Suchergebnisse

International audience ; Background: Conducting research in critically-ill patient populations is challenging, and most randomized trials of critically-ill patients have not achieved pre-specified statistical thresholds to conclude that the intervention being investigated was beneficial.Methods: In 2019, a diverse group of patient representatives, regulators from the USA and European Union, federal grant managers, industry representatives, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, and clinicians convened the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists (3CT) Workshop to discuss challenges and opportunities in conducting and assessing critical care trials. Herein, we present the advantages and disadvantages of available methodologies for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis, and a series of recommendations to potentially improve future trials in critical care.Conclusion: The 3CT Workshop participants identified opportunities to improve critical care trials using strategies to optimize sample size calculations, account for patient and disease heterogeneity, increase the efficiency of trial conduct, maximize the use of trial data, and to refine and standardize the collection of patient-centered and patient-informed outcome measures beyond mortality.

International audience ; Background: Conducting research in critically-ill patient populations is challenging, and most randomized trials of critically-ill patients have not achieved pre-specified statistical thresholds to conclude that the intervention being investigated was beneficial.Methods: In 2019, a diverse group of patient representatives, regulators from the USA and European Union, federal grant managers, industry representatives, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, and clinicians convened the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists (3CT) Workshop to discuss challenges and opportunities in conducting and assessing critical care trials. Herein, we present the advantages and disadvantages of available methodologies for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis, and a series of recommendations to potentially improve future trials in critical care.Conclusion: The 3CT Workshop participants identified opportunities to improve critical care trials using strategies to optimize sample size calculations, account for patient and disease heterogeneity, increase the efficiency of trial conduct, maximize the use of trial data, and to refine and standardize the collection of patient-centered and patient-informed outcome measures beyond mortality.

International audience ; Background: Conducting research in critically-ill patient populations is challenging, and most randomized trials of critically-ill patients have not achieved pre-specified statistical thresholds to conclude that the intervention being investigated was beneficial.Methods: In 2019, a diverse group of patient representatives, regulators from the USA and European Union, federal grant managers, industry representatives, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, and clinicians convened the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists (3CT) Workshop to discuss challenges and opportunities in conducting and assessing critical care trials. Herein, we present the advantages and disadvantages of available methodologies for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis, and a series of recommendations to potentially improve future trials in critical care.Conclusion: The 3CT Workshop participants identified opportunities to improve critical care trials using strategies to optimize sample size calculations, account for patient and disease heterogeneity, increase the efficiency of trial conduct, maximize the use of trial data, and to refine and standardize the collection of patient-centered and patient-informed outcome measures beyond mortality.

International audience ; Background: Conducting research in critically-ill patient populations is challenging, and most randomized trials of critically-ill patients have not achieved pre-specified statistical thresholds to conclude that the intervention being investigated was beneficial.Methods: In 2019, a diverse group of patient representatives, regulators from the USA and European Union, federal grant managers, industry representatives, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, and clinicians convened the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists (3CT) Workshop to discuss challenges and opportunities in conducting and assessing critical care trials. Herein, we present the advantages and disadvantages of available methodologies for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis, and a series of recommendations to potentially improve future trials in critical care.Conclusion: The 3CT Workshop participants identified opportunities to improve critical care trials using strategies to optimize sample size calculations, account for patient and disease heterogeneity, increase the efficiency of trial conduct, maximize the use of trial data, and to refine and standardize the collection of patient-centered and patient-informed outcome measures beyond mortality.

International audience ; Background: Conducting research in critically-ill patient populations is challenging, and most randomized trials of critically-ill patients have not achieved pre-specified statistical thresholds to conclude that the intervention being investigated was beneficial.Methods: In 2019, a diverse group of patient representatives, regulators from the USA and European Union, federal grant managers, industry representatives, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, and clinicians convened the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists (3CT) Workshop to discuss challenges and opportunities in conducting and assessing critical care trials. Herein, we present the advantages and disadvantages of available methodologies for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis, and a series of recommendations to potentially improve future trials in critical care.Conclusion: The 3CT Workshop participants identified opportunities to improve critical care trials using strategies to optimize sample size calculations, account for patient and disease heterogeneity, increase the efficiency of trial conduct, maximize the use of trial data, and to refine and standardize the collection of patient-centered and patient-informed outcome measures beyond mortality.

BACKGROUND: Conducting research in critically-ill patient populations is challenging, and most randomized trials of critically-ill patients have not achieved pre-specified statistical thresholds to conclude that the intervention being investigated was beneficial. METHODS: In 2019, a diverse group of patient representatives, regulators from the USA and European Union, federal grant managers, industry representatives, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, and clinicians convened the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists (3CT) Workshop to discuss challenges and opportunities in conducting and assessing critical care trials. Herein, we present the advantages and disadvantages of available methodologies for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis, and a series of recommendations to potentially improve future trials in critical care. CONCLUSION: The 3CT Workshop participants identified opportunities to improve critical care trials using strategies to optimize sample size calculations, account for patient and disease heterogeneity, increase the efficiency of trial conduct, maximize the use of trial data, and to refine and standardize the collection of patient-centered and patient-informed outcome measures beyond mortality.

BACKGROUND: Conducting research in critically-ill patient populations is challenging, and most randomized trials of critically-ill patients have not achieved pre-specified statistical thresholds to conclude that the intervention being investigated was beneficial. METHODS: In 2019, a diverse group of patient representatives, regulators from the USA and European Union, federal grant managers, industry representatives, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, and clinicians convened the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists (3CT) Workshop to discuss challenges and opportunities in conducting and assessing critical care trials. Herein, we present the advantages and disadvantages of available methodologies for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis, and a series of recommendations to potentially improve future trials in critical care. CONCLUSION: The 3CT Workshop participants identified opportunities to improve critical care trials using strategies to optimize sample size calculations, account for patient and disease heterogeneity, increase the efficiency of trial conduct, maximize the use of trial data, and to refine and standardize the collection of patient-centered and patient-informed outcome measures beyond mortality.

International audience ; Since the implementation of two French laws in 2002 and 2005 and the implementation of guidelines about End-of-Life (EoL) decisions, few studies concerning EoL practices in French intensive care units (ICUs) have been reported. This study was aimed at assessing compliance with recommendations and current legislation concerning EoL decisions. Prospective observational study based on 1-day audit conducted from January to May 2009 in 66 southern French ICUs. Six hundred and twenty-five patients were included (median age: 63 [52-76] years, median SAPS II: 46 [34-58]). The written designation of a surrogate decision-maker was reported for 87 (15%) patients. Advance directives were completed for only 4% of patients. The EoL decision-making process consisted in a multidisciplinary approach for 99 (47%) patients and was recorded in the medical chart for 63 (64%) cases. Families were informed about medical decisions in 58% of cases. This proportion was higher (87%) if a decision to forego life-sustaining therapy was made. EoL decisions consisted of withholding treatments for 72 (94%) patients and withdrawal of treatments for 5 (6%) patients. In the multivariate stepwise logistic regression, four variables were independently associated with a decision to forego life support: preexisting dependence on others (P<0.0001), advance directives (P=0.01), age (P=0.008) and the SAPS 2 score (P=0.009). The major finding of the present study is the existence of a gap between the widely approved EoL recommendations made by scientific societies and the daily practice of southern French ICUs. Even if EoL decisions are mostly shared with relatives, their written documentation in medical charts remains insufficient. Concerning EoL practices, the withdrawal of treatment remains an uncommon decision.

International audience ; Since the implementation of two French laws in 2002 and 2005 and the implementation of guidelines about End-of-Life (EoL) decisions, few studies concerning EoL practices in French intensive care units (ICUs) have been reported. This study was aimed at assessing compliance with recommendations and current legislation concerning EoL decisions. Prospective observational study based on 1-day audit conducted from January to May 2009 in 66 southern French ICUs. Six hundred and twenty-five patients were included (median age: 63 [52-76] years, median SAPS II: 46 [34-58]). The written designation of a surrogate decision-maker was reported for 87 (15%) patients. Advance directives were completed for only 4% of patients. The EoL decision-making process consisted in a multidisciplinary approach for 99 (47%) patients and was recorded in the medical chart for 63 (64%) cases. Families were informed about medical decisions in 58% of cases. This proportion was higher (87%) if a decision to forego life-sustaining therapy was made. EoL decisions consisted of withholding treatments for 72 (94%) patients and withdrawal of treatments for 5 (6%) patients. In the multivariate stepwise logistic regression, four variables were independently associated with a decision to forego life support: preexisting dependence on others (P<0.0001), advance directives (P=0.01), age (P=0.008) and the SAPS 2 score (P=0.009). The major finding of the present study is the existence of a gap between the widely approved EoL recommendations made by scientific societies and the daily practice of southern French ICUs. Even if EoL decisions are mostly shared with relatives, their written documentation in medical charts remains insufficient. Concerning EoL practices, the withdrawal of treatment remains an uncommon decision.

International audience ; Since the implementation of two French laws in 2002 and 2005 and the implementation of guidelines about End-of-Life (EoL) decisions, few studies concerning EoL practices in French intensive care units (ICUs) have been reported. This study was aimed at assessing compliance with recommendations and current legislation concerning EoL decisions. Prospective observational study based on 1-day audit conducted from January to May 2009 in 66 southern French ICUs. Six hundred and twenty-five patients were included (median age: 63 [52-76] years, median SAPS II: 46 [34-58]). The written designation of a surrogate decision-maker was reported for 87 (15%) patients. Advance directives were completed for only 4% of patients. The EoL decision-making process consisted in a multidisciplinary approach for 99 (47%) patients and was recorded in the medical chart for 63 (64%) cases. Families were informed about medical decisions in 58% of cases. This proportion was higher (87%) if a decision to forego life-sustaining therapy was made. EoL decisions consisted of withholding treatments for 72 (94%) patients and withdrawal of treatments for 5 (6%) patients. In the multivariate stepwise logistic regression, four variables were independently associated with a decision to forego life support: preexisting dependence on others (P<0.0001), advance directives (P=0.01), age (P=0.008) and the SAPS 2 score (P=0.009). The major finding of the present study is the existence of a gap between the widely approved EoL recommendations made by scientific societies and the daily practice of southern French ICUs. Even if EoL decisions are mostly shared with relatives, their written documentation in medical charts remains insufficient. Concerning EoL practices, the withdrawal of treatment remains an uncommon decision.

International audience ; Since the implementation of two French laws in 2002 and 2005 and the implementation of guidelines about End-of-Life (EoL) decisions, few studies concerning EoL practices in French intensive care units (ICUs) have been reported. This study was aimed at assessing compliance with recommendations and current legislation concerning EoL decisions. Prospective observational study based on 1-day audit conducted from January to May 2009 in 66 southern French ICUs. Six hundred and twenty-five patients were included (median age: 63 [52-76] years, median SAPS II: 46 [34-58]). The written designation of a surrogate decision-maker was reported for 87 (15%) patients. Advance directives were completed for only 4% of patients. The EoL decision-making process consisted in a multidisciplinary approach for 99 (47%) patients and was recorded in the medical chart for 63 (64%) cases. Families were informed about medical decisions in 58% of cases. This proportion was higher (87%) if a decision to forego life-sustaining therapy was made. EoL decisions consisted of withholding treatments for 72 (94%) patients and withdrawal of treatments for 5 (6%) patients. In the multivariate stepwise logistic regression, four variables were independently associated with a decision to forego life support: preexisting dependence on others (P<0.0001), advance directives (P=0.01), age (P=0.008) and the SAPS 2 score (P=0.009). The major finding of the present study is the existence of a gap between the widely approved EoL recommendations made by scientific societies and the daily practice of southern French ICUs. Even if EoL decisions are mostly shared with relatives, their written documentation in medical charts remains insufficient. Concerning EoL practices, the withdrawal of treatment remains an uncommon decision.

International audience ; Since the implementation of two French laws in 2002 and 2005 and the implementation of guidelines about End-of-Life (EoL) decisions, few studies concerning EoL practices in French intensive care units (ICUs) have been reported. This study was aimed at assessing compliance with recommendations and current legislation concerning EoL decisions. Prospective observational study based on 1-day audit conducted from January to May 2009 in 66 southern French ICUs. Six hundred and twenty-five patients were included (median age: 63 [52-76] years, median SAPS II: 46 [34-58]). The written designation of a surrogate decision-maker was reported for 87 (15%) patients. Advance directives were completed for only 4% of patients. The EoL decision-making process consisted in a multidisciplinary approach for 99 (47%) patients and was recorded in the medical chart for 63 (64%) cases. Families were informed about medical decisions in 58% of cases. This proportion was higher (87%) if a decision to forego life-sustaining therapy was made. EoL decisions consisted of withholding treatments for 72 (94%) patients and withdrawal of treatments for 5 (6%) patients. In the multivariate stepwise logistic regression, four variables were independently associated with a decision to forego life support: preexisting dependence on others (P<0.0001), advance directives (P=0.01), age (P=0.008) and the SAPS 2 score (P=0.009). The major finding of the present study is the existence of a gap between the widely approved EoL recommendations made by scientific societies and the daily practice of southern French ICUs. Even if EoL decisions are mostly shared with relatives, their written documentation in medical charts remains insufficient. Concerning EoL practices, the withdrawal of treatment remains an uncommon decision.

International audience ; Since the implementation of two French laws in 2002 and 2005 and the implementation of guidelines about End-of-Life (EoL) decisions, few studies concerning EoL practices in French intensive care units (ICUs) have been reported. This study was aimed at assessing compliance with recommendations and current legislation concerning EoL decisions. Prospective observational study based on 1-day audit conducted from January to May 2009 in 66 southern French ICUs. Six hundred and twenty-five patients were included (median age: 63 [52-76] years, median SAPS II: 46 [34-58]). The written designation of a surrogate decision-maker was reported for 87 (15%) patients. Advance directives were completed for only 4% of patients. The EoL decision-making process consisted in a multidisciplinary approach for 99 (47%) patients and was recorded in the medical chart for 63 (64%) cases. Families were informed about medical decisions in 58% of cases. This proportion was higher (87%) if a decision to forego life-sustaining therapy was made. EoL decisions consisted of withholding treatments for 72 (94%) patients and withdrawal of treatments for 5 (6%) patients. In the multivariate stepwise logistic regression, four variables were independently associated with a decision to forego life support: preexisting dependence on others (P<0.0001), advance directives (P=0.01), age (P=0.008) and the SAPS 2 score (P=0.009). The major finding of the present study is the existence of a gap between the widely approved EoL recommendations made by scientific societies and the daily practice of southern French ICUs. Even if EoL decisions are mostly shared with relatives, their written documentation in medical charts remains insufficient. Concerning EoL practices, the withdrawal of treatment remains an uncommon decision.

International audience ; Since the implementation of two French laws in 2002 and 2005 and the implementation of guidelines about End-of-Life (EoL) decisions, few studies concerning EoL practices in French intensive care units (ICUs) have been reported. This study was aimed at assessing compliance with recommendations and current legislation concerning EoL decisions. Prospective observational study based on 1-day audit conducted from January to May 2009 in 66 southern French ICUs. Six hundred and twenty-five patients were included (median age: 63 [52-76] years, median SAPS II: 46 [34-58]). The written designation of a surrogate decision-maker was reported for 87 (15%) patients. Advance directives were completed for only 4% of patients. The EoL decision-making process consisted in a multidisciplinary approach for 99 (47%) patients and was recorded in the medical chart for 63 (64%) cases. Families were informed about medical decisions in 58% of cases. This proportion was higher (87%) if a decision to forego life-sustaining therapy was made. EoL decisions consisted of withholding treatments for 72 (94%) patients and withdrawal of treatments for 5 (6%) patients. In the multivariate stepwise logistic regression, four variables were independently associated with a decision to forego life support: preexisting dependence on others (P<0.0001), advance directives (P=0.01), age (P=0.008) and the SAPS 2 score (P=0.009). The major finding of the present study is the existence of a gap between the widely approved EoL recommendations made by scientific societies and the daily practice of southern French ICUs. Even if EoL decisions are mostly shared with relatives, their written documentation in medical charts remains insufficient. Concerning EoL practices, the withdrawal of treatment remains an uncommon decision.

International audience ; Since the implementation of two French laws in 2002 and 2005 and the implementation of guidelines about End-of-Life (EoL) decisions, few studies concerning EoL practices in French intensive care units (ICUs) have been reported. This study was aimed at assessing compliance with recommendations and current legislation concerning EoL decisions. Prospective observational study based on 1-day audit conducted from January to May 2009 in 66 southern French ICUs. Six hundred and twenty-five patients were included (median age: 63 [52-76] years, median SAPS II: 46 [34-58]). The written designation of a surrogate decision-maker was reported for 87 (15%) patients. Advance directives were completed for only 4% of patients. The EoL decision-making process consisted in a multidisciplinary approach for 99 (47%) patients and was recorded in the medical chart for 63 (64%) cases. Families were informed about medical decisions in 58% of cases. This proportion was higher (87%) if a decision to forego life-sustaining therapy was made. EoL decisions consisted of withholding treatments for 72 (94%) patients and withdrawal of treatments for 5 (6%) patients. In the multivariate stepwise logistic regression, four variables were independently associated with a decision to forego life support: preexisting dependence on others (P<0.0001), advance directives (P=0.01), age (P=0.008) and the SAPS 2 score (P=0.009). The major finding of the present study is the existence of a gap between the widely approved EoL recommendations made by scientific societies and the daily practice of southern French ICUs. Even if EoL decisions are mostly shared with relatives, their written documentation in medical charts remains insufficient. Concerning EoL practices, the withdrawal of treatment remains an uncommon decision.