Ceragenin-coated endotracheal tubes for the reduction of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a prospective, longitudinal, cross-over, interrupted time, implementation study protocol (CEASE VAP study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients are at high risk of acquiring ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), which occurs in approximately 20% of mechanically ventilated patients. VAP results either from aspiration of pathogen-contaminated oropharyngeal secretions or contaminated biofilms that form on endotracheal tubes (ETTs) after intubation. VAP results in increased duration of mechanical ventilation, increased intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, increased risk of death and increased healthcare costs. Because of its impact on patient outcomes and the healthcare system, VAP is regarded as an important patient safety issue and there is an urgent need for better evidence on the efficacy of prevention strategies. Modified ETTs that reduce aspiration of oropharyngeal secretions with subglottic secretion drainage or reduce the occurrence of biofilm with a coating of ceragenins (CSAs) are available for clinical use in Canada. In this implementation study, we will evaluate the efficacy of these two types of Health Canada-licensed ETTs on the occurrence of VAP, and impact on patient-centred outcomes. METHODS: In this ongoing, pragmatic, prospective, longitudinal, interrupted time, cross-over implementation study, we will compare the efficacy of a CSA-coated ETT (CeraShield N8 Pharma) with an ETT with subglottic secretion drainage (Taper Guard, Covidien). The study periods consist of four alternating time periods of 11 or 12 weeks or a total of 23 weeks for each ETT. All patients intubated with the study ETT in each time period will be included in an intention-to-treat analysis. Outcomes will include VAP incidence, mortality and health services utilisation including antibiotic use and length of stay. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Health Sciences Research Ethics Board at Queen's University. The results of this study will be actively disseminated through manuscript publication and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05761613.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".