Dataset Information

FIRST-line support for assistance in breathing in children (FIRST-ABC): a master protocol of two randomised trials to evaluate the non-inferiority of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Even though respiratory support is a common intervention in paediatric critical care, there is no randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence regarding the effectiveness of two commonly used modes of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC). FIRST-line support for assistance in breathing in children is a master protocol of two pragmatic non-inferiority RCTs to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of HFNC (compared with CPAP) as the first-line mode of support in critically ill children.

Methods and analysis

We will recruit participants over a 30-month period at 25 UK paediatric critical care units (paediatric intensive care units/high-dependency units). Patients are eligible if admitted/accepted for admission, aged >36 weeks corrected gestational age and <16 years, and assessed by the treating clinician to require NRS for an acute illness (step-up RCT) or within 72 hours of extubation following a period of invasive ventilation (step-down RCT). Due to the emergency nature of the treatment, written informed consent will be deferred to after randomisation. Randomisation will occur 1:1 to CPAP or HFNC, stratified by site and age (<12 vs ≥12 months). The primary outcome is time to liberation from respiratory support for a continuous period of 48 hours. A total sample size of 600 patients in each RCT will provide 90% power with a type I error rate of 2.5% (one sided) to exclude the prespecified non-inferiority margin of HR of 0.75. Primary analyses will be undertaken separately in each RCT in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations.

Ethics and dissemination

This master protocol received favourable ethical opinion from National Health Service East of England-Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee (reference: 19/EE/0185) and approval from the Health Research Authority (reference: 260536). Results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed medical journals and presentations at national and international conferences.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN60048867.

SUBMITTER: Richards-Belle A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7406113 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

FIRST-line support for assistance in breathing in children (FIRST-ABC): a master protocol of two randomised trials to evaluate the non-inferiority of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care.

Richards-Belle Alvin A Davis Peter P Drikite Laura L Feltbower Richard R Grieve Richard R Harrison David A DA Lester Julie J Morris Kevin P KP Mouncey Paul R PR Peters Mark J MJ Rowan Kathryn M KM Sadique Zia Z Tume Lyvonne N LN Ramnarayan Padmanabhan P

BMJ open 20200804 8

<h4>Introduction</h4>Even though respiratory support is a common intervention in paediatric critical care, there is no randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence regarding the effectiveness of two commonly used modes of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC). FIRST-line support for assistance in breathing in children is a master protocol of two pragmatic non-inferiority RCTs to evaluate the clinical and cost-e ...[more]

PMID: 32753452

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionOver 18 000 children are admitted annually to UK paediatric intensive care units (PICUs), of whom nearly 75% receive respiratory support (invasive and/or non-invasive). Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has traditionally been used to provide first-line non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) in PICUs; however, high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC), a novel mode of NRS, has recently gained popularity despite the lack of high-quality trial evidence to support its effectiveness. This feasibility study aims to inform the design and conduct of a future definitive randomised clinical trial (RCT) comparing the two modes of respiratory support.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a three-centre randomised feasibility study over 12 months. Patients admitted to participating PICUs who satisfy eligibility criteria will be recruited to either group A (primary respiratory failure) or group B (postextubation). Consent will be obtained from parents/guardians prior to randomisation in 'planned' group B, and deferred in emergency situations (group A and 'rescue' group B). Participants will be randomised (1:1) to either CPAP or HFNC using sealed, opaque envelopes, from a computer-generated randomisation sequence with variable block sizes. The study protocol specifies algorithms for the initiation, maintenance and weaning of HFNC and CPAP. The primary outcomes are related to feasibility, including the number of eligible patients in each group, feasibility of randomising >50% of eligible patients and measures of adherence to the treatment protocols. Data will also be collected on patient outcomes (eg, mortality and length of PICU stay) to inform the selection of an appropriate outcome measure in a future RCT. We aim to recruit 120 patients to the study.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was granted by the National Research Ethics Service Committee North East-Tyne&Wear South (15/NE/0296). Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, national and international conferences.Trials registration numberNCT02612415; pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) has become a popular mode of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) in critically ill children, there are no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing it with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). We performed a pilot RCT to explore the feasibility, and inform the design and conduct, of a future large pragmatic RCT comparing HFNC and CPAP in paediatric critical care.MethodsIn this multi-centre pilot RCT, eligible patients were recruited to either Group A (step-up NRS) or Group B (step-down NRS). Participants were randomised (1:1) using sealed opaque envelopes to either CPAP or HFNC as their first-line mode of NRS. Consent was sought after randomisation in emergency situations. The primary study outcomes were related to feasibility (number of eligible patients in each group, proportion of eligible patients randomised, consent rate, and measures of adherence to study algorithms). Data were collected on safety and a range of patient outcomes in order to inform the choice of a primary outcome measure for the future RCT.ResultsOverall, 121/254 eligible patients (47.6%) were randomised (Group A 60%, Group B 44.2%) over a 10-month period (recruitment rate for Group A, 1 patient/site/month; Group B, 2.8 patients/site/month). In Group A, consent was obtained in 29/33 parents/guardians approached (87.9%), while in Group B 84/118 consented (71.2%). Intention-to-treat analysis included 113 patients (HFNC 59, CPAP 54). Most reported adverse events were mild/moderate (HFNC 8/59, CPAP 9/54). More patients switched treatment from HFNC to CPAP (Group A: 7/16, 44%; Group B: 9/43, 21%) than from CPAP to HFNC (Group A: 3/13, 23%; Group B: 5/41, 12%). Intubation occurred within 72 h in 15/59 (25.4%) of HFNC patients and 10/54 (18.5%) of CPAP patients (p = 0.38). HFNC patients experienced fewer ventilator-free days at day 28 (Group A: 19.6 vs. 23.5; Group B: 21.8 vs. 22.2).ConclusionsOur pilot trial confirms that, following minor changes to consent procedures and treatment algorithms, it is feasible to conduct a large national RCT of non-invasive respiratory support in the paediatric critical care setting in both step-up and step-down NRS patients.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov, NCT02612415 . Registered on 23 November 2015.

Project description:BackgroundStudies suggest that high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) can prevent reintubation in critically ill patients with a low risk of extubation failure. However, the safety and effectiveness in patients at high risk of extubation failure are still debated. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacies of HFNC and NIV in high-risk patients.MethodsWe searched eight databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan-Fang Database, and Chinese Biological Medical Database) with reintubation as a primary outcome measure. The secondary outcomes included mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), incidence of adverse events, and respiratory function indices. Statistical data analysis was performed using RevMan software.ResultsThirteen randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 1457 patients were included. The HFNC and NIV groups showed no differences in reintubation (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87-1.40, I2 = 0%, P = 0.42), mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82-1.46, I2 = 0%, P = 0.54), and respiratory function indices (partial pressure of carbon dioxide [PaCO2]: MD - 1.31, 95% CI - 2.76-0.13, I2 = 81%, P = 0.07; oxygenation index [P/F]: MD - 2.18, 95% CI - 8.49-4.13, I2 = 57%, P = 0.50; respiratory rate [Rr]: MD - 0.50, 95% CI - 1.88-0.88, I2 = 80%, P = 0.47). However, HFNC reduced adverse events (abdominal distension: RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.04-0.24, I2 = 0%, P < 0.01; aspiration: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09-1.07, I2 = 0%, P = 0.06; facial injury: RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09-0.88, I2 = 0%, P = 0.03; delirium: RR 0.30, 95%CI 0.07-1.39, I2 = 0%, P = 0.12; pulmonary complications: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.99, I2 = 0%, P = 0.05; intolerance: RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08-0.57, I2 = 0%, P < 0.01) and may have shortened LOS (MD - 1.03, 95% CI - 1.86-- 0.20, I2 = 93%, P = 0.02). Subgroup analysis by language, extubation method, NIV parameter settings, and HFNC flow rate revealed higher heterogeneity in LOS, PaCO2, and Rr.ConclusionsIn adult patients at a high risk of extubation failure, HFNC reduced the incidence of adverse events but did not affect reintubation and mortality. Consequently, whether or not HFNC can reduce LOS and improve respiratory function remains inconclusive.

Project description:Background: The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has placed a significant demand on healthcare providers (HCPs) to provide respiratory support for patients with moderate to severe symptoms. Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) non-invasive ventilation can help patients with moderate symptoms to avoid the need for invasive ventilation in intensive care. However, existing CPAP systems can be complex (and thus expensive) or require high levels of oxygen, limiting their use in resource-stretched environments. Technical Development + Testing: The LeVe ("Light") CPAP system was developed using principles of frugal innovation to produce a solution of low complexity and high resource efficiency. The LeVe system exploits the air flow dynamics of electric fan blowers which are inherently suited to delivery of positive pressure at appropriate flow rates for CPAP. Laboratory evaluation demonstrated that performance of the LeVe system was equivalent to other commercially available systems used to deliver CPAP, achieving a 10 cm H2O target pressure within 2.4% RMS error and 50-70% FiO2 dependent with 10 L/min oxygen from a commercial concentrator. Pilot Evaluation: The LeVe CPAP system was tested to evaluate safety and acceptability in a group of ten healthy volunteers at Mengo Hospital in Kampala, Uganda. The study demonstrated that the system can be used safely without inducing hypoxia or hypercapnia and that its use was well-tolerated by users, with no adverse events reported. Conclusions: To provide respiratory support for the high patient numbers associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare providers require resource efficient solutions. We have shown that this can be achieved through frugal engineering of a CPAP ventilation system, in a system which is safe for use and well-tolerated in healthy volunteers. This approach may also benefit other respiratory conditions which often go unaddressed in Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs) for want of context-appropriate technology designed for the limited oxygen resources available.

Project description:BackgroundSustaining Basic Life Support (BLS) training during the COVID-19 pandemic bears substantial challenges. The limited availability of highly qualified instructors and tight economic conditions complicates the delivery of these life-saving trainings. Consequently, innovative and resource-efficient approaches are needed to minimize or eliminate contagion while maintaining high training standards and managing learner anxiety related to infection risk.MethodsIn a non-inferiority trial 346 first-year medical, dentistry, and physiotherapy students underwent BLS training at AIXTRA-Competence Center for Training and Patient Safety at the University Hospital RWTH Aachen. Our objectives were (1) to examine whether peer feedback BLS training supported by tele-instructors matches the learning performance of standard instructor-guided BLS training for laypersons; and (2) to minimize infection risk during BLS training. Therefore, in a parallel group design, we compared arm (1) Standard Instructor Feedback (SIF) BLS training (Historical control group of 2019) with arm (2) a Tele-Instructor Supported Peer-Feedback (TPF) BLS training (Intervention group of 2020). Both study arms were based on Peyton's 4-step approach. Before and after each training session, objective data for BLS performance (compression depth and rate) were recorded using a resuscitation manikin. We also assessed overall BLS performance via standardized instructor evaluation and student self-reports of confidence via questionnaire. Non-inferiority margins for the outcome parameters and sample size calculation were based on previous studies with SIF. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals were employed to determine significance of non-inferiority.ResultsThe results confirmed non-inferiority of TPF to SIF for all tested outcome parameters. A follow-up after 2 weeks found no confirmed COVID-19 infections among the participants.ConclusionTele-instructor supported peer feedback is a powerful alternative to in-person instructor feedback on BLS skills during a pandemic, where infection risk needs to be minimized while maximizing the quality of BLS skill learning.Trial registrationhttps://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00025199, Trial ID: DRKS00025199.

Project description:BackgroundInternet-based interventions moderated by community nurses have the potential to improve support offered to new mothers, many of whom now make extensive use of the Internet to obtain information about infant care. However, evidence from population-based randomized controlled trials is lacking.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to test the non-inferiority of outcomes for mothers and infants who received a clinic-based postnatal health check plus nurse-moderated, Internet-based group support when infants were aged 1-7 months as compared with outcomes for those who received standard care consisting of postnatal home-based support provided by a community nurse.MethodsThe design of the study was a pragmatic, preference, non-inferiority randomized control trial. Participants were recruited from mothers contacted for their postnatal health check, which is offered to all mothers in South Australia. Mothers were assigned either (1) on the basis of their preference to clinic+Internet or home-based support groups (n=328), or (2) randomly assigned to clinic+Internet or home-based groups if they declared no strong preference (n=491). The overall response rate was 44.8% (819/1827). The primary outcome was parenting self-competence, as measured by the Parenting Stress Index (PSI) Competence subscale, and the Karitane Parenting Confidence Scale scores. Secondary outcome measures included PSI Isolation, Interpersonal Support Evaluation List-Short Form, Maternal Support Scale, Ages and Stages Questionnaire-Social-Emotional and MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory (MCDI) scores. Assessments were completed offline via self-assessment questionnaires at enrolment (mean child age=4.1 weeks, SD 1.3) and again when infants were aged 9, 15, and 21 months.ResultsGeneralized estimating equations adjusting for post-randomization baseline imbalances showed that differences in outcomes between mothers in the clinic+Internet and home-based support groups did not exceed the pre-specified margin of inferiority (0.25 of a SD) on any outcome measure at any follow-up assessment, with the exception of MCDI scores assessing children's language development at 21 months for randomized mothers, and PSI Isolation scores at 9 months for preference mothers.ConclusionMaternal and child outcomes from a clinic-based postnatal health check plus nurse-moderated Internet-based support were not inferior to those achieved by a universal home-based postnatal support program. Postnatal maternal and infant support using the Internet is a promising alternative to home-based universal support programs.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number (ANZCTR): ACTRN12613000204741; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=363712&isReview=true (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6rZeCJ3k1).

Project description:IntroductionTraining Basic Life Support saves lives. However, current BLS training approaches are time-consuming and costly. Alternative cost-efficient and effective training methods are highly needed. The present study evaluated whether a video-feedback supported peer-guided Basic Life Support training approach achieves similar practical performance as a standard instructor-guided training in laypersons.MethodsIn a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, 288 first-year medical students were randomized to two study arms with different Basic Life Support training methods: 1) Standard Instructor Feedback (SIF) or 2) a Peer Video Feedback (PVF). Outcome parameters were objective data for Basic Life Support performance (compression depth and rate) from a resuscitation manikin with recording software as well as overall Basic Life Support performance and subjective confidence. Non-inferiority margins (Δ) for these outcome parameters and sample size calculation were based on previous studies with Standard Instructor Feedback. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals were employed to determine significance of non-inferiority.ResultsResults confirmed non-inferiority of Peer Video Feedback to Standard Instructor Feedback for compression depth (proportion difference PVF-SIF = 2.9%; 95% CI: -8.2% to 14.1%; Δ = -19%), overall Basic Life Support performance (proportion difference PVF-SIF = 6.7%; 95% CI: 0.0% to 14.3%; Δ = -27%) and subjective confidence for CPR performance (proportion difference PVF-SIF = -0.01; 95% CI: -0.18-0.17; Δ = -0.5) and emergency situations (proportion difference PVF-SIF = -0.02; 95% CI: -0.21-0.18; Δ = -0.5). Results for compression rate were inconclusive.DiscussionPeer Video Feedback achieves comparable results as standard instructor-based training methods. It is an easy-to-apply and cost-efficient alternative to standard Basic Life Support training methods. To improve performance with respect to compression rate, additional implementation of a metronome is recommended.

Project description:IntroductionApnoeic oxygenation using nasal high-flow oxygen delivery systems with heated and humidified oxygen has recently gained popularity in the anaesthesia community. It has been shown to allow a prolonged apnoea time of up to 65 min as CO2 increase was far slower compared with previously reported data from CO2 increase during apnoea. A ventilatory exchange due to the high nasal oxygen flow was proposed explaining that phenomenon. However, recent studies in children did not show any difference in CO2 clearance comparing high-flow with low-flow oxygen. To investigate this ventilatory exchange in adults, we plan this study comparing different oxygen flow rates and the increase of CO2 during apnoea. We hypothesise that CO2 clearance is non-inferior when applying low oxygen flow rates.Methods and analysisIn this single-centre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial, we randomly assign 100 patients planned for elective surgery to either control (oxygen 70 L/min, airway opened by laryngoscopy) or one of three intervention groups: oxygen 70, or 10, or 2 L/min, all with jaw thrust to secure airway patency. After anaesthesia induction and neuromuscular blockage, either one of the interventions or the control will be applied according to randomisation. Throughout the apnoea period, we will measure the increase of transcutaneous pCO2 (tcpCO2) until any one of the following criteria is met: time=15 min, SpO2 <92%, tcpCO2 >10.67 kPa, art. pH <7.1, K+ >6.0 mmol/L. Primary outcome is the mean tcpCO2 increase in kPa/min.Ethics and disseminationAfter Cantonal Ethic Committee of Bern approval (ID 2018-00293, 22.03.2018), all study participants will provide written informed consent. Patients vulnerable towards hypoxia or hypercarbia are excluded. Study results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberThis study was registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03478774,Pre-results) and the Swiss Trial Registry KOFAM (SNCTP000002861).

Dataset Information

FIRST-line support for assistance in breathing in children (FIRST-ABC): a master protocol of two randomised trials to evaluate the non-inferiority of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Trial registration number

Publications

FIRST-line support for assistance in breathing in children (FIRST-ABC): a master protocol of two randomised trials to evaluate the non-inferiority of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets