Teaching team competencies within resuscitation training: A systematic review.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of life support training with specific emphasis on team competencies on clinical and educational outcomes. Methods: This systematic review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42023473154) and followed the PICOST (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design, timeframe) format. All randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies evaluating learners undertaking life support training with specific emphasis on team competencies in any setting (actual and simulated resuscitations) were included. Unpublished studies were excluded. Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases as well as trial registries were searched from inception to August 2023 (updated January 18, 2024). Two researchers performed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias (using RoB2 and ROBINS-I) and certainty of evidence (using GRADE). PRISMA reporting checklist was used to report the results. No funding was obtained to perform this systematic review. Results: The literature search identified 5470 manuscripts. After the removal of 2073 duplicates, reviewing the remaining articles' titles and abstracts yielded 31 articles for full-text review. Of these, 17 studies were finally included. The studies involved the following training levels: basic life support, adult advanced life support, paediatric and neonatal resuscitations. Most studies (n = 16) evaluated outcomes in simulated, and only one study in actual resuscitations. Studies included in all training contexts showed either neutrality and/or benefits of life support training with specific emphasis on team competencies. Team competencies training improved CPR skill performance and CPR quality. Specific team competencies that improved included leadership, communication, decision-making and task management. No undesirable effects were observed. Meta-analysis was not possible due to significant methodological heterogeneity. Sub-group analysis was impossible due to lack of data. Risk of bias assessment ranged from some concerns to serious. Overall certainty of evidence was rated as low to very low due to risk of bias and imprecision. Conclusion: This systematic review identified very low and low certainty evidence, almost entirely derived from simulation studies. The studies and their findings were heterogenous but suggest that teaching team competencies can improve resuscitation skills performance and CPR quality, as well as improve team competencies, specifically leadership, communication, decision-making, and task management. Further research is required to understand optimal configuration of team competencies training interventions and to understand the effect on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Volatile vs Total intravenous Anaesthesia for major non-cardiac surgery: a pragmatic randomised triaL (VITAL).

BACKGROUND: Improving outcomes after surgery is a major public health research priority for patients, clinicians and the NHS. The greatest burden of perioperative complications, mortality and healthcare costs lies amongst the population of patients aged over 50 years who undergo major non-cardiac surgery. The Volatile vs Total Intravenous Anaesthesia for major non-cardiac surgery (VITAL) trial specifically examines the effect of anaesthetic technique on key patient outcomes: quality of recovery after surgery (quality of recovery after anaesthesia, patient satisfaction and major post-operative complications), survival and patient safety. METHODS: A multi-centre pragmatic efficient randomised trial with health economic evaluation comparing total intravenous anaesthesia with volatile-based anaesthesia in adults (aged 50 and over) undergoing elective major non-cardiac surgery under general anaesthesia. DISCUSSION: Given the very large number of patients exposed to general anaesthesia every year, even small differences in outcome between the two techniques could result in substantial excess harm. Results from the VITAL trial will ensure patients can benefit from the very safest anaesthesia care, promoting an early return home, reducing healthcare costs and maximising the health benefits of surgical treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN62903453. September 09, 2021.

