Acute Respiratory Distress SyndromeNCT01102322
Factors Associated With the Use of Lung Protective Ventilation Strategy (LPV) in Acute Lung Injury/Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ALI/ARDS) Patients in Intensive Care Unit (ICU)
An observational study of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, run by National Taiwan University Hospital at 1 site in Taiwan.
Trial summary
In 1967, Ashbaugh et al first described 12 patients with a syndrome characterized by the acute onset dyspnea, severe hypoxemia, diffuse lung infiltrates on the chest radiography and decreased lung compliance. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
- What is being tested?
- Quality
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- How many people
- 111 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTaiwan
- Study dates
- Mar 2010to Feb 2011
- 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 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Acute respiratory distress syndrome patients
Who may be able to join
- All intubated and mechanically ventilated patients who meet the criteria of American-European Consensus Conference (AECC) criteria for ALI/ ARDS:
- Acute onset of illness
- Bilateral (patchy, diffuse, or homogeneous) infiltrates consistent with pulmonary edema
- PaO2/FiO2 <=300 (corrected for altitude): (P/F <300 for ALI and P/F <200 for ARDS)
- No clinical evidence of left atrial hypertension
Who cannot join
- Age <18 years
- Enrolled in other clinical trials
- Had confirmed alternative diagnoses that would have different clinical course than ARDS/ALI, e.g., diffuse alveolar hemorrhage, vasculitis, interstitial pneumonitis, etc.
- Congestive heart failure related pulmonary edema
- Acute myocardial infarction
- Pregnancy
- Patients with definite contraindication to the use of low-tidal volume ventilation, e.g., increased intracranial pressure, tricyclic antidepressant overdose, etc.
- The patient who meets inclusion criteria initially but rapidly improved within 24 hours of diagnosis of ARDS/ALI
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Factors Associated With the Use of Lung Protective Ventilation Strategy (LPV) in ALI/ARDS Patients in ICU
In 1967, Ashbaugh et al first described 12 patients with a syndrome characterized by the acute onset dyspnea, severe hypoxemia, diffuse lung infiltrates on the chest radiography and decreased lung compliance. Moreover, in 1988, Murray et al proposed a lung injury scoring system based on the level of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), PaO2-to-FiO2 ratio, static lung compliance, degree of infiltrates on the chest radiograph, and clinical cause. A score of 2.5 or greater was considered to be consistent with a diagnosis of ARDS. The current definition of ARDS was proposed by Bernard et al and the American-European Consensus Conference in 1994. The criteria of ARDS included: 1) acute onset; 2) a PaO2/FIO2 ratio, or hypoxia score, of < 200, regardless of positive endexpiratory pressure; 3) bilateral infiltrates on chest radiograph; and 4) a pulmonary artery occlusion pressure of <18 mm Hg or the absence of clinical evidence of left atrial hypertension.
However, despite advances in ventilator management, the mortality rate of acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome remains very high (approximately 40 to 50 percent). In 2000, ARDS Network trial compared the effects of 6 versus 12 mL/kg of tidal volume per predicted body weight (PBW) among 861 patients and noted an overall 22% reduction in mortality rate, more ventilator-free days, and more organ-failure-free days in the low-tidal-volume group. Therefore, the current approach to mechanical ventilation of a patient with ARDS emphasizes the use of lower tidal volumes with lower pressures to avoid causing lung overdistension and ventilator associated lung injury.
Read more
Nevertheless, one year after publication of the ARDSnet trial, Rubenfeld et al noted that lung-protective ventilation strategies were applied in less than 5% of patients with ARDS or ALI at a single ARDSnet center. Rubenfeld et al found that common barriers to the initiation of low tidal volume ventilation include unwillingness to relinquish control of the ventilator, failure to recognize patients as having ALI/ARDS, and perceived contraindications to low tidal volume ventilation. Significant barriers to the continuation of low tidal volume ventilation include concerns regarding patient discomfort and tachypnea or hypercapnia and acidosis.
In addition, Kalhan et al also evaluated factors associated with the choice of tidal volume and he reported that underuse of LPV may be related to clinicians' under-recognition of less severe cases of ALI, and their reserving of low-tidal volume ventilation for more severe cases, or both. However, the factors such as comorbidity and pathophysiological change associated with underuse of lung protective ventilation strategy are not clear. The investigators perform a prospective single-center study to investigate the factors associated with the use of lung protective ventilation strategy (LPV) in ALI/ARDS patients in ICU.
Read the detailed description
In 1967, Ashbaugh et al first described 12 patients with a syndrome characterized by the acute onset dyspnea, severe hypoxemia, diffuse lung infiltrates on the chest radiography and decreased lung compliance. The syndrome, initially called acute respiratory distress in adult and is now named as the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Moreover, in 1988, Murray et al proposed a lung injury scoring system based on the level of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP),PaO2-to-FiO2 ratio, static lung compliance, degree of infiltrates on the chest radiograph, and clinical cause. A score of 2.5 or greater was considered to be consistent with a diagnosis of ARDS. The current definition of ARDS was proposed by Bernard et al and the American-European Consensus Conference in 1994. The criteria of ARDS included: 1) acute onset; 2) a PaO2/FIO2 ratio, or hypoxia score, of <200, regardless of positive endexpiratory pressure; 3) bilateral infiltrates on chest radiograph; and 4) a pulmonary artery occlusion pressure of <18 mm Hg or the absence of clinical evidence of left atrial hypertension.
However, despite advances in ventilator management, the mortality rate of acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome remains very high (approximately 40 to 50 percent). In 2000, ARDS Network trial compared the effects of 6 versus 12 mL/kg of tidal volume per predicted body weight(PBW) among 861 patients and noted an overall 22% reduction in mortality rate, more ventilator-free days, and more organ-failure-free days in the low-tidal-volume group. Therefore, the current approach to mechanical ventilation of a patient with ARDS emphasizes the use of lower tidal volumes with lower pressures to avoid causing lung overdistension and ventilator associated lung injury.
Nevertheless, one year after publication of the ARDSnet trial, Rubenfeld et al noted that lung-protective ventilation strategies were applied in less than 5% of patients with ARDS or ALI at a single ARDSnet center. Rubenfeld et al found that common barriers to the initiation of low tidal volume ventilation include unwillingness to relinquish control of the ventilator, failure to recognize patients as having ALI/ARDS, and perceived contraindications to low tidal volume ventilation. Significant barriers to the continuation of low tidal volume ventilation include concerns regarding patient discomfort and tachypnea or hypercapnia and acidosis.
In addition, Kalhan et al also evaluated factors associated with the choice of tidal volume and he reported that underuse of LPV may be related to clinicians' under-recognition of less severe cases of ALI, and their reserving of low-tidal volume ventilation for more severe cases, or both. However, the factors such as comorbidity and pathophysiological change associated with underuse of lung protective ventilation strategy are not clear. We perform a prospective single-center study to investigate the factors associated with the use of lung protective ventilation strategy (LPV) in ALI/ARDS patients in ICU
- Conditions
- Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
- Being tested
- Quality
- Keywords
- Acute respiratory distress syndrome
- Medical subject headings
- Respiratory Distress Syndrome
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
QualityBehavioural
Factors associated with the use of lung protective ventilation strategy (LPV) in ALI/ARDS patients in ICU
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Not described Receives: Behavioral: Quality |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
The rate of appropriately use of Lung Protective strategy in ALI/ARDS patients
Measured: 7 days
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted13 Apr 2010 (estimated)
- Study startMar 2010
- Primary completionJan 2011
- Study completionFeb 2011
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Acute Respiratory Distress SyndromeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by National Taiwan University HospitalThe 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
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 111 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- National Taiwan University Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Investigators
- Jih-Shuin Jerng, Principal investigator, National Taiwan University Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01102322
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 201002021R
- Status last verified
- Feb 2011
- First submitted
- 17 Mar 2010
- Last updated
- 21 Feb 2011
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 21 Feb 2011. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Factors Associated With the Use of Lung Protective Ventilation Strategy (LPV) in ALI/ARDS Patients in ICU
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01102322
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 201002021R
- Conditions
- Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
- Keywords
- Acute respiratory distress syndrome
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 111 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- National Taiwan University HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Mar 2010
- Primary completion
- Jan 2011 (actual)
- Study completion
- Feb 2011 (actual)
- First posted
- 13 Apr 2010 (estimated)
- 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.
In 1967, Ashbaugh et al first described 12 patients with a syndrome characterized by the acute onset dyspnea, severe hypoxemia, diffuse lung infiltrates on the chest radiography and decreased lung compliance. Moreover, in 1988, Murray et al proposed a lung injury scoring system based on the level of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), PaO2-to-FiO2 ratio, static lung compliance, degree of infiltrates on the chest radiograph, and clinical cause. A score of 2.5 or greater was considered to be consistent with a diagnosis of ARDS. The current definition of ARDS was proposed by Bernard et al and the American-European Consensus Conference in 1994. The criteria of ARDS included: 1) acute onset; 2) a PaO2/FIO2 ratio, or hypoxia score, of < 200, regardless of positive endexpiratory pressure; 3) bilateral infiltrates on chest radiograph; and 4) a pulmonary artery occlusion pressure of <18 mm Hg or the absence of clinical evidence of left atrial hypertension.
However, despite advances in ventilator management, the mortality rate of acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome remains very high (approximately 40 to 50 percent). In 2000, ARDS Network trial compared the effects of 6 versus 12 mL/kg of tidal volume per predicted body weight (PBW) among 861 patients and noted an overall 22% reduction in mortality rate, more ventilator-free days, and more organ-failure-free days in the low-tidal-volume group. Therefore, the current approach to mechanical ventilation of a patient with ARDS emphasizes the use of lower tidal volumes with lower pressures to avoid causing lung overdistension and ventilator associated lung injury.
Nevertheless, one year after publication of the ARDSnet trial, Rubenfeld et al noted that lung-protective ventilation strategies were applied in less than 5% of patients with ARDS or ALI at a single ARDSnet center. Rubenfeld et al found that common barriers to the initiation of low tidal volume ventilation include unwillingness to relinquish control of the ventilator, failure to recognize patients as having ALI/ARDS, and perceived contraindications to low tidal volume ventilation. Significant barriers to the continuation of low tidal volume ventilation include concerns regarding patient discomfort and tachypnea or hypercapnia and acidosis.
In addition, Kalhan et al also evaluated factors associated with the choice of tidal volume and he reported that underuse of LPV may be related to clinicians' under-recognition of less severe cases of ALI, and their reserving of low-tidal volume ventilation for more severe cases, or both. However, the factors such as comorbidity and pathophysiological change associated with underuse of lung protective ventilation strategy are not clear. The investigators perform a prospective single-center study to investigate the factors associated with the use of lung protective ventilation strategy (LPV) in ALI/ARDS patients in ICU.
Detailed description
In 1967, Ashbaugh et al first described 12 patients with a syndrome characterized by the acute onset dyspnea, severe hypoxemia, diffuse lung infiltrates on the chest radiography and decreased lung compliance. The syndrome, initially called acute respiratory distress in adult and is now named as the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Moreover, in 1988, Murray et al proposed a lung injury scoring system based on the level of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP),PaO2-to-FiO2 ratio, static lung compliance, degree of infiltrates on the chest radiograph, and clinical cause. A score of 2.5 or greater was considered to be consistent with a diagnosis of ARDS. The current definition of ARDS was proposed by Bernard et al and the American-European Consensus Conference in 1994. The criteria of ARDS included: 1) acute onset; 2) a PaO2/FIO2 ratio, or hypoxia score, of <200, regardless of positive endexpiratory pressure; 3) bilateral infiltrates on chest radiograph; and 4) a pulmonary artery occlusion pressure of <18 mm Hg or the absence of clinical evidence of left atrial hypertension.
However, despite advances in ventilator management, the mortality rate of acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome remains very high (approximately 40 to 50 percent). In 2000, ARDS Network trial compared the effects of 6 versus 12 mL/kg of tidal volume per predicted body weight(PBW) among 861 patients and noted an overall 22% reduction in mortality rate, more ventilator-free days, and more organ-failure-free days in the low-tidal-volume group. Therefore, the current approach to mechanical ventilation of a patient with ARDS emphasizes the use of lower tidal volumes with lower pressures to avoid causing lung overdistension and ventilator associated lung injury.
Nevertheless, one year after publication of the ARDSnet trial, Rubenfeld et al noted that lung-protective ventilation strategies were applied in less than 5% of patients with ARDS or ALI at a single ARDSnet center. Rubenfeld et al found that common barriers to the initiation of low tidal volume ventilation include unwillingness to relinquish control of the ventilator, failure to recognize patients as having ALI/ARDS, and perceived contraindications to low tidal volume ventilation. Significant barriers to the continuation of low tidal volume ventilation include concerns regarding patient discomfort and tachypnea or hypercapnia and acidosis.
In addition, Kalhan et al also evaluated factors associated with the choice of tidal volume and he reported that underuse of LPV may be related to clinicians' under-recognition of less severe cases of ALI, and their reserving of low-tidal volume ventilation for more severe cases, or both. However, the factors such as comorbidity and pathophysiological change associated with underuse of lung protective ventilation strategy are not clear. We perform a prospective single-center study to investigate the factors associated with the use of lung protective ventilation strategy (LPV) in ALI/ARDS patients in ICU
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | – | Behavioral: Quality |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Acute respiratory distress syndrome patients
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- All intubated and mechanically ventilated patients who meet the criteria of American-European Consensus Conference (AECC) criteria for ALI/ ARDS:
- Acute onset of illness
- Bilateral (patchy, diffuse, or homogeneous) infiltrates consistent with pulmonary edema
- PaO2/FiO2 <=300 (corrected for altitude): (P/F <300 for ALI and P/F <200 for ARDS)
- No clinical evidence of left atrial hypertension
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Age <18 years
- Enrolled in other clinical trials
- Had confirmed alternative diagnoses that would have different clinical course than ARDS/ALI, e.g., diffuse alveolar hemorrhage, vasculitis, interstitial pneumonitis, etc.
- Congestive heart failure related pulmonary edema
- Acute myocardial infarction
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 |
|---|---|---|
| QualityFactors associated with the use of lung protective ventilation strategy (LPV) in ALI/ARDS patients in ICU | Behavioural | 1 |
Primary outcome
The rate of appropriately use of Lung Protective strategy in ALI/ARDS patients
Time frame: 7 days
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 21 Feb 2011.
Related trials for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
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
Comparing Surfactant Administration Through Supraglottic Airway and Thin Catheter for Preterm Infants
Surfactant, Respiratory Distress Syndrome (Neonatal)
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.
Jih-Shuin Jerng principal investigator
National Taiwan University Hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, run by National Taiwan University Hospital at 1 site in Taiwan.
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 5 inclusion and 8 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 21 Feb 2011. 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 Taiwan. 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?
The rate of appropriately use of Lung Protective strategy in ALI/ARDS patients (time frame: 7 days). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 21 Feb 2011.