Alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B Trial): protocol for a multicentre phase 3 pragmatic clinical and cost-effectiveness randomised trial in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Almost all patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) in intensive care units (ICUs) require analgesia and sedation. The most widely used sedative drug is propofol, but there is uncertainty whether alpha2-agonists are superior. The alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B) trial aims to determine whether clonidine or dexmedetomidine (or both) are clinically and cost-effective in MV ICU patients compared with usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Adult ICU patients within 48 hours of starting MV, expected to require at least 24 hours further MV, are randomised in an open-label three arm trial to receive propofol (usual care) or clonidine or dexmedetomidine as primary sedative, plus analgesia according to local practice. Exclusions include patients with primary brain injury; postcardiac arrest; other neurological conditions; or bradycardia. Unless clinically contraindicated, sedation is titrated using weight-based dosing guidance to achieve a Richmond-Agitation-Sedation score of -2 or greater as early as considered safe by clinicians. The primary outcome is time to successful extubation. Secondary ICU outcomes include delirium and coma incidence/duration, sedation quality, predefined adverse events, mortality and ICU length of stay. Post-ICU outcomes include mortality, anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress, cognitive function and health-related quality of life at 6-month follow-up. A process evaluation and health economic evaluation are embedded in the trial.The analytic framework uses a hierarchical approach to maximise efficiency and control type I error. Stage 1 tests whether each alpha2-agonist is superior to propofol. If either/both interventions are superior, stages 2 and 3 testing explores which alpha2-agonist is more effective. To detect a mean difference of 2 days in MV duration, we aim to recruit 1437 patients (479 per group) in 40-50 UK ICUs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Scotland A REC approved the trial (18/SS/0085). We use a surrogate decision-maker or deferred consent model consistent with UK law. Dissemination will be via publications, presentations and updated guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03653832.

Multicentre open label randomised controlled trial of immediate enhanced ambulatory ECG monitoring versus standard monitoring in acute unexplained syncope patients: the ASPIRED study.

INTRODUCTION: Diagnosing underlying arrhythmia in emergency department (ED) syncope patients is difficult. There is a evidence that diagnostic yield for detecting underlying arrhythmia is highest when cardiac monitoring devices are applied early, ideally at the index visit. This strategy has the potential to change current syncope management from low diagnostic yield Holter to higher yield ambulatory monitoring, reduce episodes of syncope, reduce risk of recurrence and its potential serious consequences, reduce hospital admissions, reduce overall health costs and increase quality of life by allowing earlier diagnosis, treatment and exclusion of clinically important arrhythmias. METHODS AND ANALYSES: This is a UK open prospective parallel group multicentre randomised controlled trial of an immediate 14-day ambulatory patch heart monitor vs standard care in 2234 patients presenting acutely with unexplained syncope. Our patient focused primary endpoint will be number of episodes of syncope at 1 year. Health economic evaluation will estimate the incremental cost per syncope episode avoided and quality-adjusted life year gained. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Informed consent for participation will be sought. The ASPIRED trial received a favourable ethical opinion from South East Scotland Research Ethics Committee 01 (21/SS/0073). Results will be disseminated via scientific publication, lay summary and visual abstract. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 10278811.

Duration of External Neck Stabilisation (DENS) following odontoid fracture in older or frail adults: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of collar versus no collar.

INTRODUCTION: Fractures of the odontoid process frequently result from low impact falls in frail or older adults. These are increasing in incidence and importance as the population ages. In the UK, odontoid fractures in older adults are usually managed in hard collars to immobilise the fracture and promote bony healing. However, bony healing does not always occur in older adults, and bony healing is not associated with quality of life, functional, or pain outcomes. Further, hard collars can cause complications such as skin pressure ulcers, swallowing difficulties and difficulties with personal care. We hypothesise that management with no immobilisation may be superior to management in a hard collar for older or frail adults with odontoid fractures. METHODS AND ANALYSES: This is the protocol for the Duration of External Neck Stabilisation (DENS) trial-a non-blinded randomised controlled trial comparing management in a hard collar with management without a collar for older (≥65 years) or frail (Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale ≥5) adults with a new odontoid fracture. 887 neurologically intact participants with any odontoid process fracture type will be randomised to continuing with a hard collar (standard care) or removal of the collar (intervention). The primary outcome is quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-5L at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes include pain scores, neck disability index, health and social care use and costs, and mortality. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Informed consent for participation will be sought from those able to provide it. We will also include those who lack capacity to ensure representativeness of frail and acutely unwell older adults. Results will be disseminated via scientific publication, lay summary, and visual abstract. The DENS trial received a favourable ethical opinion from the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (21/SS/0036) and the Leeds West Research Ethics Committee (21/YH/0141). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04895644.

Study protocol for resolution of organ injury in acute pancreatitis (RESORP): an observational prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Survivors of acute pancreatitis (AP) have shorter overall survival and increased incidence of new-onset cardiovascular, respiratory, liver and renal disease, diabetes mellitus and cancer compared with the general population, but the mechanisms that explain this are yet to be elucidated. Our aim is to characterise the precise nature and extent of organ dysfunction following an episode of AP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an observational prospective cohort study in a single centre comprising a University hospital with an acute and emergency receiving unit and clinical research facility. Participants will be adult patient admitted with AP. Participants will undergo assessment at recruitment, 3 months and 3 years. At each time point, multiple biochemical and/or physiological assessments to measure cardiovascular, respiratory, liver, renal and cognitive function, diabetes mellitus and quality of life. Recruitment was from 30 November 2017 to 31 May 2020; last follow-up measurements is due on 31 May 2023. The primary outcome measure is the incidence of new-onset type 3c diabetes mellitus during follow-up. Secondary outcome measures include: quality of life analyses (SF-36, Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index); montreal cognitive assessment; organ system physiological performance; multiomics predictors of AP severity, detection of premature cellular senescence. In a nested cohort within the main cohort, individuals may also consent to multiparameter MRI scan, echocardiography, pulmonary function testing, cardiopulmonary exercise testing and pulse-wave analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received the following approvals: UK IRAS Number 178615; South-east Scotland Research Ethics Committee number 16/SS/0065. Results will be made available to AP survivors, caregivers, funders and other researchers. Publications will be open-access. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03342716) and ISRCTN50581876; Pre-results.

The 4 'A's test for detecting delirium in acute medical patients: a diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common and serious neuropsychiatric syndrome, usually triggered by illness or drugs. It remains underdetected. One reason for this is a lack of brief, pragmatic assessment tools. The 4 'A's test (Arousal, Attention, Abbreviated Mental Test - 4, Acute change) (4AT) is a screening tool designed for routine use. This project evaluated its usability, diagnostic accuracy and cost. METHODS: Phase 1 - the usability of the 4AT in routine practice was measured with two surveys and two qualitative studies of health-care professionals, and a review of current clinical use of the 4AT as well as its presence in guidelines and reports. Phase 2 - the 4AT's diagnostic accuracy was assessed in newly admitted acute medical patients aged ≥ 70 years. Its performance was compared with that of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM; a longer screening tool). The performance of individual 4AT test items was related to cognitive status, length of stay, new institutionalisation, mortality at 12 weeks and outcomes. The method used was a prospective, double-blind diagnostic test accuracy study in emergency departments or in acute general medical wards in three UK sites. Each patient underwent a reference standard delirium assessment and was also randomised to receive an assessment with either the 4AT (n = 421) or the CAM (n = 420). A health economics analysis was also conducted. RESULTS: Phase 1 found evidence that delirium awareness is increasing, but also that there is a need for education on delirium in general and on the 4AT in particular. Most users reported that the 4AT was useful, and it was in widespread use both in the UK and beyond. No changes to the 4AT were considered necessary. Phase 2 involved 785 individuals who had data for analysis; their mean age was 81.4 (standard deviation 6.4) years, 45% were male, 99% were white and 9% had a known dementia diagnosis. The 4AT (n = 392) had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90. A positive 4AT score (> 3) had a specificity of 95% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92% to 97%] and a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 61% to 87%) for reference standard delirium. The CAM (n = 382) had a specificity of 100% (95% CI 98% to 100%) and a sensitivity of 40% (95% CI 26% to 57%) in the subset of participants whom it was possible to assess using this. Patients with positive 4AT scores had longer lengths of stay (median 5 days, interquartile range 2.0-14.0 days) than did those with negative 4AT scores (median 2 days, interquartile range 1.0-6.0 days), and they had a higher 12-week mortality rate (16.1% and 9.2%, respectively). The estimated 12-week costs of an initial inpatient stay for patients with delirium were more than double the costs of an inpatient stay for patients without delirium (e.g. in Scotland, £7559, 95% CI £7362 to £7755, vs. £4215, 95% CI £4175 to £4254). The estimated cost of false-positive cases was £4653, of false-negative cases was £8956, and of a missed diagnosis was £2067. LIMITATIONS: Patients were aged ≥ 70 years and were assessed soon after they were admitted, limiting generalisability. The treatment of patients in accordance with reference standard diagnosis limited the ability to assess comparative cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the use of the 4AT as a rapid delirium assessment instrument. The 4AT has acceptable diagnostic accuracy for acute older patients aged > 70 years. FUTURE WORK: Further research should address the real-world implementation of delirium assessment. The 4AT should be tested in other populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN53388093. 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. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The funder specified that any new delirium assessment tool should be compared against the CAM, but had no other role in the study design or conduct of the study.

Delirium is the sudden onset of confusion that can happen when someone is unwell. It is common in older people who go into hospital, and it is upsetting for both the patients and their families. Delirium is important to diagnose, because people with delirium do less well than those without, and it is often treatable. The ideal way to diagnose delirium is with a full assessment by a specialist, but this is expensive and time-consuming. We therefore developed a short test called the 4 'A's Test (4AT). The four 'A's stand for Arousal, Attention, Abbreviated Mental Test ­ 4, and Acute change. First, we interviewed hospital staff about delirium and the 4AT. We found that the 4AT was already widely used and that people found it easy to use. We then tested how the 4AT performed in practice. A total of 785 recently admitted patients aged ≥ 70 years participated, of whom around one in eight had delirium. A researcher carried out the full standard delirium assessment on each patient and then a different researcher carried out the 4AT. A normal 4AT score reliably ruled out delirium. An abnormal score was also reasonably effective in detecting delirium, but staff still needed to follow up such patients with a full assessment. People with higher 4AT scores stayed in hospital longer and were more likely to die, and their treatment was more expensive. We conclude that the 4AT is a useful test to rule out delirium or to see if more detailed testing is required. It could help treat patients correctly and quickly. This would save money and improve outcomes.

Delirium detection in older acute medical inpatients: a multicentre prospective comparative diagnostic test accuracy study of the 4AT and the confusion assessment method.

BACKGROUND: Delirium affects > 15% of hospitalised patients but is grossly underdetected, contributing to poor care. The 4 'A's Test (4AT, www.the4AT.com ) is a short delirium assessment tool designed for routine use without special training. The primary objective was to assess the accuracy of the 4AT for delirium detection. The secondary objective was to compare the 4AT with another commonly used delirium assessment tool, the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). METHODS: This was a prospective diagnostic test accuracy study set in emergency departments or acute medical wards involving acute medical patients aged ≥ 70. All those without acutely life-threatening illness or coma were eligible. Patients underwent (1) reference standard delirium assessment based on DSM-IV criteria and (2) were randomised to either the index test (4AT, scores 0-12; prespecified score of > 3 considered positive) or the comparator (CAM; scored positive or negative), in a random order, using computer-generated pseudo-random numbers, stratified by study site, with block allocation. Reference standard and 4AT or CAM assessments were performed by pairs of independent raters blinded to the results of the other assessment. RESULTS: Eight hundred forty-three individuals were randomised: 21 withdrew, 3 lost contact, 32 indeterminate diagnosis, 2 missing outcome, and 785 were included in the analysis. Mean age was 81.4 (SD 6.4) years. 12.1% (95/785) had delirium by reference standard assessment, 14.3% (56/392) by 4AT, and 4.7% (18/384) by CAM. The 4AT had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.96). The 4AT had a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 61-87%) and a specificity of 94% (95% CI 92-97%). The CAM had a sensitivity of 40% (95% CI 26-57%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI 98-100%). CONCLUSIONS: The 4AT is a short, pragmatic tool which can help improving detection rates of delirium in routine clinical care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International standard randomised controlled trial number (ISRCTN) 53388093 . Date applied 30/05/2014; date assigned 02/06/2014.

Tolerability, safety and intermediary pharmacological effects of cilostazol and isosorbide mononitrate, alone and combined, in patients with lacunar ischaemic stroke: The LACunar Intervention-1 (LACI-1) trial, a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Lacunar stroke, a frequent clinical manifestation of small vessel disease (SVD), differs pathologically from other ischaemic stroke subtypes and has no specific long-term secondary prevention. Licenced drugs, isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) and cilostazol, have relevant actions to prevent SVD progression. METHODS: We recruited independent patients with clinically confirmed lacunar ischaemic stroke without cognitive impairment to a prospective randomised clinical trial, LACunar Intervention-1 (LACI-1). We randomised patients using a central web-based system, 1:1:1:1 with minimisation, to masked ISMN 25 mg bd, cilostazol 100 mg bd, both ISMN and cilostazol started immediately, or both with start delayed. We escalated doses to target over two weeks, sustained for eight weeks. Primary outcome was the proportion achieving target dose. Secondary outcomes included symptoms, safety (haemorrhage, recurrent vascular events), cognition, haematology, vascular function, and neuroimaging. LACI-1 was powered (80%, alpha 0.05) to detect 35% (90% versus 55%) difference between the proportion reaching target dose on one versus both drugs at 55 patients. Registration ISRCTN12580546. FINDINGS: LACI-1 enrolled 57 participants between March 2016 and August 2017: 18 (32%) females, mean age 66 (SD 11, range 40-85) years, onset-randomisation 203 (range 6-920) days. Most achieved full (64%) or over half (87%) dose, with no difference between cilostazol vs ISMN, single vs dual drugs. Headache and palpitations increased initially then declined similarly with dual versus single drugs. There was no between-group difference in BP, pulse-wave velocity, haemoglobin or platelet function, but pulse rate was higher (mean difference, MD, 6.4, 95%CI 1.2-11.7, p = 0.02), platelet count higher (MD 35.7, 95%CI 2.8, 68.7, p = 0.03) and white matter hyperintensities reduced more (Chi-square p = 0.007) with cilostazol versus no cilostazol. INTERPRETATION: Cilostazol and ISMN are well tolerated when the dose is escalated, without safety concerns, in patients with lacunar stroke. Larger trials with longer term follow-up are justified. FUNDING: Alzheimer's Society (AS-PG-14-033).

Protocol for validation of the 4AT, a rapid screening tool for delirium: a multicentre prospective diagnostic test accuracy study.

INTRODUCTION: Delirium is a severe neuropsychiatric syndrome of rapid onset, commonly precipitated by acute illness. It is common in older people in the emergency department (ED) and acute hospital, but greatly under-recognised in these and other settings. Delirium and other forms of cognitive impairment, particularly dementia, commonly coexist. There is a need for a rapid delirium screening tool that can be administered by a range of professional-level healthcare staff to patients with sensory or functional impairments in a busy clinical environment, which also incorporates general cognitive assessment. We developed the 4 'A's Test (4AT) for this purpose. This study's primary objective is to validate the 4AT against a reference standard. Secondary objectives include (1) comparing the 4AT with another widely used test (the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM)); (2) determining if the 4AT is sensitive to general cognitive impairment; (3) assessing if 4AT scores predict outcomes, including (4) a health economic analysis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 900 patients aged 70 or over in EDs or acute general medical wards will be recruited in three sites (Edinburgh, Bradford and Sheffield) over 18 months. Each patient will undergo a reference standard delirium assessment and will be randomised to assessment with either the 4AT or the CAM. At 12 weeks, outcomes (length of stay, institutionalisation and mortality) and resource utilisation will be collected by a questionnaire and via the electronic patient record. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted in Scotland and England. The study involves administering tests commonly used in clinical practice. The main ethical issues are the essential recruitment of people without capacity. Dissemination is planned via publication in high impact journals, presentation at conferences, social media and the website www.the4AT.com. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN53388093; Pre-results.

Preventing cognitive decline and dementia from cerebral small vessel disease: The LACI-1 Trial. Protocol and statistical analysis plan of a phase IIa dose escalation trial testing tolerability, safety and effect on intermediary endpoints of isosorbide mononitrate and cilostazol, separately and in combination.

Rationale The pathophysiology of most lacunar stroke, a form of small vessel disease, is thought to differ from large artery atherothrombo- or cardio-embolic stroke. Licensed drugs, isosorbide mononitrate and cilostazol, have promising mechanisms of action to support their testing to prevent stroke recurrence, cognitive impairment, or radiological progression after lacunar stroke. Aim LACI-1 will assess the tolerability, safety, and efficacy, by dose, of isosorbide mononitrate and cilostazol, alone and in combination, in patients with ischemic lacunar stroke. Sample size A sample of 60 provides 80+% power (significance 0.05) to detect a difference of 35% (90% versus 55%) between those reaching target dose on one versus both drugs. Methods and design LACI-1 is a phase IIa partial factorial, dose-escalation, prospective, randomized, open label, blinded endpoint trial. Participants are randomized to isosorbide mononitrate and/or cilostazol for 11 weeks with dose escalation to target as tolerated in two centers (Edinburgh, Nottingham). At three visits, tolerability, safety, blood pressure, pulse wave velocity, and platelet function are assessed, plus magnetic resonance imaging to assess cerebrovascular reactivity in a subgroup. Study outcomes Primary: proportion of patients completing study achieving target maximum dose. Secondary symptoms whilst taking medications; safety (hemorrhage, recurrent vascular events, falls); blood pressure, platelet function, arterial stiffness, and cerebrovascular reactivity. Discussion This study will inform the design of a larger phase III trial of isosorbide mononitrate and cilostazol in lacunar stroke, whilst providing data on the drugs' effects on vascular and platelet function. Trial registration ISRCTN (ISRCTN12580546) and EudraCT (2015-001953-33).

The Age of BLood Evaluation (ABLE) randomised controlled trial: description of the UK-funded arm of the international trial, the UK cost-utility analysis and secondary analyses exploring factors associated with health-related quality of life and health-care costs during the 12-month follow-up.

BACKGROUND: At present, red blood cells (RBCs) are stored for up to 42 days prior to transfusion. The relative effectiveness and safety of different RBC storage times prior to transfusion is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of transfusing fresher RBCs (stored for ≤ 7 days) compared with current standard-aged RBCs in critically ill patients requiring blood transfusions. DESIGN: The international Age of BLood Evaluation (ABLE) trial was a multicentre, randomised, blinded trial undertaken in Canada, the UK, the Netherlands and France. The UK trial was funded to contribute patients to the international trial and undertake a UK-specific health economic evaluation. SETTING: Twenty intensive care units (ICUs) in the UK, as part of 64 international centres. PARTICIPANTS: Critically ill patients aged ≥ 18 years (≥ 16 years in Scotland) expected to require mechanical ventilation for ≥ 48 hours and requiring a first RBC transfusion during the first 7 days in the ICU. INTERVENTIONS: All decisions to transfuse RBCs were made by clinicians. One patient group received exclusively fresh RBCs stored for ≤ 7 days whenever transfusion was required from randomisation until hospital discharge. The other group received standard-issue RBCs throughout their hospital stay. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included development of organ dysfunction, new thrombosis, infections and transfusion reactions. The primary economic evaluation was a cost-utility analysis. RESULTS: The international trial took place between March 2009 and October 2014 (UK recruitment took place between January 2012 and October 2014). In total, 1211 patients were assigned to receive fresh blood and 1219 patients to receive standard-aged blood. RBCs were stored for a mean of 6.1 days [standard deviation (SD) ± 4.9 days] in the group allocated to receive fresh blood and 22.0 days (SD ± 8.4 days) in the group allocated to receive standard-aged blood. Patients received a mean of 4.3 RBC units (SD ± 5.2 RBC units) and 4.3 RBC units (SD ± 5.5 RBC units) in the groups receiving fresh blood and standard-aged blood, respectively. At 90 days, 37.0% of patients in the group allocated to receive fresh blood and 35.3% of patients in the group allocated to receive standard-aged blood had died {absolute risk difference 1.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.1% to 5.5%]}. There were no between-group differences in any secondary outcomes. The UK cohort comprised 359 patients randomised and followed up for 12 months for the cost-utility analysis. UK patients had similar characteristics and outcomes to the international cohort. Mean total costs per patient were £32,346 (95% CI £29,306 to £35,385) in the group allocated to receive fresh blood and £33,353 (95% CI £29,729 to £36,978) in the group allocated to receive standard-aged blood. Approximately 85% of the total costs were incurred during the index hospital admission. There were no significant cost differences between the two groups [mean incremental costs for those receiving fresh vs. standard-aged blood: -£231 (95% CI -£4876 to £4415)], nor were there significant differences in outcomes (mean difference in quality-adjusted life-years -0.010, 95% CI -0.078 to 0.057). LIMITATIONS: Adverse effects from the exclusive use of older RBCs compared with standard or fresh RBCs cannot be excluded. CONCLUSIONS: The use of RBCs aged ≤ 7 days confers no clinical or economic benefit in critically ill patients compared with standard-aged RBCs. FUTURE WORK: Future studies should address the safety of RBCs near the end of the current permitted storage age. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN44878718. 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. 21, No. 62. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The international ABLE trial was also supported by peer-reviewed grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (177453), Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé (24460), the French Ministry of Health Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique (12.07, 2011) and by funding from Établissement Français du Sang and Sanquin Blood Supply.

Increased Hospital-Based Physical Rehabilitation and Information Provision After Intensive Care Unit Discharge: The RECOVER Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Critical illness results in disability and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQOL), but the optimum timing and components of rehabilitation are uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of increasing physical and nutritional rehabilitation plus information delivered during the post-intensive care unit (ICU) acute hospital stay by dedicated rehabilitation assistants on subsequent mobility, HRQOL, and prevalent disabilities. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A parallel group, randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment at 2 hospitals in Edinburgh, Scotland, of 240 patients discharged from the ICU between December 1, 2010, and January 31, 2013, who required at least 48 hours of mechanical ventilation. Analysis for the primary outcome and other 3-month outcomes was performed between June and August 2013; for the 6- and 12-month outcomes and the health economic evaluation, between March and April 2014. INTERVENTIONS: During the post-ICU hospital stay, both groups received physiotherapy and dietetic, occupational, and speech/language therapy, but patients in the intervention group received rehabilitation that typically increased the frequency of mobility and exercise therapies 2- to 3-fold, increased dietetic assessment and treatment, used individualized goal setting, and provided greater illness-specific information. Intervention group therapy was coordinated and delivered by a dedicated rehabilitation practitioner. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) (range 0-15) at 3 months; higher scores indicate greater mobility. Secondary outcomes included HRQOL, psychological outcomes, self-reported symptoms, patient experience, and cost-effectiveness during a 12-month follow-up (completed in February 2014). RESULTS: Median RMI at randomization was 3 (interquartile range [IQR], 1-6) and at 3 months was 13 (IQR, 10-14) for the intervention and usual care groups (mean difference, -0.2 [95% CI, -1.3 to 0.9; P = .71]). The HRQOL scores were unchanged by the intervention (mean difference in the Physical Component Summary score, -0.1 [95% CI, -3.3 to 3.1; P = .96]; and in the Mental Component Summary score, 0.2 [95% CI, -3.4 to 3.8; P = .91]). No differences were found for self-reported symptoms of fatigue, pain, appetite, joint stiffness, or breathlessness. Levels of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress were similar, as were hand grip strength and the timed Up & Go test. No differences were found at the 6- or 12-month follow-up for any outcome measures. However, patients in the intervention group reported greater satisfaction with physiotherapy, nutritional support, coordination of care, and information provision. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Post-ICU hospital-based rehabilitation, including increased physical and nutritional therapy plus information provision, did not improve physical recovery or HRQOL, but improved patient satisfaction with many aspects of recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.com Identifier: ISRCTN09412438.

Restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies for older mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a randomized pilot trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare hemoglobin concentration (Hb), RBC use, and patient outcomes when restrictive or liberal blood transfusion strategies are used to treat anemic (Hb≤90 g/L) critically ill patients of age≥55 years requiring≥4 days of mechanical ventilation in ICU. DESIGN: Parallel-group randomized multicenter pilot trial. SETTING: Six ICUs in the United Kingdom participated between August 2009 and December 2010. PATIENTS: One hundred patients (51 restrictive and 49 liberal groups). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to a restrictive (Hb trigger, 70 g/L; target, 71-90 g/L) or liberal (90 g/L; target, 91-110 g/L) transfusion strategy for 14 days or the remainder of ICU stay, whichever was longest. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Baseline comorbidity rates and illness severity were high, notably for ischemic heart disease (32%). The Hb difference among groups was 13.8 g/L (95% CI, 11.5-16.0 g/L); p<0.0001); mean Hb during intervention was 81.9 (SD, 5.1) versus 95.7 (6.3) g/L; 21.6% fewer patients in the restrictive group were transfused postrandomization (p<0.001) and received a median 1 (95% CI, 1-2; p=0.002) fewer RBC units. Protocol compliance was high. No major differences in organ dysfunction, duration of ventilation, infections, or cardiovascular complications were observed during intensive care and hospital follow-up. Mortality at 180 days postrandomization trended toward higher rates in the liberal group (55%) than in the restrictive group (37%); relative risk was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.44-1.05; p=0.073). This trend remained in a survival model adjusted for age, gender, ischemic heart disease, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, and total non-neurologic Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score at baseline (hazard ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.28-1.03]; p=0.061). CONCLUSIONS: A large trial of transfusion strategies in older mechanically ventilated patients is feasible. This pilot trial found a nonsignificant trend toward lower mortality with restrictive transfusion practice.

A randomised controlled trial evaluating a rehabilitation complex intervention for patients following intensive care discharge: the RECOVER study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients who survive an intensive care unit admission frequently suffer physical and psychological morbidity for many months after discharge. Current rehabilitation pathways are often fragmented and little is known about the optimum method of promoting recovery. Many patients suffer reduced quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The authors plan a multicentre randomised parallel group complex intervention trial with concealment of group allocation from outcome assessors. Patients who required more than 48 h of mechanical ventilation and are deemed fit for intensive care unit discharge will be eligible. Patients with primary neurological diagnoses will be excluded. Participants will be randomised into one of the two groups: the intervention group will receive standard ward-based care delivered by the NHS service with additional treatment by a specifically trained generic rehabilitation assistant during ward stay and via telephone contact after hospital discharge and the control group will receive standard ward-based care delivered by the current NHS service. The intervention group will also receive additional information about their critical illness and access to a critical care physician. The total duration of the intervention will be from randomisation to 3 months postrandomisation. The total duration of follow-up will be 12 months from randomisation for both groups. The primary outcome will be the Rivermead Mobility Index at 3 months. Secondary outcomes will include measures of physical and psychological morbidity and function, quality of life and survival over a 12-month period. A health economic evaluation will also be undertaken. Groups will be compared in relation to primary and secondary outcomes; quantitative analyses will be supplemented by focus groups with patients, carers and healthcare workers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Consent will be obtained from patients and relatives according to patient capacity. Data will be analysed according to a predefined analysis plan. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered as ISRCTN09412438 and funded by the Chief Scientist Office, Scotland.