Prehospital continuous positive airway pressure for acute respiratory failure: the ACUTE feasibility RCT.
CONTINUOUS POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
PILOT PROJECTS
RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESPIRATORY INSUFFICIENCY
Journal
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)
ISSN: 2046-4924
Titre abrégé: Health Technol Assess
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9706284
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2021
02 2021
Historique:
entrez:
4
2
2021
pubmed:
5
2
2021
medline:
26
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Acute respiratory failure is a life-threatening emergency. Standard prehospital management involves controlled oxygen therapy. Continuous positive airway pressure is a potentially beneficial alternative treatment; however, it is uncertain whether or not this treatment could improve outcomes in NHS ambulance services. To assess the feasibility of a large-scale pragmatic trial and to update an existing economic model to determine cost-effectiveness and the value of further research. (1) An open-label, individual patient randomised controlled external pilot trial. (2) Cost-effectiveness and value-of-information analyses, updating an existing economic model. (3) Ancillary substudies, comprising an acute respiratory failure incidence study, an acute respiratory failure diagnostic agreement study, clinicians perceptions of a continuous positive airway pressure mixed-methods study and an investigation of allocation concealment. Four West Midlands Ambulance Service hubs, recruiting between August 2017 and July 2018. Adults with respiratory distress and peripheral oxygen saturations below the British Thoracic Society's target levels were included. Patients with limited potential to benefit from, or with contraindications to, continuous positive airway pressure were excluded. Prehospital continuous positive airway pressure (O-Two system, O-Two Medical Technologies Inc., Brampton, ON, Canada) was compared with standard oxygen therapy, titrated to the British Thoracic Society's peripheral oxygen saturation targets. Interventions were provided in identical sealed boxes. Feasibility objectives estimated the incidence of eligible patients, the proportion recruited and allocated to treatment appropriately, adherence to allocated treatment, and retention and data completeness. The primary clinical end point was 30-day mortality. Seventy-seven patients were enrolled (target 120 patients), including seven patients with a diagnosis for which continuous positive airway pressure could be ineffective or harmful. Continuous positive airway pressure was fully delivered to 74% of participants (target 75%). There were no major protocol violations/non-compliances. Full data were available for all key outcomes (target ≥ 90%). Thirty-day mortality was 27.3%. Of the 21 deceased participants, 14 (68%) either did not have a respiratory condition or had ceiling-of-treatment decision implemented that excluded hospital non-invasive ventilation and critical care. The base-case economic evaluation indicated that standard oxygen therapy was probably cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £5685 per quality-adjusted life-year), but there was considerable uncertainty (population expected value of perfect information of £16.5M). Expected value of partial perfect information analyses indicated that effectiveness of prehospital continuous positive airway pressure was the only important variable. The incidence rate of acute respiratory failure was 17.4 (95% confidence interval 16.3 to 18.5) per 100,000 persons per year. There was moderate agreement between the primary prehospital and final hospital diagnoses (Gwet's AC1 coefficient 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.69). Lack of hospital awareness of the Ambulance continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP): Use, Treatment Effect and economics (ACUTE) trial, limited time to complete trial training and a desire to provide continuous positive airway pressure treatment were highlighted as key challenges by participating clinicians. During week 10 of recruitment, the continuous positive airway pressure arm equipment boxes developed a 'rattle'. After repackaging and redistribution, no further concerns were noted. A total of 41.4% of ambulance service clinicians not participating in the ACUTE trial indicated a difference between the control and the intervention arm trial boxes (115/278); of these clinician 70.4% correctly identified box contents. Recruitment rate was below target and feasibility was not demonstrated. The economic evaluation results suggested that a definitive trial could represent value for money. However, limited compliance with continuous positive airway pressure and difficulty in identifying patients who could benefit from continuous positive airway pressure indicate that prehospital continuous positive airway pressure is unlikely to materially reduce mortality. A definitive clinical effectiveness trial of continuous positive airway pressure in the NHS is not recommended. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12048261. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Acute respiratory failure is a life-threatening medical emergency. It occurs when heart or lung disease suddenly develops, or deteriorates, and leads to the patient being unable to maintain oxygen levels in their blood. Continuous positive airway pressure is a potentially useful treatment that could be used by paramedics. It involves delivering oxygen under increased pressure through a tight-fitting face mask. However, it is uncertain whether or not it could work effectively in NHS ambulance services, or if it represents value for money. The Ambulance continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP): Use, Treatment Effect and economics (ACUTE) trial investigated whether or not it is possible and worthwhile to undertake a full-scale study comparing continuous positive airway pressure with normal paramedic treatment. Paramedics identified adults with acute respiratory failure when attending 999 emergency calls. Half were randomly assigned to receive continuous positive airway pressure, whereas the other half were treated normally. Patients were then followed up to see what happened to them. Fewer patients than expected were entered into the trial, but paramedics were able to provide treatment with continuous positive airway pressure, and most patients were successfully followed up. It therefore seems possible to do a full-scale trial. A cost-effectiveness model also showed that it is uncertain whether or not continuous positive airway pressure represents value for money for the NHS, so further research might be worthwhile, if continuous positive airway pressure is thought to be effective. However, examination of patients recruited to the trial uncovered important doubts about whether or not continuous positive airway pressure would help them. One-quarter of patients were not able to tolerate the tight continuous positive airway pressure mask. Some of the patients had conditions that are not usually treated by continuous positive airway pressure, or had severe underlying disease that could not be helped by this treatment. Others had collapsed lungs that could have been made worse by continuous positive airway pressure. This means that, although a full-scale trial may be possible, it is difficult to see how continuous positive airway pressure could save enough lives to make a trial worthwhile.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Acute respiratory failure is a life-threatening emergency. Standard prehospital management involves controlled oxygen therapy. Continuous positive airway pressure is a potentially beneficial alternative treatment; however, it is uncertain whether or not this treatment could improve outcomes in NHS ambulance services.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the feasibility of a large-scale pragmatic trial and to update an existing economic model to determine cost-effectiveness and the value of further research.
DESIGN
(1) An open-label, individual patient randomised controlled external pilot trial. (2) Cost-effectiveness and value-of-information analyses, updating an existing economic model. (3) Ancillary substudies, comprising an acute respiratory failure incidence study, an acute respiratory failure diagnostic agreement study, clinicians perceptions of a continuous positive airway pressure mixed-methods study and an investigation of allocation concealment.
SETTING
Four West Midlands Ambulance Service hubs, recruiting between August 2017 and July 2018.
PARTICIPANTS
Adults with respiratory distress and peripheral oxygen saturations below the British Thoracic Society's target levels were included. Patients with limited potential to benefit from, or with contraindications to, continuous positive airway pressure were excluded.
INTERVENTIONS
Prehospital continuous positive airway pressure (O-Two system, O-Two Medical Technologies Inc., Brampton, ON, Canada) was compared with standard oxygen therapy, titrated to the British Thoracic Society's peripheral oxygen saturation targets. Interventions were provided in identical sealed boxes.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Feasibility objectives estimated the incidence of eligible patients, the proportion recruited and allocated to treatment appropriately, adherence to allocated treatment, and retention and data completeness. The primary clinical end point was 30-day mortality.
RESULTS
Seventy-seven patients were enrolled (target 120 patients), including seven patients with a diagnosis for which continuous positive airway pressure could be ineffective or harmful. Continuous positive airway pressure was fully delivered to 74% of participants (target 75%). There were no major protocol violations/non-compliances. Full data were available for all key outcomes (target ≥ 90%). Thirty-day mortality was 27.3%. Of the 21 deceased participants, 14 (68%) either did not have a respiratory condition or had ceiling-of-treatment decision implemented that excluded hospital non-invasive ventilation and critical care. The base-case economic evaluation indicated that standard oxygen therapy was probably cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £5685 per quality-adjusted life-year), but there was considerable uncertainty (population expected value of perfect information of £16.5M). Expected value of partial perfect information analyses indicated that effectiveness of prehospital continuous positive airway pressure was the only important variable. The incidence rate of acute respiratory failure was 17.4 (95% confidence interval 16.3 to 18.5) per 100,000 persons per year. There was moderate agreement between the primary prehospital and final hospital diagnoses (Gwet's AC1 coefficient 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.69). Lack of hospital awareness of the Ambulance continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP): Use, Treatment Effect and economics (ACUTE) trial, limited time to complete trial training and a desire to provide continuous positive airway pressure treatment were highlighted as key challenges by participating clinicians.
LIMITATIONS
During week 10 of recruitment, the continuous positive airway pressure arm equipment boxes developed a 'rattle'. After repackaging and redistribution, no further concerns were noted. A total of 41.4% of ambulance service clinicians not participating in the ACUTE trial indicated a difference between the control and the intervention arm trial boxes (115/278); of these clinician 70.4% correctly identified box contents.
CONCLUSIONS
Recruitment rate was below target and feasibility was not demonstrated. The economic evaluation results suggested that a definitive trial could represent value for money. However, limited compliance with continuous positive airway pressure and difficulty in identifying patients who could benefit from continuous positive airway pressure indicate that prehospital continuous positive airway pressure is unlikely to materially reduce mortality.
FUTURE WORK
A definitive clinical effectiveness trial of continuous positive airway pressure in the NHS is not recommended.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12048261.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in
Acute respiratory failure is a life-threatening medical emergency. It occurs when heart or lung disease suddenly develops, or deteriorates, and leads to the patient being unable to maintain oxygen levels in their blood. Continuous positive airway pressure is a potentially useful treatment that could be used by paramedics. It involves delivering oxygen under increased pressure through a tight-fitting face mask. However, it is uncertain whether or not it could work effectively in NHS ambulance services, or if it represents value for money. The Ambulance continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP): Use, Treatment Effect and economics (ACUTE) trial investigated whether or not it is possible and worthwhile to undertake a full-scale study comparing continuous positive airway pressure with normal paramedic treatment. Paramedics identified adults with acute respiratory failure when attending 999 emergency calls. Half were randomly assigned to receive continuous positive airway pressure, whereas the other half were treated normally. Patients were then followed up to see what happened to them. Fewer patients than expected were entered into the trial, but paramedics were able to provide treatment with continuous positive airway pressure, and most patients were successfully followed up. It therefore seems possible to do a full-scale trial. A cost-effectiveness model also showed that it is uncertain whether or not continuous positive airway pressure represents value for money for the NHS, so further research might be worthwhile, if continuous positive airway pressure is thought to be effective. However, examination of patients recruited to the trial uncovered important doubts about whether or not continuous positive airway pressure would help them. One-quarter of patients were not able to tolerate the tight continuous positive airway pressure mask. Some of the patients had conditions that are not usually treated by continuous positive airway pressure, or had severe underlying disease that could not be helped by this treatment. Others had collapsed lungs that could have been made worse by continuous positive airway pressure. This means that, although a full-scale trial may be possible, it is difficult to see how continuous positive airway pressure could save enough lives to make a trial worthwhile.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Acute respiratory failure is a life-threatening medical emergency. It occurs when heart or lung disease suddenly develops, or deteriorates, and leads to the patient being unable to maintain oxygen levels in their blood. Continuous positive airway pressure is a potentially useful treatment that could be used by paramedics. It involves delivering oxygen under increased pressure through a tight-fitting face mask. However, it is uncertain whether or not it could work effectively in NHS ambulance services, or if it represents value for money. The Ambulance continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP): Use, Treatment Effect and economics (ACUTE) trial investigated whether or not it is possible and worthwhile to undertake a full-scale study comparing continuous positive airway pressure with normal paramedic treatment. Paramedics identified adults with acute respiratory failure when attending 999 emergency calls. Half were randomly assigned to receive continuous positive airway pressure, whereas the other half were treated normally. Patients were then followed up to see what happened to them. Fewer patients than expected were entered into the trial, but paramedics were able to provide treatment with continuous positive airway pressure, and most patients were successfully followed up. It therefore seems possible to do a full-scale trial. A cost-effectiveness model also showed that it is uncertain whether or not continuous positive airway pressure represents value for money for the NHS, so further research might be worthwhile, if continuous positive airway pressure is thought to be effective. However, examination of patients recruited to the trial uncovered important doubts about whether or not continuous positive airway pressure would help them. One-quarter of patients were not able to tolerate the tight continuous positive airway pressure mask. Some of the patients had conditions that are not usually treated by continuous positive airway pressure, or had severe underlying disease that could not be helped by this treatment. Others had collapsed lungs that could have been made worse by continuous positive airway pressure. This means that, although a full-scale trial may be possible, it is difficult to see how continuous positive airway pressure could save enough lives to make a trial worthwhile.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33538686
doi: 10.3310/hta25070
pmc: PMC7883213
doi:
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN12048261']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1-92Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 15/08/40
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36
pubmed: 21479777
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Dec 16;52(25):2119-26
pubmed: 19095128
Health Econ. 2004 May;13(5):405-15
pubmed: 15127421
Thorax. 2002 Mar;57(3):192-211
pubmed: 11867822
Trials. 2014 Jul 03;15:264
pubmed: 24993581
Health Econ. 2007 Feb;16(2):195-209
pubmed: 16981193
Chron Respir Dis. 2008;5(3):143-8
pubmed: 18684789
Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2009;4:137-48
pubmed: 19436692
Eur Respir J Suppl. 2003 Nov;47:3s-14s
pubmed: 14621112
Ann Intern Med. 2002 Oct 1;137(7):598-602
pubmed: 12353947
J Med Ethics. 2007 Feb;33(2):94-7
pubmed: 17264196
Crit Care. 2006;10(3):R82
pubmed: 16723034
Emerg Med J. 2018 Nov;35(11):708-710
pubmed: 30209073
Emerg Med J. 2009 Aug;26(8):549-50
pubmed: 19625545
Emerg Med J. 2011 Jul;28(7):609-12
pubmed: 21076052
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-82
pubmed: 23092060
Emerg Med J. 2014 Oct;31(10):794-5
pubmed: 25082718
Ann Emerg Med. 2014 May;63(5):600-607.e1
pubmed: 24342819
Clin Chest Med. 2016 Dec;37(4):711-721
pubmed: 27842751
Value Health. 2009 Mar;12 Suppl 1:S5-9
pubmed: 19250132
Lancet. 2005 Jan 1-7;365(9453):82-93
pubmed: 15639683
Am J Emerg Med. 2019 Apr;37(4):651-656
pubmed: 30068489
JAMA. 2018 Aug 28;320(8):779-791
pubmed: 30167701
Eur Heart J. 2007 Dec;28(23):2895-901
pubmed: 17967821
BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c332
pubmed: 20332509
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2013 Nov 30;10:12
pubmed: 24324853
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2008 Jul-Sep;12(3):277-85
pubmed: 18584492
BMJ. 1995 Jul 29;311(7000):299-302
pubmed: 7633241
BMJ. 1991 Jun 22;302(6791):1481-2
pubmed: 1855013
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 May;62(5):464-75
pubmed: 19348971
Emergencias. 2017 Feb;29(1):33-38
pubmed: 28825266
Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2008 May;61(Pt 1):29-48
pubmed: 18482474
Thorax. 2017 Jun;72(Suppl 1):ii1-ii90
pubmed: 28507176
Emerg Med J. 2006 Jun;23(6):489-90
pubmed: 16714529
Eur J Intern Med. 2017 Sep;43:e36
pubmed: 28552463
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Jan 06;10:1
pubmed: 20053272
Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 May;17(5):479-500
pubmed: 10977389
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Apr 29;13:61
pubmed: 23627889
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
Healthcare (Basel). 2018 Dec 09;6(4):
pubmed: 30544857
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995 Apr;151(4):1121-5
pubmed: 7697241
JAMA. 2005 Dec 28;294(24):3124-30
pubmed: 16380593
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017 Dec;32(6):610-614
pubmed: 28669372
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Jul 16;10:67
pubmed: 20637084
Acad Emerg Med. 2014 Sep;21(9):960-70
pubmed: 25269576
Emerg Med J. 2007 Sep;24(9):665-8
pubmed: 17711952
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013 Apr;137(4):558-65
pubmed: 23544945
BMJ. 2016 Oct 24;355:i5239
pubmed: 27777223
CJEM. 2015 Nov;17(6):609-16
pubmed: 25800082
J Pediatr Orthop. 2018 Jul;38(6):e305-e311
pubmed: 29727411
N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 23;379(8):711-721
pubmed: 30021076
Health Technol Assess. 2015 Jun;19(42):v-vi, 1-102
pubmed: 26102313
Clin Trials. 2013 Feb;10(1):125-30
pubmed: 23188890
Lancet. 2002 Feb 16;359(9306):614-8
pubmed: 11867132
Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):733-44
pubmed: 18767894
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2013 Jul-Sep;17(3):339-47
pubmed: 23484502
Med Decis Making. 2004 Mar-Apr;24(2):207-27
pubmed: 15090106
JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191-4
pubmed: 24141714
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018 Jun 18;4:86
pubmed: 29946477
BMJ. 2003 Jan 25;326(7382):185
pubmed: 12543832
J Psychiatr Res. 2011 May;45(5):626-9
pubmed: 21035130
J Grad Med Educ. 2013 Dec;5(4):541-2
pubmed: 24454995
Qual Assur. 1998 Apr-Jun;6(2):65-74
pubmed: 10386329
Emerg Med Australas. 2016 Oct;28(5):525-30
pubmed: 27397643
Health Econ. 2005 Apr;14(4):339-47
pubmed: 15736142
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999 Jun;159(6):1849-61
pubmed: 10351930
Med Decis Making. 2012 Sep-Oct;32(5):722-32
pubmed: 22990087
BMJ. 2016 Nov 17;355:i5663
pubmed: 27856428
Acta Paediatr. 2007 Mar;96(3):338-41
pubmed: 17407452
BMJ Open. 2020 Jul 23;10(7):e035915
pubmed: 32709643
Br Med Bull. 2018 Dec 1;128(1):109-118
pubmed: 30445448
J Accid Emerg Med. 2000 Mar;17(2):79-85
pubmed: 10718225
Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2014 Nov 07;9:1241-52
pubmed: 25404854
Health Technol Assess. 2016 Jan;20(1):1-198
pubmed: 26753808
J Hosp Med. 2013 Feb;8(2):76-82
pubmed: 23335231
Crit Care. 2012 Oct 29;16(5):323
pubmed: 23106947
J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2006 Aug;15(3):126-34
pubmed: 18392182
Lupus. 2017 Dec;26(14):1502-1512
pubmed: 28441914
Med Decis Making. 2007 Jul-Aug;27(4):448-70
pubmed: 17761960
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2013 Feb;28(1):52-60
pubmed: 23140660
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2013 Apr-Jun;17(2):261-73
pubmed: 23373591
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016 Oct 10;24(1):121
pubmed: 27724976
PLoS Med. 2013 Oct;10(10):e1001531
pubmed: 24143138
J Fam Pract. 2002 Nov;51(11):969-71
pubmed: 12485553
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 May 31;(5):CD005351
pubmed: 23728654
Acad Emerg Med. 2013 Nov;20(11):1194-206
pubmed: 24238322
Rural Remote Health. 2005 Apr-Jun;5(2):390
pubmed: 15913450
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2015;19(4):535-43
pubmed: 25664482
Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2014 Aug 11;9:837-52
pubmed: 25143721
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Jan;64(1):96-106
pubmed: 21130355
BMJ. 2018 Aug 15;362:k2562
pubmed: 30111634
Lancet. 2015 Jul 4;386(9988):26
pubmed: 26169858
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003 Jul;8 Suppl 1:S1:24-7
pubmed: 12869334
Health Technol Assess. 2009 Jul;13(33):1-106
pubmed: 19615296
In Vivo. 2016 Mar-Apr;30(2):133-9
pubmed: 26912824
BMJ Open Respir Res. 2016 Mar 14;3(1):e000133
pubmed: 27026806
Age Ageing. 2008 May;37(3):251-7
pubmed: 18388161
Ann Emerg Med. 2015 May;65(5):556-563.e6
pubmed: 25737210
BMJ. 2015 Oct 28;351:h5527
pubmed: 26511519