Learning from stakeholders to inform good practice guidance on consent to research in intensive care units: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

Obtaining informed consent from patients in intensive care units (ICUs) prior to enrolment in a study is practically and ethically complex. Decisions about the participation of critically ill patients in research often involve substitute decision makers (SDMs), such as a patient's relatives or doctors. We explored the perspectives of different stakeholder groups towards these consent procedures.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Mixed-methods study comprising surveys completed by ICU patients, their relatives and healthcare practitioners in 14 English ICUs, followed by qualitative interviews with a subset of survey participants. Empirical bioethics informed the analysis and synthesis of the data. Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics of Likert responses, and analysis of interview data was informed by thematic reflective approaches.

RESULTS

Analysis included 1409 survey responses (ICU patients n=333, relatives n=488, healthcare practitioners n=588) and 60 interviews (ICU patients n=13, relatives n=30, healthcare practitioners n=17). Most agreed with relatives acting as SDMs based on the perception that relatives often know the patient well enough to reflect their views. While the practice of doctors serving as SDMs was supported by most survey respondents, a quarter (25%) disagreed. Views were more positive at interview and shifted markedly depending on particularities of the study. Participants also wanted reassurance that patient care was prioritised over research recruitment. Findings lend support for adaptations to consent procedures, including collaborative decision-making to correct misunderstandings of the implications of research for that patient. This empirical evidence is used to develop good practice guidance that is to be published separately.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants largely supported existing consent procedures, but their perspectives on these consent procedures depended on their perceptions of what the research involved and the safeguards in place. Findings point to the importance of explaining clearly what safeguards are in place to protect the patient.

Comparing restrictive versus liberal oxygen strategies for trauma patients - the TRAUMOX2 trial: protocol for a randomised clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Supplemental oxygen is commonly used in trauma patients, although it may lead to hyperoxaemia that has been associated with pulmonary complications and increased mortality. The primary objective of this trial, TRAUMOX2, is to compare a restrictive versus liberal oxygen strategy the first 8 hours following trauma.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

TRAUMOX2 is an investigator-initiated, international, parallel-grouped, superiority, outcome assessor-blinded and analyst-blinded, randomised, controlled, clinical trial.Adult patients with suspected major trauma are randomised to eight hours of a restrictive or liberal oxygen strategy. The restrictive group receives the lowest dosage of oxygen (>21%) that ensures an SpO₂ of 94%. The liberal group receives 12-15 L O₂/min or FiO₂=0.6-1.0.The primary outcome is a composite of 30-day mortality and/or development of major respiratory complications (pneumonia and/or acute respiratory distress syndrome).With 710 participants in each arm, we will be able to detect a 33% risk reduction with a restrictive oxygen strategy if the incidence of our primary outcome is 15% in the liberal group.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

TRAUMOX2 is carried out in accordance with the Helsinki II Declaration. It has been approved by the Danish Committee on Health Research Ethics for the Capital Region (H-21018062) and The Danish Medicines Agency, as well as the Dutch Medical Research Ethics Committee Erasmus MS (NL79921.078.21 and MEC-2021-0932). A website (www.traumox2.org) is available for updates and study results will be published in an international peer-reviewed scientific journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

EudraCT 2021-000556-19; NCT05146700.

Protocol for a systematic review on effective patient positioning for rapid sequence intubation

INTRODUCTION

Rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is an advanced airway technique to perform endotracheal intubation in patients at high risk of aspiration. Although RSI is recognised as a life-saving technique and performed by many physicians in various settings (emergency departments, intensive care units), there is still a lack of consensus on various features of the procedure, most notably patient positioning. Previously, experts have commented on the unique drawbacks and benefits of various positions and studies have been published comparing patient positions and how it can affect endotracheal intubation in the context of RSI. The purpose of this systematic review is to compile the existing evidence to understand and compare how different patient positions can potentially affect the success of RSI.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will use MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to source studies from 1946 to 2021 that evaluate the impact of patient positioning on endotracheal intubation in the context of RSI. We will include randomised control trials, case-control studies, prospective/retrospective cohort studies and mannequin simulation studies for consideration in this systematic review. Subsequently, we will generate a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram to display how we selected our final studies for inclusion in the review. Two independent reviewers will complete the study screening, selection and extraction, with a third reviewer available to address any conflicts. The reviewers will extract this data in accordance with our outcomes of interest and display it in a table format to highlight patient-relevant outcomes and difficulty airway management outcomes. We will use the Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess included studies for bias.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This systematic review does not require ethics approval, as all patient-centred data will be reported from published studies.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022289773.

Investigating the association between IL-6 antagonist therapy and blood coagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a protocol for a prospective, observational, multicentre study

INTRODUCTION

Hypercoagulation is one the main features of COVID-19. It is induced by the hyperinflammatory response that shifts the balance of haemostasis towards pro-coagulation. Interleukin-6 (IL-6) antagonist therapy has been recommended in certain subgroups of critically ill patients with COVID-19 to modulate inflammatory response. The interaction between immune response and haemostasis is well recognised. Therefore, our objective is to evaluate whether the modulation of the inflammatory response by IL-6 antagonist inflicts any changes in whole blood coagulation as assessed by viscoelastic methods in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this prospective observational study, we are going to collect data on inflammatory parameters and blood coagulation using the ClotPro^® device. The primary outcome is the change of the fibrinolytic system measured by the Lysis Time and Lysis onset time before and after immunomodulation therapy. Data will be collected before the IL-6 antagonist administration at baseline (T₀) then after 24, 48 hours, then on day 5 and 7 (T_1-4, respectively). Secondary outcomes include changes in other parameters related to inflammation, blood coagulation and biomarkers of endothelial injury.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was given by the Medical Research Council of Hungary (1405-3/2022/EÜG). All participants provided written consent. The results of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05218369; Clinicaltrials.gov.