Weaning From Mechanical VentilationNCT01666054
Comparison of Weaning on Pressure Support vs. Proportional Assist Ventilation: A Pilot Study
A study testing PSV and PAV in people with Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation, run by London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph's at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
The study hypothesis is that reducing patient-ventilator asynchrony will reduce time required to wean from mechanical ventilation. The purpose of this pilot study is (1) to assess study feasibility in terms of recruitment, protocol adherence and efficacy of the intervention for reducing asynchrony, (2) to assess… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation
- What is being tested?
- PSV and PAV
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 54 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- Mar 2009to Jul 2013
- 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
- Age 18 years or greater
- Mechanically ventilated patients who are ready to begin weaning according to prespecified eligibility criteria, and tolerate thirty minutes of pressure support ventilation (PSV), but are not ready for extubation, defined as an frequency to tidal volume (f/Vt) greater-than (>) 105 after two minutes of constant positive airway pressure (CPAP)
- Reason for intubation partially or completely reversed
Who cannot join
- Tolerating PSV 5 greater-than (>)2 hrs (Weaned)
- Plan to extubate today
- Extubated today
- Considering Withdrawal of life support (less-than (<)48hrs)
- Neurosurgical patient
- High SC injury/ progressive NMD
- Tracheostomy at time of ICU admission
- Has met all weaning eligibility and been on Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV) >36 hours
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Canada1 site
London Health Sciences Centre - University Hospital
London, Ontario, N6A 5A5
About this study
Official title: Is Respiratory Rate an Adequate Indicator of Respiratory Distress During Weaning? A Comparison of Weaning on Pressure Support vs. Proportional Assist Ventilation.
The study hypothesis is that reducing patient-ventilator asynchrony will reduce time required to wean from mechanical ventilation. The purpose of this pilot study is (1) to assess study feasibility in terms of recruitment, protocol adherence and efficacy of the intervention for reducing asynchrony, (2) to assess baseline rates of asynchrony and outcomes in the control arm in order to perform sample size calculations, if needed, for further, larger studies designed to detect differences in weaning time in specific, predefined populations and (3) to examine how often ineffective triggering (and therefore reduced ventilator respiratory rate) at higher levels of pressure support lead to a false conclusion that higher levels of support are needed to diminish respiratory distress.
Read the detailed description
Previous research has shown that approximately twenty-five percent of patients capable of triggering the ventilator in assisted modes have high rates of patient-ventilator asynchrony, and that such patients have a longer duration of mechanical ventilation. It is not known whether asynchrony is a cause of weaning failure or simply a marker of more severe respiratory failure. The most common type of asynchrony, ineffective triggering, may be both a marker of respiratory disease and a cause of delayed weaning. During ineffective triggering, the patient's inspiratory effort fails to trigger a ventilator breath, and thus the respiratory rate displayed on the ventilator underestimates the patient's true, intrinsic respiratory rate. Since ineffective triggering is more common at higher levels of pressure support than lower levels, an increase in respiratory rate during weaning of pressure support may indicate the development of respiratory distress or simply the abolition of ineffective triggering. Ineffective triggering may also cause delayed weaning because respiratory muscle energy is "wasted" on non-supported breaths. Proportional assist ventilation (PAV) is an FDA- and HPB-approved mode of ventilation in which the ventilator applies pressure in proportion to patient effort. Using PAV, patient-ventilator interaction may be optimized and ineffective triggering greatly reduced. Since the patient and ventilator respiratory rates are generally equivalent, a reduction in respiratory rate with increasing ventilatory support is less likely to be false positive indication of the need for greater assistance.
In this study, patients with difficulty weaning from mechanical ventilation will be randomized to weaning with one of two weaning protocols: Proportional Assist Ventilation (PAV) weaning algorithm (intervention arm) vs. Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV) weaning algorithm (control arm).
- Conditions
- Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation
- Being tested
- PSV, PAV
- Keywords
- Weaning, mechanical ventilation, Proportional Assist Ventilation
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
PSVOther
Pressure Support Ventilation will be used until patient is extubated
PAVOther
Proportional Assist Ventilation will be used until patient is extubated.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Proportional Assist Ventilation (PAV) | Active comparator | Proportional Assist Ventilation (PAV+ on the PB840 ventilator) will be used according to a weaning algorithm. If patients develop distress despite maximum levels of support on PAV+, they will be temporarily switched to assist control mode. Receives: Other: PAV |
| Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV) | Active comparator | Pressure Support Ventilation on the PV840 ventilator will be used according to a weaning algorithm. If patients develop distress despite maximal level of support on PSV, they will be temporarily switched to assist-control mode. Receives: Other: PSV |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Duration of weaning
Duration of weaning will be assessed as (a) the time elapsed from study randomization until the patient successfully passes a spontaneous breathing trial, (b) time from randomization to successful extubation, and (c) number of ventilator-free days, defined as the number of days alive and free of mechanical ventilation during the 28 days post randomization. All patients enrolled in the study will be followed until discharge from ICU. A prior subgroup analysis is planned for patients with a high asynchrony index at baseline.
