Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Recruiting
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT06400797 |
Other study ID # |
2024-RM-01 |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Recruiting |
Phase |
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
January 1, 2024 |
Est. completion date |
January 1, 2029 |
Study information
Verified date |
May 2024 |
Source |
Heinrich-Heine University, Duesseldorf |
Contact |
René M'Pembele, MD |
Phone |
02118118451 |
Email |
rene.mpembele[@]med.uni-duesseldorf.de |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Observational
|
Clinical Trial Summary
The availability as well as the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) systems for
severe acute respiratory or cardiocirculatory failure is steadily increasing. The decision to
initiate ECMO therapy is predominantly made in emergency situations, for which the focus is
on acute survival. The decisions if a patient will profit from ECMO therapy are mainly made
from clinical experience and educated guess by the attending team. However, it is unknown how
useful these clinical predictions are. Therefore, this observational study will compare
estimated and real outcome of ECMO patients.
Description:
The availability as well as the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) systems for
severe acute respiratory (veno-venous, vv-ECMO) or cardiocirculatory (veno-arterial, va-ECMO)
failure is steadily increasing. Despite increasing experience of specialized centres,
mortality of ECMO patients remains high and only about 50% survive the initial hospital stay.
For those patients who do leave the hospital alive, quality of life after this invasive
therapy with long stays in the intensive care unit (ICU) is often limited and participation
in social life can be difficult. Quality of life and the life-impact after ECMO therapy is,
in contrast to hard endpoints such as mortality, insufficiently studied and currently only
scarce data exist from large prospective cohort studies. Further, predictive scores and
associated risk factors for patient-centred outcomes are not available.
The decision to initiate ECMO therapy is predominantly made in emergency situations, for
which the focus is on acute survival. As such, the long-term implications in terms of quality
of life and life-impact of ECMO treatment enjoy only limited consideration at an early time
point. Further, the existing scores for prediction in ECMO were developed for mortality and
reliable data on long-term life-impact are scarce. Therefore, while these decisions are
influenced by empirical factors like patient-age, point-of-care laboratory parameters (e.g.
lactate) or the neurological status of the patient, the clinical experience and educated
guess in terms of prognosis and potential treatment futility by the attending team remains a
crucial factor. This applies not only to ECMO initiation but also to decisions on
continuation and termination. This approach to decision-making may be problematic since it
has been shown for other settings that clinicians tend to overestimate the success of an
intervention. Currently, there are no data evaluating in how far this also applies to ECMO
therapy and if indeed, there is a mismatch between estimated and observed outcomes in ECMO
patients. Considering the crucial role of subjective prognosis estimates, it becomes of major
interest to quantify the potential mis-calibration between clinicians estimated and observed
outcomes. Further, factors like Outcome uncertainties, potential doubts regarding treatment
utility vs futility, and the immediate finality of these demanding decisions expose ICU
health-care personnel to a relevant psychological burden. As shown by Johnson-Coyle and
colleagues, both moral distress and burnout have a negative impact on job satisfaction. Moral
distress occurs when one believes to know what is ethically right but something or someone
limits their ability to do the right thing. Preliminary studies have shown a high incidence
of moral distress in the care of patients with mechanical circulatory support systems, with
particularly pronounced stress among nursing personnel. If these factors have significant
impact on professional judgement is not clear in this context.
In a small single centre pilot study, we prospectively recruited 50 va-ECMO patients at the
University Hospital Duesseldorf from March until November 2023 and investigated if ECMO care
providers could predict in-hospital mortality in these patients. For these 50 patients we
obtained 135 completed questionnaires within 24 hours and 111 answered questionnaires at day
4 to7 after initiation of ECMO therapy from consultants, residents and nursing personnel. Out
of 50 patients 21 patients (42%) died during the initial hospital stay. Overall sensitivity
and specificity of estimates were 57.9% and 85.9% respectively at 24 hours after start of
ECMO therapy (precision: 75%, accuracy: 74.1%, F1 score: 65.3%). In a subgroup analysis,
consultants showed highest agreement of estimated and actual in hospital mortality, whereas
residents showed lowest agreement (see table below). At day 4 to 7 overall predictions had
lower sensitivity, accuracy, precision and F1-score as compared to estimates on day 1 after
ECMO initiation, however specificity slightly increased (sens: 35% spec: 91.5% acc: 71.1%
F1-score: 46.7% precision: 70%). Highest values for sensitivity, accuracy and F1-score, were
reached in subgroup of nursing personnel (see table below). Notably, years of experience in
critical care were higher in consultants and nursing personnel as compared to residents
(consultants: 10.8 ± 6.7 years versus residents: 1.4 ± 1.5 years versus nursing personnel:
15.8 ± 10.4 years).
Based on the results of our pilot data, we hypothesize that:
1. Subjective prognosis estimates by health care providers underestimate (low sensitivity)
actual mortality. We expect that this will also account for reduced functionality and
quality of life.
2. Estimations will vary significantly between different groups of health care
professionals and levels of experience in critical care as well as between different
time points of assessment. Specifically we expect, that prediction accuracy will improve
with higher years of experience in critical care and that predictions for mortality will
be more accurate immediately after ECMO initiation as compared to later study time
points. This might be influenced by the fact that a substantial number of patients with
poor prognosis will die within the first four days of ECMO therapy. Hence, estimation of
outcome in the remaining patients is more difficult.
3. Agreement between estimated and observed outcomes will differ significantly between
centres with different levels of experience (high-volume versus low-volume centres).
Expecting higher accuracy of outcome estimates in high-volume centres with higher
experience as compared to low-volume centres.
4. Additionally, we expect that high levels of moral distress influence professional
judgement leading to negative estimated prognosis and low precisions of estimations.
Therefore, we aim to conduct the ESTRELLA study as large nationwide multicentre prospective
cohort study to dissect usability of clinical estimates for outcome prediction in ECMO
patients and to identify suitable factors for prediction of poor functional health in these
patients.