In Vivo Age Dependency of Unfractionated Heparin in Infants and Children

Introduction
Unfractionated Heparin (UFH) is used widely in paediatrics. Paediatric specific recommendations for UFH therapy are few, with the majority of recommendations being extrapolated from adult practice. In vitro studies have shown that this practice may be suboptimal. This study aimed to improve the understanding of the impact of age upon UFH response in vivo.

Materials and Methods
This prospective, observational study, conducted in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU), included: patients 16 years or younger; treated with UFH of at least 10 U/Kg/hr. Laboratory analysis included: Antithrombin, APTT, Anti-Xa, Anti-IIa and thrombin generation expressed as the Endogenous Thrombin Potential. Results were grouped according to patient age (i.e. < 1, 1-5, 6-10 and 11-16 years).

Results
85 patients received an equivalent mean UFH dose with a median duration of 3 days. Antithrombin levels were decreased compared to age-related norms in children up to 11 years of age. APTT results were comparable across the age-groups. The Anti-Xa results using two different assays showed a trend for lower values in younger children. All children less than one year old recorded Anti-Xa values outside the therapeutic range for heparin therapy, for both assays. There was a trend for decreased Anti-IIa activity in younger children. Endogenous Thrombin Potential showed a significant trend for increased inhibition in older children. In vitro Antithrombin supplementation did not change the Anti-Xa or thrombin generation.

Conclusions
This study confirms that, in vivo, for the same dose of UFH, the anti Xa and anti IIa effect, as well as the inhibition of endogenous thrombin potential is age dependent and that these differences are not purely AT dependent. The implication is that the anticoagulant and antithrombotic effect of a given dose of UFH differs with age. Clinical outcome studies to determine the optimal dosing for each age group are warranted.

Abbreviations
UFH, Unfractionated Heparin; ETP, Endogenous Thrombin Potential; AT, Antithrombin; APTT, Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time

Protocolized versus non-protocolized weaning for reducing the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill paediatric patients

Background:Mechanical ventilation is a critical component of paediatric intensive care therapy. It is indicated when the patient’s spontaneous ventilation is inadequate to sustain life. Weaning is the gradual reduction of ventilatory support and the transfer of respiratory control back to the patient. Weaning may represent a large proportion of the ventilatory period. Prolonged ventilation is associated with significant morbidity, hospital cost, psychosocial and physical risks to the child and even death. Timely and effective weaning may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and may reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with prolonged ventilation. However, no consensus has been reached on criteria that can be used to identify when patients are ready to wean or the best way to achieve it.Objectives:To assess the effects of weaning by protocol on invasively ventilated critically ill children. To compare the total duration of invasive mechanical ventilation of critically ill children who are weaned using protocols versus those weaned through usual (non-protocolized) practice. To ascertain any differences between protocolized weaning and usual care in terms of mortality, adverse events, intensive care unit length of stay and quality of life.Search methods:We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library, Issue 10, 2012), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2012), EMBASE (1988 to October 2012), CINAHL (1982 to October 2012), ISI Web of Science and LILACS. We identified unpublished data in the Web of Science (1990 to October 2012), ISI Conference Proceedings (1990 to October 2012) and Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (earliest to October 2012). We contacted first authors of studies included in the review to obtain further information on unpublished studies or work in progress. We searched reference lists of all identified studies and review papers for further relevant studies. We applied no language or publication restrictions.Selection criteriaWe included randomized controlled trials comparing protocolized weaning (professional-led or computer-driven) versus non-protocolized weaning practice conducted in children older than 28 days and younger than 18 years.Data collection and analysis:Two review authors independently scanned titles and abstracts identified by electronic searching. Three review authors retrieved and evaluated full-text versions of potentially relevant studies, independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias.Main results:We included three trials at low risk of bias with 321 children in the analysis. Protocolized weaning significantly reduced total ventilation time in the largest trial (260 children) by a mean of 32 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 8 to 56; P = 0.01). Two other trials (30 and 31 children, respectively) reported non-significant reductions with a mean difference of -88 hours (95% CI -228 to 52; P = 0.2) and -24 hours (95% CI -10 to 58; P = 0.06). Protocolized weaning significantly reduced weaning time in these two smaller trials for a mean reduction of 106 hours (95% CI 28 to 184; P = 0.007) and 21 hours (95% CI 9 to 32; P < 0.001). These studies reported no significant effects for duration of mechanical ventilation before weaning, paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and hospital length of stay, PICU mortality or adverse events.Authors' conclusions:Limited evidence suggests that weaning protocols reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation, but evidence is inadequate to show whether the achievement of shorter ventilation by protocolized weaning causes children benefit or harm.

The implausibility of ‘usual care’ in an open system: sedation and weaning practices in Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs) in the United Kingdom (UK).

Background
The power of the randomised controlled trial depends upon its capacity to operate in a closed system whereby the intervention is the only causal force acting upon the experimental group and absent in the control group, permitting a valid assessment of intervention efficacy. Conversely, clinical arenas are open systems where factors relating to context, resources, interpretation and actions of individuals will affect implementation and effectiveness of interventions. Consequently, the comparator (usual care) can be difficult to define and variable in multi-centre trials. Hence outcomes cannot be understood without considering usual care and factors that may affect implementation and impact on the intervention.

Methods
Using a fieldwork approach, we describe PICU context, ‘usual’ practice in sedation and weaning from mechanical ventilation, and factors affecting implementation prior to designing a trial involving a sedation and ventilation weaning intervention. We collected data from 23 UK PICUs between June and November 2014 using observation, individual and multi-disciplinary group interviews with staff.

Results
Pain and sedation practices were broadly similar in terms of drug usage and assessment tools. Sedation protocols linking assessment to appropriate titration of sedatives and sedation holds were rarely used (9 % and 4 % of PICUs respectively). Ventilator weaning was primarily a medical-led process with 39 % of PICUs engaging senior nurses in the process: weaning protocols were rarely used (9 % of PICUs). Weaning methods were variably based on clinician preference. No formal criteria or use of spontaneous breathing trials were used to test weaning readiness. Seventeen PICUs (74 %) had prior engagement in multi-centre trials, but limited research nurse availability. Barriers to previous trial implementation were intervention complexity, lack of belief in the evidence and inadequate training. Facilitating factors were senior staff buy-in and dedicated research nurse provision.

Conclusions
We examined and identified contextual and organisational factors that may impact on the implementation of our intervention. We found usual practice relating to sedation, analgesia and ventilator weaning broadly similar, yet distinctively different from our proposed intervention, providing assurance in our ability to evaluate intervention effects. The data will enable us to develop an implementation plan; considering these factors we can more fully understand their impact on study outcomes.

Parents’ and young people’s involvement in designing a trial of ventilator weaning

Consulting with users is considered best practice and is highly recommended in designing new trials. As part of our feasibility work, we undertook a consultation exercise with parents, ex-patients and young people prior to designing a trial of protocol-based ventilator weaning. Our aims were to (1) ascertain views on the relevance and importance of the trial; (2) determine the important parent/patient outcome measures; and (3) ascertain views on informed consent in a cluster randomized controlled trial. We conducted audio-recorded face-to-face, telephone and focus group interviews with parents and young people. Data were content analysed to generate information to address our specific consultation objectives. The setting was the north-western region of England. A total of 16 participants were interviewed: 2 parents of paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) survivors; 1 PICU survivor; and 13 young people from the former Medicines for Children Research Network. The trial objectives were deemed important and relevant, and participants considered the most important outcome measure to be the length of time on ventilation. Parents and young people did not consider written informed consent to be a necessary requirement in the context of this trial, rather awareness of unit participation in the trial was important with the opportunity of opting out of data collection. This consultation provided useful, pragmatic insights to inform trial design. We encountered significant challenges in recruiting parents and young people for this consultation exercise, and novel recruitment methods need to be considered for future work in this field. Patient and public involvement is essential to ensure that future trials answer parent-relevant questions and have meaningful outcome measures, as well as involving parents and young people in the general development of health care services.