CESAR: Conventional ventilatory support vs extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure

Giles J. Peek, Felicity Clemens, Diana Elbourne, Richard Firmin, Pollyanna Hardy, Clare Hibbert, Hilliary Killer, Miranda Mugford, Mariamma Thalanany, Ravin Tiruvoipati, Ann Truesdale, Andrew Wilson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

119 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: An estimated 350 adults develop severe, but potentially reversible respiratory failure in the UK annually. Current management uses intermittent positive pressure ventilation, but barotrauma, volutrauma and oxygen toxicity can prevent lung recovery. An alternative treatment, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, uses cardio-pulmonary bypass technology to temporarily provide gas exchange, allowing ventilator settings to be reduced. While extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is proven to result in improved outcome when compared to conventional ventilation in neonates with severe respiratory failure, there is currently no good evidence from randomised controlled trials to compare these managements for important clinical outcomes in adults, although evidence from case series is promising. Methods/Design: The aim of the randomised controlled trial of Conventional ventilatory support vs extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR) is to assess whether, for patients with severe, but potentially reversible, respiratory failure, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation will increase the rate of survival without severe disability ('confined to bed' and 'unable to wash or dress') by six months post-randomisation, and be cost effective from the viewpoints of the NHS and society, compared to conventional ventilatory support. Following assent from a relative, adults (18-65 years) with severe, but potentially reversible, respiratory failure (Murray score ≥ 3.0 or hypercapnea with pH < 7.2) will be randomised for consideration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at Glenfield Hospital, Leicester or continuing conventional care in a centre providing a high standard of conventional treatment. The central randomisation service will minimise by type of conventional treatment centre, age, duration of high pressure ventilation, hypoxia/hypercapnea, diagnosis and number of organs failed, to ensure balance in key prognostic variables. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation will not be available for patients meeting entry criteria outside the trial. 180 patients will be recruited to have 80% power to be able to detect a one third reduction in the primary outcome from 65% at 5% level of statistical significance (2-sided test). Secondary outcomes include patient morbidity and health status at 6 months. Discussion: Analysis will be based on intention to treat. A concurrent economic evaluation will also be performed to compare the costs and outcomes of both treatments.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number163
JournalBMC Health Services Research
Volume6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 23 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
Respiratory Insufficiency
Random Allocation
Ventilation
Randomized Controlled Trials
Intermittent Positive-Pressure Ventilation
Barotrauma
Costs and Cost Analysis
Lung
Mechanical Ventilators
Health Status
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Therapeutics
Survival Rate
Gases
Newborn Infant
Oxygen
Technology
Morbidity
Pressure

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Cite this

CESAR : Conventional ventilatory support vs extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure. / Peek, Giles J.; Clemens, Felicity; Elbourne, Diana; Firmin, Richard; Hardy, Pollyanna; Hibbert, Clare; Killer, Hilliary; Mugford, Miranda; Thalanany, Mariamma; Tiruvoipati, Ravin; Truesdale, Ann; Wilson, Andrew.

In: BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 6, 163, 23.12.2006.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Peek, GJ, Clemens, F, Elbourne, D, Firmin, R, Hardy, P, Hibbert, C, Killer, H, Mugford, M, Thalanany, M, Tiruvoipati, R, Truesdale, A & Wilson, A 2006, 'CESAR: Conventional ventilatory support vs extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure', BMC Health Services Research, vol. 6, 163. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-163
Peek, Giles J. ; Clemens, Felicity ; Elbourne, Diana ; Firmin, Richard ; Hardy, Pollyanna ; Hibbert, Clare ; Killer, Hilliary ; Mugford, Miranda ; Thalanany, Mariamma ; Tiruvoipati, Ravin ; Truesdale, Ann ; Wilson, Andrew. / CESAR : Conventional ventilatory support vs extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure. In: BMC Health Services Research. 2006 ; Vol. 6.
@article{373c8a60f6d044d3af37899231423591,
title = "CESAR: Conventional ventilatory support vs extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure",
abstract = "Background: An estimated 350 adults develop severe, but potentially reversible respiratory failure in the UK annually. Current management uses intermittent positive pressure ventilation, but barotrauma, volutrauma and oxygen toxicity can prevent lung recovery. An alternative treatment, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, uses cardio-pulmonary bypass technology to temporarily provide gas exchange, allowing ventilator settings to be reduced. While extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is proven to result in improved outcome when compared to conventional ventilation in neonates with severe respiratory failure, there is currently no good evidence from randomised controlled trials to compare these managements for important clinical outcomes in adults, although evidence from case series is promising. Methods/Design: The aim of the randomised controlled trial of Conventional ventilatory support vs extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR) is to assess whether, for patients with severe, but potentially reversible, respiratory failure, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation will increase the rate of survival without severe disability ('confined to bed' and 'unable to wash or dress') by six months post-randomisation, and be cost effective from the viewpoints of the NHS and society, compared to conventional ventilatory support. Following assent from a relative, adults (18-65 years) with severe, but potentially reversible, respiratory failure (Murray score ≥ 3.0 or hypercapnea with pH < 7.2) will be randomised for consideration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at Glenfield Hospital, Leicester or continuing conventional care in a centre providing a high standard of conventional treatment. The central randomisation service will minimise by type of conventional treatment centre, age, duration of high pressure ventilation, hypoxia/hypercapnea, diagnosis and number of organs failed, to ensure balance in key prognostic variables. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation will not be available for patients meeting entry criteria outside the trial. 180 patients will be recruited to have 80{\%} power to be able to detect a one third reduction in the primary outcome from 65{\%} at 5{\%} level of statistical significance (2-sided test). Secondary outcomes include patient morbidity and health status at 6 months. Discussion: Analysis will be based on intention to treat. A concurrent economic evaluation will also be performed to compare the costs and outcomes of both treatments.",
author = "Peek, {Giles J.} and Felicity Clemens and Diana Elbourne and Richard Firmin and Pollyanna Hardy and Clare Hibbert and Hilliary Killer and Miranda Mugford and Mariamma Thalanany and Ravin Tiruvoipati and Ann Truesdale and Andrew Wilson",
year = "2006",
month = "12",
day = "23",
doi = "10.1186/1472-6963-6-163",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
journal = "BMC Health Services Research",
issn = "1472-6963",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - CESAR

T2 - Conventional ventilatory support vs extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure

AU - Peek, Giles J.

AU - Clemens, Felicity

AU - Elbourne, Diana

AU - Firmin, Richard

AU - Hardy, Pollyanna

AU - Hibbert, Clare

AU - Killer, Hilliary

AU - Mugford, Miranda

AU - Thalanany, Mariamma

AU - Tiruvoipati, Ravin

AU - Truesdale, Ann

AU - Wilson, Andrew

PY - 2006/12/23

Y1 - 2006/12/23

N2 - Background: An estimated 350 adults develop severe, but potentially reversible respiratory failure in the UK annually. Current management uses intermittent positive pressure ventilation, but barotrauma, volutrauma and oxygen toxicity can prevent lung recovery. An alternative treatment, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, uses cardio-pulmonary bypass technology to temporarily provide gas exchange, allowing ventilator settings to be reduced. While extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is proven to result in improved outcome when compared to conventional ventilation in neonates with severe respiratory failure, there is currently no good evidence from randomised controlled trials to compare these managements for important clinical outcomes in adults, although evidence from case series is promising. Methods/Design: The aim of the randomised controlled trial of Conventional ventilatory support vs extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR) is to assess whether, for patients with severe, but potentially reversible, respiratory failure, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation will increase the rate of survival without severe disability ('confined to bed' and 'unable to wash or dress') by six months post-randomisation, and be cost effective from the viewpoints of the NHS and society, compared to conventional ventilatory support. Following assent from a relative, adults (18-65 years) with severe, but potentially reversible, respiratory failure (Murray score ≥ 3.0 or hypercapnea with pH < 7.2) will be randomised for consideration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at Glenfield Hospital, Leicester or continuing conventional care in a centre providing a high standard of conventional treatment. The central randomisation service will minimise by type of conventional treatment centre, age, duration of high pressure ventilation, hypoxia/hypercapnea, diagnosis and number of organs failed, to ensure balance in key prognostic variables. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation will not be available for patients meeting entry criteria outside the trial. 180 patients will be recruited to have 80% power to be able to detect a one third reduction in the primary outcome from 65% at 5% level of statistical significance (2-sided test). Secondary outcomes include patient morbidity and health status at 6 months. Discussion: Analysis will be based on intention to treat. A concurrent economic evaluation will also be performed to compare the costs and outcomes of both treatments.

AB - Background: An estimated 350 adults develop severe, but potentially reversible respiratory failure in the UK annually. Current management uses intermittent positive pressure ventilation, but barotrauma, volutrauma and oxygen toxicity can prevent lung recovery. An alternative treatment, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, uses cardio-pulmonary bypass technology to temporarily provide gas exchange, allowing ventilator settings to be reduced. While extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is proven to result in improved outcome when compared to conventional ventilation in neonates with severe respiratory failure, there is currently no good evidence from randomised controlled trials to compare these managements for important clinical outcomes in adults, although evidence from case series is promising. Methods/Design: The aim of the randomised controlled trial of Conventional ventilatory support vs extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR) is to assess whether, for patients with severe, but potentially reversible, respiratory failure, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation will increase the rate of survival without severe disability ('confined to bed' and 'unable to wash or dress') by six months post-randomisation, and be cost effective from the viewpoints of the NHS and society, compared to conventional ventilatory support. Following assent from a relative, adults (18-65 years) with severe, but potentially reversible, respiratory failure (Murray score ≥ 3.0 or hypercapnea with pH < 7.2) will be randomised for consideration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at Glenfield Hospital, Leicester or continuing conventional care in a centre providing a high standard of conventional treatment. The central randomisation service will minimise by type of conventional treatment centre, age, duration of high pressure ventilation, hypoxia/hypercapnea, diagnosis and number of organs failed, to ensure balance in key prognostic variables. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation will not be available for patients meeting entry criteria outside the trial. 180 patients will be recruited to have 80% power to be able to detect a one third reduction in the primary outcome from 65% at 5% level of statistical significance (2-sided test). Secondary outcomes include patient morbidity and health status at 6 months. Discussion: Analysis will be based on intention to treat. A concurrent economic evaluation will also be performed to compare the costs and outcomes of both treatments.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33847191378&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33847191378&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1472-6963-6-163

DO - 10.1186/1472-6963-6-163

M3 - Article

C2 - 17187683

AN - SCOPUS:33847191378

VL - 6

JO - BMC Health Services Research

JF - BMC Health Services Research

SN - 1472-6963

M1 - 163

ER -