Status
Conditions
Treatments
About
Prospective, physiological study to systematically assess the effects of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with and without inspiratory synchronization in patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) exhibiting intense inspiratory effort while on assisted ventilation.
Full description
This prospective, physiological, randomized, cross-over study will be conducted in the 20-bed general ICU of the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy. Patients with ARDS will be screened for eligibility. ARDS will be defined according to the Berlin Definition.
Intubated patients fulfilling ARDS criteria, undergoing assisted ventilation as per clinical decision and exhibiting intense inspiratory effort (occlusion pressure equal or greater than 13 cmH2O) will be enrolled.
Patients will be placed in a 30°-45° head up position during all study phases. According to our institution protocol, pressure support setting will be selected by the attending physician to target a predefined tidal volume range of 6-8 mL/kg of predicted body weight (PBW) (female PBW [kg] = 45.5 + 0.91 [cm of height - 152.4]; male PBW [kg] = 50 + 0.91 [cm of height - 152.4]).The lowest pressure support level allowed will be 7 cmH2O, even if Vt <8 ml/Kg PBW is not achieved.
In each patient, four different ventilator settings will be applied in a random order. Each step will last 45 minutes.
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Pregnancy, clinically documented barotrauma, contraindication to electrical impedance tomography (EIT) use (e.g., presence of pacemaker or automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator), impossibility to place the EIT belt in the right position (e.g., presence of surgical wounds dressing), and any contraindication to the insertion of a nasogastric tube (eg, recent upper-gastrointestinal surgery, esophageal varices), chest tubes with active air leaks, fever.
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
16 participants in 4 patient groups
Loading...
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal