Patient TransportHERMESNCT07807189
HERMES: International Survey and Portable External Power Evaluation During Respiratory Support Transport
An observational study of Patient Transport and Respiratory Failure, run by Medipol University at 20 sites in 14 countries.
Trial summary
The HERMES Phase I-II study was a two-phase observational investigation designed to characterize contemporary practices and safety-related challenges associated with the transport of patients requiring advanced respiratory support and to assess the operational feasibility of portable external electrical power during… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Patient Transport, Respiratory Failure, Noninvasive Ventilation
- What is being tested?
- Portable External Power Supply
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- How many people
- 246 participants
- Where
- 20 sitesin 14 countries
- Study dates
- 20 Feb 2023to 20 Feb 2025
- Phase
- Observational
- 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 Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: The study population comprised two distinct groups. Phase I included healthcare professionals involved in noninvasive ventilation management or patient transport who participated in an international electronic cross-sectional survey addressing respiratory-support transport practices. Phase II included patients undergoing ambulance transport while receiving advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation, in participating units in Albacete and Bilbao, Spain. The two populations were analyzed separately and were not statistically combined.
Who may be able to join
- Healthcare professionals involved in the management of noninvasive ventilation or in the transport of patients requiring respiratory support.
- Participation in the international electronic survey addressing respiratory-support transport practices.
- Patients undergoing ambulance transport while receiving advanced respiratory support.
- Receipt of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation during the transport episode.
- Transport performed at one of the participating clinical units included in the prospective feasibility evaluation.
- Availability of transport-level data sufficient to evaluate continuity of respiratory support and the occurrence of power interruption, clinically relevant equipment alarm, or technical failure.
Who cannot join
- Records not representing participation in the respiratory-support transport survey.
- Records lacking sufficient information for descriptive analysis of the predefined survey domains.
- Phase II - Portable External Power Feasibility Evaluation
- Transport episodes not involving advanced respiratory support.
- Transport episodes for which continuity of respiratory support or the primary technical feasibility outcome could not be determined.
Trial locations and contacts
20 sites in 14 countries.
20 sites in 14 countries
Spain4 sites
Mobile Emergency Unit of Albacete, Department of Urgent Care, Emergencies and Medical Transport of Castilla-La Mancha
Albacete
Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Punta de Europa
Algeciras
Emergentziak, Osakidetza
Bilbao
Intensive Care Unit. Hospital Morales Meseguer
Murcia
Chile2 sites
Intensive care Unit, Hospital General Ramos Mejia, Buenos Aires Argentina School of Medicine, University of Magallanes
Punta Arenas
Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Autónoma de Chile
Santiago
Turkey (Türkiye)2 sites
Department of Pulmonology, Tayfur Ata Sökmen Faculty of Medicine, Hatay Mustafa Kemal University
Hatay
İstanbul Medipol University
Istanbul
Yemen2 sites
Al-Razi University
Sanaa
Department of Respiratory Therapy, Ibn- al-Nafis University for Medical Sciences
Sanaa
United States1 site
Department Pulmonary Critical Care and Sleep Medicine Northwell Northern Westchester Hospital
Mount Kisco, New York, 10549
Croatia1 site
Department of Anaesthesiology and ICU, University Hospital Centre Zagreb
Zagreb
India1 site
Department of Respiratory Medicine, Father Muller Medical College Hospital
Mangalore
Italy1 site
Department of Critical Care, UOC Anesthesia, Postoperative Intensive Care and ECMO, Monaldi Hospital, AORN Ospedali dei Colli
Naples
Mexico1 site
Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias Ismael Cosío Villegas, Servicio de Neumología
Mexico City
Oman1 site
Department of Medicine, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, National University of Science and Technology
Sohar
Saudi Arabia1 site
Department of Respiratory Therapy, Faculty of Medical Rehabilitation Sciences, King Abdulaziz University
Jeddah
About this study
Official title: Prehospital Transport During Advanced Respiratory Support: An International Survey and Prospective Feasibility Evaluation of Portable External Power
The HERMES Phase I-II study was a two-phase observational investigation designed to characterize contemporary practices and safety-related challenges associated with the transport of patients requiring advanced respiratory support and to assess the operational feasibility of portable external electrical power during ambulance transport.
Phase I consisted of an international electronic cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals involved in noninvasive ventilation (NIV) management or patient transport. The survey evaluated reported transport indications, ventilator type and positioning, respiratory interfaces, transport-team composition, and perceived patient-, equipment-, and environment-related problems.
Read more
Phase II was a prospective descriptive feasibility evaluation involving 25 ambulance transports performed in Albacete and Bilbao, Spain. Patients were transported while receiving high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), rescue NIV, or invasive mechanical ventilation. A portable external power supply was used to support continuity of powered respiratory-support equipment during transport. The primary technical feasibility outcome was successful completion of transport while maintaining respiratory support without reported power interruption, clinically relevant equipment alarm, or technical failure.
The two phases were analyzed independently and were intended to characterize respiratory-support transport practices and evaluate technical and operational feasibility rather than establish comparative effectiveness, clinical superiority, or prevention of clinical deterioration.
Read the detailed description
Patients receiving advanced respiratory support may require prehospital, interhospital, or intrahospital transport for diagnostic procedures, therapeutic interventions, transfer to a higher level of care, or continuation of acute management. Noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal oxygen are established forms of respiratory support in acute respiratory failure, while invasive mechanical ventilation remains necessary in patients with more severe or refractory respiratory failure. During transport, continuity of respiratory support must be maintained despite changes in environment, personnel, equipment configuration, oxygen availability, and electrical power supply.
Transport of critically ill patients represents a recognized period of increased clinical and technical vulnerability. International recommendations emphasize adequate stabilization before transport, appropriate physiologic monitoring, trained accompanying personnel, communication between clinical teams, verification of equipment function, sufficient oxygen and power reserves, and contingency planning for foreseeable clinical deterioration or device failure. Prospective cohort studies and systematic reviews have demonstrated that transport-associated adverse events may include physiologic deterioration, equipment malfunction, circuit or airway problems, interruptions in therapy, and organizational or communication failures. The reported frequency of such events varies substantially according to patient population, transport setting, event definitions, urgency, and surveillance methodology.
Against this background, the HERMES Phase I-II program was developed as two analytically distinct observational phases.
Phase I was an international electronic cross-sectional survey targeting healthcare professionals involved in NIV management or patient transport. The objective was to characterize reported clinical and organizational practices related to the transport of patients requiring noninvasive respiratory support and to identify perceived areas of vulnerability during transport.
The available survey records were timestamped from February 20 to May 6, 2023. The dataset contained 224 response records. Survey domains included indications for transport, type and positioning of ventilators, use of respiratory interfaces, composition of the transport team, and categories of patient-, equipment-, and environment-related problems.
The respondent record was the unit of analysis. Reported problems reflected respondents' perceptions or previous clinical experience and were therefore not interpreted as prospectively adjudicated adverse-event incidence. Because the available documentation did not establish the invitation denominator, recruitment channels, participating countries and institutions, reminder procedures, or a prespecified definition of questionnaire completion, a formal response rate and country- or institution-level prevalence estimates were not calculated.
The rationale for this phase was based on the recognized variability in transport organization and on the importance of standardized preparation, appropriately trained personnel, continuous monitoring, equipment checks, adequate resource planning, and predefined safety procedures. Structured transport protocols and checklists may further improve adherence to transport-safety recommendations and promote more consistent preparation before patient transfer.
Phase II was designed as a prospective descriptive feasibility evaluation of portable external electrical power during ambulance transport of patients requiring advanced respiratory support. Twenty-five transport episodes were prospectively recorded at participating units in Albacete and Bilbao, Spain. The cohort included 24 adults and one child.
Respiratory-support modalities included HFNO, rescue NIV, and invasive mechanical ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. A Zopec Transport UPS 90 external power supply was used during transport to support continuity of powered respiratory-support equipment. Respiratory-support devices, oxygen delivery, monitoring, and other aspects of clinical management remained determined by the treating clinical teams according to local practice.
The primary technical feasibility outcome was completion of ambulance transport while maintaining prescribed respiratory support without reported electrical power interruption, clinically relevant equipment alarm, or technical failure requiring corrective intervention. Additional descriptive variables included respiratory-support modality, transport duration, rescue respiratory support, technical events, operational complexity, and changes in respiratory support.
Electrical continuity represents an important component of transport safety because contemporary respiratory-support systems may depend simultaneou
- Conditions
- Patient Transport, Respiratory Failure, Noninvasive Ventilation, High-Flow Nasal Oxygen, Mechanical Ventilation, Patient Safety
- Being tested
- Portable External Power Supply
- Keywords
- Patient Transport, Intrahospital Transport, Interhospital Transport, Prehospital Transport, Noninvasive Ventilation, High-Flow Nasal Oxygen, Mechanical Ventilation, Advanced Respiratory Support, Transport Safety, Patient Safety, Portable External Power, Electrical Power Continuity, Critical Care Transport, Respiratory Support, Equipment-Related Events
- Medical subject headings
- Respiratory Insufficiency
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Portable External Power SupplyDevice
A Zopec Transport UPS 90 portable external power supply was used during ambulance transport to provide continuous electrical power to powered respiratory-support equipment. The feasibility evaluation assessed maintenance of respiratory support during transport and the occurrence of power interruption, clinically relevant equipment alarms, or technical failure.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Phase I - International Healthcare Professional Survey | Healthcare professionals involved in noninvasive ventilation management or patient transport who participated in the international electronic cross-sectional survey. The survey assessed reported transport indications, ventilator type and positioning, respiratory-interface use, transport-team composition, and perceived patient-, equipment-, and environment-related problems. The survey dataset contained 224 response records corresponding to 221 unique respondents. | |
| Phase II - Portable External Power Feasibility Cohort | Patients undergoing ambulance transport while receiving advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal oxygen, rescue noninvasive ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation. Portable external electrical power was prospectively evaluated for continuity of powered respiratory-support equipment during transport. Clinical management and respiratory-support decisions were determined according to routine clinical practice. Receives: Device: Portable External Power Supply |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Number and Percentage of Respondents Reporting Predefined Respiratory-Support Transport Practices
Number and percentage of Phase I survey respondents reporting predefined respiratory-support transport practices, including transport indications, ventilator type and positioning, respiratory-interface use, and transport-team composition.
Measured: Baseline
Number and Percentage of Ambulance Transports Completed With Uninterrupted Respiratory Support
Number and percentage of Phase II ambulance transport episodes completed with uninterrupted respiratory support and without reported electrical power interruption, clinically relevant equipment alarm, or technical failure. This outcome represented the primary technical feasibility measure of the portable external power evaluation.
Measured: From departure from the point of origin to arrival at the intended destination (transport duration: 23-110 minutes)
Secondary outcomes (6)
Number and Percentage of Respondents Reporting Transport-Related Problems
Number and percentage of Phase I survey respondents reporting patient-related, equipment-related, or environmental problems associated with respiratory-support transport. These responses reflected participants' reported perceptions or previous experience and did not represent prospectively adjudicated adverse-event incidence.
Measured: Baseline
Number and Percentage of Respondents Reporting Each Transport-Team Professional Category
Number and percentage of Phase I survey respondents reporting the involvement of physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, nursing assistants, or other healthcare personnel during respiratory-support transport. Multiple selections were permitted.
Measured: Baseline
Number and Percentage of Ambulance Transports by Respiratory-Support Modality
Number and percentage of Phase II ambulance transport episodes involving high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), rescue noninvasive ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation.
Measured: From departure from the point of origin to arrival at the intended destination (transport duration: 23-110 minutes)
Number and Percentage of Patients Requiring Escalation or Modification of Respiratory Support
Number and percentage of Phase II patients requiring escalation or clinically indicated modification of respiratory support during ambulance transport, including transition to rescue noninvasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation.
Measured: From departure from the point of origin to arrival at the intended destination (transport duration: 23-110 minutes)
Number and Percentage of Ambulance Transports With Power Interruption, Clinically Relevant Equipment Alarm, or Technical Failure
Number and percentage of Phase II ambulance transport episodes in which at least one electrical power interruption, clinically relevant equipment alarm, or technical failure was reported during use of the portable external power system.
Measured: From departure from the point of origin to arrival at the intended destination (transport duration: 23-110 minutes)
Ambulance Transport Duration in Minutes
Duration of each Phase II ambulance transport episode, measured in minutes from departure from the point of origin to arrival at the intended destination. Transport duration was summarized using mean and standard deviation, median and interquartile range, and observed range.
Measured: From departure from the point of origin to arrival at the intended destination (transport duration: 23-110 minutes)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted8 Sep 2026
- Study start20 Feb 2023
- Primary completion20 May 2023
- Study completion20 Feb 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (9)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Patient TransportStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Medipol 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
- Observational
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Other
- Enrolment
- 246 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Medipol University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Berkan Basançelebi, Medipol University
- Investigators
- Antonio Esquinas, Study director, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Meseguer, Murcia, SpainBerkan Basançelebi, Study chair, Medipol UniversitySatheesh Munusamy, Study chair, Heart Hospital, HMC, Qatar
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07807189
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IANIV-HERMES-I-II
- Acronym
- HERMES
- Status last verified
- Sep 2026
- First submitted
- 25 Aug 2026
- Last updated
- 9 Sep 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Deidentified individual participant data underlying the reported study results may be made available to qualified researchers upon reasonable request. Data sharing will be considered only for scientifically justified proposals and will be subject to approval by the HERMES Steering Committee, applicable ethics requirements, institutional policies, participant consent provisions, and relevant data-protection regulations. Data elements that could increase the risk of participant re-identification or that cannot be shared under applicable ethical, legal, or institutional requirements will not be provided. A data-use agreement may be required before access is granted.
Publications
Williams P, Karuppiah S, Greentree K, Darvall J. A checklist for intrahospital transport of critically ill patients improves compliance with transportation safety guidelines. Aust Crit Care. 2020 Jan;33(1):20-24. doi: 10.1016/j.aucc.2019.02.004. Epub 2019 Apr 10.
PubMed 30981603Jia L, Wang H, Gao Y, Liu H, Yu K. High incidence of adverse events during intra-hospital transport of critically ill patients and new related risk factors: a prospective, multicenter study in China. Crit Care. 2016 Jan 18;20:12. doi: 10.1186/s13054-016-1183-y.
PubMed 26781179Schwebel C, Clec'h C, Magne S, Minet C, Garrouste-Orgeas M, Bonadona A, Dumenil AS, Jamali S, Kallel H, Goldgran-Toledano D, Marcotte G, Azoulay E, Darmon M, Ruckly S, Souweine B, Timsit JF; OUTCOMEREA Study Group. Safety of intrahospital transport in ventilated critically ill patients: a multicenter cohort study*. Crit Care Med. 2013 Aug;41(8):1919-28. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31828a3bbd.
PubMed 23863225Jeyaraju M, Andhavarapu S, Palmer J, Bzhilyanskaya V, Friedman E, Lurie T, Patel P, Raffman A, Wang J, Tran QK. Safety Matters: A Meta-analysis of Interhospital Transport Adverse Events in Critically Ill Patients. Air Med J. 2021 Sep-Oct;40(5):350-358. doi: 10.1016/j.amj.2021.04.008. Epub 2021 May 24.
PubMed 34535244Murata M, Nakagawa N, Kawasaki T, Yasuo S, Yoshida T, Ando K, Okamori S, Okada Y. Adverse events during intrahospital transport of critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med. 2022 Feb;52:13-19. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.11.021. Epub 2021 Nov 20.
PubMed 34861515Fanara B, Manzon C, Barbot O, Desmettre T, Capellier G. Recommendations for the intra-hospital transport of critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2010;14(3):R87. doi: 10.1186/cc9018. Epub 2010 May 14.
PubMed 20470381Warren J, Fromm RE Jr, Orr RA, Rotello LC, Horst HM; American College of Critical Care Medicine. Guidelines for the inter- and intrahospital transport of critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2004 Jan;32(1):256-62. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000104917.39204.0A.
PubMed 14707589Oczkowski S, Ergan B, Bos L, Chatwin M, Ferrer M, Gregoretti C, Heunks L, Frat JP, Longhini F, Nava S, Navalesi P, Ozsancak Ugurlu A, Pisani L, Renda T, Thille AW, Winck JC, Windisch W, Tonia T, Boyd J, Sotgiu G, Scala R. ERS clinical practice guidelines: high-flow nasal cannula in acute respiratory failure. Eur Respir J. 2022 Apr 14;59(4):2101574. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01574-2021. Print 2022 Apr.
PubMed 34649974Rochwerg B, Brochard L, Elliott MW, Hess D, Hill NS, Nava S, Navalesi P Members Of The Steering Committee, Antonelli M, Brozek J, Conti G, Ferrer M, Guntupalli K, Jaber S, Keenan S, Mancebo J, Mehta S, Raoof S Members Of The Task Force. Official ERS/ATS clinical practice guidelines: noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. Eur Respir J. 2017 Aug 31;50(2):1602426. doi: 10.1183/13993003.02426-2016. Print 2017 Aug.
PubMed 28860265
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 9 Sep 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Prehospital Transport During Advanced Respiratory Support: An International Survey and Prospective Feasibility Evaluation of Portable External Power
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07807189
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- HERMES / IANIV-HERMES-I-II
- Conditions
- Patient Transport, Respiratory Failure, Noninvasive Ventilation, High-Flow Nasal Oxygen, Mechanical Ventilation, Patient Safety
- Keywords
- Patient Transport, Intrahospital Transport, Interhospital Transport, Prehospital Transport, Noninvasive Ventilation, High-Flow Nasal Oxygen, Mechanical Ventilation, Advanced Respiratory Support
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 246 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Medipol UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 20 Feb 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 20 May 2023 (actual)
- Study completion
- 20 Feb 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 8 Sep 2026 (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.
The HERMES Phase I-II study was a two-phase observational investigation designed to characterize contemporary practices and safety-related challenges associated with the transport of patients requiring advanced respiratory support and to assess the operational feasibility of portable external electrical power during ambulance transport.
Phase I consisted of an international electronic cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals involved in noninvasive ventilation (NIV) management or patient transport. The survey evaluated reported transport indications, ventilator type and positioning, respiratory interfaces, transport-team composition, and perceived patient-, equipment-, and environment-related problems.
Phase II was a prospective descriptive feasibility evaluation involving 25 ambulance transports performed in Albacete and Bilbao, Spain. Patients were transported while receiving high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), rescue NIV, or invasive mechanical ventilation. A portable external power supply was used to support continuity of powered respiratory-support equipment during transport. The primary technical feasibility outcome was successful completion of transport while maintaining respiratory support without reported power interruption, clinically relevant equipment alarm, or technical failure.
The two phases were analyzed independently and were intended to characterize respiratory-support transport practices and evaluate technical and operational feasibility rather than establish comparative effectiveness, clinical superiority, or prevention of clinical deterioration.
Detailed description
Patients receiving advanced respiratory support may require prehospital, interhospital, or intrahospital transport for diagnostic procedures, therapeutic interventions, transfer to a higher level of care, or continuation of acute management. Noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal oxygen are established forms of respiratory support in acute respiratory failure, while invasive mechanical ventilation remains necessary in patients with more severe or refractory respiratory failure. During transport, continuity of respiratory support must be maintained despite changes in environment, personnel, equipment configuration, oxygen availability, and electrical power supply.
Transport of critically ill patients represents a recognized period of increased clinical and technical vulnerability. International recommendations emphasize adequate stabilization before transport, appropriate physiologic monitoring, trained accompanying personnel, communication between clinical teams, verification of equipment function, sufficient oxygen and power reserves, and contingency planning for foreseeable clinical deterioration or device failure. Prospective cohort studies and systematic reviews have demonstrated that transport-associated adverse events may include physiologic deterioration, equipment malfunction, circuit or airway problems, interruptions in therapy, and organizational or communication failures. The reported frequency of such events varies substantially according to patient population, transport setting, event definitions, urgency, and surveillance methodology.
Against this background, the HERMES Phase I-II program was developed as two analytically distinct observational phases.
Phase I was an international electronic cross-sectional survey targeting healthcare professionals involved in NIV management or patient transport. The objective was to characterize reported clinical and organizational practices related to the transport of patients requiring noninvasive respiratory support and to identify perceived areas of vulnerability during transport.
The available survey records were timestamped from February 20 to May 6, 2023. The dataset contained 224 response records. Survey domains included indications for transport, type and positioning of ventilators, use of respiratory interfaces, composition of the transport team, and categories of patient-, equipment-, and environment-related problems.
The respondent record was the unit of analysis. Reported problems reflected respondents' perceptions or previous clinical experience and were therefore not interpreted as prospectively adjudicated adverse-event incidence. Because the available documentation did not establish the invitation denominator, recruitment channels, participating countries and institutions, reminder procedures, or a prespecified definition of questionnaire completion, a formal response rate and country- or institution-level prevalence estimates were not calculated.
The rationale for this phase was based on the recognized variability in transport organization and on the importance of standardized preparation, appropriately trained personnel, continuous monitoring, equipment checks, adequate resource planning, and predefined safety procedures. Structured transport protocols and checklists may further improve adherence to transport-safety recommendations and promote more consistent preparation before patient transfer.
Phase II was designed as a prospective descriptive feasibility evaluation of portable external electrical power during ambulance transport of patients requiring advanced respiratory support. Twenty-five transport episodes were prospectively recorded at participating units in Albacete and Bilbao, Spain. The cohort included 24 adults and one child.
Respiratory-support modalities included HFNO, rescue NIV, and invasive mechanical ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. A Zopec Transport UPS 90 external power supply was used during transport to support continuity of powered respiratory-support equipment. Respiratory-support devices, oxygen delivery, monitoring, and other aspects of clinical management remained determined by the treating clinical teams according to local practice.
The primary technical feasibility outcome was completion of ambulance transport while maintaining prescribed respiratory support without reported electrical power interruption, clinically relevant equipment alarm, or technical failure requiring corrective intervention. Additional descriptive variables included respiratory-support modality, transport duration, rescue respiratory support, technical events, operational complexity, and changes in respiratory support.
Electrical continuity represents an important component of transport safety because contemporary respiratory-support systems may depend simultaneou
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Other
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Phase I - International Healthcare Professional Survey | – | –Healthcare professionals involved in noninvasive ventilation management or patient transport who participated in the international electronic cross-sectional survey. The survey assessed reported transport indications, ventilator type and positioning, respiratory-interface use, transport-team composition, and perceived patient-, equipment-, and environment-related problems. The survey dataset contained 224 response records corresponding to 221 unique respondents. |
| Phase II - Portable External Power Feasibility Cohort | – | Device: Portable External Power SupplyPatients undergoing ambulance transport while receiving advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal oxygen, rescue noninvasive ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation. Portable external electrical power was prospectively evaluated for continuity of powered respiratory-support equipment during transport. Clinical management and respiratory-support decisions were determined according to routine clinical practice. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- The study population comprised two distinct groups. Phase I included healthcare professionals involved in noninvasive ventilation management or patient transport who participated in an international electronic cross-sectional survey addressing respiratory-support transport practices. Phase II included patients undergoing ambulance transport while receiving advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation, in participating units in Albacete and Bilbao, Spain. The two populations were analyzed separately and were not statistically combined.
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Healthcare professionals involved in the management of noninvasive ventilation or in the transport of patients requiring respiratory support.
- Participation in the international electronic survey addressing respiratory-support transport practices.
- Patients undergoing ambulance transport while receiving advanced respiratory support.
- Receipt of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation during the transport episode.
- Transport performed at one of the participating clinical units included in the prospective feasibility evaluation.
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Records not representing participation in the respiratory-support transport survey.
- Records lacking sufficient information for descriptive analysis of the predefined survey domains.
- Phase II - Portable External Power Feasibility Evaluation
- Transport episodes not involving advanced respiratory support.
- Transport episodes for which continuity of respiratory support or the primary technical feasibility outcome could not be determined.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Portable External Power SupplyA Zopec Transport UPS 90 portable external power supply was used during ambulance transport to provide continuous electrical power to powered respiratory-support equipment. The feasibility evaluation assessed maintenance of respiratory support during transport and the occurrence of power interruption, clinically relevant equipment alarms, or technical failure. | Device | Phase II - Portable External Power Feasibility Cohort |
Primary outcome
Number and Percentage of Respondents Reporting Predefined Respiratory-Support Transport Practices
Time frame: Baseline
Number and percentage of Phase I survey respondents reporting predefined respiratory-support transport practices, including transport indications, ventilator type and positioning, respiratory-interface use, and transport-team composition.
Number and Percentage of Ambulance Transports Completed With Uninterrupted Respiratory Support
Time frame: From departure from the point of origin to arrival at the intended destination (transport duration: 23-110 minutes)
Number and percentage of Phase II ambulance transport episodes completed with uninterrupted respiratory support and without reported electrical power interruption, clinically relevant equipment alarm, or technical failure. This outcome represented the primary technical feasibility measure of the portable external power evaluation.
6 secondary outcomes
Number and Percentage of Respondents Reporting Transport-Related Problems
Time frame: Baseline
Number and Percentage of Respondents Reporting Each Transport-Team Professional Category
Time frame: Baseline
Number and Percentage of Ambulance Transports by Respiratory-Support Modality
Time frame: From departure from the point of origin to arrival at the intended destination (transport duration: 23-110 minutes)
Number and Percentage of Patients Requiring Escalation or Modification of Respiratory Support
Time frame: From departure from the point of origin to arrival at the intended destination (transport duration: 23-110 minutes)
Number and Percentage of Ambulance Transports With Power Interruption, Clinically Relevant Equipment Alarm, or Technical Failure
Time frame: From departure from the point of origin to arrival at the intended destination (transport duration: 23-110 minutes)
Ambulance Transport Duration in Minutes
Time frame: From departure from the point of origin to arrival at the intended destination (transport duration: 23-110 minutes)
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 9 Sep 2026.
- Background: PubMed 30981603Williams P, Karuppiah S, Greentree K, Darvall J. A checklist for intrahospital transport of critically ill patients improves compliance with transportation safety guidelines. Aust Crit Care. 2020 Jan;33(1):20-24. doi: 10.1016/j.aucc.2019.02.004. Epub 2019 Apr 10.
- Background: PubMed 26781179Jia L, Wang H, Gao Y, Liu H, Yu K. High incidence of adverse events during intra-hospital transport of critically ill patients and new related risk factors: a prospective, multicenter study in China. Crit Care. 2016 Jan 18;20:12. doi: 10.1186/s13054-016-1183-y.
- Background: PubMed 23863225Schwebel C, Clec'h C, Magne S, Minet C, Garrouste-Orgeas M, Bonadona A, Dumenil AS, Jamali S, Kallel H, Goldgran-Toledano D, Marcotte G, Azoulay E, Darmon M, Ruckly S, Souweine B, Timsit JF; OUTCOMEREA Study Group. Safety of intrahospital transport in ventilated critically ill patients: a multicenter cohort study*. Crit Care Med. 2013 Aug;41(8):1919-28. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31828a3bbd.
- Background: PubMed 34535244Jeyaraju M, Andhavarapu S, Palmer J, Bzhilyanskaya V, Friedman E, Lurie T, Patel P, Raffman A, Wang J, Tran QK. Safety Matters: A Meta-analysis of Interhospital Transport Adverse Events in Critically Ill Patients. Air Med J. 2021 Sep-Oct;40(5):350-358. doi: 10.1016/j.amj.2021.04.008. Epub 2021 May 24.
- Background: PubMed 34861515Murata M, Nakagawa N, Kawasaki T, Yasuo S, Yoshida T, Ando K, Okamori S, Okada Y. Adverse events during intrahospital transport of critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med. 2022 Feb;52:13-19. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.11.021. Epub 2021 Nov 20.
- Background: PubMed 20470381Fanara B, Manzon C, Barbot O, Desmettre T, Capellier G. Recommendations for the intra-hospital transport of critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2010;14(3):R87. doi: 10.1186/cc9018. Epub 2010 May 14.
- Background: PubMed 14707589Warren J, Fromm RE Jr, Orr RA, Rotello LC, Horst HM; American College of Critical Care Medicine. Guidelines for the inter- and intrahospital transport of critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2004 Jan;32(1):256-62. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000104917.39204.0A.
- Background: PubMed 34649974Oczkowski S, Ergan B, Bos L, Chatwin M, Ferrer M, Gregoretti C, Heunks L, Frat JP, Longhini F, Nava S, Navalesi P, Ozsancak Ugurlu A, Pisani L, Renda T, Thille AW, Winck JC, Windisch W, Tonia T, Boyd J, Sotgiu G, Scala R. ERS clinical practice guidelines: high-flow nasal cannula in acute respiratory failure. Eur Respir J. 2022 Apr 14;59(4):2101574. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01574-2021. Print 2022 Apr.
- Background: PubMed 28860265Rochwerg B, Brochard L, Elliott MW, Hess D, Hill NS, Nava S, Navalesi P Members Of The Steering Committee, Antonelli M, Brozek J, Conti G, Ferrer M, Guntupalli K, Jaber S, Keenan S, Mancebo J, Mehta S, Raoof S Members Of The Task Force. Official ERS/ATS clinical practice guidelines: noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. Eur Respir J. 2017 Aug 31;50(2):1602426. doi: 10.1183/13993003.02426-2016. Print 2017 Aug.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Deidentified individual participant data underlying the reported study results may be made available to qualified researchers upon reasonable request. Data sharing will be considered only for scientifically justified proposals and will be subject to approval by the HERMES Steering Committee, applicable ethics requirements, institutional policies, participant consent provisions, and relevant data-protection regulations. Data elements that could increase the risk of participant re-identification or that cannot be shared under applicable ethical, legal, or institutional requirements will not be provided. A data-use agreement may be required before access is granted.
Related trials for Patient Transport
RecruitingPhase 1/2
A First-in-human Study of KK8123 in Adults With X-linked Hypophosphatemia
X-linked Hypophosphatemia
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study of 36-Week Refill Exchanges of Port Delivery System (PDS) With Ranibizumab in nAMD
Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Novosyn® Quick in Patients Undergoing Episiotomy Closure
Episiotomy Wound
Active, not recruitingPhase 1
Hypofractionated Accelerated Pelvic Nodal Radiotherapy (GCC 2048)
Prostate Cancer, Prostate Adenocarcinoma
Active, not recruitingPhase 3
Human Menopausal Gonadotropin Research in Infertility Assessing Cumulative Live Birth With Frozen Embryo Transfer.
Infertility (IVF Patients)
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.
Antonio Esquinas study director
Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Meseguer, Murcia, Spain
Berkan Basançelebi study chair
Medipol University
Satheesh Munusamy study chair
Heart Hospital, HMC, Qatar
20 sites in 14 countries: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Patient Transport and Respiratory Failure, run by Medipol University at 20 sites in 14 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 6 inclusion and 5 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 9 Sep 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 20 sites in Spain, Chile, Turkey (Türkiye), Yemen, United States and 9 more countries. 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?
Number and Percentage of Respondents Reporting Predefined Respiratory-Support Transport Practices (time frame: Baseline). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. 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 NCT07807189, 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 9 Sep 2026.