Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16039
Title: Conservative versus liberal oxygenation targets for mechanically ventilated patients: pilot multicentre randomised trial.
Authors: Panwar, R;Hardie, M;Bellomo, Rinaldo;Barrot, L;Eastwood, Glenn;Young, PJ;Capellier, G;Harrigan, PW;Bailey, M;CLOSE Study Investigators;ANZICS Clinical Trials Group
Issue Date: 1-Jan-2016
Citation: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2016;193(1): 43-51
Abstract: RATIONALE: There are no randomized controlled trials comparing different oxygenation targets for intensive care unit (ICU) patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a conservative oxygenation strategy is a feasible alternative to a liberal oxygenation strategy among ICU patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). METHODS: At four multidisciplinary ICUs, 103 adult patients deemed likely to require IMV for greater than or equal to 24 hours were randomly allocated to either a conservative oxygenation strategy with target oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (SpO2) of 88-92% (n = 52) or a liberal oxygenation strategy with target SpO2 of greater than or equal to 96% (n = 51). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The mean area under the curve and 95% confidence interval (CI) for SpO2 (93.4% [92.9-93.9%] vs. 97% [96.5-97.5%]), SaO2 (93.5% [93.1-94%] vs. 96.8% [96.3-97.3%]), PaO2 (70 [68-73] mm Hg vs. 92 [89-96] mm Hg), and FiO2 (0.26 [0.25-0.28] vs. 0.36 [0.34-0.39) in the conservative versus liberal oxygenation arm were significantly different (P < 0.0001 for all). There were no significant between-group differences in any measures of new organ dysfunction, or ICU or 90-day mortality. The percentage time spent with SpO2 less than 88% in conservative versus liberal arm was 1% versus 0.3% (P = 0.03), and percentage time spent with SpO2 greater than 98% in conservative versus liberal arm was 4% versus 22% (P < 0.001). The adjusted hazard ratio for 90-day mortality in the conservative arm was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.40-1.50; P = 0.44) overall and 0.49 (95% CI, 0.20-1.17; P = 0.10) in the prespecified subgroup of patients with a baseline PaO2/FiO2 less than 300. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the feasibility of a conservative oxygenation strategy in patients receiving IMV. Larger randomized controlled trials of this intervention appear justified. Clinical trial registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12613000505707).
URI: http://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16039
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201505-1019OC
PubMed URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26334785
Type: Journal Article
Subjects: Critical illness
Intensive care
Mechanical ventilation
Oxygen inhalation therapy
Type of Clinical Study or Trial: Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial/Controlled Clinical Trial
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.