Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ComplicationNCT05486559
The ECMO-Free Trial
A study testing ECMO-free protocol in people with Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Complication, run by Vanderbilt University Medical Center at 8 sites in 2 countries.
Trial summary
Decannulation from venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) at the earliest and safest time would be expected to improve outcomes and reduce cost. Daily assessments for readiness to liberate from therapies have demonstrated success in other realms of critical care. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Complication
- What is being tested?
- ECMO-free protocol
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 225 participants
- Where
- 8 sitesin 2 countries
- Study dates
- 7 Sep 2022to 8 May 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
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
- Patient receiving VV-ECMO
- Patient is located in a participating unit of an adult hospital
Who cannot join
- Patient is pregnant
- Patient is a prisoner
- Patient is < 18 years old
- Participant is receiving ECMO as bridge to transplant
- Participant is receiving a hybrid configuration that includes an arterial cannula
- Patient has received VV-ECMO for > 48 hours
Trial locations and contacts
8 sites in 2 countries.
8 sites in 2 countries
United States7 sites
Baylor University Medical Center
Dallas, Texas, 75246
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center of El Paso
El Paso, Texas, 79905
Hennepin County Medical Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55415
Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Nashville, Tennessee, 37232
University of Utah Health
Salt Lake City, Utah, 84112
UC San Diego Health
San Diego, California, 92037
Stanford University
Stanford, California, 94305
About this study
Official title: ECMO-Free Trial: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Decannulation from venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) at the earliest and safest time would be expected to improve outcomes and reduce cost. Daily assessments for readiness to liberate from therapies have demonstrated success in other realms of critical care. A recent single-center study demonstrated that a protocolized daily assessment of readiness for liberation from VV-ECMO was feasible and did not raise any major safety concerns, but the effect of this protocolized daily assessment on clinical outcomes remains unclear. Further, the manner in which ECMO is provided, weaned, and discontinued varies significantly between centers, raising persistent concerns regarding widespread adoption of protocolized daily assessment of readiness for liberation from VV-ECMO. Data from large a randomized controlled trial is needed to compare the effects of a protocolized daily assessment of readiness for liberation from VV-ECMO versus usual care on duration of ECMO support and other clinical outcomes.
Read the detailed description
Complication rates, economic consequences, and resource limitations associated with the use of venovenous ECMO (VV-ECMO) are widely recognized. Decannulation at the earliest and safest possible time would be expected to improve clinical outcomes, reduce cost, and optimize resource allocation. Yet, there are no data comparing weaning strategies for decannulation from VV-ECMO, and there is significant variation between centers in approaches to weaning VV-ECMO.
Current approaches to weaning VV-ECMO generally rely on clinicians to identify signs of lung recovery and initiate incremental reductions in blood flow rate, fraction of delivered oxygen (FdO2), and sweep gas flow rate4-6. This approach has been previously outlined in guidelines distributed by the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization, expert opinion, and in small descriptive studies, though little data exist to support this strategy. Further, these approaches run counter to the large body of literature for assessing readiness for "liberation" from sedation and mechanical ventilation in which incremental reductions (weaning) have repeatedly been shown to be inferior to protocolized daily assessments (spontaneous awakening trials and spontaneous breathing trials7-11).
Prior data suggest that clinicians underestimate readiness for liberation from organ support and suggest that protocols to identify readiness for liberation are superior to clinician judgement9,11. Compared to incremental weaning, spontaneous awakening trials and spontaneous breathing trials have been shown to dramatically shorten the duration of support, reduce intensive care costs, and improve outcomes7-13. Until recently, this approach to liberating patients from a therapy had not been applied to ECMO. Our groups recently conducted a 26-patient, prospective, single-arm, safety and feasibility study to develop and refine a protocol for daily assessment of readiness to liberate from VV-ECMO at a single center14. The results of this study, published in CHEST, suggested that a protocolized daily assessment of readiness for liberation from VV-ECMO is feasible and safe. Further, the median time from first passed trial to decannulation was 2 days, suggesting that a daily protocolized assessment might identify candidates for decannulation earlier than occurs in usual care. However, as a single-arm feasibility study, the prior study was insufficient to determine whether dedicating resources to a protocolized daily assessment of readiness to liberate from VV-ECMO affects patient outcomes. Further, the manner in which ECMO is provided, weaned, and discontinued varies significantly between centers, raising persistent concerns regarding the feasibility of widespread adoption of protocolized daily assessment of readiness for liberation from VV-ECMO.
Additional data from a large, multi-center randomized controlled trial are needed to compare the effects of a protocolized daily assessment of readiness for liberation from VV-ECMO versus usual care on duration of ECMO support, measures of unsafe liberation, and other clinical outcomes.
Primary aim: Compare the effects of a protocolized daily assessment of readiness for liberation from VV-ECMO (ECMO-free protocol) versus liberation strategy directed by the clinical team (usual care) on time to successful decannulation via a large multi-site randomized controlled trial.
Secondary aim: To compare the effect of a once daily protocolized assessment of readiness to liberate from ECMO (ECMO-free protocol) versus a liberation strategy directed by the clinical team (usual care) on the number of days alive and free of ECMO by day 60 (ECMO-free days).
To address these aims, we propose a multi-center, open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial comparing a protocolized daily assessment of readiness for liberation from VV-ECMO (ECMO-free protocol) to usual care. All patients who receive VV-ECMO in a participating unit of an adult hospital and meet all inclusion criteria and no exclusion criteria will be eligible for participation. Eligible participants or surrogate decision makers will be approached for consent. Following documentation of written informed consent, patients will be enrolled and randomly assigned to receive the ECMO-free protocol or usual care. The study will control VV-ECMO weaning strategy until the first of decannulation or death. All other decisions regarding critical care support, interventional therapies, and medical treatment will remain at the discretion of the treating physician and consulting teams.
- Being tested
- ECMO-free protocol, Usual Care
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
ECMO-free protocolOther
All patients randomized to the ECMO-Free Protocol Group will receive a protocolized daily assessment of readiness for liberation from VV-ECMO, which will be initiated between 6:00 AM local time and 10:00 AM local time. If the patient is enrolled after 10:00 AM local time the ECMO-free protocol will begin the following calendar day.
The ECMO-Free Protocol is a 3-step process of assessing readiness for liberation from VV-ECMO: a safety screen (Phase 1: ECMO-Free Safety Screen), titration of the non-ECMO fraction of inspired oxygen (Phase 2: Non-ECMO respiratory support titration), and a trial of cessation of sweep gas flow (Phase 3: ECMO-Free Trial).
Usual CareOther
All patients randomized to the Usual Care Group will undergo assessments of readiness for liberation, weaning, and decannulation at the discretion of the treatment team.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| The ECMO-free Protocol group | Experimental | For patients assigned to the ECMO-free protocol group, the study personnel will perform the ECMO-free protocol daily from enrollment until the first of death or ECMO decannulation; results will be recorded and shared with the treatment team. Final decisions regarding decannulation will be made by treating clinicians who are aware of the results of daily ECMO-free protocolized assessments. Receives: Other: ECMO-free protocol |
| The Usual Care Group | Active comparator | For patients assigned to the usual care group, ECMO weaning and assessments of readiness for ECMO decannulation will be at the discretion of treating clinicians. Receives: Other: Usual Care |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Time to successful discontinuation of ECMO
The primary outcome will be the time (in days) from randomization (time zero) until the time of the final successful discontinuation of ECMO. Discontinuation of ECMO will be considered to be successful if a patient undergoes decannulation and survives without ECMO until day 60. For patients who are decannulated and subsequently experience recannulation, the time of successful discontinuation of ECMO will be based on the final decannulation. Data collection will cease at the time of hospital discharge or day 60.
Measured: From randomization to time of hospital discharge or until day 60.
Secondary outcomes (1)
ECMO-free days to day 60
The number of days alive and free of ECMO to day 60 (ECMO-free days) will be calculated as 60 minus the number of calendar days from randomization to final decannulation. Patients receiving ECMO at day 60 will receive a value of "0". Patients who die before day 60 or hospital discharge will receive a value of "0".
Measured: From randomization to death or hospital discharge through day 60.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 Aug 2022
- Study start7 Sep 2022
- Primary completion18 Apr 2026
- Study completion8 May 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (15)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ComplicationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Vanderbilt University Medical CenterThe 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
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 225 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Whitney Gannon, Vanderbilt University Medical Center
- Investigators
- Jonathan D Casey, MD, MSc, Study director, Vanderbilt University Medical Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05486559
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 220733
- Status last verified
- Jun 2026
- First submitted
- 1 Aug 2022
- Last updated
- 4 Jun 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Al-Fares AA, Ferguson ND, Ma J, Cypel M, Keshavjee S, Fan E, Del Sorbo L. Achieving Safe Liberation During Weaning From VV-ECMO in Patients With Severe ARDS: The Role of Tidal Volume and Inspiratory Effort. Chest. 2021 Nov;160(5):1704-1713. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.05.068. Epub 2021 Jun 21.
PubMed 34166645Peek GJ, Mugford M, Tiruvoipati R, Wilson A, Allen E, Thalanany MM, Hibbert CL, Truesdale A, Clemens F, Cooper N, Firmin RK, Elbourne D; CESAR trial collaboration. Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009 Oct 17;374(9698):1351-63. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61069-2. Epub 2009 Sep 15.
PubMed 19762075Brodie D, Slutsky AS, Combes A. Extracorporeal Life Support for Adults With Respiratory Failure and Related Indications: A Review. JAMA. 2019 Aug 13;322(6):557-568. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.9302.
PubMed 31408142Broman LM, Malfertheiner MV, Montisci A, Pappalardo F. Weaning from veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: how I do it. J Thorac Dis. 2018 Mar;10(Suppl 5):S692-S697. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2017.09.95.
PubMed 29732188Vasques F, Romitti F, Gattinoni L, Camporota L. How I wean patients from veno-venous extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation. Crit Care. 2019 Sep 18;23(1):316. doi: 10.1186/s13054-019-2592-5. No abstract available.
PubMed 31533848Grant AA, Hart VJ, Lineen EB, Badiye A, Byers PM, Patel A, Vianna R, Koerner MM, El Banayosy A, Loebe M, Ghodsizad A. A Weaning Protocol for Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation With a Review of the Literature. Artif Organs. 2018 Jun;42(6):605-610. doi: 10.1111/aor.13087. Epub 2018 Jan 18.
PubMed 29344952Kress JP, Pohlman AS, O'Connor MF, Hall JB. Daily interruption of sedative infusions in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. N Engl J Med. 2000 May 18;342(20):1471-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200005183422002.
PubMed 10816184Brook AD, Ahrens TS, Schaiff R, Prentice D, Sherman G, Shannon W, Kollef MH. Effect of a nursing-implemented sedation protocol on the duration of mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med. 1999 Dec;27(12):2609-15. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199912000-00001.
PubMed 10628598Girard TD, Kress JP, Fuchs BD, Thomason JW, Schweickert WD, Pun BT, Taichman DB, Dunn JG, Pohlman AS, Kinniry PA, Jackson JC, Canonico AE, Light RW, Shintani AK, Thompson JL, Gordon SM, Hall JB, Dittus RS, Bernard GR, Ely EW. Efficacy and safety of a paired sedation and ventilator weaning protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care (Awakening and Breathing Controlled trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008 Jan 12;371(9607):126-34. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60105-1.
PubMed 18191684Ely EW, Baker AM, Dunagan DP, Burke HL, Smith AC, Kelly PT, Johnson MM, Browder RW, Bowton DL, Haponik EF. Effect on the duration of mechanical ventilation of identifying patients capable of breathing spontaneously. N Engl J Med. 1996 Dec 19;335(25):1864-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199612193352502.
PubMed 8948561Ely EW, Meade MO, Haponik EF, Kollef MH, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Stoller JK. Mechanical ventilator weaning protocols driven by nonphysician health-care professionals: evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2001 Dec;120(6 Suppl):454S-63S. doi: 10.1378/chest.120.6_suppl.454s.
PubMed 11742965Brochard L, Rauss A, Benito S, Conti G, Mancebo J, Rekik N, Gasparetto A, Lemaire F. Comparison of three methods of gradual withdrawal from ventilatory support during weaning from mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994 Oct;150(4):896-903. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.150.4.7921460.
PubMed 7921460Esteban A, Frutos F, Tobin MJ, Alia I, Solsona JF, Valverdu I, Fernandez R, de la Cal MA, Benito S, Tomas R, et al. A comparison of four methods of weaning patients from mechanical ventilation. Spanish Lung Failure Collaborative Group. N Engl J Med. 1995 Feb 9;332(6):345-50. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199502093320601.
PubMed 7823995Gannon WD, Stokes JW, Bloom S, Sherrill W, Bacchetta M, Rice TW, Semler MW, Casey JD. Safety and Feasibility of a Protocolized Daily Assessment of Readiness for Liberation From Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation. Chest. 2021 Nov;160(5):1693-1703. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.05.066. Epub 2021 Jun 21.
PubMed 34166644Gannon WD, Teijeiro-Paradis R, Prekker ME, Vogelsong MA, Schwartz GS, Odish MF, Nickel NP, Bloom SL, Hansen SJ, Fielding-Singh V, Blough B, Owens RL, Valles R, Adkisson WS, Alvis BD, Bacchetta M, Ford DJ, Gaudio SC, Jelly CA, Landsperger JS, Lingle K, Noblit CC, Rice TW, Del Sorbo L, Stokes JW, Stollings JL, Van Winkle G, Wang L, Imhoff B, Shotwell MS, Fan E, Semler MW, Casey JD; ECMO-Free Investigators and the Pragmatic Critical Care Research Group. Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan for the ECMO-Free Trial: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. medRxiv [Preprint]. 2025 Dec 2:2025.12.01.25341410. doi: 10.64898/2025.12.01.25341410.
PubMed 41404271
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 4 Jun 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- ECMO-Free Trial: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05486559
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 220733
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 225 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Vanderbilt University Medical CenterUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 7 Sep 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 18 Apr 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 8 May 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 3 Aug 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Decannulation from venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) at the earliest and safest time would be expected to improve outcomes and reduce cost. Daily assessments for readiness to liberate from therapies have demonstrated success in other realms of critical care. A recent single-center study demonstrated that a protocolized daily assessment of readiness for liberation from VV-ECMO was feasible and did not raise any major safety concerns, but the effect of this protocolized daily assessment on clinical outcomes remains unclear. Further, the manner in which ECMO is provided, weaned, and discontinued varies significantly between centers, raising persistent concerns regarding widespread adoption of protocolized daily assessment of readiness for liberation from VV-ECMO. Data from large a randomized controlled trial is needed to compare the effects of a protocolized daily assessment of readiness for liberation from VV-ECMO versus usual care on duration of ECMO support and other clinical outcomes.
Detailed description
Complication rates, economic consequences, and resource limitations associated with the use of venovenous ECMO (VV-ECMO) are widely recognized. Decannulation at the earliest and safest possible time would be expected to improve clinical outcomes, reduce cost, and optimize resource allocation. Yet, there are no data comparing weaning strategies for decannulation from VV-ECMO, and there is significant variation between centers in approaches to weaning VV-ECMO.
Current approaches to weaning VV-ECMO generally rely on clinicians to identify signs of lung recovery and initiate incremental reductions in blood flow rate, fraction of delivered oxygen (FdO2), and sweep gas flow rate4-6. This approach has been previously outlined in guidelines distributed by the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization, expert opinion, and in small descriptive studies, though little data exist to support this strategy. Further, these approaches run counter to the large body of literature for assessing readiness for "liberation" from sedation and mechanical ventilation in which incremental reductions (weaning) have repeatedly been shown to be inferior to protocolized daily assessments (spontaneous awakening trials and spontaneous breathing trials7-11).
Prior data suggest that clinicians underestimate readiness for liberation from organ support and suggest that protocols to identify readiness for liberation are superior to clinician judgement9,11. Compared to incremental weaning, spontaneous awakening trials and spontaneous breathing trials have been shown to dramatically shorten the duration of support, reduce intensive care costs, and improve outcomes7-13. Until recently, this approach to liberating patients from a therapy had not been applied to ECMO. Our groups recently conducted a 26-patient, prospective, single-arm, safety and feasibility study to develop and refine a protocol for daily assessment of readiness to liberate from VV-ECMO at a single center14. The results of this study, published in CHEST, suggested that a protocolized daily assessment of readiness for liberation from VV-ECMO is feasible and safe. Further, the median time from first passed trial to decannulation was 2 days, suggesting that a daily protocolized assessment might identify candidates for decannulation earlier than occurs in usual care. However, as a single-arm feasibility study, the prior study was insufficient to determine whether dedicating resources to a protocolized daily assessment of readiness to liberate from VV-ECMO affects patient outcomes. Further, the manner in which ECMO is provided, weaned, and discontinued varies significantly between centers, raising persistent concerns regarding the feasibility of widespread adoption of protocolized daily assessment of readiness for liberation from VV-ECMO.
Additional data from a large, multi-center randomized controlled trial are needed to compare the effects of a protocolized daily assessment of readiness for liberation from VV-ECMO versus usual care on duration of ECMO support, measures of unsafe liberation, and other clinical outcomes.
Primary aim: Compare the effects of a protocolized daily assessment of readiness for liberation from VV-ECMO (ECMO-free protocol) versus liberation strategy directed by the clinical team (usual care) on time to successful decannulation via a large multi-site randomized controlled trial.
Secondary aim: To compare the effect of a once daily protocolized assessment of readiness to liberate from ECMO (ECMO-free protocol) versus a liberation strategy directed by the clinical team (usual care) on the number of days alive and free of ECMO by day 60 (ECMO-free days).
To address these aims, we propose a multi-center, open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial comparing a protocolized daily assessment of readiness for liberation from VV-ECMO (ECMO-free protocol) to usual care. All patients who receive VV-ECMO in a participating unit of an adult hospital and meet all inclusion criteria and no exclusion criteria will be eligible for participation. Eligible participants or surrogate decision makers will be approached for consent. Following documentation of written informed consent, patients will be enrolled and randomly assigned to receive the ECMO-free protocol or usual care. The study will control VV-ECMO weaning strategy until the first of decannulation or death. All other decisions regarding critical care support, interventional therapies, and medical treatment will remain at the discretion of the treating physician and consulting teams.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| The ECMO-free Protocol group | Experimental | Other: ECMO-free protocolFor patients assigned to the ECMO-free protocol group, the study personnel will perform the ECMO-free protocol daily from enrollment until the first of death or ECMO decannulation; results will be recorded and shared with the treatment team. Final decisions regarding decannulation will be made by treating clinicians who are aware of the results of daily ECMO-free protocolized assessments. |
| The Usual Care Group | Active comparator | Other: Usual CareFor patients assigned to the usual care group, ECMO weaning and assessments of readiness for ECMO decannulation will be at the discretion of treating clinicians. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Patient receiving VV-ECMO
- Patient is located in a participating unit of an adult hospital
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Patient is pregnant
- Patient is a prisoner
- Patient is < 18 years old
- Participant is receiving ECMO as bridge to transplant
- Participant is receiving a hybrid configuration that includes an arterial cannula
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 |
|---|---|---|
| ECMO-free protocolAll patients randomized to the ECMO-Free Protocol Group will receive a protocolized daily assessment of readiness for liberation from VV-ECMO, which will be initiated between 6:00 AM local time and 10:00 AM local time. If the patient is enrolled after 10:00 AM local time the ECMO-free protocol will begin the following calendar day. The ECMO-Free Protocol is a 3-step process of assessing readiness for liberation from VV-ECMO: a safety screen (Phase 1: ECMO-Free Safety Screen), titration of the non-ECMO fraction of inspired oxygen (Phase 2: Non-ECMO respiratory support titration), and a trial of cessation of sweep gas flow (Phase 3: ECMO-Free Trial). | Other | The ECMO-free Protocol group |
| Usual CareAll patients randomized to the Usual Care Group will undergo assessments of readiness for liberation, weaning, and decannulation at the discretion of the treatment team. | Other | The Usual Care Group |
Primary outcome
Time to successful discontinuation of ECMO
Time frame: From randomization to time of hospital discharge or until day 60.
The primary outcome will be the time (in days) from randomization (time zero) until the time of the final successful discontinuation of ECMO. Discontinuation of ECMO will be considered to be successful if a patient undergoes decannulation and survives without ECMO until day 60. For patients who are decannulated and subsequently experience recannulation, the time of successful discontinuation of ECMO will be based on the final decannulation. Data collection will cease at the time of hospital discharge or day 60.
1 secondary outcome
ECMO-free days to day 60
Time frame: From randomization to death or hospital discharge through day 60.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 4 Jun 2026.
- Background: PubMed 34166645Al-Fares AA, Ferguson ND, Ma J, Cypel M, Keshavjee S, Fan E, Del Sorbo L. Achieving Safe Liberation During Weaning From VV-ECMO in Patients With Severe ARDS: The Role of Tidal Volume and Inspiratory Effort. Chest. 2021 Nov;160(5):1704-1713. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.05.068. Epub 2021 Jun 21.
- Background: PubMed 19762075Peek GJ, Mugford M, Tiruvoipati R, Wilson A, Allen E, Thalanany MM, Hibbert CL, Truesdale A, Clemens F, Cooper N, Firmin RK, Elbourne D; CESAR trial collaboration. Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009 Oct 17;374(9698):1351-63. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61069-2. Epub 2009 Sep 15.
- Background: PubMed 31408142Brodie D, Slutsky AS, Combes A. Extracorporeal Life Support for Adults With Respiratory Failure and Related Indications: A Review. JAMA. 2019 Aug 13;322(6):557-568. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.9302.
- Background: PubMed 29732188Broman LM, Malfertheiner MV, Montisci A, Pappalardo F. Weaning from veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: how I do it. J Thorac Dis. 2018 Mar;10(Suppl 5):S692-S697. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2017.09.95.
- Background: PubMed 31533848Vasques F, Romitti F, Gattinoni L, Camporota L. How I wean patients from veno-venous extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation. Crit Care. 2019 Sep 18;23(1):316. doi: 10.1186/s13054-019-2592-5. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 29344952Grant AA, Hart VJ, Lineen EB, Badiye A, Byers PM, Patel A, Vianna R, Koerner MM, El Banayosy A, Loebe M, Ghodsizad A. A Weaning Protocol for Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation With a Review of the Literature. Artif Organs. 2018 Jun;42(6):605-610. doi: 10.1111/aor.13087. Epub 2018 Jan 18.
- Background: PubMed 10816184Kress JP, Pohlman AS, O'Connor MF, Hall JB. Daily interruption of sedative infusions in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. N Engl J Med. 2000 May 18;342(20):1471-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200005183422002.
- Background: PubMed 10628598Brook AD, Ahrens TS, Schaiff R, Prentice D, Sherman G, Shannon W, Kollef MH. Effect of a nursing-implemented sedation protocol on the duration of mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med. 1999 Dec;27(12):2609-15. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199912000-00001.
- Background: PubMed 18191684Girard TD, Kress JP, Fuchs BD, Thomason JW, Schweickert WD, Pun BT, Taichman DB, Dunn JG, Pohlman AS, Kinniry PA, Jackson JC, Canonico AE, Light RW, Shintani AK, Thompson JL, Gordon SM, Hall JB, Dittus RS, Bernard GR, Ely EW. Efficacy and safety of a paired sedation and ventilator weaning protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care (Awakening and Breathing Controlled trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008 Jan 12;371(9607):126-34. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60105-1.
- Background: PubMed 8948561Ely EW, Baker AM, Dunagan DP, Burke HL, Smith AC, Kelly PT, Johnson MM, Browder RW, Bowton DL, Haponik EF. Effect on the duration of mechanical ventilation of identifying patients capable of breathing spontaneously. N Engl J Med. 1996 Dec 19;335(25):1864-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199612193352502.
- Background: PubMed 11742965Ely EW, Meade MO, Haponik EF, Kollef MH, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Stoller JK. Mechanical ventilator weaning protocols driven by nonphysician health-care professionals: evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2001 Dec;120(6 Suppl):454S-63S. doi: 10.1378/chest.120.6_suppl.454s.
- Background: PubMed 7921460Brochard L, Rauss A, Benito S, Conti G, Mancebo J, Rekik N, Gasparetto A, Lemaire F. Comparison of three methods of gradual withdrawal from ventilatory support during weaning from mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994 Oct;150(4):896-903. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.150.4.7921460.
Related trials for Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Complication
Recruiting
Platform of Randomized Adaptive Clinical Trials in Critical Illness
Respiratory Insufficiency, Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Complication
RecruitingObservational study
CytOSorb TreatMent Of Critically Ill PatientS Registry
Septic Shock, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Recruiting
ECMO ABI Detection With Hyperfine
Acute Brain Injury, Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Complication
RecruitingPhase 1
Individualized or Conventional Transfusion Strategies During Peripheral VA-ECMO
Cardiogenic Shock, Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
RecruitingObservational study
Safety and Performance of the Novalung Ultimate Kit and Xenios 2.0 During Stationary Use in Hospital and Ground-based Transport of Patients on Extracorporeal Life Support (ECLS)
Cardio-Respiratory Failure, Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Complication
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.
Jonathan D Casey, MD, MSc study director
Vanderbilt University Medical Center
8 sites in 2 countries: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing ECMO-free protocol in people with Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Complication, run by Vanderbilt University Medical Center at 8 sites in 2 countries.
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 2 inclusion and 6 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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 4 Jun 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 8 sites in United States, Canada. 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?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
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?
Time to successful discontinuation of ECMO (time frame: From randomization to time of hospital discharge or until day 60.). 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 NCT05486559, which also lists 15 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 4 Jun 2026.