Enrollment of intensive care unit patients into clinical studies: A trinational survey of researchers' experiences, beliefs, and practices

BackgroundAs critical care practice increases in scope, size, and complexity, enrollment of critically ill patients into clinical studies is increasing.ObjectiveTo understand the experiences, beliefs, and practices of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group and Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group regarding enrollment of critically ill children and adults into clinical studies.MethodsSurvey items generated by the research team were formatted in four domains: experiences, beliefs, practices, and demographics. Five research coordinators and five physicians pretested the survey, providing feedback on clarity and completeness. Intrarater reliability (16 participants, 2 wks apart) was very good.ResultsThe response rate was 284 of 322 (88.2%). Respondents worked in intensive care units with a mean of 20.5 (SD 10) beds, caring for adults (72.2%), pediatric (18.8%), and both groups (9%) of critically ill patients. Clinical research was considered key to the future of improved clinical care. To enhance recruitment efficiency, respondents widely endorsed the effectiveness of increasing participating centers, after-hours, and weekend enrollment (all 3 scores 7 [6-7[sqb], reflecting median [interquartile range] on 1-7 scale). Overall, the effectiveness (6 [4-7]), feasibility (5 [4-6]) and ethics (5 [4-7]) of coenrollment into more than one randomized trial was endorsed. Half of respondents have adopted coenrollment with scientific and psychosocial provisos. Alternative designs, such as factorial and cluster randomized trials, were considered when suitable. Modifications to consent approaches (deferred consent (7 [6-7]), waived consent (7 [6-7]), or consent from two physicians in the absence of a substitute decision maker (6 [5-7])) were considered effective, but beliefs about the feasibility and ethics of some of these approaches varied.ConclusionsClinical research is highly valued by these intensive care unit communities. Strategies to increase capacity involve enhancing recruitment efficiencies, considering alternative study designs and expanding consent procedures. Thoughtfully implementing these strategies may advance the care of critically ill adults and children.Deborah J. Cook, David Blythe, Amanda Rischbieth, Paul C. Hebert, Nicole Zytaruk, Kusum Menon, Simon Erikson, Robert Fowler, Diane Heels-Ansdell, Maureen O. Mead

Proton pump inhibitors in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: protocol for a substudy of the Re-EValuating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions (REVISE) Trial

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients commonly receive proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to prevent gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding from stress-induced ulceration. Despite widespread use in the intensive care unit (ICU), observational data suggest that PPIs may be associated with adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infection. This preplanned study is nested within a large randomized trial evaluating pantoprazole versus placebo in invasively ventilated patients. The 3 objectives are as follows: (1) to describe the characteristics of patients with COVID-19 in terms of demographics, biomarkers, venous thromboembolism, tracheostomy incidence and timing, and other clinical outcomes; (2) to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 infection on clinically important GI bleeding, 90-day mortality, and other outcomes compared to a propensity-matched non-infected cohort; and (3) to explore whether pantoprazole has a differential treatment effect on clinically important GI bleeding, 90-day mortality, and other outcomes in patients with and without COVID-19 infection. METHODS: The ongoing trial Re-EValuating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions (REVISE) compares pantoprazole 40 mg IV to placebo on the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important GI bleeding and the primary safety outcome of 90-day mortality. The protocol described in this report is for a substudy focused on patients with COVID-19 infection that was not in the original pre-pandemic trial protocol. We developed a one-page case report form to characterize these patients including data related to biomarkers, venous thromboembolism, COVID-19 therapies, tracheostomy incidence and timing, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU and hospital stay. Our analysis will describe the trajectory of patients with COVID-19 infection, a propensity-matched analysis of infected and non-infected patients, and an extended subgroup analysis comparing the effect of PPI among patients with and without COVID-19 infection. DISCUSSION: Prophylactic acid suppression in invasively ventilated critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection has unknown consequences. The results of these investigations will inform practice, guidelines, and future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: REVISE Trial [NCT03374800 December 15, 2017], COVID-19 Cohort Study [NCT05715567 February 8, 2023]

Re-evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions (REVISE): a protocol for pilot randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION: Clinicians routinely administer stress ulcer prophylaxis to mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), most commonly prescribing proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). However, the incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding from stress ulceration is low and recent observational studies suggest these agents may increase infections. Therefore, a large randomized clinical trial (RCT) is needed to inform modern practice. The aim of this multicenter pilot trial is to determine the feasibility of performing a large RCT to investigate the efficacy and safety of withholding intravenous pantoprazole. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include adult critically ill patients who have an anticipated duration of ventilation of >=48 hours. We will exclude patients with acute or recent GI bleeding, pregnancy, dual antiplatelet therapy, poor prognosis or intent to withdraw life support, or previous enrolment in this or a confounding trial. Following informed consent, patients will be randomized to receive the intervention of placebo (0.9% NaCl) or intravenous pantoprazole 40 mg daily. Patients, families, clinicians, data collectors, adjudicators of outcome and statisticians will be blind to allocation. The three primary feasibility outcomes are the informed consent rate, recruitment rate, and protocol adherence. Clinical outcomes include clinically important upper GI bleeding, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), Clostridium difficile infection, length of stay and mortality in ICU and hospital. ETHICS AND APPROVAL: This study has been approved by Health Canada, and research ethics board (REB) at each of the participating centers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial was registered on 31 October 2014. The trial registration number is NCT02290327. FUNDING: REVISE Pilot Trial is funded by Research Grant awarded by Physicians Services Incorporated, Dammam University Research Funds, Capital Health Authority Research Award Halifax, and Royal Adelaide Hospital Project Committee Grant

Prediction Scores Do Not Correlate with Clinically Adjudicated Categories of Pulmonary Embolism in Critically Ill Patients

BACKGROUND: Prediction scores for pretest probability of pulmonary embolism (PE) validated in outpatient settings are occasionally used in the intensive care unit (ICU).OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the correlation of Geneva and Wells scores with adjudicated categories of PE in ICU patients.METHODS: In a randomized trial of thromboprophylaxis, patients with suspected PE were adjudicated as possible, probable or definite PE. Data were then retrospectively abstracted for the Geneva Diagnostic PE score, Wells, Modified Wells and Simplified Wells Diagnostic scores. The chance-corrected agreement between adjudicated categories and each score was calculated. ANOVA was used to compare values across the three adjudicated PE categories.RESULTS: Among 70 patients with suspected PE, agreement was poor between adjudicated categories and Geneva pretest probabilities (kappa 0.01 [95% CI −0.0643 to 0.0941]) or Wells pretest probabilities (kappa −0.03 [95% CI −0.1462 to 0.0914]). Among four possible, 16 probable and 50 definite PEs, there were no significant differences in Geneva scores (possible = 4.0, probable = 4.7, definite = 4.5; P=0.90), Wells scores (possible = 2.8, probable = 4.9, definite = 4.1; P=0.37), Modified Wells (possible = 2.0, probable = 3.4, definite = 2.9; P=0.34) or Simplified Wells (possible = 1.8, probable = 2.8, definite = 2.4; P=0.30).CONCLUSIONS: Pretest probability scores developed outside the ICU do not correlate with adjudicated PE categories in critically ill patients. Research is needed to develop prediction scores for this population.Peer Reviewe

Prediction scores do not correlate with clinically adjudicated categories of pulmonary embolism in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND: Prediction scores for pretest probability of pulmonary embolism (PE) validated in outpatient settings are occasionally used in the intensive care unit (ICU). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the correlation of Geneva and Wells scores with adjudicated categories of PE in ICU patients. METHODS: In a randomized trial of thromboprophylaxis, patients with suspected PE were adjudicated as possible, probable or definite PE. Data were then retrospectively abstracted for the Geneva Diagnostic PE score, Wells, Modified Wells and Simplified Wells Diagnostic scores. The chance-corrected agreement between adjudicated categories and each score was calculated. ANOVA was used to compare values across the three adjudicated PE categories. RESULTS: Among 70 patients with suspected PE, agreement was poor between adjudicated categories and Geneva pretest probabilities (kappa=0.01 [95% CI -0.0643 to 0.0941]) or Wells pretest probabilities (kappa=-0.03 [95% CI -0.1462 to 0.0914]). Among four possible, 16 probable and 50 definite PEs, there were no significant differences in Geneva scores (possible = 4.0, probable = 4.7, definite = 4.5; P=0.90), Wells scores (possible = 2.8, probable = 4.9, definite = 4.1; P=0.37), Modified Wells (possible = 2.0, probable = 3.4, definite = 2.9; P=0.34) or Simplified Wells (possible = 1.8, probable = 2.8, definite = 2.4; P=0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Pretest probability scores developed outside the ICU do not correlate with adjudicated PE categories in critically ill patients. Research is needed to develop prediction scores for this population