Does a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention reduce duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation compared with usual care?
In this stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial that included 8843 infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation, the unadjusted median time to successful extubation was 64.8 hours for those receiving the protocol intervention compared with 66.2 hours for those receiving usual care. This difference was statistically significant but smaller than had been anticipated.
Among infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation, a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention resulted in a reduction in time to first successful extubation; however, the clinical importance of the effect size is uncertain.
There is limited evidence on the optimal strategy for liberating infants and children from invasive mechanical ventilation in the pediatric intensive care unit.
To determine if a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention reduces the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation.
Design, Setting, and Participants
A pragmatic multicenter, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted that included 17 hospital sites (18 pediatric intensive care units) in the UK sequentially randomized from usual care to the protocol intervention. From February 2018 to October 2019, 8843 critically ill infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation were recruited. The last date of follow-up was November 11, 2019.
Pediatric intensive care units provided usual care (n = 4155 infants and children) or a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention (n = 4688 infants and children) that consisted of assessment of sedation level, daily screening for readiness to undertake a spontaneous breathing trial, a spontaneous breathing trial to test ventilator liberation potential, and daily rounds to review sedation and readiness screening and set patient-relevant targets.
Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary outcome was the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation from initiation of ventilation until the first successful extubation. The primary estimate of the treatment effect was a hazard ratio (with a 95% CI) adjusted for calendar time and cluster (hospital site) for infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation.
There were a total of 8843 infants and children (median age, 8 months [interquartile range, 1 to 46 months]; 42% were female) who completed the trial. There was a significantly shorter median time to successful extubation for the protocol intervention compared with usual care (64.8 hours vs 66.2 hours, respectively; adjusted median difference, −6.1 hours [interquartile range, −8.2 to −5.3 hours]; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.02 to 1.20], P = .02). The serious adverse event of hypoxia occurred in 9 (0.2%) infants and children for the protocol intervention vs 11 (0.3%) for usual care; nonvascular device dislodgement occurred in 2 (0.04%) vs 7 (0.1%), respectively.
Conclusions and Relevance
Among infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation, a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention compared with usual care resulted in a statistically significant reduction in time to first successful extubation. However, the clinical importance of the effect size is uncertain.
isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16998143
The majority of infants and children admitted to pediatric intensive care units (ICUs) require invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV).1-4 Despite its benefits, IMV is associated with complications, including ventilator-associated pneumonia and ventilator-induced lung injury, and requires sedation that is associated with complications, which may prolong duration of IMV.5
Weaning protocols are widely used in adult ICUs. The practice of testing readiness for ventilator liberation with a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) is well established.6 A meta-analysis7 of protocolized weaning (14 trials including 2205 participants) reported moderate certainty in the evidence for a reduction by 26% (95% CI, 13%-37%) in IMV duration, with 11 trials evaluating SBT. A systematic review8 of protocolized weaning in children (3 trials including 321 participants) concluded that the evidence was insufficient to determine net benefit or harm.
Across the UK, there is variation in pediatric ICU sedation and ventilator weaning practices, and minimal involvement of junior medical and nursing clinicians.9 Furthermore, approximately two-thirds of nurses employed in UK pediatric ICUs are junior staff nurses.4 It was hypothesized that engagement of the existing multiprofessional ICU team in a sedation and ventilation liberation intervention would reduce time to successful liberation from IMV.
Trial Design and Oversight
This was a pragmatic multicenter, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized clinical trial (Figure 1 and eFigure 1 in Supplement 1).10 The cost-effectiveness and process evaluations are not reported. The pragmatic domains appear in eFigure 2 in Supplement 1. The National East Midlands research ethics committee approved the protocol (17/EM/0301) on September 12, 2017. An opt-out consent approach was used with distribution of study leaflets to parents. There was no requirement for written or oral informed consent. The Northern Ireland Clinical Trials Unit managed the trial. Data collection was managed through the mandatory national registry (Paediatric Intensive Care and Audit Network4) of pediatric ICU admissions with additional items recorded on electronic case report forms. Independent oversight was provided through the steering and data and safety monitoring committees convened by the UK National Institute of Health Research. The trial protocol was published11 (the trial protocol and statistical analysis plan appear in Supplement 2).
The primary objective was to determine the effect of the protocol intervention on the duration of IMV in infants and children anticipated to require prolonged IMV, which was defined a priori and determined by the diagnostic codes used. The diagnostic codes associated with IMV duration of less than 24 hours were categorized as short, and all other diagnostic codes were categorized as prolonged (additional details appear in the eMethods in Supplement 1). As a secondary objective, we determined the effect of the protocol intervention on the duration of IMV for all infants and children irrespective of the short or prolonged categorization.
Trial Sites and Participants
All UK hospital sites with 1 or more pediatric ICUs were eligible for the trial. Infants and children (aged <16 years) were eligible if they required IMV and were excluded if they were admitted with a tracheostomy in situ, were not immediately expected to survive, were expected to undergo treatment withdrawal, or if the parent or guardian opted out.
The cluster (hospital site) was the unit of randomization. One cluster contained 2 pediatric ICUs that were randomized together to prevent intervention contamination. All clusters started data collection simultaneously. At each 4-week period, starting from period 3 to period 18, 1 cluster transitioned to training and subsequently continued in the protocol intervention. The transition order was randomly determined using a computer-generated algorithm and was restricted to ensure the trial was balanced in terms of a control and an intervention with respect to the cluster size (small or large) determined by published numbers of ICU admissions12 (eMethods in Supplement 1).
Description of Protocol Intervention and Training
A description of the protocol intervention appears in the eMethods in Supplement 1 and the training resources are available on the trial’s website.13 The protocol intervention incorporated education and training for the multiprofessional pediatric ICU team to deliver 4 key components. The components included assessment of sedation levels using COMFORT scale scores, daily screening for readiness to undertake an SBT, initiation of an SBT when screening criteria were satisfied, and a daily multiprofessional round (Box). The protocol intervention training included online and face-to-face education. The trial implementation manager trained the local research team and multiprofessional champions to roll out training. The protocol intervention was delivered to all infants and children requiring IMV in the pediatric ICU.
Box Section Ref ID
Components of the Sedation and Ventilator Liberation Protocol Intervention
Assessment of sedation levels by the bedside nurse using the COMFORT scalea score (every 6 hours as a minimum time interval).
Assessment of readiness to undertake a spontaneous breathing trial by the bedside nurse using the following screening criteria at a minimum of twice daily: fraction of inspired oxygen level ≤0.45; oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry ≥95% (or as appropriate); PEEP level ≤8 cm H2O; peak inspiratory pressure level ≤22 cm H2O; or cough present.
Use of a spontaneous breathing trial to assess readiness for noninvasive ventilator. Decision made by a nurse or physician (with the appropriate experience and authority) to begin spontaneous breathing trial. Spontaneous breathing trial (maximum ≥2 hours) conducted with monitoring of the following outcomes by the bedside nurse: spontaneous breathing mode (continuous positive airway pressure); PEEP level of 5 cm H2O; or pressure support of at least 5 cm H2O in addition to PEEP.
Multidisciplinary review of the child’s COMFORT scale scores during rounds and spontaneous breathing trial assessments with feedback to the bedside nurse on sedation level and ventilation parameter targets (minimum daily assessment).
Abbreviation: PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure.
a Assesses pain and sedation to determine if the child is adequately comfortable or in need of more or less medication to maintain adequate ventilation.
Adherence was measured by the proportion of (1) 4 protocol intervention components performed and captured daily; (2) staff trained by the end of the transition period; and (3) protocol intervention reach14 (admissions screened divided by IMV admissions during the trial period). The mean adherence proportions for each ICU were ranked and divided into tertiles.
Usual care is described elsewhere9 and a description of the type of usual care provided in participating ICUs at the start of the trial appears in eTable 1 in Supplement 1. Typically, usual care was medically led, involved a slow reduction in ventilator support to low levels of support prior to extubation, and was provided in pediatric ICUs that did not have sedation or ventilator liberation protocols.
The primary outcome was the duration of IMV from initiation of ventilation until the first successful extubation. Success was defined as an individual who was still breathing spontaneously for 48 hours after extubation. The majority of the prespecified secondary outcomes (as defined in the trial protocol; Supplement 2) are reported; however, cost per complication avoided at 28 days is not reported. Outcomes were measured from patient admission up to 90 days or pediatric ICU discharge (whichever was earlier). At the end of the enrollment period, data collection continued for a maximum of 28 days.
The planned sample size was between 11 024 and 14 310 patients (dependent on the intracluster correlation coefficient). After the internal pilot program, reestimation of the mean duration of IMV was 5.8 days (SD, 9.6 days) and the intracluster correlation coefficient was 0.005 (95% CI, 0.001-0.01). A revised sample size calculation estimated that 9520 patient admissions would provide 80% to 87% power to detect a 1-day target effect size. The 1-day difference was considered by the study team as clinically important and plausible for patients managed with a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention following discussions with ICU staff during the pretrial feasibility work. Sample size calculations assumed a simple exchangeable correlation structure, which was the convention at the time.15
The ICUs were analyzed according to the sequence they were randomized so that all participants were analyzed according to their randomized group. In this way, the ICUs were assumed to have been exposed to the protocol intervention following their training periods. Patients admitted during training periods were not included. For the primary analysis, observations with missing outcome data were excluded. For the secondary analysis, adjusting for individual-level covariates, observations with missing outcome or covariate data were excluded. Missing data were minimal and there was no requirement for multiple imputation. The proportion of missing data for the primary analysis for the primary outcome was 0.17% and was 0.18% for the secondary analysis. The primary estimate of the treatment effect was a time- and cluster-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CIs. Because of the potential for type I error due to multiple comparisons, findings for the analyses of the secondary outcomes should be interpreted as exploratory.
For the time-to-event primary and secondary outcomes, Cox proportional hazards models were used with a frailty term for clustering by ICU (which accounts for random cluster effects). Time-to-event outcomes were censored at the point of transitioning from usual care to the protocol intervention training periods, discharge to another hospital, at 90 days, death, and point of receiving a tracheostomy. Checks of the appropriateness of the proportional hazards assumption indicated no evident departures from proportionality on Schoenfeld residuals plots. For time-to-event outcomes, an absolute measure of effect was derived by computing the median of the model-based prediction of survival duration at all 22 periods for both the protocol intervention and usual care and the difference between the 2 and by summarizing the extent of variability using the interquartile range (IQR) over the 22 periods.
Binary secondary outcomes were analyzed using mixed-effects binomial regression with a log link to estimate the adjusted relative risk (RR). A binomial model with identity link was used to estimate the adjusted risk difference using the restricted maximum likelihood approach. All mixed models included cluster as a random effect (assuming an exchangeable correlation structure) and used the Kenward and Roger small sample correction16 to correct the potential inflation of the type I error rate due to the small number of clusters. In the case of nonconvergence of binomial linear mixed models to estimate risk differences, marginal estimates of risk differences are reported that used generalized estimating equations (assuming an independent correlation structure) and a Fay and Graubard small sample correction on standard errors with 95% CIs derived from z distribution.17 In the case of nonconvergence of the binomial model with a log link, a Poisson model with robust standard errors was fitted. For continuous outcomes, similar models were used with an identity link and assuming a normal distribution, but also checking for normality assumptions and making transformations when necessary.
A prespecified secondary analysis of the primary outcome was conducted that adjusted for additional covariates of age, severity of illness (Paediatric Index of Mortality 3 score), respiratory vs other diagnostic grouping, type of admission (planned or unplanned), and reason for admission (surgical or medical). A prespecified exploratory subgroup analysis was conducted for the primary outcome using a global test for interaction and 99% CIs for (1) ICU size (large or small based on annual admissions), (2) adherence to the protocol intervention (tertiles of ranked averages), (3) the type of admission to the ICU (planned or unplanned), and (4) the reason for admission (surgical, medical respiratory, or other medical). To assess sensitivity for the assumptions made about the nature of time effects and correlations, an extensive series of sensitivity analyses for the secondary binary outcomes was conducted (eMethods in Supplement 1). This series of sensitivity analyses showed little difference between the more complex correlation structures and the exchangeable correlation structures that were assumed in the primary analysis.
Variance components (intracluster correlation coefficients) are reported. A 2-sided significance threshold of P < .05 was used for all analyses. The analyses were conducted using Stata/SE version 16.1 (StataCorp) and SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc).
Trial Sites and Participants
All 18 ICUs opened simultaneously to recruitment on February 5, 2018, and closed on October 14, 2019. The last date of follow-up was November 11, 2019. Participating ICUs had a greater number of beds, a greater number of annual patient admissions, and included more sites in London, England, than nonparticipating ICUs (Table 1 and eTable 2 in Supplement 1). The trial included 10 495 admissions, of which 8843 infants and children (median age, 8 months [IQR, 1-46 months]; 42% were female) were in diagnostic groups identified as anticipated to require prolonged ventilation (Figure 1). Patient characteristics were well-balanced across the protocol intervention and usual care (Table 2; data on all pediatric patient admissions appear in eTable 3 in Supplement 1).
