Statistical analysis plan for a cluster-randomized crossover trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of a flexible family visitation model for delirium prevention in adult intensive care units (the ICU Visits Study)

Daniel Sganzerla, Cassiano Teixeira, Caroline Cabral Robinson, Renata Kochhann, Mariana Martins Siqueira Santos, Rafaela Moraes de Moura, Mirceli Goulart Barbosa, Daiana Barbosa da Silva, Tarissa Ribeiro, Cláudia Eugênio, Daniel Schneider, Débora Mariani, Rodrigo Wiltgen Jeffman, Fernando Bozza, Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti, Luciano Cesar Pontes Azevedo, Flávia Ribeiro Machado, Jorge Ibrain Salluh, José Augusto Santos Pellegrini, Rafael Barberena Moraes, Lucas Petri Damiani, Nilton Brandão da Silva, Maicon Falavigna, Regis Goulart Rosa, Daniel Sganzerla, Cassiano Teixeira, Caroline Cabral Robinson, Renata Kochhann, Mariana Martins Siqueira Santos, Rafaela Moraes de Moura, Mirceli Goulart Barbosa, Daiana Barbosa da Silva, Tarissa Ribeiro, Cláudia Eugênio, Daniel Schneider, Débora Mariani, Rodrigo Wiltgen Jeffman, Fernando Bozza, Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti, Luciano Cesar Pontes Azevedo, Flávia Ribeiro Machado, Jorge Ibrain Salluh, José Augusto Santos Pellegrini, Rafael Barberena Moraes, Lucas Petri Damiani, Nilton Brandão da Silva, Maicon Falavigna, Regis Goulart Rosa

Abstract

Background: Most adult intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide adopt restrictive family visitation models (RFVMs). However, evidence, mostly from non-randomized studies, suggests that flexible adult ICU visiting hours are safe policies that can result in benefits such as prevention of delirium and increase in satisfaction with care. Accordingly, the ICU Visits Study was designed to compare the effectiveness and safety of a flexible family visitation model (FFVM) vs. an RFVM on delirium prevention among ICU patients, and also to analyze its potential effects on family members and ICU professionals.

Methods/design: The ICU Visits Study is a cluster-randomized crossover trial which compares an FFVM (12 consecutive ICU visiting hours per day) with an RFVM (< 4.5 ICU visiting hours per day) in 40 Brazilian adult ICUs. Participant ICUs are randomly assigned to either an FFVM or RFVM in a 1:1 ratio. After enrollment and follow-up of 25 patients, each ICU is crossed over to the other visitation model, until 25 more patients per site are enrolled and followed. The primary outcome is the cumulative incidence of delirium measured by the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU. Secondary and tertiary outcomes include relevant measures of effectiveness and safety of ICU visiting policies among patients, family members, and ICU professionals. Herein, we describe all primary statistical procedures that will be used to evaluate the results and perform exploratory and sensitivity analyses of this study. This pre-specified statistical analysis plan was written and submitted without knowledge of the study data.

Discussion: This a priori statistical analysis plan aims to enhance the transparency of our study, facilitating unbiased analyses of ICU visit study data, and provide guidance for statistical analysis for groups conducting studies in the same field.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02932358 . Registered on 11 October 2016.

Keywords: Anxiety; Burnout; Critical care; Cross infection; Delirium; Depression; Family; Health personnel; Personal satisfaction.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study will be conducted according to Resolution No. 466/12 of the Brazilian National Health Council (http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/saudelegis/cns/2013/res0466_12_12_2012.html). The present study protocol version (version 3, from 22 February 2017) has been approved by the research ethics committee of the coordinating site (approval No. CAAE 57717516.3.1001.5330) and the research ethics committees of all participating institutions. The need for patients’ written informed consent was waived in 37 of 40 participating ICUs, because the standard of care encompasses both study interventions. In 3 of 40 ICUs informed consent will be required for patients or proxies. Informed consent will be required for family members and ICU professionals in all ICUs.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study design. FFVM flexible family visitation model, ICU intensive care unit, RFVM restrictive family visitation model. All ICUs will have a learning period within the first 15 days of phases 1 and 2. During this period, ICUs will receive the intervention (FFVM or RFVM) but will not recruit subjects. Local investigators will use this period to adapt the ICU staff to the organizational aspects of study interventions

References

    1. Gerritsen RT, Hartog CS, Curtis JR. New developments in the provision of family-centered care in the intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:550–553. doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-4684-5.
    1. Goldfarb MJ, Bibas L, Bartlett V, Jones H, Khan N. Outcomes of patient- and family-centered care interventions in the ICU: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:1751–1761. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002624.
    1. Rosa RG, Tonietto TF, da Silva DB, Gutierres FA, Ascoli AM, Madeira LC, et al. Effectiveness and safety of an extended ICU visitation model for delirium prevention: a before and after study. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:1660–1667. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002588.
    1. Westphal GA, Moerschberger MS, Vollmann DD, Inácio AC, Machado MC, Sperotto G, et al. Effect of a 24-h extended visiting policy on delirium in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44:968–970. doi: 10.1007/s00134-018-5153-5.
    1. Nassar Junior AP, Besen BAMP, Robinson CC, Falavigna M, Teixeira C, Rosa RG. Flexible versus restrictive visiting policies in ICUs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:1175–1180. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003155.
    1. Ramos FJ, Fumis RR, de Azevedo LC, Schettino G. Intensive care unit visitation policies in Brazil: a multicenter survey. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2014;26:339–346. doi: 10.5935/0103-507X.20140052.
    1. Garrouste-Orgeas M, Vinatier I, Tabah A, Misset B, Timsit JF. Reappraisal of visiting policies and procedures of patient’s family information in 188 French ICUs: a report of the Outcomerea Research Group. Ann Intensive Care. 2016;6:82. doi: 10.1186/s13613-016-0185-x.
    1. Noordermeer K, Rijpstra TA, Newhall D, Pelle AJ, van der Meer NJ. Visiting policies in the adult intensive care units in the Netherlands: survey among ICU directors. ISRN Critical Care. 2013;137045:1–6. doi: 10.5402/2013/137045.
    1. Lee MD, Friedenberg AS, Mukpo DH, Conray K, Palmisciano A, Levy MM. Visiting hours policies in New England intensive care units: strategies for improvement. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:497–501. doi: 10.1097/.
    1. Rosa RG, Falavigna M, Robinson CC, da Silva DB, Kochhann R, de Moura RM, et al. Study protocol to assess the effectiveness and safety of a flexible family visitation model for delirium prevention in adult intensive care units: a cluster-randomised, crossover trial (The ICU Visits Study) BMJ Open. 2018;8:e021193. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021193.
    1. Ely EW, Margolin R, Francis J, May L, Truman B, Dittus R, et al. Evaluation of delirium in critically ill patients: validation of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) Crit Care Med. 2001;29:1370–1379. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200107000-00012.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Bloodstream Infection Event (Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection and non-central line-associated Bloodstream Infection). 2017. . Accessed 14 Jun 2017.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pneumonia (Ventilator-associated [VAP] and non-ventilator-associated Pneumonia [PNEU]) Event. 2017. . Accessed 14 Jun 2017.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Urinary Tract Infection (Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection [CAUTI] and Non-Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection [UTI]) and Other Urinary System Infection [USI] Events. 2017.
    1. Botega NJ, Bio MR, Zomignani MA, Garcia C, Jr, Pereira WA. Mood disorders among medical in-patients: a validation study of the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HAD) Rev Saude Publica. 1995;29:355–363. doi: 10.1590/S0034-89101995000500004.
    1. Fumis RR, Nishimoto IN, Deheinzelin D. Measuring satisfaction in family members of critically ill cancer patients in Brazil. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32:124–128. doi: 10.1007/s00134-005-2857-0.
    1. Campos JA, Maroco J. Maslach Burnout Inventory - Student Survey: Portugal-Brazil cross-cultural adaptation. Rev Saude Publica. 2012;46:816–824. doi: 10.1590/S0034-89102012000500008.
    1. R Development Core Team . R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2016.
    1. van den Boogaard M, Pickkers P, Slooter AJ, Kuiper MA, Spronk PE, van der Voort PH, et al. Development and validation of PRE-DELIRIC (PREdiction of DELIRium in ICu patients) delirium prediction model for intensive care patients: observational multicentre study. BMJ. 2012;344:e420. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e420.
    1. Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG. Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2012;345:e5661. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5661.
    1. Gusmao-Flores D, Salluh JI, dal-Pizzol F, Santana LR, Lins RM, Lemos PP, et al. Validity and reliability of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of three tools to diagnose delirium: CAM-ICU, CAM-ICU Flowsheet and ICDSC. Crit Care. 2011;15(Suppl 2):P50. doi: 10.1186/cc10198.
    1. Colantuoni E, Dinglas VD, Ely EW, Hopkins RO, Needham DM. Statistical methods for evaluating delirium in the ICU. Lancet Repir Med. 2016;4(7):534–536. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(16)30138-2.
    1. Sessler CN, Gosnell MS, Grap MJ, Brophy GM, O'Neal PV, Keane KA, et al. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale: validity and reliability in adult intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166:1338–1344. doi: 10.1164/rccm.2107138.

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi