Hemodynamic InstabilityELVISNCT03820440
End-expiratory Occlusion Test and Lung Recruitment Maneuver to Assess Fluid responsiVeness In Surgical Patients
A study testing End-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) and Lung recruitment manovre (LRM) in people with Hemodynamic Instability and Surgery, run by Humanitas Clinical and Research Center at 1 site in Italy.
Trial summary
The functional hemodynamic test (FHT) called passive leg raising (PLR) has been successfully used for assessing the fluid responsiveness in ICU patients since 2009 and its reliability has been confirmed by three large meta-analyses. However, the PLR is not usually practicable in the OR. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Hemodynamic Instability, Surgery, Fluid Overload
- What is being tested?
- End-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) and Lung recruitment manovre (LRM)
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 60 participants
- Where
- 1 siteItaly
- Study dates
- 1 May 2020to 31 Dec 2020
- 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
- Adult patients aged ≥ 18 years;
- Scheduled for elective supine abdominal surgery and requiring invasive arterial monitoring;
- Glasgow coma scale 15 at recruitment. All the patients must be able to sign an informed consent at the admission.
Who cannot join
- Any recurrent cardiac arrhythmias;
- Reduced left (ejection fraction <30%) or right (systolic peak velocity of tricuspid annular motion <0.17 m/s) ventricular systolic function;
- Chronic use beta-blocking agents.
- History of pneumothorax.
- BMI > 40
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: End-expiratory Occlusion Test and Lung Recruitment Maneuver to Assess Fluid responsiVeness In Surgical Patients: an Open-label, Randomized Clinical Trial
The functional hemodynamic test (FHT) called passive leg raising (PLR) has been successfully used for assessing the fluid responsiveness in ICU patients since 2009 and its reliability has been confirmed by three large meta-analyses. However, the PLR is not usually practicable in the OR.
A lot of different FHTs have been proposed, as alternative to the PLR, in ICU and, more recently, OR. These tests could be basically subdivided in two groups. A subgroup of FHTs is based on sudden and brief variations of the mechanical ventilation to induce a change in right ventricle preload and/or after load and, as consequence, of left ventricle SV. A second subgroup aims at testing the increase in SV after the rapid administration of a small aliquot of the predefined FC.
Read more
Among the first group, the end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) and the lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) have been previously successfully tested in surgical patients. The EEOT consists of the interruption of the mechanical ventilation for 30 seconds, whereas the LRM consists in the increase in the peak inspiratory pressure up to 30 cmH20 for 30 seconds and in the assessment of the changes in the SV after the maneuvers. These tests are safe and can be easily applicable during the surgery to predict fluid responsiveness and optimize the fluid therapy.
The primary aim of the present study is to compare the reliability of EEOT and LRM in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing general surgery.
Read the detailed description
Targeted fluid therapy has received increasing attention in the management of patients showing acute circulatory failure in both intensive care unit (ICU) and operating room (OR), aiming at preventing both inadequate tissue blood flow and fluid overload [1]. In fact, unnecessary fluid administration can increase morbidity and mortality and length of hospital stay of critically ill and surgical patients [2-10].
Since the only physiological reason to give a fluid challenge (FC) is to increase the stroke volume (SV) [11-13] and this effect is obtained only in about 50% of ICU and OR patients [14, 15], a vast literature investigated the possibility of predict this effect before FC administration, but the issue remains extremely challenging [1, 13, 16-18]. Bedside clinical signs and pressure and static volumetric static variables, do not predict fluid responsiveness [17]. Moreover, several physiological factors affect the reliability of the ventilator-induced dynamic changes in pulse pressure and stroke volume [pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV), respectively], and their echographic surrogates, in a significant number of ICU and OR patients [19-22].
To overcome these limitations, the functional hemodynamic assessment (i.e. the assessment of the dynamic interactions of hemodynamic variables in response to a defined perturbation), of fluid responsiveness has gained in popularity [17, 18, 23]. A functional hemodynamic test (FHT) consist in a manoeuvre determining a sudden change in cardiac function and/or heart lung interaction, affecting the hemodynamics of fluid responders and non-responders to a different extent [17, 18, 23].
The FHT called passive leg raising (PLR) has been successfully used for assessing the fluid responsiveness in ICU patients since 2009 [24] and its reliability has been confirmed by three large meta-analyses [25-27]. However, the PLR is not usually practicable in the OR.
A lot of different FHTs have been proposed, as alternative to the PLR, in ICU and, more recently, OR. These tests could be basically subdivided in two groups. A subgroup of FHTs is based on sudden and brief variations of the mechanical ventilation to induce a change in right ventricle preload and/or after load and, as consequence, of left ventricle SV [24, 28]. A second subgroup aims at testing the increase in SV after the rapid administration of a small aliquot of the predefined FC [29, 30].
Among the first group, the end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) and the lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) have been previously successfully tested in surgical patients [31-33]. The EEOT consists of the interruption of the mechanical ventilation for 30 seconds, whereas the LRM consists in the increase in the peak inspiratory pressure up to 30 cmH20 for 30 seconds and in the assessment of the changes in the SV after the maneuvers. These tests are safe and can be easily applicable during the surgery to predict fluid responsiveness and optimize the fluid therapy.
The primary aim of the present study is to compare the reliability of EEOT and LRM in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing general surgery.
(for Bibliography please refer to the original protocol)
- Conditions
- Hemodynamic Instability, Surgery, Fluid Overload
- Being tested
- End-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT), Lung recruitment manovre (LRM)
- Keywords
- End-expiratory occlusion test, Lung Recruitment Manovre, Fluid responsiveness, Functional Hemodynamic Test
- Medical subject headings
- Edema
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
End-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT)Diagnostic test
The EEOT is performed by interrupting the mechanical ventilation for 30 seconds, by using and end-expiratory hold on the ventilator.
Lung recruitment manovre (LRM)Diagnostic test
The LRM is performed by using a single act of mechanical ventilation in pressure-controlled mode at 30 cmH20 for 30 seconds
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Treatment - hemodynamic tests | Experimental | Treatment - hemodynamic tests:
The EEOT is performed by interrupting the mechanical ventilation for 30 seconds, by using and end-expiratory hold on the ventilator.
The LRM is performed by using a single act of mechanical ventilation in pressure-controlled mode at 30 cmH20 for 30 seconds Receives: Diagnostic Test: End-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT); Diagnostic Test: Lung recruitment manovre (LRM) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
AUC difference
To assess the difference in the area under (AUC) the receiving operator characteristic curve (ROC)
Measured: 10 minutes after fluid challenge administration
Secondary outcomes (1)
Sensitivity and Specificity
ROC curve analysis to assess the sensitivity and specificity of EEOT and LRM in predicting fluid responsiveness.
Measured: 10 minutes after fluid challenge administration
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted29 Jan 2019
- Study start1 May 2020 (estimated)
- Primary completion31 Dec 2020 (estimated)
- Study completion31 Dec 2020 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Hemodynamic InstabilityStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- 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
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Model description
- The study protocol is started during a period of intraoperative hemodynamic stability, as previously defined (change in mean arterial pressure of less than 10% during 5 minutes). The study protocol is the following: 1) a set of measurements is recorded (T0) at a baseline ventilation of 7 ml/Kg and then the EEOT is performed by using the software function, "expiratory hold", to interrupt mechanical ventilation; 2) after one minute a set of measurements was recorded (T1); 3) the LRM is then performed; 4) after one minute another set of measurements is recorded (T2) and then a fluid challenge of 4 mL/Kg of crystalloid solution is infused over 10 minutes. The attending anesthetist is allowed to interrupt the protocol at any stage for either hemodynamic instability or any other adverse effects requiring urgent treatment. The sequence of application of EEOT and LRM on the same patient (EEOT\_LRM or LRM\_EEOT) is randomly generated.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Humanitas Clinical and Research Center
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Maggiore della Carita
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Antonio Messina, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03820440
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- ELVIS
- Acronym
- ELVIS
- Status last verified
- Feb 2020
- First submitted
- 24 Jan 2019
- Last updated
- 11 Feb 2020
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Publications
Biais M, Larghi M, Henriot J, de Courson H, Sesay M, Nouette-Gaulain K. End-Expiratory Occlusion Test Predicts Fluid Responsiveness in Patients With Protective Ventilation in the Operating Room. Anesth Analg. 2017 Dec;125(6):1889-1895. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002322.
PubMed 28742783Biais M, Lanchon R, Sesay M, Le Gall L, Pereira B, Futier E, Nouette-Gaulain K. Changes in Stroke Volume Induced by Lung Recruitment Maneuver Predict Fluid Responsiveness in Mechanically Ventilated Patients in the Operating Room. Anesthesiology. 2017 Feb;126(2):260-267. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001459.
PubMed 27922547
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 Feb 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- End-expiratory Occlusion Test and Lung Recruitment Maneuver to Assess Fluid responsiVeness In Surgical Patients: an Open-label, Randomized Clinical Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03820440
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ELVIS / ELVIS
- Conditions
- Hemodynamic Instability, Surgery, Fluid Overload
- Keywords
- End-expiratory occlusion test, Lung Recruitment Manovre, Fluid responsiveness, Functional Hemodynamic Test
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Humanitas Clinical and Research CenterUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Maggiore della Carita
- Study start
- 1 May 2020 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2020 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2020 (estimated)
- First posted
- 29 Jan 2019 (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 functional hemodynamic test (FHT) called passive leg raising (PLR) has been successfully used for assessing the fluid responsiveness in ICU patients since 2009 and its reliability has been confirmed by three large meta-analyses. However, the PLR is not usually practicable in the OR.
A lot of different FHTs have been proposed, as alternative to the PLR, in ICU and, more recently, OR. These tests could be basically subdivided in two groups. A subgroup of FHTs is based on sudden and brief variations of the mechanical ventilation to induce a change in right ventricle preload and/or after load and, as consequence, of left ventricle SV. A second subgroup aims at testing the increase in SV after the rapid administration of a small aliquot of the predefined FC.
Among the first group, the end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) and the lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) have been previously successfully tested in surgical patients. The EEOT consists of the interruption of the mechanical ventilation for 30 seconds, whereas the LRM consists in the increase in the peak inspiratory pressure up to 30 cmH20 for 30 seconds and in the assessment of the changes in the SV after the maneuvers. These tests are safe and can be easily applicable during the surgery to predict fluid responsiveness and optimize the fluid therapy.
The primary aim of the present study is to compare the reliability of EEOT and LRM in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing general surgery.
Detailed description
Targeted fluid therapy has received increasing attention in the management of patients showing acute circulatory failure in both intensive care unit (ICU) and operating room (OR), aiming at preventing both inadequate tissue blood flow and fluid overload [1]. In fact, unnecessary fluid administration can increase morbidity and mortality and length of hospital stay of critically ill and surgical patients [2-10].
Since the only physiological reason to give a fluid challenge (FC) is to increase the stroke volume (SV) [11-13] and this effect is obtained only in about 50% of ICU and OR patients [14, 15], a vast literature investigated the possibility of predict this effect before FC administration, but the issue remains extremely challenging [1, 13, 16-18]. Bedside clinical signs and pressure and static volumetric static variables, do not predict fluid responsiveness [17]. Moreover, several physiological factors affect the reliability of the ventilator-induced dynamic changes in pulse pressure and stroke volume [pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV), respectively], and their echographic surrogates, in a significant number of ICU and OR patients [19-22].
To overcome these limitations, the functional hemodynamic assessment (i.e. the assessment of the dynamic interactions of hemodynamic variables in response to a defined perturbation), of fluid responsiveness has gained in popularity [17, 18, 23]. A functional hemodynamic test (FHT) consist in a manoeuvre determining a sudden change in cardiac function and/or heart lung interaction, affecting the hemodynamics of fluid responders and non-responders to a different extent [17, 18, 23].
The FHT called passive leg raising (PLR) has been successfully used for assessing the fluid responsiveness in ICU patients since 2009 [24] and its reliability has been confirmed by three large meta-analyses [25-27]. However, the PLR is not usually practicable in the OR.
A lot of different FHTs have been proposed, as alternative to the PLR, in ICU and, more recently, OR. These tests could be basically subdivided in two groups. A subgroup of FHTs is based on sudden and brief variations of the mechanical ventilation to induce a change in right ventricle preload and/or after load and, as consequence, of left ventricle SV [24, 28]. A second subgroup aims at testing the increase in SV after the rapid administration of a small aliquot of the predefined FC [29, 30].
Among the first group, the end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) and the lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) have been previously successfully tested in surgical patients [31-33]. The EEOT consists of the interruption of the mechanical ventilation for 30 seconds, whereas the LRM consists in the increase in the peak inspiratory pressure up to 30 cmH20 for 30 seconds and in the assessment of the changes in the SV after the maneuvers. These tests are safe and can be easily applicable during the surgery to predict fluid responsiveness and optimize the fluid therapy.
The primary aim of the present study is to compare the reliability of EEOT and LRM in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing general surgery.
(for Bibliography please refer to the original protocol)
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
- Model description
- The study protocol is started during a period of intraoperative hemodynamic stability, as previously defined (change in mean arterial pressure of less than 10% during 5 minutes). The study protocol is the following: 1) a set of measurements is recorded (T0) at a baseline ventilation of 7 ml/Kg and then the EEOT is performed by using the software function, "expiratory hold", to interrupt mechanical ventilation; 2) after one minute a set of measurements was recorded (T1); 3) the LRM is then performed; 4) after one minute another set of measurements is recorded (T2) and then a fluid challenge of 4 mL/Kg of crystalloid solution is infused over 10 minutes. The attending anesthetist is allowed to interrupt the protocol at any stage for either hemodynamic instability or any other adverse effects requiring urgent treatment. The sequence of application of EEOT and LRM on the same patient (EEOT_LRM or LRM_EEOT) is randomly generated.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Treatment - hemodynamic tests | Experimental | Diagnostic Test: End-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT), Diagnostic Test: Lung recruitment manovre (LRM)Treatment - hemodynamic tests: The EEOT is performed by interrupting the mechanical ventilation for 30 seconds, by using and end-expiratory hold on the ventilator. The LRM is performed by using a single act of mechanical ventilation in pressure-controlled mode at 30 cmH20 for 30 seconds |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Adult patients aged ≥ 18 years;
- Scheduled for elective supine abdominal surgery and requiring invasive arterial monitoring;
- Glasgow coma scale 15 at recruitment. All the patients must be able to sign an informed consent at the admission.
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Any recurrent cardiac arrhythmias;
- Reduced left (ejection fraction <30%) or right (systolic peak velocity of tricuspid annular motion <0.17 m/s) ventricular systolic function;
- Chronic use beta-blocking agents.
- History of pneumothorax.
- BMI > 40
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 |
|---|---|---|
| End-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT)The EEOT is performed by interrupting the mechanical ventilation for 30 seconds, by using and end-expiratory hold on the ventilator. | Diagnostic test | Treatment - hemodynamic tests |
| Lung recruitment manovre (LRM)The LRM is performed by using a single act of mechanical ventilation in pressure-controlled mode at 30 cmH20 for 30 seconds | Diagnostic test | Treatment - hemodynamic tests |
Primary outcome
AUC difference
Time frame: 10 minutes after fluid challenge administration
To assess the difference in the area under (AUC) the receiving operator characteristic curve (ROC)
1 secondary outcome
Sensitivity and Specificity
Time frame: 10 minutes after fluid challenge administration
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 11 Feb 2020.
- Results publication: PubMed 28742783Biais M, Larghi M, Henriot J, de Courson H, Sesay M, Nouette-Gaulain K. End-Expiratory Occlusion Test Predicts Fluid Responsiveness in Patients With Protective Ventilation in the Operating Room. Anesth Analg. 2017 Dec;125(6):1889-1895. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002322.
- Results publication: PubMed 27922547Biais M, Lanchon R, Sesay M, Le Gall L, Pereira B, Futier E, Nouette-Gaulain K. Changes in Stroke Volume Induced by Lung Recruitment Maneuver Predict Fluid Responsiveness in Mechanically Ventilated Patients in the Operating Room. Anesthesiology. 2017 Feb;126(2):260-267. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001459.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Hemodynamic Instability
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Ultrasound-Calibrated Pulse Contour Cardiac Output Monitoring: Value and Accuracy in Hemodynamic Care
Sepsis, Circulatory Instability
RecruitingObservational study
Comparison of PPV and LVOT VTI During Passive Leg Raising to Predict Fluid Responsiveness
Hemodynamic Instability, Hypovolemia
Not yet recruiting
Intracuff Dexmedetomidine Versus Alkalinized Lidocaine for Peri-Extubation Cough and Hemodynamic Responses in Elderly Patients
Airway Complication of Anesthesia, Hemodynamic Instability
RecruitingPhase 4
Effect of Remimazolam Versus Propofol Total Intravenous Anesthesia on Intraoperative Hemodynamic Stability in Patients Undergoing Thoracic or Abdominal Endovascular Aortic Repair
Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracoabdominal, Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal
Not yet recruiting
Dexametedomidine Ketamine Infusion Versus Dexametedomidine Propofol Infusion in Non-compliant Agitated Patients on Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) Mask Ventilation in the Intensive Care Unit
CPAP Ventilation, Sedation
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.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing End-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) and Lung recruitment manovre (LRM) in people with Hemodynamic Instability and Surgery, run by Humanitas Clinical and Research Center at 1 site in Italy.
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 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: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 11 Feb 2020. 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 Italy. 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?
Results are not available in the source record.
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?
AUC difference (time frame: 10 minutes after fluid challenge administration). 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 NCT03820440, which also lists 2 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 11 Feb 2020; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 7 Nov 2026.