Delivery of the Protocol Intervention
A total of 1865 of 2247 (median, 85%; IQR, 80%-90%) eligible clinical staff completed training within the 8-week training period. By 12 weeks, 1955 of 2247 (median, 88%; IQR, 80%-90%) eligible clinical staff completed training (eTable 4 in Supplement 1). Across ICUs, adherence was high for protocol intervention reach (median, 82%; IQR, 77%-89%), sedation assessment (median, 83%; IQR, 82%-91%), and setting targets for sedation level (median, 85%; IQR, 63%-89%) and ventilation parameters (median, 90%; IQR, 81%-96%). Adherence was moderate for SBT screening (median, 74%; IQR, 66%-83%) and lower for proceeding to SBT when screening criteria were met (median, 40%; IQR, 31%-51%) (eTable 5 in Supplement 1). Documented reasons for not progressing to SBT and extubation appear in eTables 6 and 7 in Supplement 1.
After adjustment for cluster and calendar time, implementation of the protocol intervention resulted in a significantly shorter median duration of IMV before successful extubation of 64.8 hours (IQR, 22.1 to 141.4 hours) compared with a median duration of IMV of 66.2 hours (IQR, 21.8 to 138.0 hours) for usual care. The adjusted median difference was −6.1 hours (IQR, −8.2 to −5.3 hours) across all calendar periods and the adjusted HR was 1.11 (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.20, P = .02; Table 3). The outcomes for all infants and children appear in eTable 8 in Supplement 1. The probability and time to successful extubation by observation period appear in Figure 2 and the data for all infants and children appear in eFigure 3 in Supplement 1.
In a prespecified secondary analysis that adjusted for additional covariates, the findings were not statistically significant for the prolonged ventilation cohort (adjusted HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.98-1.16]; P = .13) or for all infants and children (adjusted HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.98-1.14]; P = .17).
There was a significantly higher incidence of successful extubation for the protocol intervention (adjusted RR, 1.01 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02]; P = .03). There was no significant difference in total duration of IMV for the protocol intervention (a median of 2.7 days [IQR, 0.9 to 6.3 days]) compared with total duration of IMV for usual care (a median of 2.8 days [IQR, 0.9 to 5.9 days]). The adjusted median difference was −0.20 days (IQR, −0.25 to −0.18 days) and the adjusted HR was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.00 to 1.18; P = .06). Use of noninvasive ventilation after extubation was significantly higher for the protocol intervention (adjusted RR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.49], P = .04). However, there was no significant difference in the duration of noninvasive ventilation with a median of 1.8 days (IQR, 0.7 to 6.8 days) for the protocol intervention compared with a median of 2.1 days (IQR, 0.7 to 6.6 days) for usual care. The adjusted median difference was 0.22 days (IQR, 0.18 to 0.29 days) and the adjusted HR was 0.9 (95% CI, 0.7 to 1.2; P = .43).
The length of stay in the ICU was not significantly different between the protocol intervention (a median of 5.0 days [IQR, 3.0-10.0 days]) compared with usual care (a median of 5.0 days [IQR, 3.0-9.0 days]). The adjusted median difference was 0 days (IQR, 0-0 days) and the adjusted HR was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.90-1.06; P = .53). However, there was a significantly longer hospital length of stay for the protocol intervention (median, 9.6 days [IQR, 5.0-19.8 days]) compared with the hospital length of stay for usual care (median, 9.1 days [IQR, 5.0-18.9 days]). The adjusted median difference was 0.91 days (IQR, 0.84-0.97 days) and the adjusted HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.97; P = .01). The protocol intervention resulted in a significantly higher incidence of unplanned extubation (adjusted RR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.05-2.51]; P = .03), but there were no significant differences in reintubation (adjusted RR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.89-1.36]; P = .38) (Table 2). The data for all infants and children appear in eTable 8 in Supplement 1.
In relation to other safety outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between the protocol intervention and usual care for risk of tracheostomy, stridor after extubation, or mortality in the ICU or in the hospital (Table 2). The data for all infants and children appear in eTable 8 in Supplement 1. Variance components (intracluster correlation coefficient) for all secondary binary outcomes are reported in eTable 9 in Supplement 1.
There were 18 serious adverse events for the protocol intervention and 25 for usual care. Adverse events included hypoxia (9 [0.2%] infants and children for the protocol intervention vs 11 [0.3%] for usual care) and nonvascular device dislodgement (2 [0.04%] vs 7 [0.1%], respectively; eTables 10 and 11 in Supplement 1).
Clinical and Exploratory Outcomes
Baseline ventilation parameters were similar (eTable 12 in Supplement 1). Ventilation parameters were not different in any clinically important extent immediately before the SBT for the protocol intervention and 2 hours before extubation for usual care (eTable 13 in Supplement 1).
Exploratory subgroup analyses for the duration of IMV before successful extubation showed no significant interactions in the prespecified subgroups based on size of ICU, type of admission, reason for admission, or adherence to the protocol intervention (eFigure 4 in Supplement 1).
In this stepped-wedge, cluster randomized clinical trial in infants and children anticipated to require prolonged ventilation, the use of a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention significantly reduced the duration of IMV to successful extubation compared with usual care. The effect size was small and thus the clinical significance is uncertain. The significant effect was consistent across all infants and children requiring IMV.
The small effect may have resulted from several factors. First, the trial recruited a broad population and, as a result, there may have been heterogeneity in the treatment effect that could have attenuated the overall effect. A greater effect in a more focused population cannot be excluded. Second, given the historic lack of involvement by bedside nurses in ventilator weaning in the UK,9 engaging the nurses fully in the process may have prompted earlier consideration of extubation, which was a key factor in a previous study.18 Third, observations showed a lower adherence to undertaking an SBT when screening criteria were satisfied and may reflect clinician hesitancy to move swiftly from a high level to a low level of support to test readiness for ventilator liberation. Even though the screening criteria indicated potential to proceed to an SBT, such progression may not have been clinically appropriate. Reluctance and nonadherence may plausibly be a sign of the difficulties clinicians experience in changing long-standing practices.19 Furthermore, the large numbers of staff required to deliver the protocol intervention may have attenuated the effect compared with the effect size seen in other smaller pediatric trials evaluating an SBT as a ventilator liberation intervention.
Few pediatric randomized clinical trials have specifically evaluated a daily screening and SBT strategy. In a 2-center trial recruiting mainly medical patients, Foronda et al20 reported a reduction in duration of IMV by more than 24 hours in the SBT group (n = 294; median, 3.5 days vs 4.7 days, P = .01). A single-site trial of cardiac surgical patients by Ferreira et al21 reported a significant reduction in extubation success in the SBT group (n = 110; 83% vs 68%, P = .02), but a longer difference in duration of IMV in the SBT group that did not meet statistical significance (median, 29.4 hours vs 21.5 hours, P = .29). In both trials, relatively few clinicians delivered the intervention in a controlled manner; thus, the findings may not directly translate when applied to wider clinical practice. In contrast, Curley et al5 evaluated a sedation protocol incorporating an SBT delivered by each site’s multidisciplinary team in a 31-site cluster trial that enrolled medical patients. They reported no significant between-group differences in duration of IMV (n = 2449; median, 6.5 days for both groups), but showed reduced variation in sedation management with interprofessional involvement. In the current study, the median duration of IMV for usual care was less than 3 days and much shorter than that reported in other pediatric studies evaluating SBTs5,20,21 or other weaning protocols.22-24 It was also shorter than the pretrial estimations that were based on the mean duration of IMV days. It is possible that the protocol intervention had a reduced absolute effect with a shorter duration of IMV than usual care.
The significantly higher incidence of unplanned extubation may be associated with less sedation and more awake patients. However, the proportion of patients with unplanned extubation was lower than the 4% to 8% reported elsewhere,5,25 and did not result in a higher rate of reintubation. This may be an indication that some patients might be ready to breathe without assistance sooner than previously expected, a point raised in previous adult and pediatric studies.26,27 Thus in some respects, usual care may be a conservative approach. The greater use of noninvasive ventilation after extubation with the protocol intervention may reflect the need for continued ventilator support because of earlier extubation. Alternatively, it could also reflect clinician discomfort with a more accelerated weaning and extubation approach in contrast to a conservative approach.
Infants and children had a significantly longer hospital stay with the protocol intervention. Whether this finding represents an association with the protocol intervention or is a consequence of greater use of noninvasive ventilation or other factors cannot be ascertained within the present study.
