of critical care and hospital stay. In addition, safety data will be collected with respect to performing BAL. A sample size of 210 will be required to detect a clinically significant shift in the distribution of AFD towards more patients having fewer antibiotics and therefore more AFD. DISCUSSION: This trial will test whether a rapid biomarker-based exclusion of VAP results in rapid discontinuation of antibiotics and therefore improves antibiotic management in patients with suspected VAP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN65937227 . Registered on 22 August 2013. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01972425 . Registered on 24 October 2013

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

Biomarker-guided antibiotic stewardship in suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAPrapid2) : a randomised controlled trial and process evaluation

Background Ventilator-associated pneumonia is the most common intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infection, yet accurate diagnosis remains difficult, leading to overuse of antibiotics. Low concentrations of IL-1β and IL-8 in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid have been validated as effective markers for exclusion of ventilator-associated pneumonia. The VAPrapid2 trial aimed to determine whether measurement of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid IL-1β and IL-8 could effectively and safely improve antibiotic stewardship in patients with clinically suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Methods VAPrapid2 was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in patients admitted to 24 ICUs from 17 National Health Service hospital trusts across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Patients were screened for eligibility and included if they were 18 years or older, intubated and mechanically ventilated for at least 48 h, and had suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to biomarker-guided recommendation on antibiotics (intervention group) or routine use of antibiotics (control group) using a web-based randomisation service hosted by Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit. Patients were randomised using randomly permuted blocks of size four and six and stratified by site, with allocation concealment. Clinicians were masked to patient assignment for an initial period until biomarker results were reported. Bronchoalveolar lavage was done in all patients, with concentrations of IL-1β and IL-8 rapidly determined in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from patients randomised to the biomarker-based antibiotic recommendation group. If concentrations were below a previously validated cutoff, clinicians were advised that ventilator-associated pneumonia was unlikely and to consider discontinuing antibiotics. Patients in the routine use of antibiotics group received antibiotics according to usual practice at sites. Microbiology was done on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from all patients and ventilator-associated pneumonia was confirmed by at least 104 colony forming units per mL of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. The primary outcome was the distribution of antibiotic-free days in the 7 days following bronchoalveolar lavage. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis, with an additional per-protocol analysis that excluded patients randomly assigned to the intervention group who defaulted to routine use of antibiotics because of failure to return an adequate biomarker result. An embedded process evaluation assessed factors influencing trial adoption, recruitment, and decision making. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN65937227, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01972425. Findings Between Nov 6, 2013, and Sept 13, 2016, 360 patients were screened for inclusion in the study. 146 patients were ineligible, leaving 214 who were recruited to the study. Four patients were excluded before randomisation, meaning that 210 patients were randomly assigned to biomarker-guided recommendation on antibiotics (n=104) or routine use of antibiotics (n=106). One patient in the biomarker-guided recommendation group was withdrawn by the clinical team before bronchoscopy and so was excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. We found no significant difference in the primary outcome of the distribution of antibiotic-free days in the 7 days following bronchoalveolar lavage in the intention-to-treat analysis (p=0·58). Bronchoalveolar lavage was associated with a small and transient increase in oxygen requirements. Established prescribing practices, reluctance for bronchoalveolar lavage, and dependence on a chain of trial-related procedures emerged as factors that impaired trial processes