Acute Lung InjuryNCT00750204
Airway Pressure Release Ventilation in Acute Lung Injury
A study testing APRV and Conventional MV in people with Acute Lung Injury and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, run by Johns Hopkins University at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The purpose of this study is to compare airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) to conventional mechanical ventilation (MV) in patients with acute lung injury (ALI) to determine if APRV can reduce agitation, delirium, and requirements for sedative medications. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Acute Lung Injury, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Mechanical Ventilation
- What is being tested?
- APRV and Conventional MV
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 2 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Jul 2008to 15 Oct 2008
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Acute onset of:
- Arterial Pressure of Oxygen (PaO2) / FiO2 ≤ 300
- Bilateral infiltrates consistent with pulmonary edema on frontal chest radiograph. The infiltrates may be patchy, diffuse, homogeneous, or asymmetric
- Requirement for positive pressure ventilation via endotracheal tube, and
- No clinical evidence of left atrial hypertension.
- Receiving conventional MV, or lung-protective ventilation (LPV), in the assist control (AC) mode with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) > 5 cm H2O Criteria 1-3 must occur within a 24-hour period. "Acute onset" is defined as follows: the duration of the hypoxemia criterion (#1) and the chest radiograph criterion (#2) must be < 7 days at the time of randomization.
Who cannot join
- FiO2 > 70% or PaO2/FiO2 < 125 or arterial pH < 7.25
- Greater than 6 days since all inclusion criteria are met
- Anticipated to begin weaning from MV within 48 hours
- Neuromuscular disease that prevents the ability to generate spontaneous tidal volumes.
- Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) < 15 within 1 week of intubation
- Acute stroke (vascular occlusion or hemorrhage)
Show all 22Show fewer
- Current alcoholism or previous daily use of opioids or benzodiazepines before hospitalization
- Acute meningitis or encephalitis
- Pregnancy (negative pregnancy test required for women of child-bearing potential) or breast-feeding.
- Severe chronic respiratory disease
- Previous barotraumas during the current hospitalization
- Clinical evidence of bronchoconstriction on bedside examination (i.e., wheezing).
- Patient, surrogate, or physician not committed to full support
- Severe chronic liver disease (Child-Pugh Score B or C)
- International Normalized Ratio (INR) > 2.0
- Platelet level < 50,000
- Mean arterial pressure < 65, or patient receiving intravenous vasopressors (any dose of epinephrine, norepinephrine, phenylephrine, or dopamine > 5 mcg/kg/min)
- Age < 16 years old
- Morbid obesity (greater than 1kg/cm body weight).
- No consent/inability to obtain consent
- Unwillingness of the clinical team to use conventional low tidal-volume protocol for MV.
- Moribund patient not expected to survive 24 hours.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Johns Hopkins Hospital Medical Intensive Care Unit
Baltimore, Maryland, 21205
About this study
The purpose of this study is to compare airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) to conventional mechanical ventilation (MV) in patients with acute lung injury (ALI) to determine if APRV can reduce agitation, delirium, and requirements for sedative medications. We will also compare markers of inflammation in the blood and lung to determine if APRV reduces ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI), compared to conventional mechanical ventilation.
The proposed study is a randomized, crossover trial. We plan to enroll 40 patients with ALI and randomize to APRV or conventional MV for 24 hours. After this time the patients will be switched to the alternative mode of ventilation (MV or APRV) for another 24 hours. To assess breathing comfort, at the end of each 24-hour period we will measure the amounts of sedative and analgesic medications used. We will also measure the concentrations of markers of inflammation in the blood and lung as measures of VILI. Finally, throughout the study we will compare the adequacy of gas exchange with APRV compared to conventional MV.
Read the detailed description
Acute respiratory failure is common in patients with acute lung injury. MV re-establishes adequate gas exchange; it allows time for administration of antibiotics, for the host's immune system to fight infections, and for natural healing. Approximately 60% of ALI patients survive to hospital discharge (1). However, conventional approaches to MV in ALI frequently cause dyssynchrony between a patient's spontaneous respiratory efforts and the ventilator's respiratory cycle (2;3). Dyssynchrony causes discomfort, anxiety, and agitation. To manage dyssynchrony, physicians frequently prescribe large doses of sedative and analgesic medications. These medications contribute to delirium and sleep deprivation during the critical illness, and may delay weaning from MV and discharge from the intensive care unit (2;4). They may also contribute significantly to neuromuscular and neurocognitive sequelae after recovery from ALI (5;6). Moreover, MV may itself cause additional lung injury (ventilator-induced lung injury, VILI) which could, paradoxically, delay or prevent recovery from respiratory failure in some ALI patients (7;9).
Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is a mode of MV that is designed to reduce patient-ventilator dyssynchrony and VILI. It differs from most other modes of MV in that it allows patients to breathe spontaneously at any time, independent of the ventilator's cycle. This feature may improve breathing comfort by minimizing patient-ventilator dyssynchrony. Improving comfort and reducing agitation may ultimately curtail the use of sedative and analgesic medications. Since a substantial proportion of ventilation results from the patient's spontaneous efforts independent of the ventilator cycle, the frequency of mechanically assisted breaths can be reduced. This may reduce VILI from the cyclic opening-closing of alveoli and small bronchioles that results from assisted MV breaths. Another feature of APRV that distinguishes it from other modes of MV is that it applies a sustained high pressure during inspiration and a brief period of lower pressure during exhalation. This approach may maximize and maintain alveolar recruitment throughout the ventilatory cycle while limiting high airway pressures, thus further reducing VILI. Moreover, spontaneous contractions of the diaphragm during APRV may open dependent atelectatic lung regions, improving ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) matching and gas exchange. However, these potential advantages of APRV are unproven.
- Being tested
- APRV, Conventional MV
- Keywords
- Acute Lung Injury, ALI, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Mechanical Ventilation, Sedation, Critical Illness, Ventilator Induced Lung Injury, VILI, Cytokines, Protective Ventilation, Airway Pressure Release Ventilation, APRV, Breathing Comfort, Dyssynchrony, Asynchrony
- Medical subject headings
- Acute Lung Injury, Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Critical Illness, Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
APRVDevice
Also called Lung-protective ventilation, Airway Pressure Release Ventilation
APRV Protocol
- Set fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) at 0.1 higher than the setting on conventional MV currently used
- Tlow = 1.0 second (this setting shall remain unchanged throughout the trial).
- Respiratory rate (RR) to equal 60-65% of RR on conventional MV.
- P high = the inspiratory plateau pressure. Maximum P high = 30 cm H20.
- Plow = 5 cm water (H2O). Adjust Plow to achieve pressure release volumes 5.5-6.5 ml/kg of percent body weight (PBW).
- If release volumes on APRV are greater than desired, increase Plow by 2-4 cm H2O increments to a maximum of Plow = 12 cm H2O. If release volumes are larger than desired despite raising Plow to 12 cm H20, decrease P high in increments of 2-4 cm H20 to achieve desired release volumes (minimum P high = 12 cm H20). If release volumes on APRV still remain larger than desired,the participant will be excluded from the study and placed on conventional MV.
Conventional MVDevice
Also called Lung protective ventilation, conventional mechanical ventilation
Low tidal-volume mechanical ventilation
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| APRV | Experimental | Patients will be randomized to either arm. After 24 hours they will crossover to the alternative arm of the study for an additional 24 hours. After a total of 48 hours (24 hours in each study arm) the study will conclude. Receives: Device: APRV |
| Conventional MV | Active comparator | Patients will be randomized to either arm. After 24 hours they will crossover to the alternative arm of the study for an additional 24 hours. After a total of 48 hours (24 hours in each study arm) the study will conclude. Receives: Device: Conventional MV |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Amount of Sedatives Used
Measured: 48 hours
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted10 Sep 2008 (estimated)
- Study startJul 2008
- Primary completion15 Oct 2008
- Study completion15 Oct 2008
Why it stopped: slow recruitment
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (9)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Acute Lung InjuryStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Johns Hopkins UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 2 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Johns Hopkins University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Roy G Brower, M.D., Principal investigator, Johns Hopkins University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00750204
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- NA_00017371
- Status last verified
- Apr 2017
- First submitted
- 9 Sep 2008
- Last updated
- 15 May 2017
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Rubenfeld GD, Caldwell E, Peabody E, Weaver J, Martin DP, Neff M, Stern EJ, Hudson LD. Incidence and outcomes of acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2005 Oct 20;353(16):1685-93. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa050333.
PubMed 16236739Sassoon CS, Foster GT. Patient-ventilator asynchrony. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2001 Feb;7(1):28-33. doi: 10.1097/00075198-200102000-00005.
PubMed 11373508Thille AW, Rodriguez P, Cabello B, Lellouche F, Brochard L. Patient-ventilator asynchrony during assisted mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med. 2006 Oct;32(10):1515-22. doi: 10.1007/s00134-006-0301-8. Epub 2006 Aug 1.
PubMed 16896854Cooper AB, Thornley KS, Young GB, Slutsky AS, Stewart TE, Hanly PJ. Sleep in critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Chest. 2000 Mar;117(3):809-18. doi: 10.1378/chest.117.3.809.
PubMed 10713011Herridge MS, Cheung AM, Tansey CM, Matte-Martyn A, Diaz-Granados N, Al-Saidi F, Cooper AB, Guest CB, Mazer CD, Mehta S, Stewart TE, Barr A, Cook D, Slutsky AS; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. One-year outcomes in survivors of the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2003 Feb 20;348(8):683-93. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022450.
PubMed 12594312Hopkins RO, Weaver LK, Pope D, Orme JF, Bigler ED, Larson-LOHR V. Neuropsychological sequelae and impaired health status in survivors of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999 Jul;160(1):50-6. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.160.1.9708059.
PubMed 10390379Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network; Brower RG, Matthay MA, Morris A, Schoenfeld D, Thompson BT, Wheeler A. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2000 May 4;342(18):1301-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200005043421801.
PubMed 10793162Amato MB, Barbas CS, Medeiros DM, Magaldi RB, Schettino GP, Lorenzi-Filho G, Kairalla RA, Deheinzelin D, Munoz C, Oliveira R, Takagaki TY, Carvalho CR. Effect of a protective-ventilation strategy on mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1998 Feb 5;338(6):347-54. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199802053380602.
PubMed 9449727Ranieri VM, Suter PM, Tortorella C, De Tullio R, Dayer JM, Brienza A, Bruno F, Slutsky AS. Effect of mechanical ventilation on inflammatory mediators in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1999 Jul 7;282(1):54-61. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.1.54.
PubMed 10404912
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 15 May 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Airway Pressure Release Ventilation in Acute Lung Injury
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00750204
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- NA_00017371
- Keywords
- Acute Lung Injury, ALI, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Mechanical Ventilation, Sedation, Critical Illness, Ventilator Induced Lung Injury, VILI
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- TerminatedReason stopped: slow recruitment
- Enrolment
- 2 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Johns Hopkins UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jul 2008 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 15 Oct 2008 (actual)
- Study completion
- 15 Oct 2008 (actual)
- First posted
- 10 Sep 2008 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 15 May 2017
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of this study is to compare airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) to conventional mechanical ventilation (MV) in patients with acute lung injury (ALI) to determine if APRV can reduce agitation, delirium, and requirements for sedative medications. We will also compare markers of inflammation in the blood and lung to determine if APRV reduces ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI), compared to conventional mechanical ventilation.
The proposed study is a randomized, crossover trial. We plan to enroll 40 patients with ALI and randomize to APRV or conventional MV for 24 hours. After this time the patients will be switched to the alternative mode of ventilation (MV or APRV) for another 24 hours. To assess breathing comfort, at the end of each 24-hour period we will measure the amounts of sedative and analgesic medications used. We will also measure the concentrations of markers of inflammation in the blood and lung as measures of VILI. Finally, throughout the study we will compare the adequacy of gas exchange with APRV compared to conventional MV.
Detailed description
Acute respiratory failure is common in patients with acute lung injury. MV re-establishes adequate gas exchange; it allows time for administration of antibiotics, for the host's immune system to fight infections, and for natural healing. Approximately 60% of ALI patients survive to hospital discharge (1). However, conventional approaches to MV in ALI frequently cause dyssynchrony between a patient's spontaneous respiratory efforts and the ventilator's respiratory cycle (2;3). Dyssynchrony causes discomfort, anxiety, and agitation. To manage dyssynchrony, physicians frequently prescribe large doses of sedative and analgesic medications. These medications contribute to delirium and sleep deprivation during the critical illness, and may delay weaning from MV and discharge from the intensive care unit (2;4). They may also contribute significantly to neuromuscular and neurocognitive sequelae after recovery from ALI (5;6). Moreover, MV may itself cause additional lung injury (ventilator-induced lung injury, VILI) which could, paradoxically, delay or prevent recovery from respiratory failure in some ALI patients (7;9).
Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is a mode of MV that is designed to reduce patient-ventilator dyssynchrony and VILI. It differs from most other modes of MV in that it allows patients to breathe spontaneously at any time, independent of the ventilator's cycle. This feature may improve breathing comfort by minimizing patient-ventilator dyssynchrony. Improving comfort and reducing agitation may ultimately curtail the use of sedative and analgesic medications. Since a substantial proportion of ventilation results from the patient's spontaneous efforts independent of the ventilator cycle, the frequency of mechanically assisted breaths can be reduced. This may reduce VILI from the cyclic opening-closing of alveoli and small bronchioles that results from assisted MV breaths. Another feature of APRV that distinguishes it from other modes of MV is that it applies a sustained high pressure during inspiration and a brief period of lower pressure during exhalation. This approach may maximize and maintain alveolar recruitment throughout the ventilatory cycle while limiting high airway pressures, thus further reducing VILI. Moreover, spontaneous contractions of the diaphragm during APRV may open dependent atelectatic lung regions, improving ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) matching and gas exchange. However, these potential advantages of APRV are unproven.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| APRV | Experimental | Device: APRVPatients will be randomized to either arm. After 24 hours they will crossover to the alternative arm of the study for an additional 24 hours. After a total of 48 hours (24 hours in each study arm) the study will conclude. |
| Conventional MV | Active comparator | Device: Conventional MVPatients will be randomized to either arm. After 24 hours they will crossover to the alternative arm of the study for an additional 24 hours. After a total of 48 hours (24 hours in each study arm) the study will conclude. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Arterial Pressure of Oxygen (PaO2) / FiO2 ≤ 300
- Bilateral infiltrates consistent with pulmonary edema on frontal chest radiograph. The infiltrates may be patchy, diffuse, homogeneous, or asymmetric
- Requirement for positive pressure ventilation via endotracheal tube, and
- No clinical evidence of left atrial hypertension.
- Receiving conventional MV, or lung-protective ventilation (LPV), in the assist control (AC) mode with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) > 5 cm H2O Criteria 1-3 must occur within a 24-hour period. "Acute onset" is defined as follows: the duration of the hypoxemia criterion (#1) and the chest radiograph criterion (#2) must be < 7 days at the time of randomization.
Key exclusion criteria (22 listed)
- FiO2 > 70% or PaO2/FiO2 < 125 or arterial pH < 7.25
- Greater than 6 days since all inclusion criteria are met
- Anticipated to begin weaning from MV within 48 hours
- Neuromuscular disease that prevents the ability to generate spontaneous tidal volumes.
- Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) < 15 within 1 week of intubation
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| APRVAlso: Lung-protective ventilation, Airway Pressure Release VentilationAPRV Protocol * Set fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) at 0.1 higher than the setting on conventional MV currently used * Tlow = 1.0 second (this setting shall remain unchanged throughout the trial). * Respiratory rate (RR) to equal 60-65% of RR on conventional MV. * P high = the inspiratory plateau pressure. Maximum P high = 30 cm H20. * Plow = 5 cm water (H2O). Adjust Plow to achieve pressure release volumes 5.5-6.5 ml/kg of percent body weight (PBW). * If release volumes on APRV are greater than desired, increase Plow by 2-4 cm H2O increments to a maximum of Plow = 12 cm H2O. If release volumes are larger than desired despite raising Plow to 12 cm H20, decrease P high in increments of 2-4 cm H20 to achieve desired release volumes (minimum P high = 12 cm H20). If release volumes on APRV still remain larger than desired,the participant will be excluded from the study and placed on conventional MV. | Device | APRV |
| Conventional MVAlso: Lung protective ventilation, conventional mechanical ventilationLow tidal-volume mechanical ventilation | Device | Conventional MV |
Primary outcome
Amount of Sedatives Used
Time frame: 48 hours
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 15 May 2017.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 16236739Rubenfeld GD, Caldwell E, Peabody E, Weaver J, Martin DP, Neff M, Stern EJ, Hudson LD. Incidence and outcomes of acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2005 Oct 20;353(16):1685-93. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa050333.
- Background: PubMed 11373508Sassoon CS, Foster GT. Patient-ventilator asynchrony. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2001 Feb;7(1):28-33. doi: 10.1097/00075198-200102000-00005.
- Background: PubMed 16896854Thille AW, Rodriguez P, Cabello B, Lellouche F, Brochard L. Patient-ventilator asynchrony during assisted mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med. 2006 Oct;32(10):1515-22. doi: 10.1007/s00134-006-0301-8. Epub 2006 Aug 1.
- Background: PubMed 10713011Cooper AB, Thornley KS, Young GB, Slutsky AS, Stewart TE, Hanly PJ. Sleep in critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Chest. 2000 Mar;117(3):809-18. doi: 10.1378/chest.117.3.809.
- Background: PubMed 12594312Herridge MS, Cheung AM, Tansey CM, Matte-Martyn A, Diaz-Granados N, Al-Saidi F, Cooper AB, Guest CB, Mazer CD, Mehta S, Stewart TE, Barr A, Cook D, Slutsky AS; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. One-year outcomes in survivors of the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2003 Feb 20;348(8):683-93. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022450.
- Background: PubMed 10390379Hopkins RO, Weaver LK, Pope D, Orme JF, Bigler ED, Larson-LOHR V. Neuropsychological sequelae and impaired health status in survivors of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999 Jul;160(1):50-6. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.160.1.9708059.
- Background: PubMed 10793162Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network; Brower RG, Matthay MA, Morris A, Schoenfeld D, Thompson BT, Wheeler A. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2000 May 4;342(18):1301-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200005043421801.
- Background: PubMed 9449727Amato MB, Barbas CS, Medeiros DM, Magaldi RB, Schettino GP, Lorenzi-Filho G, Kairalla RA, Deheinzelin D, Munoz C, Oliveira R, Takagaki TY, Carvalho CR. Effect of a protective-ventilation strategy on mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1998 Feb 5;338(6):347-54. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199802053380602.
- Background: PubMed 10404912Ranieri VM, Suter PM, Tortorella C, De Tullio R, Dayer JM, Brienza A, Bruno F, Slutsky AS. Effect of mechanical ventilation on inflammatory mediators in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1999 Jul 7;282(1):54-61. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.1.54.
Related trials for Acute Lung Injury
Enrolling by invitation
Personalized Ventilator Settings for Patients on ECMO
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
Active, not recruiting
CT for Personalized Mechanical Ventilation
Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury, Sepsis Syndrome
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Development and Multicenter Validation of an Explainable System for Neonatal ARDS-Compatible Phenotyping
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
RecruitingObservational study
Assessment of Blood Viscosity in ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome)
ARDS
Recruiting
WIN Ratio Analysis to Determine a Strategy of Non- Invasive SUpport for Respiratory Failure in the EmeRgency Department
Acute Hypoxic Respiratory Failure, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Roy G Brower, M.D. principal investigator
Johns Hopkins University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing APRV and Conventional MV in people with Acute Lung Injury and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, run by Johns Hopkins University at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 22 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: stopped early, as of the sponsor's last update on 15 May 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 15 May 2017). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Amount of Sedatives Used (time frame: 48 hours). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00750204, which also lists 9 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 15 May 2017.