Protocol implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic: experiences from a randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many intensive care units (ICUs) halted research to focus on COVID-19-specific studies. OBJECTIVE: To describe the conduct of an international randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis (Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions in the ICU [REVISE]) during the pandemic, addressing enrolment patterns, center engagement, informed consent processes, data collection, a COVID-specific substudy, patient transfers, and data monitoring. METHODS: REVISE is a randomized trial among mechanically ventilated patients, comparing pantoprazole 40 mg IV to placebo on the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the primary safety outcome of 90-day mortality. We documented protocol implementation status from March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022. RESULTS: The Steering Committee did not change the scientific protocol. From the first enrolment on July 9th 2019 to March 10th 2020 (8 months preceding the pandemic), 267 patients were enrolled in 18 centers. From March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022 (30 months thereafter), 41 new centers joined; 59 were participating by August 30th 2022 which enrolled 2961 patients. During a total of 1235 enrolment-months in the pandemic phase, enrolment paused for 106 (8.6%) months in aggregate (median 3 months, interquartile range 2;6). Protocol implementation involved a shift from the a priori consent model pre-pandemic (188, 58.8%) to the consent to continue model (1615, 54.1%, p < 0.01). In one new center, an opt-out model was approved. The informed consent rate increased slightly (80.7% to 85.0%, p = 0.05). Telephone consent encounters increased (16.6% to 68.2%, p < 0.001). Surge capacity necessitated intra-institutional transfers; receiving centers continued protocol implementation whenever possible. We developed a nested COVID-19 substudy. The Methods Centers continued central statistical monitoring of trial metrics. Site monitoring was initially remote, then in-person when restrictions lifted. CONCLUSION: Protocol implementation adaptations during the pandemic included a shift in the consent model, a sustained high consent rate, and launch of a COVID-19 substudy. Recruitment increased as new centers joined, patient transfers were optimized, and monitoring methods were adapted.

Adjudication of a primary trial outcome: Results of a calibration exercise and protocol for a large international trial.

Background: Ascertainment of the severity of the primary outcome of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is integral to stress ulcer prophylaxis trials. This protocol outlines the adjudication process for GI bleeding events in an international trial comparing pantoprazole to placebo in critically ill patients (REVISE: Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions). The primary objective of the adjudication process is to assess episodes submitted by participating sites to determine which fulfil the definition of the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important upper GI bleeding. Secondary objectives are to categorize the bleeding severity if deemed not clinically important, and adjudicate the bleeding site, timing, investigations, and treatments. Methods: Research coordinators follow patients daily for any suspected clinically important upper GI bleeding, and submit case report forms, doctors' and nurses' notes, laboratory, imaging, and procedural reports to the methods center. An international central adjudication committee reflecting diverse specialty backgrounds conducted an initial calibration exercise to delineate the scope of the adjudication process, review components of the definition, and agree on how each criterion will be considered fulfilled. Henceforth, bleeding events will be stratified by study drug, and randomly assigned to adjudicator pairs (blinded to treatment allocation, and study center). Results: Crude agreement, chance-corrected agreement, or chance-independent agreement if data have a skewed distribution will be calculated. Conclusions: Focusing on consistency and accuracy, central independent blinded duplicate adjudication of suspected clinically important upper GI bleeding events will determine which events fulfil the definition of the primary efficacy outcome for this stress ulcer prophylaxis trial. Registration: NCT03374800 (REVISE: Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions).

REVISE: re-evaluating the inhibition of stress erosions in the ICU-statistical analysis plan for a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The REVISE (Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions in the ICU) trial will evaluate the impact of the proton pump inhibitor pantoprazole compared to placebo in invasively ventilated critically ill patients. OBJECTIVE: To outline the statistical analysis plan for the REVISE trial. METHODS: REVISE is a randomized clinical trial ongoing in intensive care units (ICUs) internationally. Patients ≥ 18 years old, receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and expected to remain ventilated beyond the calendar day after randomization are allocated to either 40 mg pantoprazole intravenously or placebo while mechanically ventilated. RESULTS: The primary efficacy outcome is clinically important upper GI bleeding; the primary safety outcome is 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes are 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 concentration, and duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU, and hospital length of stay. Following an interim analysis of results from 2400 patients (50% of 4800 target sample size), the data monitoring committee recommended continuing enrolment. CONCLUSIONS: This statistical analysis plan outlines the statistical analyses of all outcomes, sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analyses. REVISE will inform clinical practice and guidelines worldwide. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT03374800. November 21, 2017.

REVISE: Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions in the ICU: a randomised trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions (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.

International variation in ethics and contract approval processes for a low-risk observational study of mechanical ventilation discontinuation practices.

OBJECTIVES: To describe international variation in ethics and contract processes, identify predictors of approval times, and reasons for nonparticipation in an international observational study of ventilation discontinuation practices. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A nested cross-sectional survey of research personnel at 111 participating sites (representing 142 intensive care units [ICUs]) from six geographic regions (Canada, India, the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia/New Zealand, and the United States). RESULTS: We analyzed responses from 80 sites (72.1% response rate). A single local or central approval was required at 34/80 (42.5%) and 23/80 (28.75%), respectively. Of those requiring central ethics approval, 20/23 (87.0%) sites required an additional approval. Sites with central vs. other ethics approval processes had significantly longer times to ethics approval (176 vs. 42 days; P < 0.0001). The median time to contract execution was 140 days (range: 11-1,215) with sites in India and the United States having the shortest and longest times to contract execution, respectively. We did not identify independent predictors of approval times. Of 190 sites that initially agreed to participate, 78 (41%) sites (89 ICUs) were ultimately unable to participate. CONCLUSION: International ethics and contract approval times were lengthy and highly variable. Central ethics review processes significantly increased approval times.

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].

Definitions, rates and associated mortality of ICU-acquired pneumonia: A multicenter cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to analyze intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired pneumonia according to 7 definitions, estimating associated hospital mortality. METHODS: This cohort study was nested within an international randomized trial, evaluating the effect of probiotics on ICU-acquired pneumonia in 2650 mechanically ventilated adults. Each clinically suspected pneumonia was adjudicated by two physicians blinded to allocation and center. The primary outcome was ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) informed by ventilation for ≥2 days, new, progressive or persistent infiltrate plus 2 of: temperature > 38 °C or < 36 °C; leukopenia (<3 × 10(Fernando et al., 20206)/L) or leukocytosis (>10 × 10(Fernando et al., 20206)/L); and purulent sputum. We also used 6 other definitions estimating the risk of hospital mortality. RESULTS: The frequency of ICU-acquired pneumonia varied by definition: the trial primary outcome VAP (21.6%), Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) (24.9%), American College Chest Physicians (ACCP) (25.0%), International Sepsis Forum (ISF) (24.4%), Reducing Oxidative Stress Study (REDOXS) (17.6%), Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (7.8%), and invasively microbiologically confirmed (1.9%). The trial primary outcome VAP (HR 1.31 [1.08, 1.60]), ISF (HR 1.32 [1.09,1.60]), CPIS (HR 1.30 [1.08,1.58]) and ACCP definitions (HR 1.22 [1.00,1.47]) were associated with hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of ICU-acquired pneumonia vary by definition and are associated with differential increased risk of death.

Clostridioides difficile infection in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: A nested cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a serious complication of critical illness. The objective of the study was to determine its incidence, prevalence, timing, severity, predictors, and outcomes. METHODS: We performed a prospective nested cohort study of CDI within a randomized trial comparing Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG to placebo. We adjudicated cases of CDI using standardized definitions, assessed timing (pre-ICU, in ICU, post-ICU) and severity. We analyzed risk factors and outcomes. RESULTS: Of 2650 patients, 86 were diagnosed with CDI during 90,833 hospital-days (0.95/1000 hospital-days); CDI prevalence was 3.2%. CDI incidence varied in timing; 0.3% patients had CDI pre-ICU, 2.2% in the ICU; an 0.8% developed CDI post-ICU. Relapse or recurrence of CDI was documented in 9.3% patients. Infections were mild/moderate in severity. Complications included septic shock (26.7%), organ failure (16.3%), and toxic megacolon requiring colectomy (1.2%). No risk factors for CDI were identified. CDI was not associated with hospital mortality. The duration of hospital stay was longer for those who had CDI compared those who did not, CONCLUSION: CDI was uncommon, severity was mild to moderate and not associated with mortality however CDI was associated with a longer hospital stay.

Multistudy Research Operations in the ICU: An Interprofessional Pandemic-Informed Approach.

Proliferation of COVID-19 research underscored the need for improved awareness among investigators, research staff and bedside clinicians of the operational details of clinical studies. The objective was to describe the genesis, goals, participation, procedures, and outcomes of two research operations committees in an academic ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Two-phase, single-center multistudy cohort. SETTING: University-affiliated ICU in Hamilton, ON, Canada. PATIENTS: Adult patients in the ICU, medical stepdown unit, or COVID-19 ward. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: An interprofessional COVID Collaborative was convened at the pandemic onset within our department, to proactively coordinate studies, help navigate multiple authentic consent encounters by different research staff, and determine which studies would be suitable for coenrollment. From March 2020 to May 2021, five non-COVID trials continued, two were paused then restarted, and five were launched. Over 15 months, 161 patients were involved in 215 trial enrollments, 110 (51.1%) of which were into a COVID treatment trial. The overall informed consent rate (proportion agreed of those eligible and approached including a priori and deferred consent models) was 83% (215/259). The informed consent rate was lower for COVID-19 trials (110/142, 77.5%) than other trials (105/117, 89.7%; p = 0.01). Patients with COVID-19 were significantly more likely to be coenrolled in two or more studies (29/77, 37.7%) compared with other patients (13/84, 15.5%; p = 0.002). Review items for each new study were collated, refined, and evolved into a modifiable checklist template to set up each study for success. The COVID Collaborative expanded to a more formal Department of Critical Care Research Operations Committee in June 2021, supporting sustainable research operations during and beyond the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Structured coordination and increased communication about research operations among diverse research stakeholders cultivated a sense of shared purpose and enhanced the integrity of clinical research operations.

Academic and Community ICUs Participating in a Critical Care Randomized Trial: A Comparison of Patient Characteristics and Trial Metrics.

Clinical research in Canada is conducted primarily in "academic" hospitals, whereas most clinical care is provided in "community" hospitals. The objective of this nested observational study was to compare patient characteristics, outcomes, process-of-care variables, and trial metrics for patients enrolled in a large randomized controlled trial who were admitted to academic and community hospitals in Canada. DESIGN: We conducted a preplanned observational study nested within the Probiotics: Prevention of Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (PROSPECT, a randomized controlled trial comparing probiotics to placebo in mechanically ventilated patients) Research Program. SETTING: ICUs. PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated patients. MEASUREMENTS: We compared patient characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and trial metrics between patients enrolled in PROSPECT from academic and community hospitals. MAIN RESULTS: Participating centers included 34 (82.9%) academic and seven (17.1%) community hospitals, which enrolled 2,203 (86.2%) and 352 (13.8%) patients, respectively. Compared with academic hospitals, patients enrolled in community hospitals were older (mean [sd] 62.7 yr [14.9 yr] vs 59.5 yr [16.4 yr]; p = 0.044), had longer ICU stays (median [interquartile range {IQR}], 13 d [8-23 d] vs 11 d [7-8 d]; p = 0.012) and higher mortality (percentage, [95% CI] in the ICU, 30.4% [25.8-35.4%]vs 20.5% [18.9-11.3%]; p = 0.002) and hospital (40.6% [35.6-45.8%] vs 26.1% [24.3-27.9%]; p < 0.001). Trial metrics, including informed consent rate (85.9% vs 76.3%; p = 0.149), mean (sd) monthly enrolment rate (2.1 [1.4] vs 1.1 [0.7]; p = 0.119), and protocol adherence (90.6% vs 91.6%; p = 0.207), were similar between community and academic ICUs. CONCLUSIONS: Community hospitals can conduct high-quality research, with similar trial metrics to academic hospitals. Patient characteristics differed between community and academic hospitals, highlighting the need for broader engagement of community hospitals in clinical research to ensure generalizability of study results.

Prophylactic acid suppressants in patients with primary neurologic injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Neurocritical care patients are at risk of stress-induced gastrointestinal ulceration. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critically ill adults admitted with a primary neurologic injury. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SUP with histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) or proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to placebo/no prophylaxis, as well as to each other. The primary outcome was in-ICU gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). Predefined secondary outcomes were all-cause 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), nosocomial pneumonia, and other complications. RESULTS: We identified 14 relevant trials enrolling 1036 neurocritical care patients; 11 trials enrolling 930 patients were included in the meta-analysis. H2RAs resulted in a lower incidence of GIB as compared to placebo or no prophylaxis (Risk ratio [RR] 0.42, 95% CI 0.30-0.58; p < 0.001); PPIs with a lower risk of GIB compared to placebo/no prophylaxis (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23-0.59; p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in GIB comparing PPIs with H2RAs (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.26-1.06; p = 0.07; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: In neurocritical care patients, the overall high or unclear risk of bias of individual trials, the low event rates, and modest sample sizes preclude strong clinical inferences about the utility of SUP.

Monitoring and auditing protocol adherence, data integrity and ethical conduct of a randomized clinical trial: A case study.

PURPOSE: To categorize, quantify and interpret findings documented in feedback letters of monitoring or auditing visits for an investigator-initiated, peer-review funded multicenter randomized trial testing probiotics for critically ill patients. MATERIALS & METHODS: In 37 Canadian centers, monitoring and auditing visits were performed by 3 trained individuals; findings were reported in feedback letters. At trial termination, we performed duplicate content analysis on letters, categorizing observations first into unique findings, followed by 10 pre-determined trial quality management domains. We further classified each observation into a) missing operational records, b) errors in process, and potential threats to c) data integrity, d) patient privacy or e) safety. RESULTS: Across 37 monitoring or auditing visits, 75 unique findings were categorized into 10 domains. Most frequently, observations were in domains of training documentation (180/566 [32%]) and the informed consent process (133/566 [23%]). Most observations were missing operational records (438/566 [77%]) rather than errors in process (128/566 [23%]). Of 75 findings, 13 (62/566 observations [11%]) posed a potential threat to data integrity, 1 (1/566 observation [0.18%]) to patient privacy, and 9 (49/566 observations [8.7%]) to patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring and auditing findings predominantly concerned missing documentation with minimal threats to data integrity, patient privacy or safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPECT (Probiotics: Prevention of Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial): NCT02462590.

Effect of Probiotics on Incident Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Critically Ill Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Growing interest in microbial dysbiosis during critical illness has raised questions about the therapeutic potential of microbiome modification with probiotics. Prior randomized trials in this population suggest that probiotics reduce infection, particularly ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), although probiotic-associated infections have also been reported. Objective: To evaluate the effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG on preventing VAP, additional infections, and other clinically important outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized placebo-controlled trial in 44 ICUs in Canada, the United States, and Saudi Arabia enrolling adults predicted to require mechanical ventilation for at least 72 hours. A total of 2653 patients were enrolled from October 2013 to March 2019 (final follow-up, October 2020). Interventions: Enteral L rhamnosus GG (1 × 1010 colony-forming units) (n = 1321) or placebo (n = 1332) twice daily in the ICU. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was VAP determined by duplicate blinded central adjudication. Secondary outcomes were other ICU-acquired infections including Clostridioides difficile infection, diarrhea, antimicrobial use, ICU and hospital length of stay, and mortality. Results: Among 2653 randomized patients (mean age, 59.8 years [SD], 16.5 years), 2650 (99.9%) completed the trial (mean age, 59.8 years [SD], 16.5 years; 1063 women [40.1%.] with a mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 22.0 (SD, 7.8) and received the study product for a median of 9 days (IQR, 5-15 days). VAP developed among 289 of 1318 patients (21.9%) receiving probiotics vs 284 of 1332 controls (21.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.03 (95% CI, 0.87-1.22; P = .73, absolute difference, 0.6%, 95% CI, -2.5% to 3.7%). None of the 20 prespecified secondary outcomes, including other ICU-acquired infections, diarrhea, antimicrobial use, mortality, or length of stay showed a significant difference. Fifteen patients (1.1%) receiving probiotics vs 1 (0.1%) in the control group experienced the adverse event of L rhamnosus in a sterile site or the sole or predominant organism in a nonsterile site (odds ratio, 14.02; 95% CI, 1.79-109.58; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation, administration of the probiotic L rhamnosus GG compared with placebo, resulted in no significant difference in the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia. These findings do not support the use of L rhamnosus GG in critically ill patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02462590.

Scale-up and sustainability of a personalized end-of-life care intervention: a longitudinal mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Scaling-up and sustaining healthcare interventions can be challenging. Our objective was to describe how the 3 Wishes Project (3WP), a personalized end-of-life intervention, was scaled-up and sustained in an intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: In a longitudinal mixed-methods study from January 12,013 - December 31, 2018, dying patients and families were invited to participate if the probability of patient death was > 95% or after a decision to withdraw life support. A research team member or bedside clinician learned more about each of the patients and their family, then elicited and implemented at least 3 personalized wishes for patients and/or family members. We used a qualitative descriptive approach to analyze interviews and focus groups conducted with 25 clinicians who cared for the enrolled patients. We used descriptive statistics to summarize patient, wish, and clinician characteristics, and analyzed outcome data in quarters using Statistical Process Control charts. The primary outcome was enrollment of terminally ill patients and respective families; the secondary outcome was the number of wishes per patient; tertiary outcomes included wish features and stakeholder involvement. RESULTS: Both qualitative and quantitative analyses suggested a three-phase approach to the scale-up of this intervention during which 369 dying patients were enrolled, having 2039 terminal wishes implemented. From a research project to clinical program to an approach to practice, we documented a three-fold increase in enrolment with a five-fold increase in total wishes implemented, without a change in cost. Beginning as a study, the protocol provided structure; starting gradually enabled frontline staff to experience and recognize the value of acts of compassion for patients, families, and clinicians. The transition to a clinical program was marked by handover from the research staff to bedside staff, whereby project catalysts mentored project champions to create staff partnerships, and family engagement became more intentional. The final transition involved empowering staff to integrate the program as an approach to care, expanding it within and beyond the organization. CONCLUSIONS: The 3WP is an end-of-life intervention which was implemented as a study, scaled-up into a clinical program, and sustained by becoming integrated into practice as an approach to care.

Principles Guiding Nonpandemic Critical Care Research During a Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the importance of critical care clinical research that is not pandemic-focused during pandemic times; outline principles to assist in the prioritization of nonpandemic research during pandemic times; and propose a guiding framework for decisions about whether, when and how to continue nonpandemic research while still honoring the moral and scientific imperative to launch research that is pandemic-focused. DESIGN/DATA SOURCES: Using in-person, email, and videoconference exchanges, we convened an interprofessional clinical research group, conducted a literature review of empirical studies, ethics documents and expert commentaries (2010 to present), and viewed traditional and social media posts (March 2020 to May 2020). Stakeholder consultation involved scientific, ethics, clinical, and administrative leaders. SETTING: Clinical research in the ICU. PATIENTS: Patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: While clinical research should be prioritized to advantage patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in order to care for affected patients, it ideally would not unduly disadvantage patients without coronavirus disease 2019. Thus, timely, rigorous, relevant, and ethical clinical research is needed to improve the care and optimize outcomes for both patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019, acknowledging how many studies that are not exclusively focused on coronavirus disease 2019 remain relevant to patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Considerations to continue nonpandemic-focused research include the status of the pandemic, local jurisdictional guidance, capacity and safety of bedside and research personnel, disposition of patients already enrolled in nonpandemic studies, analyzing characteristics of each nonpandemic-focused study, research oversight, and final reporting requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Deliberation about continuing nonpandemic research should use objective, transparent criteria considering several aspects of the research process such as bedside and research staff safety, infection control, the informed consent model, protocol complexity, data collection, and implementation integrity. Decisions to pause or pursue nonpandemic research should be proportionate, transparent, and revisited as the pandemic abates.

Content analysis of bowel protocols for the management of constipation in adult critically ill patients.

PURPOSE: Alterations in bowel habits are common during critical illness, and bowel protocols are gaining acceptance. Our objective was to characterize bowel protocols in a cross-sectional analysis of ICUs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We engaged 44 adult ICUs and performed content analysis of bowel protocols, addressing initiation criteria, medications incorporated, medication escalation, discontinuation criteria, stool assessment methods, and protocol contraindications. RESULTS: Bowel protocols operated in 33/44 ICUs (79.5%). The commonest medications were senna (81.0%) and bisacodyl (75.6%). Less common agents were sodium phosphate (45.9%), glycerin (43.2%), docusate sodium (43.2%), polyethylene glycol 3350 (37.8%), lactulose (29.7%), sodium citrate (16.2%), milk of magnesia (13.5%) and mineral oil (16.2%). Bowel protocols were activated by nurses (62.8%) based on initiation criteria [no bowel movement for 24-96 h (35.1%), opioid use (18.9%), "at risk for constipation" (13.5%), stool on digital rectal exam (10.8%), feeding initiation (10.8%), and ICU admission (8.1%)]. Laxative escalation criteria included time from last bowel movement (59.4%), opioid use (18.9%) and no stool on digital rectal exam (10.8%), while 15 (40.5%) included diarrhea as a discontinuation criterion. CONCLUSIONS: Bowel protocols have variable initiation, escalation, and discontinuation criteria incorporating different classes of laxatives, reflecting unclear evidence about optimal bowel management strategies in ICU.

Motivators and Stressors for Canadian Research Coordinators in Critical Care: The MOTIVATE Survey.

BACKGROUND: Critical care research coordinators implement study protocols in intensive care units, yet little is known about their experiences. OBJECTIVE: To identify the responsibilities, stressors, motivators, and job satisfaction of critical care research coordinators in Canada. METHODS: Responses to a self-administered survey were collected in order to identify and understand factors that motivate and stress research coordinators and enhance their job satisfaction. Items were generated in 5 domains (demographics, job responsibilities, stressors, motivators, and satisfaction). Face validity pretesting was conducted and clinical sensibility was evaluated. Items were rated on 5-point Likert scales. Descriptive analyses were used to report results. RESULTS: The response rate was 78% (66 of 85). Most critical care research coordinators (71%) were employed full time; they were engaged in 9 studies (7 academic, 2 industry); and 49% were nurses. Of 30 work responsibilities, the most frequently cited were submitting ethics applications (89%), performing data entry (89%), and attending meetings (87%). Highest-rated stressors were unrealistic workload and weekend/holiday screening; highest-rated motivators were a positive work environment and team spirit. Overall, 26% were "very satisfied" and 53% were "satisfied" with their jobs. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care research coordinators in Canada indicate that, despite significant work responsibilities, they are satisfied with their jobs thanks to positive work environments and team spirit.

Evaluating probiotics for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a randomised placebo-controlled multicentre trial protocol and statistical analysis plan for PROSPECT.

INTRODUCTION: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is the most common healthcare-associated infection in critically ill patients. Prior studies suggest that probiotics may reduce VAP and other infections in critically ill patients; however, most previous randomised trials were small, single centre studies. The Probiotics: Prevention of Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (PROSPECT) aims to determine the impact of the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG on VAP and other clinically important outcomes in critically ill adults. METHODS: PROSPECT is a multicentre, concealed, randomised, stratified, blinded, controlled trial in patients ≥18 years old, anticipated to be mechanically ventilated ≥72 hours, in intensive care units (ICUs) in Canada, the USA and Saudi Arabia. Patients receive either 1×1010 colony forming units of L. rhamnosus GG twice daily or an identical appearing placebo. Those at increased risk of probiotic infection are excluded. The primary outcome is VAP. Secondary outcomes are other ICU-acquired infections including Clostridioides difficile infection, diarrhoea (including antibiotic-associated diarrhoea), antimicrobial use, ICU and hospital length of stay and mortality. The planned sample size of 2650 patients is based on an estimated 15% VAP rate and will provide 80% power to detect a 25% relative risk reduction. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol and statistical analysis plan outlines the methodology, primary and secondary analyses, sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses. PROSPECT is approved by Health Canada (#9427-M1133-45C), the research ethics boards of all participating hospitals and Public Health Ontario. Results will be disseminated via academic channels (peer reviewed journal publications, professional healthcare fora including international conferences) and conventional and social media. The results of PROSPECT will inform practice guidelines worldwide. TRIALREGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02462590; Pre-results.

Mortality Risk Profiles for Sepsis: A Novel Longitudinal and Multivariable Approach.

To determine if a set of time-varying biological indicators can be used to: 1) predict the sepsis mortality risk over time and 2) generate mortality risk profiles. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Nine Canadian ICUs. SUBJECTS: Three-hundred fifty-six septic patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Clinical data and plasma levels of biomarkers were collected longitudinally. We used a complementary log-log model to account for the daily mortality risk of each patient until death in ICU/hospital, discharge, or 28 days after admission. The model, which is a versatile version of the Cox model for gaining longitudinal insights, created a composite indicator (the daily hazard of dying) from the "day 1" and "change" variables of six time-varying biological indicators (cell-free DNA, protein C, platelet count, creatinine, Glasgow Coma Scale score, and lactate) and a set of contextual variables (age, presence of chronic lung disease or previous brain injury, and duration of stay), achieving a high predictive power (conventional area under the curve, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.94). Including change variables avoided misleading inferences about the effects of day 1 variables, signifying the importance of the longitudinal approach. We then generated mortality risk profiles that highlight the relative contributions among the time-varying biological indicators to overall mortality risk. The tool was validated in 28 nonseptic patients from the same ICUs who became septic later and was subject to 10-fold cross-validation, achieving similarly high area under the curve. CONCLUSIONS: Using a novel version of the Cox model, we created a prognostic tool for septic patients that yields not only a predicted probability of dying but also a mortality risk profile that reveals how six time-varying biological indicators differentially and longitudinally account for the patient's overall daily mortality risk.

Microbial dysbiosis and mortality during mechanical ventilation: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Host-associated microbial communities have important roles in tissue homeostasis and overall health. Severe perturbations can occur within these microbial communities during critical illness due to underlying diseases and clinical interventions, potentially influencing patient outcomes. We sought to profile the microbial composition of critically ill mechanically ventilated patients, and to determine whether microbial diversity is associated with illness severity and mortality. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study of mechanically ventilated critically ill patients with a high incidence of pneumonia in 2 intensive care units (ICUs) in Hamilton, Canada, nested within a randomized trial for the prevention of healthcare-associated infections. The microbial profiles of specimens from 3 anatomical sites (respiratory, and upper and lower gastrointestinal tracts) were characterized using 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing. RESULTS: We collected 65 specimens from 34 ICU patients enrolled in the trial (29 endotracheal aspirates, 26 gastric aspirates and 10 stool specimens). Specimens were collected at a median time of 3 days (lower respiratory tract and gastric aspirates; interquartile range [IQR] 2-4) and 6 days (stool; IQR 4.25-6.75) following ICU admission. We observed a loss of biogeographical distinction between the lower respiratory tract and gastrointestinal tract microbiota during critical illness. Moreover, microbial diversity in the respiratory tract was inversely correlated with APACHE II score (r = - 0.46, p = 0.013) and was associated with hospital mortality (Median Shannon index: Discharged alive; 1.964 vs. Deceased; 1.348, p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: The composition of the host-associated microbial communities is severely perturbed during critical illness. Reduced microbial diversity reflects high illness severity and is associated with mortality. Microbial diversity may be a biomarker of prognostic value in mechanically ventilated patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01782755 . Registered February 4 2013.