Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Dr Rachel Agbeko
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
Background: The optimal target for systemic oxygenation in critically ill children is unknown. Liberal oxygenation is widely practised but is associated with harm in observational studies. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a conservative oxygenation target of peripheral oxygen saturation 88-92% compared with peripheral oxygen saturation > 94% in critically ill children admitted to paediatric intensive care unit as an emergency. Design and setting: A pragmatic, open, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised clinical trial conducted in 15 National Health Service paediatric intensive care units and associated emergency transport services across England and Scotland. Participants: Children aged > 38 weeks corrected gestational age and < 16 years, enrolled within 6 hours of being accepted for admission to paediatric intensive care unit as an emergency; receiving invasive mechanical ventilation with supplemental oxygen; and in face-to-face contact with paediatric intensive care unit or emergency transport services staff. Interventions: Adjustment of ventilator and inspired oxygen settings aiming to achieve peripheral oxygen saturation 88-92% (conservative oxygenation) or peripheral oxygen saturation > 94% (liberal oxygenation) during invasive mechanical ventilation. Main outcome measures: Primary outcomes: duration of organ support at 30 days, with death by day 30 ranked as the worst outcome (clinical effectiveness) and incremental costs, quality-adjusted life-years and net monetary benefit at 12 months (cost-effectiveness). Secondary outcomes: incremental costs at 30 days; mortality at paediatric intensive care unit discharge, 30 days, 90 days and 12 months; time to liberation from ventilation; duration of organ support; length of paediatric intensive care unit and hospital stay; functional status at paediatric intensive care unit discharge; and health-related quality of life at 12 months. Results: Two thousand and forty children were randomised between 1 September 2020 and 15 May 2022. Consent was obtained for 1872 (94%) - 939 to the conservative and 933 to the liberal oxygenation group - who were included in the primary analysis. Duration of organ support or death in the first 30 days was lower in the conservative oxygenation group [probabilistic index 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.55; p = 0.04 Wilcoxon rank-sum test, adjusted odds ratio 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.99)]. Both components of the composite primary outcome and secondary outcomes favoured conservative oxygenation. Average costs at 30 days strongly indicated lower costs with conservative oxygenation. Longer-term estimated incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years were lower and net monetary benefit marginally favoured conservative oxygenation but with wide uncertainty [incremental costs -£879 (95% confidence interval -9036 to 7278); quality-adjusted life-years 0.001 (-0.010 to 0.011); net monetary benefit £894 (95% confidence interval -7290 to 9078)]. Limitations: Exclusion of two large paediatric intensive care unit populations, due to a lack of equipoise and the number of participants excluded because of not being able to obtain deferred consent. Future work: Future work should focus on identification of the mechanisms underlying the observed benefit; trials of intermediate or lower peripheral oxygen saturation values in individuals at higher risk; and identification of individualised treatment effects in relation to oxygen therapy. Conclusions: A conservative oxygenation target resulted in a greater probability of a better outcome in terms of duration of organ support at 30 days or death. Longer-term survival and health-related quality of life were consistent with the primary outcome. While conservative oxygenation is likely to reduce costs in the short term, longer-term cost-effectiveness was surrounded with wide uncertainty. Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR127547.Each year around 20,000 children are admitted to paediatric intensive care units in the United Kingdom. Of these, 75% will receive support from a breathing machine (or ventilator) in combination with additional oxygen (PICANet. Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network. 2017:1–5). Oxygen is one of the most common treatments used in paediatric intensive care units. Doctors and nurses adjust oxygen treatment based on how much oxygen the child has in their blood. While we know very low oxygen levels are harmful, research shows that very high levels may also be dangerous for very ill people. The oxygenation in paediatric intensive care unit study aimed to find out whether children in paediatric intensive care unit who are receiving help from a ventilator with additional oxygen should have their oxygen levels kept at a lower level or higher level which is currently used in the National Health Service. Two thousand and forty critically ill children were included from 15 National Health Service paediatric intensive care units. Children were randomly assigned to receive treatment aiming to keep their oxygen levels at a lower level (88–92%, which is still within recommended guidelines) or the higher level (95–100%). Aiming for lower oxygen levels was better and reduced the number of days children spent on machines or died at 30 days. While small, this result could have a large and important impact for patients and their families. More patients treated with lower oxygen levels survived at 12 months. While in the shorter term costs were lower with conservative oxygenation, in the longer term, healthcare costs were similar between the two groups but the results were uncertain. The results of the Oxy-paediatric intensive care unit trial suggest that widespread treatment aiming for lower oxygen levels could help improve outcomes for the sickest children admitted to paediatric intensive care units.
Author(s): Gould D, Ray S, Chang I, Giallongo E, Orzol M, O'Neill L, Agbeko R, Au C, Draper E, Elliot-Major L, Jones G, Lampro L, Lillie J, Pappachan J, Peters S, Ramnarayan P, Sadique Z, Thomas K, Moler-Zapata S, Rowan K, Harrison D, Mouncey P, Peters M
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Health Technology Assessment
Year: 2026
Volume: 30
Issue: 13
Pages: 1-20
Print publication date: 01/02/2026
Acceptance date: 02/04/2018
Date deposited: 23/02/2026
ISSN (electronic): 2046-4924
Publisher: NIHR Journals Library
URL: https://doi.org/10.3310/HHYY5898
DOI: 10.3310/HHYY5898
PubMed id: 41664475
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric
