scholarly journals Statistical analysis plan for early mobilisation by head-up tilt with stepping versus standard care after severe traumatic brain injury – a randomised clinical feasibility trial

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Gunge Riberholt ◽  
Christian Gluud ◽  
Janus Christian Jakobsen ◽  
Christian Ovesen ◽  
Jesper Mehlsen ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Early mobilisation on a tilt table with stepping versus standard care may be beneficial for patients with severe brain injury, but data from randomised clinical trials are lacking. Methods: This detailed statistical analysis plan describes the analyses of data collected in a randomised clinical feasibility trial for early mobilisation by head-up tilt with stepping versus standard care after severe traumatic brain injury. Primary feasibility outcomes are the proportion of included participants who were randomised out of all screened patients; the proportion of participants allocated to the experimental intervention who received at least 60% of the planned exercise sessions; and safety outcomes such as adverse events and reactions and serious adverse events and reactions. Exploratory clinical outcomes are suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions; and functional outcomes as assessed by Coma Recovery Scale – Revised at four weeks; Early Functional Ability Scale and Functional Independence Measure at three months. The description includes the statistical analyses including use of multiple imputation and Trial Sequential Analysis. Conclusions: The present statistical analysis plan serves to minimise potential trial reporting bias and selective P hacking and to improve transparency. This trial will inform the feasibility of a potential future multicentre randomised clinical trial. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02924649. Registered on 3 October 2016.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Gunge Riberholt ◽  
Christian Gluud ◽  
Janus Christian Jakobsen ◽  
Christian Ovesen ◽  
Jesper Mehlsen ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Early mobilisation on a tilt table with stepping versus standard care may be beneficial for patients with severe brain injury, but data from randomised clinical trials are lacking. Methods: This statistical analysis plan describes the analyses of data collected in a randomised clinical feasibility trial for early mobilisation by head-up tilt with stepping versus standard care after severe traumatic brain injury. Primary feasibility outcomes are the proportion of included participants who were randomised out of all screened patients; the proportion of participants allocated to the experimental intervention who received at least 60% of the planned exercise sessions; and safety outcomes such as severe adverse events and reactions and adverse events and reactions. Exploratory clinical outcomes are suspected unexpected severe adverse reactions; and functional outcomes as assessed by Coma Recovery Scale – Revised at four weeks; Early Functional Ability Scale, and Functional Independence Measure at three months. Exploratory physiological outcomes are electrocardiographic data; mean arterial pressure; and middle cerebral artery blood flow velocity, all obtained during the head-up tilt test. From the first head-up tilt test and five days onwards, a heart rate was measured by continuous electrocardiography. The detailed description includes the statistical analysis including use of multiple imputation and Trial Sequential Analysis. Conclusions: The present statistical analysis plan serves to minimise potential trial reporting bias and selective P hacking and to improve transparency. This feasibility trial will inform design and eventual launching of a larger multicentre randomised clinical trial. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02924649. Registered on 3 October 2016.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Gunge Riberholt ◽  
Christian Gluud ◽  
Janus Christian Jakobsen ◽  
Jesper Mehlsen ◽  
Kirsten Møller

Abstract Background: Early mobilisation on a tilt table with stepping versus standard care may be beneficial for patients with severe brain injury, but data from randomised clinical trials are lacking. Methods: This statistical analysis plan describes the analyses of the data collected in the randomised clinical feasibility trial for early mobilisation by head-up tilt with stepping versus standard care after severe traumatic brain injury. The primary feasibility outcomes are the proportion of included participants who were randomised compared with all screened patients; the proportion of participants allocated to the experimental intervention who received at least 60% of the planned exercise sessions; and safety outcomes such as severe adverse events and reactions and adverse events and reactions. Exploratory clinical outcomes are suspected unexpected severe adverse reactions, the coma recovery scale – revised, the early functional ability scale, and the functional independence measure. Explorative physiological outcomes are electrocardiography, mean arterial pressure, middle cerebral artery blood flow velocity all obtained during the head-up tilt test. From the first head-up tilt test and five days onwards, a continuous electrocardiographic heart rate was measured. The detailed description includes the statistical analysis including use of multiple imputation and Trial Sequential Analysis. Conclusions: The present statistical analysis plan serves to minimise potential trial reporting bias and selective P hacking and to improve transparency. This feasibility trial will be used for deciding to launch and designing a larger multicentre randomised clinical trial. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02924649. Registered on 3 October 2016.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Gunge Riberholt ◽  
Markus Harboe Olsen ◽  
Christian Baastrup Søndergaard ◽  
Christian Gluud ◽  
Christian Ovesen ◽  
...  

Background: Intensive rehabilitation of patients after severe traumatic brain injury aims to improve functional outcome. The effect of initiating rehabilitation in the early phase, in the form of head-up mobilization, is unclear.Objective: To assess whether early mobilization is feasible and safe in patients with traumatic brain injury admitted to a neurointensive care unit.Methods: This was a randomized parallel-group clinical trial, including patients with severe traumatic brain injury (Glasgow coma scale <11 and admission to the neurointensive care unit). The intervention consisted of daily mobilization on a tilt-table for 4 weeks. The control group received standard care. Outcomes were the number of included participants relative to all patients with traumatic brain injury who were approached for inclusion, the number of conducted mobilization sessions relative to all planned sessions, as well as adverse events and reactions. Information on clinical outcome was collected for exploratory purposes.Results: Thirty-eight participants were included (19 in each group), corresponding to 76% of all approached patients [95% confidence interval (CI) 63–86%]. In the intervention group, 74% [95% CI 52–89%] of planned sessions were carried out. There was no difference in the number of adverse events, serious adverse events, or adverse reactions between the groups.Conclusions: Early head-up mobilization is feasible in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Larger randomized clinical trials are needed to explore potential benefits and harms of such an intervention.Clinical Trial Registration: [ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [NCT02924649]. Registered on 3rd October 2016.


2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (45) ◽  
pp. 1-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter JD Andrews ◽  
H Louise Sinclair ◽  
Aryelly Rodríguez ◽  
Bridget Harris ◽  
Jonathan Rhodes ◽  
...  

Background Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of disability and death in young adults worldwide. It results in around 1 million hospital admissions annually in the European Union (EU), causes a majority of the 50,000 deaths from road traffic accidents and leaves a further ≈10,000 people severely disabled. Objective The Eurotherm3235 Trial was a pragmatic trial examining the effectiveness of hypothermia (32–35 °C) to reduce raised intracranial pressure (ICP) following severe TBI and reduce morbidity and mortality 6 months after TBI. Design An international, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Setting Specialist neurological critical care units. Participants We included adult participants following TBI. Eligible patients had ICP monitoring in place with an ICP of > 20 mmHg despite first-line treatments. Participants were randomised to receive standard care with the addition of hypothermia (32–35 °C) or standard care alone. Online randomisation and the use of an electronic case report form (CRF) ensured concealment of random treatment allocation. It was not possible to blind local investigators to allocation as it was obvious which participants were receiving hypothermia. We collected information on how well the participant had recovered 6 months after injury. This information was provided either by the participant themself (if they were able) and/or a person close to them by completing the Glasgow Outcome Scale – Extended (GOSE) questionnaire. Telephone follow-up was carried out by a blinded independent clinician. Interventions The primary intervention to reduce ICP in the hypothermia group after randomisation was induction of hypothermia. Core temperature was initially reduced to 35 °C and decreased incrementally to a lower limit of 32 °C if necessary to maintain ICP at < 20 mmHg. Rewarming began after 48 hours if ICP remained controlled. Participants in the standard-care group received usual care at that centre, but without hypothermia. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was the GOSE [range 1 (dead) to 8 (upper good recovery)] at 6 months after the injury as assessed by an independent collaborator, blind to the intervention. A priori subgroup analysis tested the relationship between minimisation factors including being aged < 45 years, having a post-resuscitation Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) motor score of < 2 on admission, having a time from injury of < 12 hours and patient outcome. Results We enrolled 387 patients from 47 centres in 18 countries. The trial was closed to recruitment following concerns raised by the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee in October 2014. On an intention-to-treat basis, 195 participants were randomised to hypothermia treatment and 192 to standard care. Regarding participant outcome, there was a higher mortality rate and poorer functional recovery at 6 months in the hypothermia group. The adjusted common odds ratio (OR) for the primary statistical analysis of the GOSE was 1.54 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 2.31]; when the GOSE was dichotomised the OR was 1.74 (95% CI 1.09 to 2.77). Both results favoured standard care alone. In this pragmatic study, we did not collect data on adverse events. Data on serious adverse events (SAEs) were collected but were subject to reporting bias, with most SAEs being reported in the hypothermia group. Conclusions In participants following TBI and with an ICP of > 20 mmHg, titrated therapeutic hypothermia successfully reduced ICP but led to a higher mortality rate and worse functional outcome. Limitations Inability to blind treatment allocation as it was obvious which participants were randomised to the hypothermia group; there was biased recording of SAEs in the hypothermia group. We now believe that more adequately powered clinical trials of common therapies used to reduce ICP, such as hypertonic therapy, barbiturates and hyperventilation, are required to assess their potential benefits and risks to patients. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN34555414. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 45. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine supported the pilot phase of this trial.


2018 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Roberts ◽  
Antonio Belli ◽  
Amy Brenner ◽  
Rizwana Chaudhri ◽  
Bukola Fawole ◽  
...  

Background: Worldwide, traumatic brain injury (TBI) kills or hospitalises over 10 million people each year. Early intracranial bleeding is common after TBI, increasing the risk of death and disability. Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss in surgery and death due to bleeding in trauma patients with extra-cranial injury. Early administration of tranexamic acid in TBI patients might limit intracranial bleeding, reducing death and disability. The CRASH-3 trial aims to provide reliable evidence on the effect of tranexamic acid on death and disability in TBI patients. We will randomly allocate about 13,000 TBI patients to an intravenous infusion of tranexamic acid or matching placebo in addition to usual care. This paper presents a protocol update (version 2.1) and statistical analysis plan for the CRASH-3 trial. Results: The primary outcome is head injury death in hospital within 28 days of injury for patients treated within 3 hours of injury (deaths in patients treated after 3 hours will also be reported). Because there are strong scientific reasons to expect that tranexamic acid will be most effective in patients treated immediately after injury and less effective with increasing delay, the effect in patients treated within one hour of injury is of particular interest. Secondary outcomes are all-cause and cause-specific mortality, vascular occlusive events (myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, stroke), disability based on the Disability Rating Scale and measures suggested by patient representatives, seizures, neurosurgical intervention, neurosurgical blood loss, days in intensive care and adverse events. Sub-group analyses will examine the effect of tranexamic acid on head injury death stratified by time to treatment, severity of TBI and baseline risk. Conclusion: The CRASH-3 trial will provide reliable evidence of the effectiveness and safety of tranexamic acid in patients with acute TBI. Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials registry (ISRCTN15088122) 19/07/2011, and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01402882) 25/07/2011.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document