Acute Brain InjuriesNCT02670733
Effect of Increased Positive End-expiratory Pressure on Intracranial Pressure in Different Respiratory Mechanic in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
An observational study of Acute Brain Injuries, run by Capital Medical University.
Trial summary
There are concerns that the use of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) for the treatment of pulmonary complications in patients with brain injury may potentially elevate intracranial pressure (ICP), and deteriorate neurological status. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Acute Brain Injuries
- What is being tested?
- Positive end-expiratory pressure
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- How many people
- 30 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Jan 2016to Dec 2016
- 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: Severe brain injured patients with ARDS
Who may be able to join
- Age 18 years and above;
- Glasgow Coma Score ≤ 8;
- Ventricular ICP monitor was placed for ICP monitoring and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage;
- Need for mechanical ventilation with PEEP;
- ARDS was diagnosed according to Berlin Definition.
Who cannot join
- Hemodynamic instability requiring more than 10 μg/kg/min dopamine or more than 0.5 μg/kg/min norepinephrine;
- ICP > 25 mmHg;
- Esophageal varices;
- History of esophageal or gastric surgery;
- Evidence of active air leak from the lung, including bronchopleural fistula, pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, or existing chest tube;
- History of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
About this study
There are concerns that the use of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) for the treatment of pulmonary complications in patients with brain injury may potentially elevate intracranial pressure (ICP), and deteriorate neurological status. It is suggested that both respiratory system compliance and ventricular compliance would contribute to the elevation of ICP when PEEP increases. In theory, PEEP may cause elevation of ICP by increasing intrathoracic pressure and diminish venous return. However, the transmission of PEEP into thoracic cavity depends on the properties of the lung and chest wall. Experimental study showed that when chest wall compliance is low, PEEP can significantly increases intrathoracic pressure; whereas low lung compliance can minimize airway pressure transmission. It is generally recognized that the lung compliance decreases in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients due to extensive alveolar collapse. However, it has been report that the elastance ratio (the ratio between elastance of the chest wall and the respiratory system, where elastance is the reciprocal of compliance) may vary from 0.2 to 0.8. Therefore, it is important to distinguish the compliance of the chest wall and the lung when investigating the effect of PEEP on ICP.
Because intrathoracic pressure (pleural pressure) is difficult to measure in clinical situations, esophageal pressure (Pes) is considered as a surrogate of intrathoracic pressure. In the present study, the investigators determine the effect of PEEP on intrathoracic pressure and ICP by Pes measurement.
- Conditions
- Acute Brain Injuries
- Being tested
- Positive end-expiratory pressure
- Keywords
- mechanical ventilation, positive end-expiratory pressure
- Medical subject headings
- Brain Injuries
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Positive end-expiratory pressureProcedure or surgery
Also called PEEP
Positive end-expiratory pressure will be applied at 5 cmH2O and 15 cmH2O
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| high responsiveness of ICP to PEEP | After increasing positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) from 5 cmH2O to 15 cmH2O, intracranial pressure (ICP) increases above the median for the study population. Receives: Procedure: Positive end-expiratory pressure | |
| low responsiveness of ICP to PEEP | After increasing positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) from 5 cmH2O to 15 cmH2O, the level of intracranial pressure (ICP) increases below the median for the study population. Receives: Procedure: Positive end-expiratory pressure |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in ICP level in different PEEP levels
Measured: Baseline ICP at PEEP of 5 cmH2O, and 15 minutes after increasing the PEEP level to 15 cmH2O
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted2 Feb 2016 (estimated)
- Study startJan 2016
- Primary completionDec 2016
- Study completionDec 2016
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Acute Brain InjuriesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Capital Medical 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
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Capital Medical University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Jian-Xin Zhou, Capital Medical University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02670733
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- K2015-023-01
- Status last verified
- Jan 2017
- First submitted
- 26 Jan 2016
- Last updated
- 28 Mar 2017
- Results posted
- No
Publications
Chen H, Xu M, Yang YL, Chen K, Xu JQ, Zhang YR, Yu RG, Zhou JX. Effects of increased positive end-expiratory pressure on intracranial pressure in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a protocol of a prospective physiological study. BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 15;6(11):e012477. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012477.
PubMed 27852713
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 28 Mar 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effect of Increased Positive End-expiratory Pressure on Intracranial Pressure in Different Respiratory Mechanic in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02670733
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- K2015-023-01
- Conditions
- Acute Brain Injuries
- Keywords
- mechanical ventilation, positive end-expiratory pressure
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Capital Medical UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jan 2016
- Primary completion
- Dec 2016 (actual)
- Study completion
- Dec 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 2 Feb 2016 (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.
There are concerns that the use of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) for the treatment of pulmonary complications in patients with brain injury may potentially elevate intracranial pressure (ICP), and deteriorate neurological status. It is suggested that both respiratory system compliance and ventricular compliance would contribute to the elevation of ICP when PEEP increases. In theory, PEEP may cause elevation of ICP by increasing intrathoracic pressure and diminish venous return. However, the transmission of PEEP into thoracic cavity depends on the properties of the lung and chest wall. Experimental study showed that when chest wall compliance is low, PEEP can significantly increases intrathoracic pressure; whereas low lung compliance can minimize airway pressure transmission. It is generally recognized that the lung compliance decreases in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients due to extensive alveolar collapse. However, it has been report that the elastance ratio (the ratio between elastance of the chest wall and the respiratory system, where elastance is the reciprocal of compliance) may vary from 0.2 to 0.8. Therefore, it is important to distinguish the compliance of the chest wall and the lung when investigating the effect of PEEP on ICP.
Because intrathoracic pressure (pleural pressure) is difficult to measure in clinical situations, esophageal pressure (Pes) is considered as a surrogate of intrathoracic pressure. In the present study, the investigators determine the effect of PEEP on intrathoracic pressure and ICP by Pes measurement.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| high responsiveness of ICP to PEEP | – | Procedure: Positive end-expiratory pressureAfter increasing positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) from 5 cmH2O to 15 cmH2O, intracranial pressure (ICP) increases above the median for the study population. |
| low responsiveness of ICP to PEEP | – | Procedure: Positive end-expiratory pressureAfter increasing positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) from 5 cmH2O to 15 cmH2O, the level of intracranial pressure (ICP) increases below the median for the study population. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Severe brain injured patients with ARDS
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Age 18 years and above;
- Glasgow Coma Score ≤ 8;
- Ventricular ICP monitor was placed for ICP monitoring and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage;
- Need for mechanical ventilation with PEEP;
- ARDS was diagnosed according to Berlin Definition.
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Hemodynamic instability requiring more than 10 μg/kg/min dopamine or more than 0.5 μg/kg/min norepinephrine;
- ICP > 25 mmHg;
- Esophageal varices;
- History of esophageal or gastric surgery;
- Evidence of active air leak from the lung, including bronchopleural fistula, pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, or existing chest tube;
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Positive end-expiratory pressureAlso: PEEPPositive end-expiratory pressure will be applied at 5 cmH2O and 15 cmH2O | Procedure or surgery | high responsiveness of ICP to PEEP, low responsiveness of ICP to PEEP |
Primary outcome
Change in ICP level in different PEEP levels
Time frame: Baseline ICP at PEEP of 5 cmH2O, and 15 minutes after increasing the PEEP level to 15 cmH2O
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 28 Mar 2017.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 27852713Chen H, Xu M, Yang YL, Chen K, Xu JQ, Zhang YR, Yu RG, Zhou JX. Effects of increased positive end-expiratory pressure on intracranial pressure in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a protocol of a prospective physiological study. BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 15;6(11):e012477. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012477.
Related trials for Acute Brain Injuries
RecruitingObservational study
Sleep to Predict Recovery In Unconscious Patients With Acute Brain Injury
Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Patients, Intracerebral Hemorrhage (ICH)
Recruiting
The Coma Family Program (COMA-F): A Resilience Program for Caregivers of Patients With Severe Acute Brain Injury
Caregiver Distress, Emotional Distress
Recruiting
Rapid Local Ischemic Postconditioning on Stroke After Thrombectomy
Acute Ischemic Stroke
Enrolling by invitation
Fareon Open Label Device Clinical Trial
Cognitive Dysfunction, Acquired Brain Injury
Not yet recruiting
Supplementary Neuromuscular Rehabilitation During Acute Concussion Recovery
Concussion (Diagnosis), Gait Abnormality
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.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Acute Brain Injuries, run by Capital Medical University.
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 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 28 Mar 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
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?
Change in ICP level in different PEEP levels (time frame: Baseline ICP at PEEP of 5 cmH2O, and 15 minutes after increasing the PEEP level to 15 cmH2O). 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 NCT02670733, which also lists 1 linked publication.
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 28 Mar 2017; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 8 Nov 2026.