Measured: From time of randomization up to 28 days
Secondary outcomes (3)
Change in asynchrony index from baseline
Asynchrony index (percent (%) of asynchronous breaths) measured by visual inspection of flow and airway pressure tracings at baseline (just prior to randomization) and at high and low levels of support in both Proportional Assist Ventilation (PAV) and Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV) weaning algorithms. These measurements are recorded during the first seven days post randomization.
Measured: Measurement of flow, airway pressure, and estimate of respiratory muscle pressure recorded at baseline then again, at high and at low levels of support during the first seven days of the weaning protocol
Change in sedative drug administration from baseline
Total dose of sedative and narcotic drugs (converted into lorazepam and morphine equivalents) administered on day 0 (baseline) and day 1, 3 and 7 of study protocol, as percentage of baseline dose
Measured: Daily dose of sedative drugs administered at baseline and day 1, 3, and 7 of study protocol
Delirium
Incidence of a positive delirium screening assessment (using Confusion Assessment Method - Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC)) at baseline, and duration of delirium as a percentage of time in ICU post randomization.
Measured: Up to 28 days post randomization
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted16 Aug 2012 (estimated)
- Study startMar 2009
- Primary completionAug 2012
- Study completionJul 2013
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 Weaning From Mechanical VentilationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph'sThe 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
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 54 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph's
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Medtronic - MITG, University of Western Ontario, Canada
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Karen Bosma, London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph's
- Investigators
- Karen J Bosma, MD, FRCPC, Principal investigator, London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph's
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01666054
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- R-07-237
- Other IDs
- 13356
- Status last verified
- Apr 2016
- First submitted
- 14 Aug 2012
- Last updated
- 26 Apr 2016
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Esteban A, Anzueto A, Frutos F, Alia I, Brochard L, Stewart TE, Benito S, Epstein SK, Apezteguia C, Nightingale P, Arroliga AC, Tobin MJ; Mechanical Ventilation International Study Group. Characteristics and outcomes in adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a 28-day international study. JAMA. 2002 Jan 16;287(3):345-55. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.3.345.
PubMed 11790214Epstein SK, Ciubotaru RL, Wong JB. Effect of failed extubation on the outcome of mechanical ventilation. Chest. 1997 Jul;112(1):186-92. doi: 10.1378/chest.112.1.186.
PubMed 9228375Epstein SK, Ciubotaru RL. Independent effects of etiology of failure and time to reintubation on outcome for patients failing extubation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998 Aug;158(2):489-93. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.158.2.9711045.
PubMed 9700126Kollef MH, Shapiro SD, Silver P, St John RE, Prentice D, Sauer S, Ahrens TS, Shannon W, Baker-Clinkscale D. A randomized, controlled trial of protocol-directed versus physician-directed weaning from mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med. 1997 Apr;25(4):567-74. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199704000-00004.
PubMed 9142019Lellouche F, Mancebo J, Jolliet P, Roeseler J, Schortgen F, Dojat M, Cabello B, Bouadma L, Rodriguez P, Maggiore S, Reynaert M, Mersmann S, Brochard L. A multicenter randomized trial of computer-driven protocolized weaning from mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006 Oct 15;174(8):894-900. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200511-1780OC. Epub 2006 Jul 13.
PubMed 16840741Ely 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 8948561Thille AW, Rodriguez P, Cabello B, Lellouche F, Brochard L. Patient-ventilator asynchrony during assisted mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med. 2006 Oct;32(10):1515-22. doi: 10.1007/s00134-006-0301-8. Epub 2006 Aug 1.
PubMed 16896854Younes M. Proportional assist ventilation, a new approach to ventilatory support. Theory. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1992 Jan;145(1):114-20. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm/145.1.114.
PubMed 1731573Bosma KJ, Read BA, Bahrgard Nikoo MJ, Jones PM, Priestap FA, Lewis JF. A Pilot Randomized Trial Comparing Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation on Pressure Support Versus Proportional Assist Ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2016 Jun;44(6):1098-108. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001600.
PubMed 26807682
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 26 Apr 2016. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Is Respiratory Rate an Adequate Indicator of Respiratory Distress During Weaning? A Comparison of Weaning on Pressure Support vs. Proportional Assist Ventilation.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01666054
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- R-07-237
- Conditions
- Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation
- Keywords
- Weaning, mechanical ventilation, Proportional Assist Ventilation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 54 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph'sUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Medtronic - MITG, University of Western Ontario, Canada
- Study start
- Mar 2009
- Primary completion
- Aug 2012 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jul 2013 (actual)
- First posted
- 16 Aug 2012 (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.
The study hypothesis is that reducing patient-ventilator asynchrony will reduce time required to wean from mechanical ventilation. The purpose of this pilot study is (1) to assess study feasibility in terms of recruitment, protocol adherence and efficacy of the intervention for reducing asynchrony, (2) to assess baseline rates of asynchrony and outcomes in the control arm in order to perform sample size calculations, if needed, for further, larger studies designed to detect differences in weaning time in specific, predefined populations and (3) to examine how often ineffective triggering (and therefore reduced ventilator respiratory rate) at higher levels of pressure support lead to a false conclusion that higher levels of support are needed to diminish respiratory distress.
Detailed description
Previous research has shown that approximately twenty-five percent of patients capable of triggering the ventilator in assisted modes have high rates of patient-ventilator asynchrony, and that such patients have a longer duration of mechanical ventilation. It is not known whether asynchrony is a cause of weaning failure or simply a marker of more severe respiratory failure. The most common type of asynchrony, ineffective triggering, may be both a marker of respiratory disease and a cause of delayed weaning. During ineffective triggering, the patient's inspiratory effort fails to trigger a ventilator breath, and thus the respiratory rate displayed on the ventilator underestimates the patient's true, intrinsic respiratory rate. Since ineffective triggering is more common at higher levels of pressure support than lower levels, an increase in respiratory rate during weaning of pressure support may indicate the development of respiratory distress or simply the abolition of ineffective triggering. Ineffective triggering may also cause delayed weaning because respiratory muscle energy is "wasted" on non-supported breaths. Proportional assist ventilation (PAV) is an FDA- and HPB-approved mode of ventilation in which the ventilator applies pressure in proportion to patient effort. Using PAV, patient-ventilator interaction may be optimized and ineffective triggering greatly reduced. Since the patient and ventilator respiratory rates are generally equivalent, a reduction in respiratory rate with increasing ventilatory support is less likely to be false positive indication of the need for greater assistance.
In this study, patients with difficulty weaning from mechanical ventilation will be randomized to weaning with one of two weaning protocols: Proportional Assist Ventilation (PAV) weaning algorithm (intervention arm) vs. Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV) weaning algorithm (control arm).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Proportional Assist Ventilation (PAV) | Active comparator | Other: PAVProportional Assist Ventilation (PAV+ on the PB840 ventilator) will be used according to a weaning algorithm. If patients develop distress despite maximum levels of support on PAV+, they will be temporarily switched to assist control mode. |
| Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV) | Active comparator | Other: PSVPressure Support Ventilation on the PV840 ventilator will be used according to a weaning algorithm. If patients develop distress despite maximal level of support on PSV, they will be temporarily switched to assist-control mode. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Age 18 years or greater
- Mechanically ventilated patients who are ready to begin weaning according to prespecified eligibility criteria, and tolerate thirty minutes of pressure support ventilation (PSV), but are not ready for extubation, defined as an frequency to tidal volume (f/Vt) greater-than (>) 105 after two minutes of constant positive airway pressure (CPAP)
- Reason for intubation partially or completely reversed
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Tolerating PSV 5 greater-than (>)2 hrs (Weaned)
- Plan to extubate today
- Extubated today
- Considering Withdrawal of life support (less-than (<)48hrs)
- Neurosurgical patient
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 |
|---|---|---|
| PSVPressure Support Ventilation will be used until patient is extubated | Other | Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV) |
| PAVProportional Assist Ventilation will be used until patient is extubated. | Other | Proportional Assist Ventilation (PAV) |
Primary outcome
Duration of weaning
Time frame: From time of randomization up to 28 days
Duration of weaning will be assessed as (a) the time elapsed from study randomization until the patient successfully passes a spontaneous breathing trial, (b) time from randomization to successful extubation, and (c) number of ventilator-free days, defined as the number of days alive and free of mechanical ventilation during the 28 days post randomization. All patients enrolled in the study will be followed until discharge from ICU. A prior subgroup analysis is planned for patients with a high asynchrony index at baseline.
3 secondary outcomes
Change in asynchrony index from baseline
Time frame: Measurement of flow, airway pressure, and estimate of respiratory muscle pressure recorded at baseline then again, at high and at low levels of support during the first seven days of the weaning protocol
Change in sedative drug administration from baseline
Time frame: Daily dose of sedative drugs administered at baseline and day 1, 3, and 7 of study protocol
Delirium
Time frame: Up to 28 days post randomization
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 26 Apr 2016.
- Background: PubMed 11790214Esteban A, Anzueto A, Frutos F, Alia I, Brochard L, Stewart TE, Benito S, Epstein SK, Apezteguia C, Nightingale P, Arroliga AC, Tobin MJ; Mechanical Ventilation International Study Group. Characteristics and outcomes in adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a 28-day international study. JAMA. 2002 Jan 16;287(3):345-55. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.3.345.
- Background: PubMed 9228375Epstein SK, Ciubotaru RL, Wong JB. Effect of failed extubation on the outcome of mechanical ventilation. Chest. 1997 Jul;112(1):186-92. doi: 10.1378/chest.112.1.186.
- Background: PubMed 9700126Epstein SK, Ciubotaru RL. Independent effects of etiology of failure and time to reintubation on outcome for patients failing extubation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998 Aug;158(2):489-93. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.158.2.9711045.
- Background: PubMed 9142019Kollef MH, Shapiro SD, Silver P, St John RE, Prentice D, Sauer S, Ahrens TS, Shannon W, Baker-Clinkscale D. A randomized, controlled trial of protocol-directed versus physician-directed weaning from mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med. 1997 Apr;25(4):567-74. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199704000-00004.
- Background: PubMed 16840741Lellouche F, Mancebo J, Jolliet P, Roeseler J, Schortgen F, Dojat M, Cabello B, Bouadma L, Rodriguez P, Maggiore S, Reynaert M, Mersmann S, Brochard L. A multicenter randomized trial of computer-driven protocolized weaning from mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006 Oct 15;174(8):894-900. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200511-1780OC. Epub 2006 Jul 13.
- 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 16896854Thille AW, Rodriguez P, Cabello B, Lellouche F, Brochard L. Patient-ventilator asynchrony during assisted mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med. 2006 Oct;32(10):1515-22. doi: 10.1007/s00134-006-0301-8. Epub 2006 Aug 1.
- Background: PubMed 1731573Younes M. Proportional assist ventilation, a new approach to ventilatory support. Theory. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1992 Jan;145(1):114-20. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm/145.1.114.
- Results publication: PubMed 26807682Bosma KJ, Read BA, Bahrgard Nikoo MJ, Jones PM, Priestap FA, Lewis JF. A Pilot Randomized Trial Comparing Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation on Pressure Support Versus Proportional Assist Ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2016 Jun;44(6):1098-108. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001600.
Related trials for Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation
Recruiting
A Randomized Clinical Trial for Predictors of Successful Extubation of Pediatric Patients With or Without High Velocity Nasal Insufflation
High Velocity Nasal Insufflation, Simple Oxygen
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Detecting Early Weaning-induced Pulmonary Oedema Using Lung Impedance Negative Trend During Spontaneous Breathing Trials
Weaning-induced Pulmonary Edema, Mechanical Ventilation Weaning
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Intra-Abdominal Pressure, Respiratory Mechanics, and Ventilator Liberation After Emergency Major Laparotomy
Intra-Abdominal Hypertension, Respiratory Mechanics
Not yet recruiting
High-Flow Tracheal Oxygen During Spontaneous Breathing Trial
Mechanical Ventilation Weaning, Spontaneous Breathing Trial
Recruiting
Physiological Effect High-flow Tracheal Oxygen on Viscosity of Airway Mucus and Respiratory Effort in Patients Weaning From Invasive Mechanical Ventilation
Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation, Tracheostomy Weaning
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.
Karen J Bosma, MD, FRCPC principal investigator
London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph's
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing PSV and PAV in people with Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation, run by London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph's at 1 site in Canada.
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 3 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 26 Apr 2016. 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 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?
Duration of weaning (time frame: From time of randomization up to 28 days). 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 NCT01666054, 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 26 Apr 2016.