Critical IllnessMIRACLENCT05497505
Evaluation of Clinical Implementation of Machine Learning Based Decision Support for ICU Discharge
An observational study of Critical Illness, run by Patrick J. Thoral at 2 sites in Netherlands.
Trial summary
Unexpected intensive care unit (ICU) readmission is associated with longer length of stay and increased mortality. Bedside decision support may prevent readmission and mortality and may allow optimizing ICU capacity. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Critical Illness
- What is being tested?
- Pacmed Critical
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- How many people
- 1,500 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesNetherlands
- Study dates
- 10 Mar 2022to Jun 2023
- 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
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Adult (age >= 18 years) patients admitted to Intensive Care unit
Who may be able to join
- Admission to intensive care or medium care unit
- Age >= 18 years
- ICU admission > 4 hours
- Eligible for discharge at the discretion of the treatment team by not requiring treatment that can only be provided on the ICU (including but not limited to mechanical ventilation, high flow oxygen, vasopressor/inotropes, continuous renal replacement therapy).
Who cannot join
- No-return (to ICU/MCU) policy and/or palliative/end-of-life care
- Coronavirus disease (COVID)-19
- Patients directly transferred to other hospitals after discharge
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country.
Netherlands2 sites, 2 recruiting
- Recruiting
Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc
Amsterdam, North Holland, 1081HV
Patrick J Thoral, MD, +31 20 444 3924, p.thoral@amsterdamumc.nl
Paul WG Elbers, MD, PhD, p.elbers@amsterdamumc.nl
- Recruiting
Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC)
Leiden, South Holland, 2333 ZA
Anne AH de Hond, MSc, +31 71 526 9111, a.a.h.de_hond@lumc.nl
Sesmu (M.S.) Arbous, MD, PhD, m.s.arbous@lumc.nl
About this study
Official title: Machine Learning in Intensive Care to Reduce Adverse Events, Complications, and Life-threatening Events (MIRACLE): Evaluation of Clinical Implementation of Machine Learning Based Decision Support for ICU Discharge
Unexpected intensive care unit (ICU) readmission is associated with longer length of stay and increased mortality. Bedside decision support may prevent readmission and mortality and may allow optimizing ICU capacity. Using a recently developed and prospectively validated machine learning model that predicts ICU readmission and mortality rate after ICU discharge and shows trends in these predictions over time, we will evaluate the implementation of the European conformity (CE)-marked software based on this model (Pacmed Critical, Pacmed, Amsterdam) by investigating whether the software improves diagnostic accuracy compared to routine clinical evaluation by the treatment team and whether availability of the information from this software leads to changes in discharge management (either postponing or advancing discharge) for patients considered eligible for discharge.
Read the detailed description
Rationale: Unexpected intensive care unit (ICU) readmission is associated with longer length of stay and increased mortality. Bedside decision support may prevent readmission and mortality and may allow optimizing ICU capacity. Several attempts to develop prediction models to prevent ICU readmission and/or death after discharge from the ICU for general adult critical care patients have been made previously. Although the performance of Machine Learning models versus physicians has been studied for diagnosing in medical imaging, there is scarce literature prospectively comparing physician's predictive performance when it comes to patient outcomes. In addition, currently, no readmission model is widely implemented nor tested to support ICU discharge
Aim: Using a recently developed and prospectively validated machine learning model that predicts ICU readmission and mortality rate after ICU discharge and shows trends in these predictions over time, we will evaluate the implementation of the European conformity (CE)-marked software based on this model (Pacmed Critical, Pacmed, Amsterdam) by investigating whether the software improves diagnostic accuracy compared to routine clinical evaluation by the treatment team and whether availability of the information from this software leads to changes in discharge management (either postponing or advancing discharge) for patients considered eligible for discharge. In addition, since this is a novel approach in supporting discharge decision support, information will be collected from end-users with respect to interpretability and usability. Furthermore, model and software improvement will take place during this pilot phase, e.g. with respect to out-of-distribution detection for recognizing patients that are insufficiently similar to the data the model was developed on. Results from this study will be used to develop a clinical trial to evaluate effect on readmission rate and/or mortality after ICU discharge, if considered feasible, based on the effect the software has on potentially changing intensivist decisions, and the estimated effect on readmission and mortality during the On-period.