Clinical effectiveness of an online supervised group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme for adults with post-covid-19 condition (REGAIN study): multicentre randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a structured online supervised group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme can improve health related quality of life compared with usual care in adults with post-covid-19 condition (long covid). DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, superiority randomised controlled trial. SETTING: England and Wales, with home based interventions delivered remotely online from a single trial hub. PARTICIPANTS: 585 adults (26-86 years) discharged from NHS hospitals at least three months previously after covid-19 and with ongoing physical and/or mental health sequelae (post-covid-19 condition), randomised (1:1.03) to receive the Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN (REGAIN) intervention (n=298) or usual care (n=287). INTERVENTIONS: Best practice usual care was a single online session of advice and support with a trained practitioner. The REGAIN intervention was delivered online over eight weeks and consisted of weekly home based, live, supervised, group exercise and psychological support sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was health related quality of life using the patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) preference (PROPr) score at three months. Secondary outcomes, measured at three, six, and 12 months, included PROMIS subscores (depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain interference, physical function, social roles/activities, and cognitive function), severity of post-traumatic stress disorder, general health, and adverse events. RESULTS: Between January 2021 and July 2022, 39 697 people were invited to take part in the study and 725 were contacted and eligible. 585 participants were randomised. Mean age was 56 (standard deviation (SD) 12) years, 52% were female participants, mean health related quality of life PROMIS-PROPr score was 0.20 (SD 0.17), and mean time from hospital discharge was 323 (SD 144) days. Compared with usual care, the REGAIN intervention led to improvements in health related quality of life (adjusted mean difference in PROPr score 0.03 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.05), P=0.02) at three months, driven predominantly by greater improvements in the PROMIS subscores for depression (1.39 (0.06 to 2.71), P=0.04), fatigue (2.50 (1.19 to 3.81), P<0.001), and pain interference (1.80 (0.50 to 3.11), P=0.01). Effects were sustained at 12 months (0.03 (0.01 to 0.06), P=0.02). Of 21 serious adverse events, only one was possibly related to the REGAIN intervention. In the intervention group, 141 (47%) participants fully adhered to the programme, 117 (39%) partially adhered, and 40 (13%) did not receive the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with post-covid-19 condition, an online, home based, supervised, group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme was clinically effective at improving health related quality of life at three and 12 months compared with usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN11466448.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of thoracic epidural and paravertebral blockade in reducing chronic post-thoracotomy pain: 2 (TOPIC 2).

BACKGROUND: Thoracotomy is considered one of the most painful surgical procedures and can cause debilitating chronic post-surgical pain lasting months or years postoperatively. Aggressive management of acute pain resulting from thoracotomy may reduce the likelihood of developing chronic pain. This trial compares the two most commonly used modes of acute analgesia provision at the time of thoracotomy (thoracic epidural blockade (TEB) and paravertebral blockade (PVB)) in terms of their clinical and cost-effectiveness in preventing chronic post-thoracotomy pain. METHODS: TOPIC 2 is a multi-centre, open-label, parallel group, superiority, randomised controlled trial, with an internal pilot investigating the use of TEB and PVB in 1026 adult (≥ 18 years old) patients undergoing thoracotomy in up to 20 thoracic centres throughout the UK. Patients (N = 1026) will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either TEB or PVB. During the first year, the trial will include an integrated QuinteT (Qualitative Research Integrated into Trials) Recruitment Intervention (QRI) with the aim of optimising recruitment and informed consent. The primary outcome is the incidence of chronic post-surgical pain at 6 months post-randomisation defined as 'worst chest pain over the last week' equating to a visual analogue score greater than or equal to 40 mm indicating at least a moderate level of pain. Secondary outcomes include acute pain, complications of regional analgesia and surgery, health-related quality of life, mortality and a health economic analysis. DISCUSSION: Both TEB and PVB have been demonstrated to be effective in the prevention of acute pain following thoracotomy and nationally practice is divided. Identification of which mode of analgesia is both clinically and cost-effective in preventing chronic post-thoracotomy pain could ameliorate the debilitating effects of chronic pain, improving health-related quality of life, facilitating return to work and caring responsibilities and resulting in a cost saving to the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03677856 [ClinicalTrials.gov] registered September 19, 2018. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03677856 . First patient recruited 8 January 2019.

Development of an online intervention for the Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN (REGAIN) trial.

Background: Up to half of people hospitalised with COVID-19 report diverse and persistent symptoms affecting quality of life for months and sometimes years after discharge (long-COVID). We describe the development of an online group exercise and behavioural support intervention for people who continue to experience such physical and/or emotional health problems more than three months after hospital discharge. Methods: Intervention development was informed by the Medical Research Council framework for complex interventions. Our multidisciplinary team of academics, clinicians, and people with long-COVID, had collective expertise in the development and testing of complex interventions. We integrated a bio-psycho-social model of care drawing on rehabilitation literature for long-term health conditions and experiences from our pre-pilot study. Multiple stakeholder meetings were held to refine the intervention which was designed to be deliverable within the UK National Health Service. We adhere to TIDieR guidance for transparent and explicit reporting of telehealth interventions. Results: The final REGAIN online exercise and behavioural support intervention consisted of an initial 1:1 consultation with a trained practitioner, followed by eight online group exercise, and six group support, sessions delivered over eight weeks. Participants could also access an online library of on-demand exercise and support videos. Conclusions: The final REGAIN intervention, combining exercise and behavioural support, is fully manualised with clear pathways to delivery and implementation. It is currently being tested in a randomised controlled trial. The intervention, developed with extensive patient and stakeholder engagement, could be incorporated into existing NHS rehabilitation programmes, should it prove to be clinically and cost-effective for people with long-COVID. Trial registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 11466448: Rehabilitation exercise and psychological support after COVID-19 infection: REGAIN.

Long-COVID has many debilitating symptoms, such as breathlessness, muscle weakness and fatigue, which significantly affect peoples' physical and mental health and quality of life. Rehabilitation programmes can help people improve their quality of life in other medical conditions with similar symptoms. We developed a programme of physical and mental health rehabilitation, delivered online, specifically to support people with ongoing long-COVID symptoms more than three months after hospital discharge. The programme was developed by people with long-COVID along with clinicians and researchers. The programme described in this article is now being tested in a large research trial to see if it can help people with long-COVID.

Landiolol and Organ Failure in Patients With Septic Shock: The STRESS-L Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with septic shock undergo adrenergic stress, which affects cardiac, immune, inflammatory, and metabolic pathways. ß-Blockade may attenuate the adverse effects of catecholamine exposure and has been associated with reduced mortality. Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of landiolol in patients with tachycardia and established septic shock requiring prolonged (>24 hours) vasopressor support. Design, Setting, and Participants: An open-label, multicenter, randomized trial involving 126 adults (≥18 years) with tachycardia (heart rate ≥95/min) and established septic shock treated for at least 24 hours with continuous norepinephrine (≥0.1 µg/kg/min) in 40 UK National Health Service intensive care units. The trial ran from April 2018 to December 2021, with early termination in December 2021 due to a signal of possible harm. Intervention: Sixty-three patients were randomized to receive standard care and 63 to receive landiolol infusion. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score from randomization through 14 days. Secondary outcomes included mortality at days 28 and 90 and the number of adverse events in each group. Results: The trial was stopped prematurely on the advice of the independent data monitoring committee because it was unlikely to demonstrate benefit and because of possible harm. Of a planned 340 participants, 126 (37%) were enrolled (mean age, 55.6 years [95% CI, 52.7 to 58.5 years]; 58.7% male). The mean (SD) SOFA score in the landiolol group was 8.8 (3.9) compared with 8.1 (3.2) in the standard care group (mean difference [MD], 0.75 [95% CI, -0.49 to 2.0]; P = .24). Mortality at day 28 after randomization in the landiolol group was 37.1% (23 of 62) and 25.4% (16 of 63) in the standard care group (absolute difference, 11.7% [95% CI, -4.4% to 27.8%]; P = .16). Mortality at day 90 after randomization was 43.5% (27 of 62) in the landiolol group and 28.6% (18 of 63) in the standard care group (absolute difference, 15% [95% CI, -1.7% to 31.6%]; P = .08). There were no differences in the number of patients having at least one adverse event. Conclusion and Relevance: Among patients with septic shock with tachycardia and treated with norepinephrine for more than 24 hours, an infusion of landiolol did not reduce organ failure measured by the SOFA score over 14 days from randomization. These results do not support the use of landiolol for managing tachycardia among patients treated with norepinephrine for established septic shock. Trial Registration: EU Clinical Trials Register Eudra CT: 2017-001785-14; isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN12600919.

Stepwise approach to skills teaching in resuscitation: A systematic review.

