Evidence mapPaperPMID 31340849Full record

ArticleTrials2019

Repetitive vascular occlusion stimulus (RVOS) versus standard care to prevent muscle wasting in critically ill patients (ROSProx):a study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial.

Ismita Chhetri, Julie E A Hunt, Jeewaka R Mendis, Stephen D Patterson, Zudin A Puthucheary, Hugh E Montgomery, Benedict C Creagh-Brown

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ismita ChhetriIntensive Care Unit, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, GU2 7XX, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8499-6113
Julie E A HuntFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Biosciences and Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Jeewaka R MendisFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Biosciences and Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Stephen D PattersonFaculty of Sport, Health and Applied Science, St Mary's University, London, UK.
Zudin A PuthuchearyWilliam Harvey Research Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Hugh E MontgomeryInstitute for Sport, Exercise and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Benedict C Creagh-BrownIntensive Care Unit, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, GU2 7XX, UK. bencb@nhs.net.
English Institute of Sport · GBRoyal Surrey County Hospital · GBUniversity of Surrey · GB

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0815-20029National Institute for Health Research PB-PG-0815-20029
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundForty per cent of critically ill patients are affected by intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICU-AW), to which skeletal muscle wasting makes a substantial contribution. This can impair outcomes in hospital, and can cause long-term physical disability after hospital discharge. No effective mitigating strategies have yet been identified. Application of a repetitive vascular occlusion stimulus (RVOS) a limb pressure cuff inducing brief repeated cycles of ischaemia and reperfusion, can limit disuse muscle atrophy in both healthy controls and bed-bound patients recovering from knee surgery. We wish to determine whether RVOS might be effective in mitigating against muscle wasting in the ICU. Given that RVOS can also improve vascular function in healthy controls, we also wish to assess such effects in the critically ill. We here describe a pilot study to assess whether RVOS application is safe, tolerable, feasible and acceptable for ICU patients.

methodsThis is a randomised interventional feasibility trial. Thirty-two ventilated adult ICU patients with multiorgan failure will be recruited within 48 h of admission and randomised to either the intervention arm or the control arm. Intervention participants will receive RVOS twice daily (except only once on day 1) for up to 10 days or until ICU discharge. Serious adverse events and tolerability (pain score) will be recorded; feasibility of trial procedures will be assessed against pre-specified criteria and acceptability by semi-structured interview. Together with vascular function, muscle mass and quality will be assessed using ultrasound and measures of physical function at baseline, on days 6 and 11 of study enrolment, and at ICU and hospital discharge. Blood and urine biomarkers of muscle metabolism, vascular function, inflammation and DNA damage/repair mechanism will also be analysed. The Health questionnaire will be completed 3 months after hospital discharge. DISCUSSION: If this study demonstrates feasibility, the derived data will be used to inform the design (and sample size) of an appropriately-powered prospective trial to clarify whether RVOS can help preserve muscle mass/improve vascular function in critically ill patients.

trial registrationISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN44340629. Registered on 26 October 2017.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessEnglandFeasibility StudiesHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicMuscle, SkeletalMuscle WeaknessMuscular AtrophyPilot ProjectsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRegional Blood FlowTherapeutic OcclusionTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeBlood flow restrictionCritical illnessICU-acquired weaknessMuscle atrophyRehabilitationRepetitive vascular occlusion stimulusVascular dysfunction

Identifiers

PMID31340849
PMCPMC6657179
OpenAlexW2963651827

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.