Critically Ill PatientsSETUPNCT04924920
Sigh35 and End-expiratory Occlusion Test (EEOT) for Assessing flUid Responsiveness in Critically Ill Patients Undergoing Pressure Support Ventilation
A study testing SIGH, EEOT and Fluid challenge in people with Critically Ill Patients and Hemodynamic Instability, run by Humanitas Clinical and Research Center at 2 sites in Italy.
Trial summary
The application of a brief SIGH of 4 seconds at 35 cmH20 has shown to reliably predict fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients undergoing pressure support ventilation. The end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) has been also used in the same type of patients, with the same purpose, but in a limited amount of… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Critically Ill Patients, Hemodynamic Instability, Mechanical Ventilation Pressure High
- What is being tested?
- SIGH, EEOT and Fluid challenge
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 60 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesItaly
- Study dates
- 1 Feb 2022to 1 Oct 2024
- 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
None listed.
Who cannot join
- left ventricular ejection fraction <30% or severe valvular dysfunction
- atrial fibrillation
- severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)
- abdominal compartment syndrome
- air leakage through chest drains
- artifacts in arterial waveform
- pathological respiratory patterns due to neurological diseases
- signs of fatigue or respiratory distress
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country.
Italy2 sites, 2 recruiting
- Recruiting
Humanitas Research Hospital
Rozzano, Milano, 20089
Antonio Messina, MD, +390282241, antonio.messina@humanitas.it
Antonio Messina, MD, +3902822414131, mess81rc@gmail.com
- Recruiting
Humanitas Research Hospital
Rozzano, Milano
Antonio Messina, PhD, +390282241, antonio.messina@humanitas.it
About this study
The application of a brief SIGH of 4 seconds at 35 cmH20 has shown to reliably predict fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients undergoing pressure support ventilation.
The end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) has been also used in the same type of patients, with the same purpose, but in a limited amount of studies.
The aim of this study is to compare the reliability of the the two test in assessing fluid responsiveness.
Read the detailed description
Assessing preload dependence in critically ill patients is a challenge for the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) physicians. During controlled mechanical ventilation, dynamic indexes can be applied in non-arrhythmic patients with sufficiently high tidal volume (VT), i.e., >8 ml/kg and non-severely impaired lung compliance. The interplay between mechanical ventilation and hemodynamic is more complex in patients with a spontaneous breathing activity, whose respiratory efforts affect intrathoracic pressure and venous return to the right ventricle (RV).
To overcome these limitations, functional hemodynamic assessment, consisting in maneuvers determining a sudden change in cardiac preload, such as Passive leg raising (PLR) or end-expiratory occlusion test (EEO), represents a valuable means for assessment of fluid responsiveness.
Both PLR and EEO have been successfully utilized for assessing fluid responsiveness, regardless of ventilatory assistance and mode of ventilation. Unfortunately, however, some drawbacks limit the extensive use of these maneuvers in clinical practice. One the one hand, PLR cannot be applied in some clinical situations, such as traumatisms of the hip, legs or lumbar spine, deep venous thrombosis, intracranial or abdominal hypertension. Indeed, a recent large observational study showed PLR to be the most common form of assessment of fluid responsiveness, being used, nonetheless, in only 10.7% of the patients necessitating the assessment of fluid responsiveness. On the other hand, rates of EEO failure as high as 22.5 % have been reported, consequent to visible patient's effort against the occluded airway.
It has been recently successfully tested a new approach for assessing fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing partial ventilatory assistance. It has been proposed that the changes from baseline of systolic arterial pressure (SAP), pulse pressure (PP) and stroke volume index (SVI) in relationship to the airway pressure (Paw) generated during a "sigh" maneuver can predict fluid responsiveness in ICU patients undergoing pressure support ventilation (PSV) In the first "proof of concept" study (performed in 40 hemodynamically unstable ICU patients) three sighs has been tested, in a computer-generated random order, at either 15 (SIGH15), 25 (SIGH25) and 35 (SIGH35) cmH2O of total inspiratory Paw (PEEP + PSV). The results showed that only the variation of the pulse pressure recorded after SIGH35 application successfully predicted fluid responsiveness. [AUC of PP after SIGH35 = 0.91 (0.82 - 0.99); sensitivity 75% (47.6%-92.7%) and specificity 91.6 (73.0%- 98.9%); best threshold value of the ROC curve was -35% from baseline].
Hemodynamic Measurements. All patients will be equipped with a continuous hemodynamic monitoring of arterial waveform.
The primary end point will be assessed by means comparison of the areas (AUC) under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves: considering the data reported in the literature, we assumed that the AUC of the SIGH35 should be of at least 0.85 to be clinically relevant. This value was compared to the null hypothesis (AUC = 0.65; ratio of samples sizes in negative and positive groups of 1:1): the calculated sample size is 50 patients. Considering the possibility of the occurrence extrasystoles during the beat-to-beat evaluation of the EEOT and the SIGH, the sample size is inflated by the 20% to account for the rate of loss of patients during the post-hoc data analysis. The final sample size is 60 patients.
Fluid responsiveness is defined as a CI increase ≥ 10% after FC infusion.
- Being tested
- SIGH, EEOT, Fluid challenge
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
SIGHDiagnostic test
To add the Sigh35 to PSV, the ventilator is set in pressure controlled synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation plus PSV [SIMV (PC) + PS mode], with SIMV rate set a 1/min and inspiratory time of 4 seconds. SIMV (PC) = 35 cmH20 of total inspiratory support (PEEP + PS).
EEOTDiagnostic test
- The EEOT is performed by interrupting the mechanical ventilation for 15 seconds, by using and end-expiratory hold on the ventilator. The ventilator trigger is set at 2 L/min.
Fluid challengeDiagnostic test
Bolus of fluids of 4 ml/kg given within 10 minutes
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention EEO_SIGH | Experimental | Single arm intervention. All the patients will receive the two tests (SIGH and EEOT) in 1:1 random sequence order Receives: Diagnostic Test: SIGH; Diagnostic Test: EEOT; Diagnostic Test: Fluid challenge |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Pulse pressure prediction of fluid responsiveness
Pulse pressure changes after SIGH35 application
Measured: Evaluated before and after SIGH35 (within 1 minute from SIGH35 application)
Stroke volume prediction of fluid responsiveness
Stroke Volume changes after SIGH35 application
Measured: Evaluated before and after SIGH35 (within 1 minute from SIGH35 application)
Secondary outcomes (2)
Pulse pressure prediction of fluid responsiveness
Pulse pressure changes after EEOT application
Measured: Evaluated before and after EEOT (within 1 minute from EEOT application)
Stroke volume prediction of fluid responsiveness
Stroke Volume changes after EEOT application
Measured: Evaluated before and after EEOT (within 1 minute from EEOT application)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted14 Jun 2021
- Study start1 Feb 2022
- Primary completion1 Oct 2024 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Oct 2024 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (3)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Critically Ill PatientsStudies 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
- Cross-over design. The study has one single arm cross-over treatment design. The same patient will be assessed by means of the two tests. The sequence of application will be randomly generated and applied to the patients.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Humanitas Clinical and Research Center
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04924920
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- SIGH_EEOT
- Acronym
- SETUP
- Status last verified
- Mar 2024
- First submitted
- 4 Jun 2021
- Last updated
- 2 Apr 2024
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided: The datasets used and/or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Publications
Messina A, Colombo D, Barra FL, Cammarota G, De Mattei G, Longhini F, Romagnoli S, DellaCorte F, De Backer D, Cecconi M, Navalesi P. Sigh maneuver to enhance assessment of fluid responsiveness during pressure support ventilation. Crit Care. 2019 Jan 28;23(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s13054-018-2294-4.
PubMed 30691523Patroniti N, Foti G, Cortinovis B, Maggioni E, Bigatello LM, Cereda M, Pesenti A. Sigh improves gas exchange and lung volume in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome undergoing pressure support ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2002 Apr;96(4):788-94. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200204000-00004.
PubMed 11964584Monnet X, Osman D, Ridel C, Lamia B, Richard C, Teboul JL. Predicting volume responsiveness by using the end-expiratory occlusion in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med. 2009 Mar;37(3):951-6. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181968fe1.
PubMed 19237902
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Apr 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Sigh35 and End-expiratory Occlusion Test (EEOT) for Assessing flUid Responsiveness in Critically Ill Patients Undergoing Pressure Support Ventilation
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04924920
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SETUP / SIGH_EEOT
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Humanitas Clinical and Research CenterUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Feb 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Oct 2024 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Oct 2024 (estimated)
- First posted
- 14 Jun 2021 (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 application of a brief SIGH of 4 seconds at 35 cmH20 has shown to reliably predict fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients undergoing pressure support ventilation.
The end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) has been also used in the same type of patients, with the same purpose, but in a limited amount of studies.
The aim of this study is to compare the reliability of the the two test in assessing fluid responsiveness.
Detailed description
Assessing preload dependence in critically ill patients is a challenge for the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) physicians. During controlled mechanical ventilation, dynamic indexes can be applied in non-arrhythmic patients with sufficiently high tidal volume (VT), i.e., >8 ml/kg and non-severely impaired lung compliance. The interplay between mechanical ventilation and hemodynamic is more complex in patients with a spontaneous breathing activity, whose respiratory efforts affect intrathoracic pressure and venous return to the right ventricle (RV).
To overcome these limitations, functional hemodynamic assessment, consisting in maneuvers determining a sudden change in cardiac preload, such as Passive leg raising (PLR) or end-expiratory occlusion test (EEO), represents a valuable means for assessment of fluid responsiveness.
Both PLR and EEO have been successfully utilized for assessing fluid responsiveness, regardless of ventilatory assistance and mode of ventilation. Unfortunately, however, some drawbacks limit the extensive use of these maneuvers in clinical practice. One the one hand, PLR cannot be applied in some clinical situations, such as traumatisms of the hip, legs or lumbar spine, deep venous thrombosis, intracranial or abdominal hypertension. Indeed, a recent large observational study showed PLR to be the most common form of assessment of fluid responsiveness, being used, nonetheless, in only 10.7% of the patients necessitating the assessment of fluid responsiveness. On the other hand, rates of EEO failure as high as 22.5 % have been reported, consequent to visible patient's effort against the occluded airway.
It has been recently successfully tested a new approach for assessing fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing partial ventilatory assistance. It has been proposed that the changes from baseline of systolic arterial pressure (SAP), pulse pressure (PP) and stroke volume index (SVI) in relationship to the airway pressure (Paw) generated during a "sigh" maneuver can predict fluid responsiveness in ICU patients undergoing pressure support ventilation (PSV) In the first "proof of concept" study (performed in 40 hemodynamically unstable ICU patients) three sighs has been tested, in a computer-generated random order, at either 15 (SIGH15), 25 (SIGH25) and 35 (SIGH35) cmH2O of total inspiratory Paw (PEEP + PSV). The results showed that only the variation of the pulse pressure recorded after SIGH35 application successfully predicted fluid responsiveness. [AUC of PP after SIGH35 = 0.91 (0.82 - 0.99); sensitivity 75% (47.6%-92.7%) and specificity 91.6 (73.0%- 98.9%); best threshold value of the ROC curve was -35% from baseline].
Hemodynamic Measurements. All patients will be equipped with a continuous hemodynamic monitoring of arterial waveform.
The primary end point will be assessed by means comparison of the areas (AUC) under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves: considering the data reported in the literature, we assumed that the AUC of the SIGH35 should be of at least 0.85 to be clinically relevant. This value was compared to the null hypothesis (AUC = 0.65; ratio of samples sizes in negative and positive groups of 1:1): the calculated sample size is 50 patients. Considering the possibility of the occurrence extrasystoles during the beat-to-beat evaluation of the EEOT and the SIGH, the sample size is inflated by the 20% to account for the rate of loss of patients during the post-hoc data analysis. The final sample size is 60 patients.
Fluid responsiveness is defined as a CI increase ≥ 10% after FC infusion.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
- Model description
- Cross-over design. The study has one single arm cross-over treatment design. The same patient will be assessed by means of the two tests. The sequence of application will be randomly generated and applied to the patients.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention EEO_SIGH | Experimental | Diagnostic Test: SIGH, Diagnostic Test: EEOT, Diagnostic Test: Fluid challengeSingle arm intervention. All the patients will receive the two tests (SIGH and EEOT) in 1:1 random sequence order |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (0 listed)
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- left ventricular ejection fraction <30% or severe valvular dysfunction
- atrial fibrillation
- severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)
- abdominal compartment syndrome
- air leakage through chest drains
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 |
|---|---|---|
| SIGHTo add the Sigh35 to PSV, the ventilator is set in pressure controlled synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation plus PSV [SIMV (PC) + PS mode], with SIMV rate set a 1/min and inspiratory time of 4 seconds. SIMV (PC) = 35 cmH20 of total inspiratory support (PEEP + PS). | Diagnostic test | Intervention EEO_SIGH |
| EEOT• The EEOT is performed by interrupting the mechanical ventilation for 15 seconds, by using and end-expiratory hold on the ventilator. The ventilator trigger is set at 2 L/min. | Diagnostic test | Intervention EEO_SIGH |
| Fluid challengeBolus of fluids of 4 ml/kg given within 10 minutes | Diagnostic test | Intervention EEO_SIGH |
Primary outcome
Pulse pressure prediction of fluid responsiveness
Time frame: Evaluated before and after SIGH35 (within 1 minute from SIGH35 application)
Pulse pressure changes after SIGH35 application
Stroke volume prediction of fluid responsiveness
Time frame: Evaluated before and after SIGH35 (within 1 minute from SIGH35 application)
Stroke Volume changes after SIGH35 application
2 secondary outcomes
Pulse pressure prediction of fluid responsiveness
Time frame: Evaluated before and after EEOT (within 1 minute from EEOT application)
Stroke volume prediction of fluid responsiveness
Time frame: Evaluated before and after EEOT (within 1 minute from EEOT application)
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 2 Apr 2024.
- Background: PubMed 30691523Messina A, Colombo D, Barra FL, Cammarota G, De Mattei G, Longhini F, Romagnoli S, DellaCorte F, De Backer D, Cecconi M, Navalesi P. Sigh maneuver to enhance assessment of fluid responsiveness during pressure support ventilation. Crit Care. 2019 Jan 28;23(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s13054-018-2294-4.
- Background: PubMed 11964584Patroniti N, Foti G, Cortinovis B, Maggioni E, Bigatello LM, Cereda M, Pesenti A. Sigh improves gas exchange and lung volume in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome undergoing pressure support ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2002 Apr;96(4):788-94. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200204000-00004.
- Background: PubMed 19237902Monnet X, Osman D, Ridel C, Lamia B, Richard C, Teboul JL. Predicting volume responsiveness by using the end-expiratory occlusion in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med. 2009 Mar;37(3):951-6. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181968fe1.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided. The datasets used and/or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Related trials for Critically Ill Patients
RecruitingPhase 4
A Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Extended and Intermittent Infusion of Beta-lactams in Critically Ill Paediatric Patients
Infection, Sepsis
Recruiting
Development and Preliminary Validation of Intelligent Video Laryngoscope for Emergency Use
Critically Ill Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation
Active, not recruiting
Weighted Blankets for Agitation in Adults in the Intensive Care Unit
Psychomotor Agitation, Critical Illness
RecruitingObservational study
Predicting Extubation Failure Using Machine Learning
Extubation Failure, Critical Illness
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Ultrasound-Calibrated Pulse Contour Cardiac Output Monitoring: Value and Accuracy in Hemodynamic Care
Sepsis, Circulatory Instability
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.
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing SIGH, EEOT and Fluid challenge in people with Critically Ill Patients and Hemodynamic Instability, run by Humanitas Clinical and Research Center at 2 sites 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 0 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: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 2 Apr 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites 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?
Each site lists its own contact: choose the nearest one under Trial locations. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Pulse pressure prediction of fluid responsiveness (time frame: Evaluated before and after SIGH35 (within 1 minute from SIGH35 application)). 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 NCT04924920, which also lists 3 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 2 Apr 2024.