Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16039
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPanwar, R-
dc.contributor.authorHardie, M-
dc.contributor.authorBellomo, Rinaldo-
dc.contributor.authorBarrot, L-
dc.contributor.authorEastwood, Glenn-
dc.contributor.authorYoung, PJ-
dc.contributor.authorCapellier, G-
dc.contributor.authorHarrigan, PW-
dc.contributor.authorBailey, M-
dc.contributor.authorCLOSE Study Investigators-
dc.contributor.authorANZICS Clinical Trials Group-
dc.date.accessioned2016-06-15T04:13:14Z-
dc.date.available2016-06-15T04:13:14Z-
dc.date.issued2016-01-01-
dc.identifier.citationAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2016;193(1): 43-51en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16039-
dc.description.abstractRATIONALE: 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).en_US
dc.subjectCritical illnessen_US
dc.subjectIntensive careen_US
dc.subjectMechanical ventilationen_US
dc.subjectOxygen inhalation therapyen_US
dc.titleConservative versus liberal oxygenation targets for mechanically ventilated patients: pilot multicentre randomised trial.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicineen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationIntensive Care Unit, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationAustralian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationCritical Care Unit, University Hospital Besançon and University of Franche-Comté, Besançon, Franceen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationIntensive Care Unit, Wellington Hospital, Wellington, New Zealanden_US
dc.identifier.affiliationMedical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealanden_US
dc.type.studyortrialRandomized Controlled Clinical Trial/Controlled Clinical Trialen_US
dc.identifier.pubmedurihttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26334785en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1164/rccm.201505-1019OCen_US
dc.type.contentTexten_US
dc.type.austinJournal Articleen_US
local.name.researcherBellomo, Rinaldo
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
crisitem.author.deptIntensive Care-
crisitem.author.deptData Analytics Research and Evaluation (DARE) Centre-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

12
checked on May 26, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


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