Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16039
Title: Conservative versus liberal oxygenation targets for mechanically ventilated patients: pilot multicentre randomised trial.
Austin 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
Affiliation: Intensive Care Unit, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, Australia
School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia
Department of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Critical Care Unit, University Hospital Besançon and University of Franche-Comté, Besançon, France
Intensive Care Unit, Wellington Hospital, Wellington, New Zealand
Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand
Issue Date: 1-Jan-2016
Publication information: 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: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/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

Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


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