Search

BackgroundSurvivors of critical illness are at risk of developing physical dysfunction following intensive care unit (ICU) discharge. ICU-based rehabilitation interventions, such as early in-bed cycle ergometry, may improve patients’ short-term physical function. ObjectiveBefore unblinding and trial database lock, we describe a prespecified statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the CYCLE (Critical Care Cycling to Improve Lower Extremity Strength) randomized controlled trial (RCT). MethodsCYCLE is a 360-patient, international, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group RCT (1:1 ratio) with blinded primary outcome assessment at 3 days post-ICU discharge. The principal investigator and statisticians of CYCLE prepared this SAP with approval from the steering committee and coinvestigators. The SAP defines the primary and secondary outcomes (including adverse events) and describes the planned primary, secondary, and subgroup analyses. The primary outcome of the CYCLE trial is the Physical Function Intensive Care Unit Test-scored (PFIT-s) at 3 days post-ICU discharge. The PFIT-s is a reliable and valid performance-based measure. We plan to use a frequentist statistical framework for all analyses. We will conduct a linear regression to evaluate the primary outcome, incorporating randomization as an independent variable and adjusting for age (≥65 years versus

Abstract 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

Summary: Background: Globally, fall-related injuries are a substantial problem, and 80% of fatal falls occur in low-income and middle-income countries. We aimed to measure time from injury to hip-fracture surgery in people aged 50 years or older living in low-income and middle-income regions, as well as to measure the proportion of patients with surgical stabilisation of their hip fracture within 72 h of admission to hospital and to identify risk factors associated with surgical delay. Methods: For this secondary analysis, we analysed data collected from Africa, Latin America, China, India, and Asia (excluding China and India) for the International Orthopaedic Multicentre Study in Fracture Care (INORMUS) between March 29, 2014, and June 15, 2022. Patients from INORMUS were included in this analysis if they were aged 50 years or older and had an isolated, primary hip fracture sustained from a ground-level fall. Staff at participating hospitals identified patients with musculoskeletal injury and referred them for assessment of eligibility. We report time from injury to surgery as three distinct time periods: time from injury to hospital admission, time from admission to surgery, and a total time from injury to surgery. Date and time of injury were self-reported by patients at the time of study recruitment. If time to hospital admission after injury exceeded 24 h, patients reported the primary reason for delayed admission. Reasons for surgery, no surgery, and surgical delay were reported by the treating team. For patients undergoing surgery, multivariable regression analyses were used to identify risk factors for surgical delay. Findings: 4486 adults aged 50 years or older with an isolated, primary hip fracture were enrolled in INORMUS from 55 hospitals in 24 countries. Countries were grouped into five regions: Africa (418 [9·3%] of 4486), Latin America (558 [12·4%]), China (1680 [37·4%]), India (1059 [23·6%]) and Asia (excluding China and India; 771 [17·2%]). Of 4486 patients, 3805 (84·8%) received surgery. The rate of surgery was similar in all regions except in Africa, where only 193 (46·3%) of 418 patients had surgery. Overall, 2791 (62·2%) of 4486 patients were admitted to hospital within 24 h of injury. However, 1019 (22·7%) of 4486 patients had delayed hospital admission of 72 h or more from injury. The two most common reasons for delayed admission of more than 24 h were transfer from another hospital (522 [36·2%] of 1441) and delayed care-seeking because patients thought the injury would heal on its own (480 [33·3%]). Once admitted to hospital, 1451 (38·1%) of 3805 patients who received surgery did so within 72 h (median 4·0 days [IQR 1·7–6·0]). Regional variation was seen in the proportion of patients receiving surgery within 72 h of hospital admission (92 [17·9%] of 514 in Latin America, 53 [27·5%] of 193 in Africa, 454 [30·9%] of 1471 in China, 318 [44·4%] of 716 in Asia [excluding China and India], and 534 [58·6%] of 911 in India). Of all 3805 patients who received operative treatment, 2353 (61·8%) waited 72 h or more from hospital admission. From time of injury, the proportion of patients who were surgically stabilised within 72 h was 889 (23·4%) of 3805 (50 [9·7%] of 517 in Latin America, 31 [16·1%] of 193 in Africa, 277 [18·8%] of 1471 in China, 189 [26·4%] of 716 in Asia [excluding China and India], and 342 [37·5%] of 911 in India). Interpretation: Access to surgery within 72 h of hospital admission was poor, with factors that affected time to surgery varying by region. Data are necessary to understand existing pathways of hip-fracture care to inform the local development of quality-improvement initiatives. Funding: The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, McMaster Surgical Associates, Hamilton Health Sciences, and the US National Institutes of Health.

Objective:. To determine timing and risk factors associated with readmission within 30 days of discharge following noncardiac surgery. Background:. Hospital readmission after noncardiac surgery is costly. Data on the drivers of readmission have largely been derived from single-center studies focused on a single surgical procedure with uncertainty regarding generalizability. Methods:. We undertook an international (28 centers, 14 countries) prospective cohort study of a representative sample of adults ≥45 years of age who underwent noncardiac surgery. Risk factors for readmission were assessed using Cox regression (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00512109). Results:. Of 36,657 eligible participants, 2744 (7.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.2–7.8) were readmitted within 30 days of discharge. Rates of readmission were highest in the first 7 days after discharge and declined over the follow-up period. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that 9 baseline characteristics (eg, cancer treatment in past 6 months; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% CI, 1.30–1.59), 5 baseline laboratory and physical measures (eg, estimated glomerular filtration rate or on dialysis; HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.24–1.75), 7 surgery types (eg, general surgery; HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.61–2.16), 5 index hospitalization events (eg, stroke; HR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.24–3.94), and 3 other factors (eg, discharge to nursing home; HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.33–1.95) were associated with readmission. Conclusions:. Readmission following noncardiac surgery is common (1 in 13 patients). We identified perioperative risk factors associated with 30-day readmission that can help frontline clinicians identify which patients are at the highest risk of readmission and target them for preventive measures.

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)

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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].

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.

Abstract Background Initially developed in the intensive care unit (ICU) at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (SJHH) the 3 Wishes Project (3WP) provides personalized, compassionate care to dying patients and their families. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate 3WP expansion strategies for patients cared for on General Internal Medicine (GIM) wards in our hospital. Methods From January 2020-November 2021, we developed a phased, multicomponent approach for program expansion. We enrolled patients on the GIM wards who had a high probability of dying in hospital, then elicited, implemented, and documented wishes for them or their families. Data were analyzed descriptively. Results From March 2020 to November 2020, we implemented staff education and engagement activities, created an Expansion Coordinator position, held strategic consultations, and offered enabling resources. From March 2020 to November 2021, we enrolled 62 patients and elicited 281 wishes (median [1st, 3rd quartiles] 4 [4, 5] wishes/patient). The most common wish categories were personalizing the environment (67 wishes, 24%), rituals and spiritual support (42 wishes, 15%), and facilitating connections (39 wishes, 14%). The median [1st, 3rd] cost/patient was $0 [0, $10.00] (range $0 to $86); 91% of wishes incurred no cost to the program. Conclusions The formal expansion of the 3WP on GIM wards has been successful despite COVID-19 pandemic disruptions. While there is still work ahead, these data suggest that implementing the 3WP on the GIM wards is feasible and affordable. Increased engagement of the clinical team during the pandemic suggests that it is positively received.

Background and Objectives: Functional outcomes are important for oncology patients undergoing lower extremity reconstruction. The objective of the current study was to describe patient reported function after surgery and identify predictors of postoperative function in musculoskeletal oncology patients undergoing lower extremity endoprosthetic reconstruction. Methods: We performed a cohort study with functional outcome data from the recently completed Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumor Surgery (PARITY) trial. We utilized the 100-point Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS), which was administered pre-operatively and at 3, 6 and 12 months post-operatively. Higher scores indicate better physical functioning, and the minimally important difference is 11 points. We calculated mean functional scores at each timepoint after surgery and developed a logistic regression model to explore predictors of failure to achieve excellent post-operative function (TESS ≥ 80) at 1 year after surgery. Results: The 555 patients included in our cohort showed important functional improvement from pre-surgery to 1 year post-surgery (mean difference 14.9 points, 95%CI 12.2 to 17.6; p < 0.001) and 64% achieved excellent post-operative function. Our adjusted regression model found that poor (TESS 0–39) pre-operative function (odds ratio [OR] 3.3, 95%CI 1.6 to 6.6); absolute risk [AR] 24%, 95%CI 8% to 41.2%), older age (OR per 10-year increase from age 12, 1.32, 95%CI 1.17, 1.49; AR 4.5%, 95%CI 2.4% to 6.6%), and patients undergoing reconstruction for soft-tissue sarcomas (OR 2.3, 95%CI 1.03 to 5.01; AR 15.3%, 95%CI 0.4% to 34.4%), were associated with higher odds of failing to achieve an excellent functional outcome at 1-year follow-up. Patients undergoing reconstruction for giant cell tumors were more likely to achieve an excellent functional outcome post-operatively (OR 0.40, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.95; AR −9.9%, 95%CI −14.4% to −0.7%). Conclusions: The majority of patients with tumors of the lower extremity undergoing endoprosthetic reconstruction achieved excellent function at 1 year after surgery. Older age, poor pre-operative function, and endoprosthetic reconstruction for soft tissue sarcomas were associated with worse outcomes; reconstruction for giant cell tumors was associated with better post-operative function. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV.

Abstract Background Approximately 1 in 10 patients with a surgically treated open fracture will develop a surgical site infection. The Aqueous-PREP trial will investigate the effect of 10% povidone-iodine versus 4% chlorhexidine in aqueous antiseptic solutions in reducing infections after open fracture surgery. The study protocol was published in April 2020. Methods and design The Aqueous-PREP trial is a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized multiple period cluster crossover trial. Each participating cluster is randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to provide 1 of the 2 study interventions on all eligible patients during a study period. The intervention periods are 2 months in length. After completing a 2-month period, the participating cluster crosses over to the alternative intervention. We plan to enroll a minimum of 1540 patients at 14 sites. Results The primary outcome is surgical site infection guided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Healthcare Safety Network reporting criteria (2017). All participants’ surgical site infection surveillance period will end 30 days after definitive fracture management surgery for superficial infections and 90 days after definitive fracture management surgery for deep incisional or organ/space infections [1]. The secondary outcome is an unplanned fracture-related reoperation within 12 months of the fracture. Conclusion This manuscript serves as the formal statistical analysis plan (version 1.0) for the Aqueous-PREP trial. The statistical analysis plan was completed on February 28, 2022.

Introduction In-bed leg cycling with critically ill patients is a promising intervention aimed at minimising immobility, thus improving physical function following intensive care unit (ICU) discharge. We previously completed a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) which supported the feasibility of a large RCT. In this report, we describe the protocol for an international, multicentre RCT to determine the effectiveness of early in-bed cycling versus routine physiotherapy (PT) in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults.Methods and analysis We report a parallel group RCT of 360 patients in 17 medical-surgical ICUs and three countries. We include adults (≥18 years old), who could ambulate independently before their critical illness (with or without a gait aid), ≤4 days of invasive mechanical ventilation and ≤7 days ICU length of stay, and an expected additional 2-day ICU stay, and who do not fulfil any of the exclusion criteria. After obtaining informed consent, patients are randomised using a web-based, centralised system to either 30 min of in-bed cycling in addition to routine PT, 5 days per week, up to 28 days maximum, or routine PT alone. The primary outcome is the Physical Function ICU Test-scored (PFIT-s) at 3 days post-ICU discharge measured by assessors blinded to treatment allocation. Participants, ICU clinicians and research coordinators are not blinded to group assignment. Our sample size estimate was based on the identification of a 1-point mean difference in PFIT-s between groups.Ethics and dissemination Critical Care Cycling to improve Lower Extremity (CYCLE) is approved by the Research Ethics Boards of all participating centres and Clinical Trials Ontario (Project 1345). We will disseminate trial results through publications and conference presentations.Trial registration number NCT03471247 (Full RCT); NCT02377830 (CYCLE Vanguard 46 patient internal pilot).

AimsThe aim of this study was to explore the functional results in a fitter subgroup of participants in the Hip Fracture Evaluation with Alternatives of Total Hip Arthroplasty versus Hemiarthroplasty (HEALTH) trial to determine whether there was an advantage of total hip arthroplasty (THA) versus hemiarthroplasty (HA) in this population.MethodsWe performed a post hoc exploratory analysis of a fitter cohort of patients from the HEALTH trial. Participants were aged over 50 years and had sustained a low-energy displaced femoral neck fracture (FNF). The fittest participant cohort was defined as participants aged 70 years or younger, classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I or II, independent walkers prior to fracture, and living at home prior to fracture. Multilevel models were used to estimate the effect of THA versus HA on functional outcomes. In addition, a sensitivity analysis of the definition of the fittest participant cohort was performed.ResultsThere were 143 patients included in the fittest cohort. Mean age was 66 years (SD 4.5) and 103 were female (72%). No clinically relevant differences were found between the treatment groups in the primary and sensitivity analyses.ConclusionThis analysis found no differences in functional outcomes between HA and THA within two years of displaced low-energy FNF in a subgroup analysis of the fittest HEALTH patients. These findings suggest that very few patients above 50 years of age benefit in a clinically meaningful way from a THA versus a HA early after injury.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(8):611–617.

Abstract. Introduction:. Open fractures represent a major source of morbidity. Surgical site infections (SSIs) after open fractures are associated with a high rate of reoperations and hospitalizations, which are associated with a lower health-related quality of life. Early antibiotic delivery, typically chosen through an assessment of the size and contamination of the wound, has been shown to be an effective technique to reduce the risk of SSI in open fractures. The Gustilo-Anderson classification (GAC) was devised as a grading system of open fractures after a complete operative debridement of the wound had been undertaken but is commonly used preoperatively to help with the choice of initial antibiotics. Incorrect preoperative GAC, leading to less aggressive initial management, may influence the risk of SSI after open fracture. The objectives of this study were to determine (1) how often the GAC changed from the initial to definitive grading, (2) the injury and patient characteristics associated with increases and decreases of the GAC, and (3) whether a change in GAC was associated with an increased risk of SSI. Methods:. Using data from the FLOW trial, a large multicenter randomized study, we used descriptive statistics to quantify how frequently the GAC changed from the initial to definitive grading. We used regression models to determine which injury and patient characteristics were associated with increases and decreases in GAC and whether a change in GAC was associated with SSI. Results:. Of the 2420 participants included, 305 participants had their preoperative GAC change (12.6%). The factors associated with upgrading the GAC (from preoperative score to the definitive assessment) included fracture sites other than the tibia, bone loss at presentation, width of wound, length of wound, and skin loss at presentation. However, initial misclassification of type III fractures as type II fractures was not associated with an increased risk of SSI (P = 0.14). Conclusions:. When treating patients with open fracture wounds, surgeons should consider that 12% of all injuries may initially be misclassified when using the GAC, particularly fractures that have bone loss at presentation or those located in sites different than the tibia. However, even in misclassified fractures, it did not seem to increase the risk of SSI.

OBJECTIVES:. 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.