The stepped-wedge design had several strengths. It helped (1) overcome the risk of intervention contamination with usual care; (2) maximize power to detect an effect; (3) facilitate protocol intervention training; and (4) increase ICU participation by guaranteeing receipt of the protocol intervention.28 The pragmatic recruitment facilitated testing in a broader population of patients who would potentially benefit from the protocol intervention.
This study has several limitations. First, assignment of the protocol intervention was unblinded. This may have led to performance or detection bias. Second, hospital sites were the unit of randomization and the infants and children enrolled were a heterogeneous group with a variety of respiratory, cardiac, and other impairments. Whether the protocol intervention would perform differently in a more homogenous group remains to be determined.
Third, the protocol intervention included several components and adherence to all components was not uniformly observed. It was not possible to determine which components were primarily responsible for the observed effect. Fourth, data on sedatives, analgesics, and sedation levels were not collected; rather it was recommended that ICU teams consider the sedation needs of the infant or child based on COMFORT scores and SBT readiness screenings.
Fifth, the categorization of diagnostic codes to define prolonged ventilation was based on diagnoses that typically require more than 24 hours of ventilation. Stratification based on codes requiring more prolonged ventilation (eg, >48 hours) may have shown different effects.
Among infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation, a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention compared with usual care resulted in a statistically significant reduction in time to first successful extubation. However, the clinical importance of the effect size is uncertain.
Corresponding Author: Bronagh Blackwood, PhD, Wellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, Queen’s University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Rd, Belfast, BT9 7BL, Ireland (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Correction: This article was corrected online August 9, 2021, to change the word intubation to extubation in the Conclusion section in the visual abstract.
Accepted for Publication: June 5, 2021.
Author Contributions: Dr Blackwood and Ms McDowell had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Concept and design: Blackwood, Tume, Morris, Clarke, McDowell, Hemming, Peters, McIlmurray, Murray, Macrae, McAuley.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Blackwood, Tume, Morris, Clarke, McDowell, Peters, Jordan, Agus, Murray, Parslow, Walsh, Macrae, Easter, Feltbower, McAuley.
Drafting of the manuscript: Blackwood, Tume, Morris, Clarke, McDowell, Hemming, Peters, Macrae.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Blackwood, Tume, Morris, Clarke, Peters, McIlmurray, Jordan, Agus, Murray, Parslow, Walsh, Macrae, Easter, Feltbower, McAuley.
Statistical analysis: Tume, Morris, McDowell, Hemming, Jordan, Parslow, Easter, Feltbower.
Obtained funding: Blackwood, Tume, Peters, Agus, Walsh, Macrae, McAuley.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Blackwood, Tume, Peters, McIlmurray, Murray, Parslow, Walsh, Feltbower.
Supervision: Morris, McAuley.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Clarke reported being the director of the Northern Ireland Clinical Trials Unit. No other disclosures were reported.
Funding/Support: This trial (HTA 15/104/01) was commissioned and funded by the National Institute for Health Research and supported by the Paediatric Critical Care Society Study Group. The Queen’s University Belfast took legal responsibility for all aspects of the research but did not provide specific funding.
Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The National Institute for Health Research Health approved the design of the study and monitored the conduct of the study. It played no direct role in the design, data collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Group Information: The SANDWICH Collaborators are listed in Supplement 3.
SANDWICH ICU staff champions: Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge: Zoe Stone, Rosalie Campbell, Naomi Rowel, Liz Nash, Phil Castle, Mark Harvey, Clare King, Sarah Hardwick, and James Nicholas. Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, Liverpool: Katie Bailey, Emily McDonald, Tom Collins, Adam McNeill, Bron Robinson, Amanda Bull, Helen Cosgrove, Becky Garrett, Sarah Hindley, Lindsey Kenworthy, Louise Foster, Vicky Llewellyn, Liz Mansfield, Andrea Rodriguez, Lorraine Abbott, Shirley George, Roberto Iavarrone, Paul Ritson, and Katie Kaye. Birmingham Children’s Hospital: Sarah Fox, Samantha Owen, Roxanne Williams, Carly Tooke, Lauren Dowd, Kate Penny-Thomas, Sophie Dance, Helen Winmill, Julie Menzies, Alison Jones, and Rakesh Sheinmar. Bristol Royal Hospital for Children: Laura Dodge, Reanate Reisinger, Christina Linton, Sophie Coles, Kimberley Hamilton, Jen Bond, Emily Madge, Kelly-Marie Brock, Peter Davis, Sarah Goodwin, and Dora Wood. Great North Children’s Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne: Dawn Metcalfe, Ashleigh Robson,Amanda Soulsby, Kate Teeley, Anna Stancombe, Kirsty Mulgrew, Louisa Hunter, Shelley Sweeney, Ashley Marley, Julie Allen, Erin Bonney, Gemma Conroy, Joanne Cowley, Alison Crozier, Julie Dodds, Angela Doherty, Deborah Ehala, Gillian Green, Melanie Haughan, Nicola Mears, Jo Mulholland, Janine Palmer, Elaine Pantry, Claire Riddell, Claire Riddell, Kirstine Stait, Katherine Brunton, and Anna Yearham. Great Ormond Street Hospital, London: Samiran Ray, Olugbenga Akinkugbe, Gareth Jones, Eugenia Abaleke, Hamza Meghari, Adela Mattatore, Tom Brick, Yael Feinstein, Sarah Caley, Grace Banks, Joanne Bowley, Katy Maguire, Lorna O’Rourke, Deborah Lees, Caitriona Morrisey, Emma Hart, Ann Maguire, Nicola Pearson, Joanne Broadhurst, Clare Paley, Alison Drew, Carmen Kurtzner, Harriet McCauley, Katie Smith, Isabella Wright, Eleni Tamvaki, Lisa Cooke, Grace Banks, Sarah Napier, Annabelle Linger, Renee Barrett, Jo Rendle, Daryl Herring, Lolinda Mago, Joanna Goniak, Zaina Ahmed, Charlotte Hambly, Fiona O'Mahony, Rosemary Jamieson, Katrina Capey, Charlotte Donovan, Nicola Barker, and Helen Mercer. John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford: Teresa Liu, Hannah Sparkes, Rachel McMinnis, Jackie Fulton, Sarah Addison, Katie Mogg, Rebecca Harmer, Rachel Lynch, Joanna Bartlett, Rosie Priddy, and Janet McCluskey. King’s College Hospital, London: Lauren Jameson and Asha Hylton. Leeds General Infirmary: Sian Cooper, Mark Wareing, Sharron Frost, Beverley Robinson, Tim Haywood, Andrew McNulty, Tammy Jaques, Rachael Funk, Sharon Coulson, Sharon Beanland, Helen Townson, Sarah Mawer, Katie Hill, Kathryn Reeves, Jennifer Carter, Marie Webster, Darren Hewett, and Adrian Watson. Noah’s Ark Children’s Hospital for Wales, Cardiff: Jade Smallman, Emma Smith, Rhiannydd Poynter, Rebecca Thomas, Emily Stacey-Cox, and Sarah Stacey. Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, Belfast: Jeremy Lyons, Mohammed Babiker, Ben Kennedy, Roisin McDonald, Philip Ross, Rory Sweeney, Fiona Wallace, Pauline Blair, Niamh McPeake, Paul Magowan, Deborah Black, Sinead McAteer, Andrea Burrell, Sharon McAuley, Maria McCreight, Cealaigh Quinn, Carol McCormick, Heather Tough, Stewart Reid, Mark Terris, Ann Maguire, and Lucy Simms. Royal Brompton Hospital, London: Katie Goodliffe, Stephanie Gleissner, Melisa Ollivier, Joana Gracio, Diana Freitas, Chelsea Nichola Nilsson, Tessa Shewan, Stephen Tugwell, Matt Smith, Jennifer Armstrong, Mary Anton, Patricia Hernandez, Dan Blacke, Alicia Arias, Shabnam Gabriel, Zarine Wessels, Esmee Stirrup, Marta Fernandez, Ana Pedro, Varsha Depala, Silvia Fernandez Velasco, Justin Wang, Visitacion Jimenez, Laura Diaz, Florence O’Connor, and Jess Robinson. Royal Stoke University Hospital: Jo Tomlinson, Vicky Riches, Claire Boissery, Emma Cooke, Abbie Cliffe, Mark Bebbington, Kathryn Lea, and James Chapman. Sheffield Children’s Hospital: Anton Mayer, Lara Jackman, Nicholas Roe, Pauline Athwal, Alison Widdas, Alison Donolan, Anna Collister, Alex Howlett, Nat Colley, Jenny Nolan, Nicola McAdam, Linzi Boreham, Suzie Birkitt, Charlotte Clark, Charlotte Hussey, Kate Conolley, Emily Cleveland, Olivia Hudson, Lauren Williams, Stuart Conquer, Simon Steel, Ranjana Dhar, Megan Burrill, Nick Mills, Helen Cook, Jenny Longden, Erica Miccoli, Malik Hai, Bethan Stone, Michelle Lee, Michelle Gilley, Ceri Jack, Rachael Saxby, and Louise McCarthy. Southampton Children’s Hospital: Nicki Etherington, Jenny Pond, Cat Postlethwaite, Amber Cook, Anna Hardy, Lorena Caruana, Sophie Bullyment, James Hardwick, Lisa Gosby, Katy Morton, Donna Austin, Angela Ledgham, Emily Tracey, Oliver Ross, Ahmed Osman, Michael Griksaitis, and Kelly Field. St George’s Hospital, London: Buvana Dwarakanathan, Nicholas Prince, Julie Geevarghese, Usha Chandran, Sharmaine Monrose, Josephine Rhodes, Juliemol Thomas, Kirsty Felstead, Laura Poletti, Lindsey Burnham, and Hannah Downing. St Mary’s Hospital, London: Ladan Ali, Suzanne Laing, Naomi Storkes, Wendy Dadson, Tanya Lincoln, Anne Dowson, Michelle Pash, Kelly Wood, Carey Corrigan, Debbie Lee, Karen Downer, and Katy Bridges.
