Search

Background: It is unclear whether the use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) improves outcomes in ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICUs) and whether SDD is associated with the development of antibiotic resistance. Objective: To describe the study protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract in Intensive Care Unit Patients (SuDDICU) trial. Design, setting, participants and intervention: SuDDICU is an international, crossover, cluster randomised controlled trial of mechanically ventilated patients in ICUs using two 12-month trial periods. For each period, participating ICUs will implement SDD plus standard care or standard care alone. The SuDDICU drug intervention is an oral paste and gastric suspension of three antibiotics combined with a 4-day course of intravenous antibiotics. Observational ecological assessments will be conducted during five surveillance periods. The trial will be conducted in 19 ICUs in Australia and ten ICUs in Canada and the United Kingdom, and will recruit 15 000–17 000 patients. Recruitment commenced in Australia in 2017. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome is all-cause hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include: duration of ventilation, ICU stay and hospital stay; incidence of new antibiotic-resistant organisms during the index ICU admission; changes in antibiotic-resistant organism rates; incidence of new Clostridioides difficile infections; and total use of antibiotics. Results and conclusions: SuDDICU will determine whether the use of SDD plus standard care is associated with a reduction in hospital mortality in ventilated ICU patients compared with standard care alone. It will also quantify the impact of the use of SDD on the development of antibiotic resistance. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12615000411549) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02389036).

β-Lactam antibiotics display a time-dependent mechanism of action, with evidence suggesting improved outcomes when administering these drugs via continuous infusion compared with standard intermittent infusion. However, there is no phase 3 randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence to support one method of administration over another in critically ill patients with sepsis.The β-Lactam Infusion Group (BLING) III study is a prospective, multicentre, open, phase 3 RCT to compare continuous infusion with standard intermittent infusion of β-lactam antibiotics in critically ill patients with sepsis. The study will be conducted in about 70 intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Belgium and selected other countries, from 2018 to 2021.BLING III will recruit 7000 critically ill patients with sepsis being treated with one of two β-lactam antibiotics (piperacillin-tazobactam or meropenem) to receive the β-lactam antibiotic by either continuous or intermittent infusion.The primary outcome is allcause mortality within 90 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are clinical cure at Day 14 after randomisation, new acquisition, colonisation or infection with a multiresistant organism or Clostridium difficile diarrhoea up to 14 days after randomisation, all-cause ICU mortality and all-cause hospital mortality. Tertiary outcomes are ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation and duration of renal replacement therapy up to 90 days after randomisation.The BLING III study will compare the effect on 90-day mortality of β-lactam antibiotics administered via continuous versus intermittent infusion in 7000 critically ill patients with sepsis.ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03213990).

Cross-sectional point prevalence studies collect observational data at a single time point and may be used to facilitate subsequent research hypotheses and discovery.We report the process of implementation and substantive outputs of the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group (ANZICS CTG) point prevalence program, conducted in participating intensive care units from 2009 to 2016.Seventy-seven of a maximum 197 adult ICUs across Australia and New Zealand participated in 9 specified study days over 18 days of data collection and collected data on 5043 participants, with an average of 44 ICUs per study day. All eight Australian and New Zealand paediatric ICUs have participated in dedicated simultaneous paediatric study days. Thirteen manuscripts were published in peer-reviewed journals and data have contributed to 14 individual programs of research, including 18 subsequent grant applications for further research.The ANZICS CTG point prevalence program has resulted in the collection of a substantial body of observational data that has facilitated the development and completion of subsequent research programs and provided opportunities for subsequent capacity development.

The safety and efficacy of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) for fluid resuscitation have not been fully evaluated, and adverse effects of HES on survival and renal function have been reported.We randomly assigned 7000 patients who had been admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 6% HES with a molecular weight of 130 kD and a molar substitution ratio of 0.4 (130/0.4, Voluven) in 0.9% sodium chloride or 0.9% sodium chloride (saline) for all fluid resuscitation until ICU discharge, death, or 90 days after randomization. The primary outcome was death within 90 days. Secondary outcomes included acute kidney injury and failure and treatment with renal-replacement therapy.A total of 597 of 3315 patients (18.0%) in the HES group and 566 of 3336 (17.0%) in the saline group died (relative risk in the HES group, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 1.18; P=0.26). There was no significant difference in mortality in six predefined subgroups. Renal-replacement therapy was used in 235 of 3352 patients (7.0%) in the HES group and 196 of 3375 (5.8%) in the saline group (relative risk, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.45; P=0.04). In the HES and saline groups, renal injury occurred in 34.6% and 38.0% of patients, respectively (P=0.005), and renal failure occurred in 10.4% and 9.2% of patients, respectively (P=0.12). HES was associated with significantly more adverse events (5.3% vs. 2.8%, P0.001).In patients in the ICU, there was no significant difference in 90-day mortality between patients resuscitated with 6% HES (130/0.4) or saline. However, more patients who received resuscitation with HES were treated with renal-replacement therapy. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; CHEST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00935168.).

The intravenous fluid 6% hydroxyethyl starch (130/0.4) (6% HES 130/0.4) is used widely for resuscitation but there is limited information on its efficacy and safety. A large-scale multi-centre randomised controlled trial (CHEST) in critically ill patients is currently underway comparing fluid resuscitation with 6% HES 130/0.4 to 0.9% sodium chloride on 90-day mortality and other clinically relevant outcomes including renal injury. This report describes the study protocol.CHEST will recruit 7,000 patients to concealed, random, parallel assignment of either 6% HES 130/0.4 or 0.9% sodium chloride for all fluid resuscitation needs whilst in the intensive care unit (ICU). The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality at 90 days post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include incident renal injury, other organ failures, ICU and hospital mortality, length of ICU stay, quality of life at 6 months, health economic analyses and in patients with traumatic brain injury, functional outcome. Subgroup analyses will be conducted in four predefined subgroups. All analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis.The study run-in phase has been completed and the main trial commenced in April 2010. CHEST should generate results that will inform and influence prescribing of this commonly used resuscitation fluid.

To determine the frequency of pharmacological and physical cooling in non-elective general intensive care unit patients without neurological abnormalities in Australia and New Zealand, and to establish the indications for antipyretics, the prevalence of fever, and the methods of temperature measurement.A point prevalence study conducted on two days in 2010, in 38 ICUs in Australia and New Zealand, examining non-elective (emergency) patients admitted with sepsis and other inflammatory abnormalities but without neurological abnormalities.Of 506 general ICU patients surveyed on the study days, 311 had sepsis or other inflammatory abnormalities and no neurological abnormalities. These patients had a mean peak temperature of 37.3°C (SD, 0.8°C). In 100 patients (32.2%), the peak temperature was above 38°C. Paracetamol was the most common antipyretic used (152/311; 48.9%) and was administered for pain in 92/152 patients (60.5%), for pain and fever in 26/152 patients (17.1%), and for fever alone in 14/152 patients (9.2%). Patients who received paracetamol for fever had a mean peak recorded temperature of 38.3°C (SD, 0.8°C). Temperature measurements were mainly non-core (251/ 311; 81%) with axillary (116/311; 37%) and tympanic (110/ 311; 35%) measurements the most common.Pharmacological antipyretics are used regularly for pain management rather than fever management, with paracetamol the most common antipyretic therapy. The use of NSAIDS and physical cooling is rare. Non-core temperature measurements were common.

Given the scientific uncertainty of the efficacy and safety of normothermia (36.0°C to 37.5°C) on disability and death after acute neurological lesions, we sought to understand how temperature is managed in usual clinical care for this patient population in Australia and New Zealand.To describe temperature management in patients with acute neurological lesions.Prospective, observational, multicentre, single-day point-prevalence study.Observational data of usual practice were recorded for all patients with an intensive care admission diagnosis of acute neurological lesions and who were present in 33 intensive care units at 10:00 on the study day. Data were collected prospectively for the ensuing 24-hour period.Achieved temperature, interventions used to modify temperature and target temperature.There were 106 patients with acute neurological lesions (61% with either stroke or traumatic brain injury) with a mean APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) II score of 19.3 ± 7.4, age of 53.5 ± 19.0 years and median time from intensive care admission to data capture of 3 days (interquartile range, 1-9). A target temperature was specified in 24% of patients. Although paracetamol was commonly used (56%), it was infrequently used at the maximum licensed dose and there was no use recorded of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors. Physical cooling was used in 25% of patients and core temperature was measured in 32%. Measured temperature often exceeded 37.0°C (62% of readings), 37.5°C (43%) and 38.0°C (22%).Temperature readings above 37.5°C are common. Further cohort studies are required to validate these preliminary, exploratory findings.

The Crystalloid Versus Hydroxyethyl Starch Trial (CHEST) is a 7000-patient, multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing the effects of 6% hydroxyethyl starch (130/0.4) to normal saline for fluid resuscitation in intensive care patients. The trial design is based on the Saline Versus Albumin Fluid Evaluation (SAFE) study and will be the largest fluid resuscitation trial conducted to date.In accordance with two other trials conducted by the investigators, a predetermined statistical analysis plan (SAP) has been described and made public before completion of patient recruitment and data collection. The SAP will be adhered to for the final data analysis of this trial to avoid analysis bias arising from knowledge of study findings.The SAP was designed by the chief investigators and statisticians and approved by the CHEST Management Committee. All authors were blind to treatment allocation and to the unblinded data produced during two interim analyses conducted by the Data Safety and Monitoring Board. The data shells were produced from a previously published protocol. Statistical analyses are described in broad detail. Specifically, information relevant to baseline characteristics and processes of care were defined, and statistically relevant descriptive elements described, with appropriate comparisons between groups. Trial outcomes were selected, categorised into primary, secondary and tertiary outcomes, and appropriate statistical comparisons between groups were planned and described.A standard SAP for CHEST was developed. A trial profile outline and list of mock tables were produced. Descriptions of analyses of baseline characteristics, processes of care, measures of efficacy and outcomes were described. Six prespecified subgroups were defined and statistical comparisons between groups in these subgroups were described. In addition, analyses of tertiary outcomes, including health economic and functional outcome assessment, were described.We have developed a predetermined SAP for CHEST. This plan accords with high-quality standards of internal validity to minimise analysis bias.