Search

Introduction Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common healthcare-associated infection in the intensive care unit (ICU). Probiotics are defined as live microorganisms that may confer health benefits when ingested. Prior randomised trials suggest that probiotics may prevent infections such as VAP and Clostridioides difficile–associated diarrhoea (CDAD). PROSPECT (Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial) is a multicentre, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial comparing the efficacy of the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG with usual care versus usual care without probiotics in preventing VAP and other clinically important outcomes in critically ill patients admitted to the ICU. Methods and analysis The objective of E-PROSPECT is to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of L. rhamnosus GG plus usual care versus usual care without probiotics in critically ill patients. E-PROSPECT will be performed from the public healthcare payer’s perspective over a time horizon from ICU admission to hospital discharge. We will determine probabilities of in-ICU and in-hospital events from all patients alongside PROSPECT. We will retrieve unit costs for each resource use item using jurisdiction-specific public databases, supplemented by individual site unit costs if such databases are unavailable. Direct costs will include medications, personnel costs, radiology/laboratory testing, operative/non-operative procedures and per-day hospital ‘hoteling’ costs not otherwise encompassed. The primary outcome is the incremental cost per VAP prevented between the two treatment groups. Other clinical events such as CDAD, antibiotic-associated diarrhoea and in-hospital mortality will be included as secondary outcomes. We will perform pre-specified subgroup analyses (medical/surgical/trauma; age; frailty status; antibiotic use; prevalent vs no prevalent pneumonia) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses for VAP, then generate confidence intervals using the nonparametric bootstrapping approach. Ethics and dissemination Study approval for EPROSPECT was granted by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board of McMaster University on 29 July 2019. Informed consent was obtained from the patient or substitute decision-maker in PROSPECT. The findings of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The R e- Ev aluating the I nhibition of S tress E rosions (REVISE) Trial aims to determine the impact of the proton pump inhibitor pantoprazole compared with placebo on clinically important upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU), 90-day mortality and other endpoints in critically ill adults. The objective of this report is to describe the rationale, methodology, ethics and management of REVISE., Methods and Analysis: REVISE is an international, randomised, concealed, stratified, blinded parallel-group individual patient trial being conducted in ICUs in Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, UK, US, Kuwait, Pakistan and Brazil. Patients≥18 years old expected to remain invasively mechanically ventilated beyond the calendar day after enrolment are being randomised to either 40 mg pantoprazole intravenously or an identical placebo daily while mechanically ventilated in the ICU. The primary efficacy outcome is clinically important upper GI bleeding within 90 days of randomisation. The primary safety outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, new renal replacement therapy, ICU and hospital mortality, and patient-important GI bleeding. Tertiary outcomes are total red blood cells transfused, peak serum creatinine level in the ICU, and duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital stay. The sample size is 4800 patients; one interim analysis was conducted after 2400 patients had complete 90-day follow-up; the Data Monitoring Committee recommended continuing the trial., Ethics and Dissemination: All participating centres receive research ethics approval before initiation by hospital, region or country, including, but not limited to - Australia: Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee and Mater Misericordiae Ltd Human Research Ethics Committee; Brazil: Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa; Canada: Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board; Kuwait: Ministry of Health Standing Committee for Coordination of Health and Medical Research; Pakistan: Maroof Institutional Review Board; Saudi Arabia: Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs Institutional Review Board: United Kingdom: Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee; United States: Institutional Review Board of the Nebraska Medical Centre. The results of this trial will inform clinical practice and guidelines worldwide., Trial Registration Number: NCT03374800., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: In-bed leg cycling with critically ill patients is a promising intervention aimed at minimising immobility, thus improving physical function following intensive care unit (ICU) discharge. We previously completed a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) which supported the feasibility of a large RCT. In this report, we describe the protocol for an international, multicentre RCT to determine the effectiveness of early in-bed cycling versus routine physiotherapy (PT) in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults., Methods and Analysis: We report a parallel group RCT of 360 patients in 17 medical-surgical ICUs and three countries. We include adults (≥18 years old), who could ambulate independently before their critical illness (with or without a gait aid), ≤4 days of invasive mechanical ventilation and ≤7 days ICU length of stay, and an expected additional 2-day ICU stay, and who do not fulfil any of the exclusion criteria. After obtaining informed consent, patients are randomised using a web-based, centralised system to either 30 min of in-bed cycling in addition to routine PT, 5 days per week, up to 28 days maximum, or routine PT alone. The primary outcome is the Physical Function ICU Test-scored (PFIT-s) at 3 days post-ICU discharge measured by assessors blinded to treatment allocation. Participants, ICU clinicians and research coordinators are not blinded to group assignment. Our sample size estimate was based on the identification of a 1-point mean difference in PFIT-s between groups., Ethics and Dissemination: C ritical Care C yc ling to improve L ower E xtremity (CYCLE) is approved by the Research Ethics Boards of all participating centres and Clinical Trials Ontario (Project 1345). We will disseminate trial results through publications and conference presentations., Trial Registration Number: NCT03471247 (Full RCT); NCT02377830 (CYCLE Vanguard 46 patient internal pilot)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MEK received an equipment loan of 4 RT300 supine cycles from Restorative Therapies, Baltimore, Maryland, USA for this study. On behalf of the remaining authors, the corresponding author states there is no conflict of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)