Northern Ireland Clinical Trials Unit: Roisin Boyle, Gavin Kennedy, Pauline Bradley, Gerard O’Hanlon, Glenn Phair, Sorcha Toase, Ruth Holman, and Kevin Devlin.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the National Health Service, the National Institute for Health Research, or the Department of Health.
Meeting Presentation: This study was presented at the eCritical Care Reviews Meeting on January 21, 2021.
Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 4.
J, López-Herce Cid
J, Modesto Alapont
V; Grupo de Respiratorio de la Sociedad Española de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos. Prevalence of mechanical ventilation in pediatric intensive care units in Spain. Published in Spanish. An Pediatr (Barc)
. 2004;61(6):533-541.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
et al; Latin-American Group for Mechanical Ventilation in Children. Mechanical ventilation in pediatric intensive care units during the season for acute lower respiratory infection: a multicenter study. Pediatr Crit Care Med
. 2012;13(2):158-164. doi:10.1097/PCC.0b013e3182257b82PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
et al; RESTORE Study Investigators and the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators Network. Protocolized sedation vs usual care in pediatric patients mechanically ventilated for acute respiratory failure: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA
. 2015;313(4):379-389. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.18399PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
P. Protocolized versus non-protocolized weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation in critically ill adult patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
. 2014;2014(11):CD006904. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006904.pub3PubMedGoogle Scholar
P. Protocolized versus non-protocolized weaning for reducing the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill paediatric patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
. 2013;2013(7):CD009082. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009082.pub2PubMedGoogle Scholar
et al; Paediatric Intensive Care Society Study Group (PICS-SG). Sedation and Weaning in Children (SANDWICH): protocol for a cluster randomised stepped wedge trial. BMJ Open
. 2019;9(11):e031630. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031630PubMedGoogle Scholar
M. A tutorial on sample size calculation for multiple-period cluster randomized parallel, cross-over and stepped-wedge trials using the shiny CRT calculator. Int J Epidemiol
. 2020;49(3):979-995. doi:10.1093/ije/dyz237PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
R. Comparison of small-sample standard-error corrections for generalised estimating equations in stepped wedge cluster randomised trials with a binary outcome: a simulation study. Stat Methods Med Res
. 2021;30(2):425-439. doi:10.1177/0962280220958735PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
APCP. Spontaneous breathing trial for prediction of extubation success in pediatric patients following congenital heart surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Crit Care Med
. 2019;20(10):940-946. doi:10.1097/PCC.0000000000002006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
et al. Weaning children from mechanical ventilation: a prospective randomized trial of protocol-directed versus physician-directed weaning. Respir Care
. 2001;46(8):772-782.PubMedGoogle Scholar
et al; Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators (PALISI) Network. Effect of mechanical ventilator weaning protocols on respiratory outcomes in infants and children: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA
. 2002;288(20):2561-2568. doi:10.1001/jama.288.20.2561PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
et al. Efficacy and safety of a paired sedation and ventilator weaning protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care (awakening and breathing controlled trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet
. 2008;371(9607):126-134. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60105-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref