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

Restricted fluid bolus volume in early septic shock: Results of the Fluids in Shock pilot trial

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. Objective To determine the feasibility of Fluids in Shock, a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of restricted fluid bolus volume (10 mL/kg) versus recommended practice (20 mL/kg). Design Nine-month pilot RCT with embedded mixed-method perspectives study. Setting 13 hospitals in England. Patients Children presenting to emergency departments with suspected infection and shock after 20 mL/kg fluid. Interventions Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to further 10 or 20 mL/kg fluid boluses every 15 min for up to 4 hours if still in shock. Main outcome measures These were based on progression criteria, including recruitment and retention, protocol adherence, separation, potential trial outcome measures, and parent and staff perspectives. Results Seventy-five participants were randomised; two were withdrawn. 23 (59%) of 39 in the 10 mL/kg arm and 25 (74%) of 34 in the 20 mL/kg arm required a single trial bolus before the shock resolved. 79% of boluses were delivered per protocol in the 10 mL/kg arm and 55% in the 20 mL/kg arm. The volume of study bolus fluid after 4 hours was 44% lower in the 10 mL/kg group (mean 14.5 vs 27.5 mL/kg). The Paediatric Index of Mortality-2 score was 2.1 (IQR 1.6-2.7) in the 10 mL/kg group and 2.0 (IQR 1.6-2.5) in the 20 mL/kg group. There were no deaths. Length of hospital stay, paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admissions and PICU-free days at 30 days did not differ significantly between the groups. In the perspectives study, the trial was generally supported, although some problems with protocol adherence were described. Conclusions Participants were not as unwell as expected. A larger trial is not feasible in its current design in the UK. Trial registration number ISRCTN15244462

FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC): a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial of high-flow nasal cannula therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure in paediatric critical care

Abstract Background Although high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) has become a popular mode of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) in critically ill children, there are no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing it with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). We performed a pilot RCT to explore the feasibility, and inform the design and conduct, of a future large pragmatic RCT comparing HFNC and CPAP in paediatric critical care. Methods In this multi-centre pilot RCT, eligible patients were recruited to either Group A (step-up NRS) or Group B (step-down NRS). Participants were randomised (1:1) using sealed opaque envelopes to either CPAP or HFNC as their first-line mode of NRS. Consent was sought after randomisation in emergency situations. The primary study outcomes were related to feasibility (number of eligible patients in each group, proportion of eligible patients randomised, consent rate, and measures of adherence to study algorithms). Data were collected on safety and a range of patient outcomes in order to inform the choice of a primary outcome measure for the future RCT. Results Overall, 121/254 eligible patients (47.6%) were randomised (Group A 60%, Group B 44.2%) over a 10-month period (recruitment rate for Group A, 1 patient/site/month; Group B, 2.8 patients/site/month). In Group A, consent was obtained in 29/33 parents/guardians approached (87.9%), while in Group B 84/118 consented (71.2%). Intention-to-treat analysis included 113 patients (HFNC 59, CPAP 54). Most reported adverse events were mild/moderate (HFNC 8/59, CPAP 9/54). More patients switched treatment from HFNC to CPAP (Group A: 7/16, 44%; Group B: 9/43, 21%) than from CPAP to HFNC (Group A: 3/13, 23%; Group B: 5/41, 12%). Intubation occurred within 72 h in 15/59 (25.4%) of HFNC patients and 10/54 (18.5%) of CPAP patients (p = 0.38). HFNC patients experienced fewer ventilator-free days at day 28 (Group A: 19.6 vs. 23.5; Group B: 21.8 vs. 22.2). Conclusions Our pilot trial confirms that, following minor changes to consent procedures and treatment algorithms, it is feasible to conduct a large national RCT of non-invasive respiratory support in the paediatric critical care setting in both step-up and step-down NRS patients. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02612415. Registered on 23 November 2015

Conservative versus liberal oxygenation targets in critically ill children: the randomised multiple-centre pilot Oxy-PICU trial

Background: Oxygen saturation monitoring for children receiving respiratory support is standard worldwide. No randomised clinical trials have compared peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) targets for critically ill children. The harm of interventions to raise SpO2 to &gt; 94% may exceed their benefits. Methods: We undertook an open, parallel-group randomised trial of children &gt; 38 weeks completed gestation and &lt; 16 years of age receiving invasive or non-invasive respiratory support and supplemental oxygen who were admitted urgently to one of three paediatric intensive care units. A �research without prior consent� approach was employed. Children were randomly assigned to a liberal oxygenation group (SpO2 targets &gt; 94%) or a conservative oxygenation group (SpO2 = 88�92% inclusive). Outcomes were measures of feasibility: recruitment rate, protocol adherence and acceptability, between-group separation of SpO2 and safety. The Oxy-PICU trial was registered before recruitment: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03040570. Results: A total of 159 children met the inclusion criteria, of whom 119 (75%) were randomised between April and July 2017, representing a rate of 10 patients per month per site. The mean time to randomisation from first contact with an intensive care team was 1.9 (SD 2.2) h. Consent to continue in the study was obtained in 107 cases (90%); the children�s parents/legal representatives were supportive of the consent process. The median (interquartile range, IQR) of time-weighted individual mean SpO2 was 94.9% (92.6�97.1) in the conservative oxygenation group and 97.5% (96.2�98.4) in the liberal group [difference 2.7%, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.3�4.0%, p &lt; 0.001]. Median (IQR) time-weighted individual mean FiO2 was 0.28 (0.24�0.37) in the conservative group and 0.37 (0.30�0.42) in the liberal group (difference 0.08, 95% CI 0.03�0.13, p &lt; 0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in length of stay, duration of organ support or mortality. Two prespecified serious adverse events (cardiac arrests) occurred, both in the liberal oxygenation group. Conclusion: A definitive clinical trial of peripheral oxygen saturation targets is feasible in critically ill children.</p