Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
50 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2024-10-30
2025-10-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Rapid Prehospital ACcess to ECPR in Prague
NCT06789978
Resuscitation Enhancement to Avoid Rearrest Through Evidence-based Strategies in Prehospital Post-resuscitation Care
NCT07239908
Predictors for Survival and Good Neurological Outcome in E-CPR and Non CPR Treated Patients
NCT04198792
Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation During Treatment of Acute Respiratory Failure Through Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.
NCT05342363
Cytokine Adsorption in Post-cardiac Arrest Syndrome in Patients Requiring Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
NCT03685383
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
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.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
OTHER
PROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
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.
Delphi Questionnaire
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.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Delphi Questionnaire
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.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Study team members.
18 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Sydney Local Health District
OTHER_GOV
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Sydney Local Health District
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
TBA
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.