- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT06552312
A Modified Delphi for ECPR Post Resuscitation Care
ECPR Post Resuscitation Care an International Consensus Statement Via Modified Delphi Approach
Study Overview
Status
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
The study will be performed using a modified Delphi process with an international expert panel to generate recommendation statements related to the management of patients treated with ECPR and to determine the level of agreement for each statement from the panel as a whole. The following topics will be covered:
Sedation Mechanical ventilation management Oxygen management Carbon dioxide management Haemodynamic management ECMO flow management Mean arterial pressure targets Aortic valve not opening management Left ventricular unloading/venting Complication management Infection prevention Anticoagulation Imaging Prognostication and neuro-prognostication Practical recommendations Organ donation Patient followup
Cannulation will not be covered as this has been covered in other Delphi processes.
Management Consensus is achieved through iterative rounds of survey and revision to the statements until a pre-determined level of agreement is met (>70% agreement).
Part 1: planning and evidence review Series of planning sessions with co-chairs Literature is reviewed/summarized Initial statements will be developed based on evidence and study team expertise
Expert panel selection:
The study team identified experts on ECPR for OHCA based on contributions to the field, clinical experiences, range of specialties and peer-reviewed publications with prioritization of diversity in geography and expertise. Using snowball sampling, investigators will ask the recruited experts to identify additional content experts to participate in the expert panel. It is aimed to recruit a total of 50 experts, in accordance with the recommended panel number of >30 as outlined in the original Delphi method paper. To avoid any bias, the study team will not participate in the voting process. The survey and voting process will be online and anonymous to avoid any reciprocal influence.
Part 2: Survey to achieve consensus Survey, based on the initial statements developed by study team, will be developed. This will be reviewed by independent contributors (not part of the study team or the expert panel), to ensure validity, appropriate topic coverage and length.
Some questions will enable a Yes/No or quantitative response. Others will be utilising a Likert scale. The voting process will be anonymous to avoid any reciprocal influence or dredging effects and done with Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) Appropriateness Method Scale.
Experts will be asked to rate the importance of each item for ECPR for OHCA using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and evaluation scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Statements will be classified as strong agreement (median score 7-9), neither agree or disagree (median score 4-6), or strongly disagree (median score 1-3). Panel members will also provided an "Unable to Score" response to use if they did not feel comfortable rating any specific domain. Recipients will be asked to recommend any wording/phrasing changes and to suggest any additional items for inclusion.
Based on a previously established Delphi method approach, consensus will be achieved when an item reached a high level of agreement for inclusion. High level of agreement will require greater than 70% of the survey responses for a particular item meeting a score of strong agreement (i.e. a score ≥ 7 on the Likert scale). A medium level of agreement will be defined between 60% and 70%, and low agreement below 60%. Each expert will receive anonymized aggregate statistics (group mean, group standard deviation, percentage agreement). Statements achieving a high level of agreement in the first survey (i.e. a score of 70% of respondents with a score >7) will not be reviewed in the consensus meeting nor in the second survey. Those not meeting a high level of agreement will be rephased during the online meeting or subsequent surveys. If 70% of respondents score a statement at 3 (on the 9-point scale) or less for a statement in the first-round survey, that statement will be deemed not important and removed and not discussed at the online discussion.
An online consensus meeting will be arranged after the first round where the expert panel will discuss the items in detail, including comments on the first survey. Modifications to questions will be possible at this meeting.
Following the online consensus meeting, additional survey rounds will be prepared and sent to each expert as determined by the study group. This survey will include each item with comments indicating changes made during the consensus meeting as well as the mean score and level of agreement (low, medium, high) for each item from the first survey (excluding statements of low importance/agreement as defined above). Expert participants will again rate each item on the same 9-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics including median, IQR, and level of agreement will be obtained for each item from the final survey. Items that reach a high level of agreement will be included in the final list of consensuses. Items that reached medium or low agreement will be discarded after the final round but will be provided as supplementary data for review.
It is anticipated that 3 rounds of the Delphi process will be required. Additional rounds may be considered if the study group and expert group view additional consensus may be made on key items with restructuring of statements.
The percentage agreement will be quantified as the number of individual scores of more than 7 divided by the number of voting experts. Given the poor- and low-quality data available on many aspects of topic, the study team will not be using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to prepare statements but will referrer to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and evaluation (AGREE) statement. This approach is consistent with other recently published guidelines.
Study Type
Enrollment (Estimated)
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
New South Wales
-
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 2050
- Sydney Local Health District
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
- Adult
- Older Adult
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Sampling Method
Study Population
Description
Inclusion:
Identified experts on ECPR for OHCA based on contributions to the field, clinical experiences, range of specialties and peer-reviewed publications with prioritization of diversity in geography and expertise. Using snowball sampling, we asked the recruited experts to identify additional content experts to participate in the expert panel. We will aim to recruit a total of 50 experts, in accordance with the recommended panel number of >30 as outlined in the original Delphi method paper.
Exclusion Study team members.
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
Cohorts and Interventions
Group / Cohort |
Intervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Delphi Panel
The Delphi panel will include between 20-50 international experts in critical care, cardiology, intensive care, anaesthesia, emergency medicine, perfusion and cardio-thoracic surgery.
|
Experts will be asked to rate the importance of each item for ECPR for OHCA using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and evaluation scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree).
Statements will be classified as strong agreement (median score 7-9), neither agree or disagree (median score 4-6), or strongly disagree (median score 1-3).
Panel members were also provided an "Unable to Score" response to use if they did not feel comfortable rating any specific domain.
Recipients will be asked to recommend any wording/phrasing changes and to suggest any additional items for inclusion.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Degree of consensus
Time Frame: Six months
|
The level of agreement for all statements achieving consensus from the expert panel; consensus is predefined as ≥ 70% of the panel rating a given statement >7 on a likert scale between 1-9
|
Six months
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Primary Completion (Estimated)
Study Completion (Estimated)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
- TBA
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on Cardiac Arrest
-
National Taiwan University HospitalEnrolling by invitationOut of Hospital Cardiac Arrest | Inhospital Cardiac ArrestTaiwan
-
Haseki Training and Research HospitalCompletedCardiac Arrest (CA) | Out of Hospital Cardiac ArrestTurkey
-
Medical University of GdanskActive, not recruitingCardiac Complications | Sudden Cardiac Arrest | Cardiac Arrest (CA) | Cardiac DiseasesPoland
-
Lars Wiuff AndersenUniversity of AarhusRecruitingCardiac Arrest (CA)Denmark
-
Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo di PaviaRecruiting
-
Italian Resuscitation CouncilUnknownOut-Of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest | In-hospital Cardiac ArrestItaly
-
Emergency Medical Services, Capital Region, DenmarkOdense University Hospital; TrygFonden, Denmark; Aalborg University HospitalUnknownOut-Of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest | Pediatric Disorder | Cardiopulmonary ArrestDenmark
-
Singapore General HospitalDuke-NUS Graduate Medical SchoolRecruitingOut-Of-Hospital Cardiac ArrestSingapore
-
National Taiwan University HospitalRecruitingOut-Of-Hospital Cardiac ArrestTaiwan
-
King's College LondonKing's College Hospital NHS Trust; London Ambulance Service NHS TrustNot yet recruiting
Clinical Trials on Delphi Questionnaire
-
Ohio State UniversityRecruitingConsensus DevelopmentUnited States
-
University of Southern CaliforniaEnrolling by invitationConsensus DevelopmentUnited States
-
University Hospital, GhentAstellas Pharma Inc; MedtronicCompleted
-
Universidad de ZaragozaUniversidad Miguel Hernandez de ElcheNot yet recruitingPerioperative Care | Enhanced Recovery After Surgery | Surgical CareSpain
-
Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisNot yet recruiting
-
Medipol UniversityInternational Association of Non Invasive Ventilation; International Academy... and other collaboratorsNot yet recruitingCritical Illness | Critical Care | Mechanical Insufflation-exsufflation Session ( With Cough Assist) | Critical Care, Intensive Care | Delphi Study | Consensus | Mechanical Insufflation-exsufflation | Airway ClearanceSpain, Italy, Turkey (Türkiye)
-
University of Southern CaliforniaCompleted
-
University of Rome Tor VergataEnrolling by invitation
-
University of Southern CaliforniaEnrolling by invitationConsensus DevelopmentUnited States
-
One ClinicPoissy-Saint Germain Hospital; Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines University and other collaboratorsCompletedEndometriosisFrance