Aim: To compare the effectiveness of Peyton's four-step approach for teaching resuscitation skills with alternative approaches. Methods: For this systematic review, we followed the PICOST format (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design, timeframe) using Peyton's four-step approach as the standard. We included all studies analyzing skills training related to resuscitation and First Aid in any educational setting. Eligible were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (non-randomized controlled trials, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies, published conference abstracts, and case series where n ≥ 5). We excluded unpublished results (e.g. trial protocols), commentaries, editorials, reviews. Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched from inception until November 10, 2020 (updated November 25, 2022) for publications in all languages as long as there was an English abstract. Titles and abstracts of the papers retrieved were screened, and eligible publications were analysed in full text. From the final set of papers, data were extracted into a spreadsheet, subsequently risk of bias assessment was performed (using RoB2 and ROBINS-I), and the certainty of evidence (using GRADE) for each paper was assessed. Screening of studies, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and assessment of certainty of evidence were all performed by two independent researchers. This review was conducted in adherence with PRISMA standards and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023377398). Results: Overall, the search identified 2,574 studies from which 17 were included in the final analysis (14 RCTs, and 3 non-RCTs). The studies involved a total of 2,906 participants from various populations (from lay persons to health care professionals) and analysed nine different resuscitation skills being taught (ranging from chest compressions to needle cricotomy). The alternative teaching approaches ranged from two-steps to five-steps with various modifications of single steps. High methodological and clinical heterogeneity precluded a meta-analysis from being conducted. The risk of bias assessment showed considerable variation between the studies ranging from 'low' to 'serious'. Across all studies, certainty of evidence was rated as very low due to imprecision and inconsistency. Overall, 14 out of 17 studies showed no difference in skill acquisition or retention when comparing Peyton's four steps to other stepwise approaches. Conclusions: Very low certainty evidence suggest that Peyton's four-step approach was not more effective in resuscitation skills training compared to alternative approaches. Funding: None.

A qualitative study exploring the lived experiences of patients living with mild, moderate and severe frailty, following hip fracture surgery and hospitalisation.

It is well recognised that hip fracture surgery is associated with a negative impact on short and long-term post-operative physical health and emotional well-being for patients. Furthermore, these patients are known to be frail with multiple co-morbidities. This study explores how frailty shapes the lived experiences of rehabilitation and recovery for patients who have undergone hip fracture surgery. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with sixteen participants, recently discharged from hospital following hip fracture surgery. Interpretative phenomenological analysis was applied to explore the lived experiences of frail patients and ascertain important themes. Patient experiences were captured in seven overarching themes: 1) the hospital as a place of "safety", 2) placing trust in others, 3) the slow recovery journey impeded by attitude and support, 4) maintaining autonomy and dignity whilst feeling vulnerable, 5) seeking a new normal, 6) loneliness and social isolation and 7) the ageing body. Based on our study findings, we have been able to suggest a number of opportunities to improve support for frailer patients in finding a new routine to their everyday lives, these include on-going physical and psychological support, information and education and a robust pathway for transition of care into the community. A conceptual thematic diagram is presented which helps to understand the experience and the complex needs of frail older people undergoing hip fracture surgery.

Moral distress among intensive care unit professions in the UK: a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the experience of moral distress among intensive care unit (ICU) professionals in the UK. DESIGN: Mixed methods: validated quantitative measure of moral distress followed by purposive sample of respondents who underwent semistructured interviews. SETTING: Four ICUs of varying sizes and specialty facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals working in ICU. RESULTS: 227 questionnaires were returned and 15 interviews performed. Moral distress occurred across all ICUs and professional demographics. It was most commonly related to providing care perceived as futile or against the patient's wishes/interests, followed by resource constraints compromising care. Moral distress score was independently influenced by profession (p=0.02) (nurses 117.0 vs doctors 78.0). A lack of agency was central to moral distress and its negative experience could lead to withdrawal from engaging with patients/families. One-third indicated their intention to leave their current post due to moral distress and this was greater among nurses than doctors (37.0% vs 15.0%). Moral distress was independently associated with an intention to leave their current post (p<0.0001) and a previous post (p=0.001). Participants described a range of individualised coping strategies tailored to the situations faced. The most common and highly valued strategies were informal and relied on working within a supportive environment along with a close-knit team, although participants acknowledged there was a role for structured and formalised intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Moral distress is widespread among UK ICU professionals and can have an important negative impact on patient care, professional wellbeing and staff retention, a particularly concerning finding as this study was performed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Moral distress due to resource-related issues is more severe than comparable studies in North America. Interventions to support professionals should recognise the individualistic nature of coping with moral distress. The value of close-knit teams and supportive environments has implications for how intensive care services are organised.

Platform trials for anaesthesia and perioperative medicine: a narrative review.

Large randomised trials provide the most reliable evidence of effectiveness of new treatments in clinical practice. However, the time and resources required to complete such trials can be daunting. An overarching clinical trial platform focused on a single condition or type of surgery, aiming to compare several treatments, with an option to stop any or add in new treatment options, can provide greater efficiency. This has the potential to accelerate knowledge acquisition and identify effective, ineffective, or harmful treatments faster. The master protocol of the platform defines the study population(s) and standardised procedures. Ineffective or harmful treatments can be discarded or study drug dose modified during the life cycle of the trial. Other adaptive elements that can be modified include eligibility criteria, required sample size for any comparison(s), randomisation assignment ratio, and the addition of other promising treatment options. There are excellent opportunities for anaesthetists to establish platform trials in perioperative medicine. Platform trials are highly efficient, with the potential to provide quicker answers to important clinical questions that lead to improved patient care.

Clinical effectiveness and safety of spinal anaesthesia compared with general anaesthesia in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery using a consensus-based core outcome set and patient-and public-informed outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary RCTs to determine the clinical effectiveness of spinal vs general anaesthesia (SA vs GA) in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery using a consensus-based core outcome set, and outcomes defined as important by patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives. METHODS: RCTs comparing any of the core outcomes (mortality, time from injury to surgery, acute coronary syndrome, hypotension, acute kidney injury, delirium, pneumonia, orthogeriatric input, being out of bed at day 1 postoperatively, and pain) or PPI-defined outcomes (return to preoperative residence, quality of life, and mobility status) between SA and GA were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (2000 to February 2022). Pooled relative risks (RRs) and mean differences (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were estimated. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the risk of delirium comparing SA vs GA (RR=1.07; 95% CI, 0.90-1.29). Comparing SA vs GA, the RR for mortality was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.22-1.44) in-hospital, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.52-2.23) at 30 days, and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.55-2.12) at 90 days. Spinal anaesthesia reduced the risk of acute kidney injury compared with GA: RR=0.59 (95% CI, 0.39-0.89). There were no significant differences in the risk of other outcomes. Few studies reported PPI-defined outcomes, with most studies reporting on one to three core outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Except for acute kidney injury, there were no differences between SA and GA in hip fracture surgery when using a consensus-based core outcome set and patient and public involvement-defined outcomes. Most studies reported limited outcomes from the core outcome set, and few reported outcomes important to patients, which should be considered when designing future RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021275206.

Perioperative oxygen therapy: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Oxygen is routinely given to patients during and after surgery. Perioperative oxygen administration has been proposed as a potential strategy to prevent and treat hypoxaemia and reduce complications, such as surgical site infections, pulmonary complications and mortality. However, uncertainty exists as to which strategies in terms of amount, delivery devices and timing are clinically effective. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses is to answer the research question, 'For which types of surgery, at which stages of care, in which sub-groups of patients and delivered under what conditions are different types of perioperative oxygen therapy clinically effective?'. METHODS: We will search key electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO, the INAHTA International HTA Database and DARE archives) for systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials comparing perioperative oxygen strategies. Each review will be mapped according to type of surgery, surgical pathway timepoints and clinical comparison. The highest quality reviews with the most comprehensive and up-to-date coverage of relevant literature will be chosen as anchoring reviews. Standardised data will be extracted from each chosen review, including definition of oxygen therapy, summaries of interventions and comparators, patient population, surgical characteristics and assessment of overall certainty of evidence. For clinical outcomes and adverse events, the overall pooled findings and results of subgroup and sensitivity analyses (where available) will be extracted. Trial-level data will be extracted for surgical site infections, mortality, and potential trial-level effect modifiers such as risk of bias, outcome definition and type of surgery to facilitate quantitative data analysis. This analysis will adopt a multiple indication review approach with panoramic meta-analysis using review-level data and meta-regression using trial-level data. An evidence map will be produced to summarise our findings and highlight any research gaps. DISCUSSION: There is a need to provide a panoramic overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses describing peri-operative oxygen practice to both inform clinical practice and identify areas of ongoing uncertainty, where further research may be required. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021272361.

On the horns of a dilemma: choosing total intravenous anaesthesia or volatile anaesthesia.

There are two established techniques of delivering general anaesthesia: propofol-based total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) and volatile agent-based inhaled anaesthesia. Both techniques are offered as standard of care and have an established safety track record lasting more than 30 years. However, it is not currently known whether the choice of anaesthetic technique results in a fundamentally different patient experience or affects early, intermediate-term, and longer-term postoperative outcomes. This editorial comments on a recently published study that suggests that inhaled volatile anaesthesia might be associated with fewer postoperative surgical complications than propofol-based TIVA for patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. We consider the strengths and limitations of the study, place these findings in the context of the broader evidence, and discuss how the current controversies regarding anaesthetic technique can be resolved, thereby helping to bring precision medicine into the modern practice of perioperative care.

Effect of Noninvasive Respiratory Strategies on Intubation or Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and COVID-19: The RECOVERY-RS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies. Objective: To determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: A parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021. Interventions: Adult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days. Results: The trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, -8% [95% CI, -15% to -1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16912075.

Effect of Regional vs General Anesthesia on Incidence of Postoperative Delirium in Older Patients Undergoing Hip Fracture Surgery: The RAGA Randomized Trial.

Importance: In adults undergoing hip fracture surgery, regional anesthesia may reduce postoperative delirium, but there is uncertainty about its effectiveness. Objective: To investigate, in older adults undergoing surgical repair for hip fracture, the effects of regional anesthesia on the incidence of postoperative delirium compared with general anesthesia. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized, allocation-concealed, open-label, multicenter clinical trial of 950 patients, aged 65 years and older, with or without preexisting dementia, and a fragility hip fracture requiring surgical repair from 9 university teaching hospitals in Southeastern China. Participants were enrolled between October 2014 and September 2018; 30-day follow-up ended November 2018. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either regional anesthesia (spinal, epidural, or both techniques combined with no sedation; n = 476) or general anesthesia (intravenous, inhalational, or combined anesthetic agents; n = 474). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was incidence of delirium during the first 7 postoperative days. Secondary outcomes analyzed in this article include delirium severity, duration, and subtype; postoperative pain score; length of hospitalization; 30-day all-cause mortality; and complications. Results: Among 950 randomized patients (mean age, 76.5 years; 247 [26.8%] male), 941 were evaluable for the primary outcome (6 canceled surgery and 3 withdrew consent). Postoperative delirium occurred in 29 (6.2%) in the regional anesthesia group vs 24 (5.1%) in the general anesthesia group (unadjusted risk difference [RD], 1.1%; 95% CI, -1.7% to 3.8%; P = .48; unadjusted relative risk [RR], 1.2 [95% CI, 0.7 to 2.0]; P = .57]). Mean severity score of delirium was 23.0 vs 24.1, respectively (unadjusted difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -4.6 to 3.1). A single delirium episode occurred in 16 (3.4%) vs 10 (2.1%) (unadjusted RD, 1.1%; 95% CI, -1.7% to 3.9%; RR, 1.6 [95% CI, 0.7 to 3.5]). Hypoactive subtype in 11 (37.9%) vs 5 (20.8%) (RD, 11.5; 95% CI, -11.0% to 35.7%; RR, 2.2 [95% CI, 0.8 to 6.3]). Median worst pain score was 0 (IQR, 0 to 20) vs 0 (IQR, 0 to 10) (difference 0; 95% CI, 0 to 0). Median length of hospitalization was 7 days (IQR, 5 to 10) vs 7 days (IQR, 6 to 10) (difference 0; 95% CI, 0 to 0). Death occurred in 8 (1.7%) vs 4 (0.9%) (unadjusted RD, -0.8%; 95% CI, -2.2% to 0.7%; RR, 2.0 [95% CI, 0.6 to 6.5]). Adverse events were reported in 106 episodes in the regional anesthesia group and 102 in the general anesthesia group; the most frequently reported adverse events were nausea and vomiting (47 [44.3%] vs 34 [33.3%]) and postoperative hypotension (13 [12.3%] vs 10 [9.8%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients aged 65 years and older undergoing hip fracture surgery, regional anesthesia without sedation did not significantly reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium compared with general anesthesia. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02213380.