Design: Before-and-after pilot implementation study.
For this evaluation, data will be collected both in the periods in which the Pacmed Critical software will not be available to end-users (Off-period, 3-6 months) and during the actual implementation phase where end-users are able to use the software at potential ICU discharge (On-period, 3-6 months). After the implementation phase an additional Off-period (3-6 months) will follow.
After the morning hand-off procedure the treatment team consisting of intensivists, fellows in intensive care medicine, medical residents, ICU nurses, and consulting medical specialists ('treatment team'), will determine which patients appear to be eligible for discharge to the nursing (non-ICU) ward. For those patients, the attending intensivist will digitally document the following:
For both On- and Off-periods:
- 'ready-for-discharge' status, based on the collective evaluation by the treatment team, taking into account the care that can be provided by the receiving ward based on local ICU discharge protocols. Patients that were initially considered 'eligible for ICU discharge' may thus ultimately be considered and documented as 'not ready-for-discharge'.
- destination nursing ward
- prediction for risk of readmission and/or mortality within 7 days (scale 0-100%), assuming the patient would be discharged
- main factors contributing to that decision
- Self-reporting of confidence of estimation (low-medium-high).
- For patients with a 'ready-for-discharge' decision that were not transferred, at the end of day, to the regular ward the reason for that:
- 'Clinical deterioration'
- 'Insufficient bed capacity nursing ward'
- 'Insufficient isolation capacity nursing ward'
Additionally, during On-periods after reviewing the additional information from Pacmed Critical by the treatment team, the previous questions will be asked again to evaluate if re-evaluation with decision support had effect on that decision, i.e. the 'ready-for-discharge' status was changed.
During every period the final decision to discharge patients from the ICU is at the discretion of the lead unit intensivist responsible for the medical care of those patients and could change based on alterations in clinical condition of the patient (e.g. deterioration) and/or reasons that require re-evaluation of patients eligible for discharge, including the need to admit other patients.
Pseudonymized near real-time data will be extracted in a combined production/research database to perform predictions. The predictions accessed by end-users will be filed together with the additional data collected as specified above. In addition the predicted endpoint (ICU readmission and mortality within 7 days after discharge) will be collected for all patients actually discharged from the ICU.
Depending on whether the participating hospital has already passed the technical implementation (i.e. passed device interface and end-user acceptance) after start of the first Off-period Pacmed Critical will be either used prospectively to make the predictions and store the results at the moment of study documentation of the attending intensivist, or retrospectively. The On-period can only commence after the hospital has fully passed technical implementation in accordance with the CE-documentation.
- Conditions
- Critical Illness
- Being tested
- Pacmed Critical
- Medical subject headings
- Critical Illness
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Pacmed CriticalDevice
For patients in the On-period, Pacmed Critical will be available as decision support after initial eligibility screening for ICU discharge by treatment team
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Discharged patients with decision support (On-period) | For patients that have been evaluated as eligible for discharge: the current ICU discharge process will be followed based on routine clinical evaluation by the treatment team in combination with ICU discharge protocols. In addition, Pacmed Critical will be used as an additional source of information. Final discharge decision will be made by lead unit intensivist responsible for medical care. Receives: Device: Pacmed Critical | |
| Discharged patients without decision support (Off-period) | For patients that have been evaluated as eligible for discharge: the current ICU discharge process will be followed based on routine clinical evaluation by the treatment team in combination with ICU discharge protocols. Final discharge decision will be made by lead unit intensivist responsible for medical care. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC)
comparison of AUROC between Pacmed Critical model and intensivists estimation in predicting ICU readmission and/or mortality within 7 days following ICU discharge
Measured: 7 days after ICU discharge
calibration curve (goodness-of-fit)
comparison of calibration curves (binned estimations) of Pacmed Critical model and intensivists estimation in predicting ICU readmission and/or mortality within 7 days following ICU discharge
Measured: 7 days after ICU discharge
Secondary outcomes (9)
Number of changes in ready-for-discharge decision after reviewing decision support
Change of ready-for-discharge decision after review of decision support software Pacmed Critical
