Status and phase
Conditions
Treatments
About
Partial automation of mechanical ventilation in resuscitation has been available for several years. New modalities are being developed to completely automate ventilation and oxygenation parameters (IntelliVent®.
This pilot study compares over a 48h period the safety and efficacy of IntelliVent®, versus a conventional ventilation modality.
Full description
Rational: Partial automation of mechanical ventilation in resuscitation has been available for several years. It can deliver a continuous ventilation adapted in real time to the patient's clinical condition,and decrease care workload and ventilation weaning duration. New modalities are being developed to completely automate ventilation and oxygenation parameters (IntelliVent®) and preliminary studies show that over short periods (2 to 4 h) such a system can ventilate patients more optimally and more safely, with a better ventilation efficiency (comparable effect on gas exchanges for a less "aggressive" ventilation). This pilot study compares over a longer period (48 hours), the safety and efficacy of IntelliVent®, versus a usual ventilation modality.
Type of study: Monocenter, comparative, prospective, randomized, parallel study.
Objective: To assess IntelliVent® safety, efficacy, and care workload.
Assessment criteria:
Efficacy, in terms of oxygenation, is assessed by the time spent within a range SpO2 values considered as optimal, as defined a priori and consensually by a panel of experts.
Number of subjects: 80 patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure.
Methods: The selected patients presenting with inclusion criteria are ventilated either with IntelliVent® or with the unit's usual ventilation following a random selection.
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
80 participants in 2 patient groups
Loading...
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal