An association between deep sedation and adverse short-term outcomes has been demonstrated although this evidence has been inconsistent. The A2B (alpha-2 agonists for sedation in critical care) sedation trial is designed to determine whether the alpha-2 agonists clonidine and dexmedetomidine, compared with usual care, are clinically and cost-effective. The A2B intervention is a complex intervention conducted in 39 intensive care units (ICUs) in the UK. Multicentre organisational factors, variable cultures, perceptions and practices and the involvement of multiple members of the healthcare team add to the complexity of the A2B trial. From our pretrial contextual exploration it was apparent that routine practices such as type and frequency of pain, agitation and delirium assessment, as well as the common sedative agents used, varied widely across the UK. Anticipated challenges in implementing A2B focused on the impact of usual practice, perceptions of risk, ICU culture, structure and the presence of equipoise. Given this complexity, a process evaluation has been embedded in the A2B trial to uncover factors that could impact successful delivery and explore their impact on intervention delivery and interpretation of outcomes.

This is a mixed-methods process evaluation guided by the A2B intervention logic model. It includes two phases of data collection conducted during and at the end of trial. Data will be collected using a combination of questionnaires, stakeholder interviews and routinely collected trial data. A framework approach will be used to analyse qualitative data with synthesis of data within and across the phases. The nature of the relationship between delivery of the A2B intervention and the trial primary and secondary outcomes will be explored.

All elements of the A2B trial, including the process evaluation, are approved by Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (Ref. 18/SS/0085). Dissemination will be via publications, presentations and media engagement.

NCT03653832.

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a major risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, despite surgical and endovascular treatments. Emerging evidence supports the use of immediate antithrombotic medications after endovascular intervention for PAD, however, there is a lack of consensus regarding choice and duration of antithrombotic therapy. Prescriber decision-making is a complex process, with prior studies demonstrating patient factors can influence variability in antithrombotic therapy for PAD. However, it remains unclear the relative contribution of these factors. This paper describes a planned study that aims to (1) determine the influence of patient factors on clinician preference for antithrombotic therapy following endovascular intervention and (2) compare differences in prescribing preferences between consultant vascular surgeons and trainees.

This cross-sectional survey will evaluate antithrombotic prescribing choices using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) that has been developed and piloted for this study. A list of attributes and levels was generated using a mixed-methods approach. This included an extensive literature review and semistructured interviews with prescribing clinicians. Following final selection of included attributes, specialised software was used to construct a D-efficient design for the DCE questionnaire. The electronic questionnaire will be administered to vascular trainees and consultant surgeons across Australia. These data will be analysed using multinomial logistic regression, treating the decision to prescribe antithrombotic therapy as a function of both the attributes of the two alternatives, as well as characteristics of the respondent. Latent class analysis will be used to explore heterogeneity of responses.

Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Sydney Human Ethics committee (2023/474). The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national vascular surgical conferences. These results will be used to improve understanding how clinicians make prescribing decisions and to inform future strategy to enhance guideline-directed prescribing.

Almost all patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) in intensive care units (ICUs) require analgesia and sedation. The most widely used sedative drug is propofol, but there is uncertainty whether alpha2-agonists are superior. The alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B) trial aims to determine whether clonidine or dexmedetomidine (or both) are clinically and cost-effective in MV ICU patients compared with usual care.

Adult ICU patients within 48 hours of starting MV, expected to require at least 24 hours further MV, are randomised in an open-label three arm trial to receive propofol (usual care) or clonidine or dexmedetomidine as primary sedative, plus analgesia according to local practice. Exclusions include patients with primary brain injury; postcardiac arrest; other neurological conditions; or bradycardia. Unless clinically contraindicated, sedation is titrated using weight-based dosing guidance to achieve a Richmond-Agitation-Sedation score of –2 or greater as early as considered safe by clinicians. The primary outcome is time to successful extubation. Secondary ICU outcomes include delirium and coma incidence/duration, sedation quality, predefined adverse events, mortality and ICU length of stay. Post-ICU outcomes include mortality, anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress, cognitive function and health-related quality of life at 6-month follow-up. A process evaluation and health economic evaluation are embedded in the trial.

The analytic framework uses a hierarchical approach to maximise efficiency and control type I error. Stage 1 tests whether each alpha2-agonist is superior to propofol. If either/both interventions are superior, stages 2 and 3 testing explores which alpha2-agonist is more effective. To detect a mean difference of 2 days in MV duration, we aim to recruit 1437 patients (479 per group) in 40–50 UK ICUs.

The Scotland A REC approved the trial (18/SS/0085). We use a surrogate decision-maker or deferred consent model consistent with UK law. Dissemination will be via publications, presentations and updated guidelines.

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03653832.