We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
OBSERVATIONAL STUDY
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Validation and Clinical Evaluation of a Method for Double-Blinded Blood Pressure Target Investigation in Intensive Care Medicine.
Critical Care Medicine 2018 October
OBJECTIVES: No double-blinded clinical trials have investigated optimal mean arterial pressure targets in the ICU. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a method for blinded investigation of mean arterial pressure targets in patients monitored with arterial catheter in the ICU.
DESIGN: Prospective observational study (substudy A) and prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study (substudy B).
SETTING: ICU, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
PATIENTS: Adult patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
INTERVENTIONS: Standard blood pressure measuring modules were offset to display 10% lower or higher blood pressure values. We then: 1) confirmed this modification in vivo by comparing offset to standard modules in 22 patients admitted to the ICU. Thereafter we 2) verified the method in two randomized, clinical trials, each including 50 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, where the offset of the blood pressure module was blinded to the treating staff.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Substudy A showed that the expected separation of blood pressure measurements was achieved with an excellent correlation of the offset and standard modules (R = 0.997). Bland-Altman plots showed no bias of modified modules over a clinically relevant range of mean arterial pressure. The primary endpoint of the clinical trials was between-group difference of norepinephrine dose needed to achieve target mean arterial pressure. Trial 1 aimed at a 10% difference between groups in mean arterial pressure (targets: 65 and 72 mm Hg, respectively) and demonstrated a separation of 5 ± 1 mm Hg (p < 0.001). The difference in norepinephrine dose was not significantly different (0.03 ± 0.03 µg/kg/min; p = 0.42). Trial 2 aimed at a 20% difference between groups in mean arterial pressure (targets: 63 and 77 mm Hg, respectively). Separation was 12 ± 1 mm Hg (p < 0.01) in mean arterial pressure and 0.07 ± 0.03 µg/kg/min (p < 0.01) in norepinephrine dose.
CONCLUSIONS: The present method is feasible and robust and provides a platform for double-blinded comparison of mean arterial pressure targets in critically ill patients.
DESIGN: Prospective observational study (substudy A) and prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study (substudy B).
SETTING: ICU, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
PATIENTS: Adult patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
INTERVENTIONS: Standard blood pressure measuring modules were offset to display 10% lower or higher blood pressure values. We then: 1) confirmed this modification in vivo by comparing offset to standard modules in 22 patients admitted to the ICU. Thereafter we 2) verified the method in two randomized, clinical trials, each including 50 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, where the offset of the blood pressure module was blinded to the treating staff.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Substudy A showed that the expected separation of blood pressure measurements was achieved with an excellent correlation of the offset and standard modules (R = 0.997). Bland-Altman plots showed no bias of modified modules over a clinically relevant range of mean arterial pressure. The primary endpoint of the clinical trials was between-group difference of norepinephrine dose needed to achieve target mean arterial pressure. Trial 1 aimed at a 10% difference between groups in mean arterial pressure (targets: 65 and 72 mm Hg, respectively) and demonstrated a separation of 5 ± 1 mm Hg (p < 0.001). The difference in norepinephrine dose was not significantly different (0.03 ± 0.03 µg/kg/min; p = 0.42). Trial 2 aimed at a 20% difference between groups in mean arterial pressure (targets: 63 and 77 mm Hg, respectively). Separation was 12 ± 1 mm Hg (p < 0.01) in mean arterial pressure and 0.07 ± 0.03 µg/kg/min (p < 0.01) in norepinephrine dose.
CONCLUSIONS: The present method is feasible and robust and provides a platform for double-blinded comparison of mean arterial pressure targets in critically ill patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app