Measured: through study completion (estimated 1 year)
Readmission rate within 7 days after ICU discharge
Comparison of outcome between On an Off-periods
Measured: 7 days after ICU discharge
Mortality rate within 7 days after ICU discharge
Comparison of outcome between On an Off-periods
Measured: 7 days after ICU discharge
Length of ICU stay
Comparison of outcome between On an Off-periods
Measured: up to 90 days after ICU admission
Length of hospital stay
Comparison of outcome between On an Off-periods
Measured: up to 90 days after hospital admission
Estimation of intra-cluster correlation
Estimation of intra-cluster correlation
Measured: through study completion (estimated 1 year)
Average score on the 3-point Likert-scale 'confidence of risk estimation' with and without decision support
Evaluate whether decision support has effect on 'confidence of risk estimation'
Measured: through study completion (estimated 1 year)
Number of risk determinants, categorized by organ system as determined by physicians vs model
Differences between physician derived risk and by model derived determinants using Shapley additive explanations (SHAP)
Measured: through study completion (estimated 1 year)
Software usage metrics
Time spent on user interface (UI) elements
Measured: through study completion (estimated 1 year)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted11 Aug 2022
- Study start10 Mar 2022
- Primary completionJun 2023 (estimated)
- Study completionJun 2023 (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 Critical IllnessStudies 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
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 1,500 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Patrick J. Thoral
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Leiden University Medical Center
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Patrick J. Thoral, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc
- Investigators
- Patrick J Thoral, MD, Study director, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05497505
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2021.0528
- Acronym
- MIRACLE
- Status last verified
- Aug 2022
- First submitted
- 25 Jul 2022
- Last updated
- 11 Aug 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Pseudonomized data collected for predictions, evaluations/predictions by intensivists, predictions by model (Pacmed Critical)
Publications
Thoral PJ, Fornasa M, de Bruin DP, Tonutti M, Hovenkamp H, Driessen RH, Girbes ARJ, Hoogendoorn M, Elbers PWG. Explainable Machine Learning on AmsterdamUMCdb for ICU Discharge Decision Support: Uniting Intensivists and Data Scientists. Crit Care Explor. 2021 Sep 10;3(9):e0529. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000529. eCollection 2021 Sep.
PubMed 34589713Thoral PJ, Peppink JM, Driessen RH, Sijbrands EJG, Kompanje EJO, Kaplan L, Bailey H, Kesecioglu J, Cecconi M, Churpek M, Clermont G, van der Schaar M, Ercole A, Girbes ARJ, Elbers PWG; Amsterdam University Medical Centers Database (AmsterdamUMCdb) Collaborators and the SCCM/ESICM Joint Data Science Task Force. Sharing ICU Patient Data Responsibly Under the Society of Critical Care Medicine/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Joint Data Science Collaboration: The Amsterdam University Medical Centers Database (AmsterdamUMCdb) Example. Crit Care Med. 2021 Jun 1;49(6):e563-e577. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004916.
PubMed 33625129
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 Aug 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Machine Learning in Intensive Care to Reduce Adverse Events, Complications, and Life-threatening Events (MIRACLE): Evaluation of Clinical Implementation of Machine Learning Based Decision Support for ICU Discharge
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05497505
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- MIRACLE / 2021.0528
- Conditions
- Critical Illness
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 1,500 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Patrick J. ThoralUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Leiden University Medical Center
- Study start
- 10 Mar 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Jun 2023 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Jun 2023 (estimated)
- First posted
- 11 Aug 2022 (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.
Unexpected intensive care unit (ICU) readmission is associated with longer length of stay and increased mortality. Bedside decision support may prevent readmission and mortality and may allow optimizing ICU capacity. Using a recently developed and prospectively validated machine learning model that predicts ICU readmission and mortality rate after ICU discharge and shows trends in these predictions over time, we will evaluate the implementation of the European conformity (CE)-marked software based on this model (Pacmed Critical, Pacmed, Amsterdam) by investigating whether the software improves diagnostic accuracy compared to routine clinical evaluation by the treatment team and whether availability of the information from this software leads to changes in discharge management (either postponing or advancing discharge) for patients considered eligible for discharge.
Detailed description
Rationale: Unexpected intensive care unit (ICU) readmission is associated with longer length of stay and increased mortality. Bedside decision support may prevent readmission and mortality and may allow optimizing ICU capacity. Several attempts to develop prediction models to prevent ICU readmission and/or death after discharge from the ICU for general adult critical care patients have been made previously. Although the performance of Machine Learning models versus physicians has been studied for diagnosing in medical imaging, there is scarce literature prospectively comparing physician's predictive performance when it comes to patient outcomes. In addition, currently, no readmission model is widely implemented nor tested to support ICU discharge
Aim: Using a recently developed and prospectively validated machine learning model that predicts ICU readmission and mortality rate after ICU discharge and shows trends in these predictions over time, we will evaluate the implementation of the European conformity (CE)-marked software based on this model (Pacmed Critical, Pacmed, Amsterdam) by investigating whether the software improves diagnostic accuracy compared to routine clinical evaluation by the treatment team and whether availability of the information from this software leads to changes in discharge management (either postponing or advancing discharge) for patients considered eligible for discharge. In addition, since this is a novel approach in supporting discharge decision support, information will be collected from end-users with respect to interpretability and usability. Furthermore, model and software improvement will take place during this pilot phase, e.g. with respect to out-of-distribution detection for recognizing patients that are insufficiently similar to the data the model was developed on. Results from this study will be used to develop a clinical trial to evaluate effect on readmission rate and/or mortality after ICU discharge, if considered feasible, based on the effect the software has on potentially changing intensivist decisions, and the estimated effect on readmission and mortality during the On-period.
Design: Before-and-after pilot implementation study.
For this evaluation, data will be collected both in the periods in which the Pacmed Critical software will not be available to end-users (Off-period, 3-6 months) and during the actual implementation phase where end-users are able to use the software at potential ICU discharge (On-period, 3-6 months). After the implementation phase an additional Off-period (3-6 months) will follow.
After the morning hand-off procedure the treatment team consisting of intensivists, fellows in intensive care medicine, medical residents, ICU nurses, and consulting medical specialists ('treatment team'), will determine which patients appear to be eligible for discharge to the nursing (non-ICU) ward. For those patients, the attending intensivist will digitally document the following:
For both On- and Off-periods:
- 'ready-for-discharge' status, based on the collective evaluation by the treatment team, taking into account the care that can be provided by the receiving ward based on local ICU discharge protocols. Patients that were initially considered 'eligible for ICU discharge' may thus ultimately be considered and documented as 'not ready-for-discharge'.
- destination nursing ward
- prediction for risk of readmission and/or mortality within 7 days (scale 0-100%), assuming the patient would be discharged
- main factors contributing to that decision
- Self-reporting of confidence of estimation (low-medium-high).
- For patients with a 'ready-for-discharge' decision that were not transferred, at the end of day, to the regular ward the reason for that:
- 'Clinical deterioration'
- 'Insufficient bed capacity nursing ward'
- 'Insufficient isolation capacity nursing ward'
Additionally, during On-periods after reviewing the additional information from Pacmed Critical by the treatment team, the previous questions will be asked again to evaluate if re-evaluation with decision support had effect on that decision, i.e. the 'ready-for-discharge' status was changed.
During every period the final decision to discharge patients from the ICU is at the discretion of the lead unit intensivist responsible for the medical care of those patients and could change based on alterations in clinical condition of the patient (e.g. deterioration) and/or reasons that require re-evaluation of patients eligible for discharge, including the need to admit other patients.
Pseudonymized near real-time data will be extracted in a combined production/research database to perform predictions. The predictions accessed by end-users will be filed together with the additional data collected as specified above. In addition the predicted endpoint (ICU readmission and mortality within 7 days after discharge) will be collected for all patients actually discharged from the ICU.
Depending on whether the participating hospital has already passed the technical implementation (i.e. passed device interface and end-user acceptance) after start of the first Off-period Pacmed Critical will be either used prospectively to make the predictions and store the results at the moment of study documentation of the attending intensivist, or retrospectively. The On-period can only commence after the hospital has fully passed technical implementation in accordance with the CE-documentation.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Discharged patients with decision support (On-period) | – | Device: Pacmed CriticalFor patients that have been evaluated as eligible for discharge: the current ICU discharge process will be followed based on routine clinical evaluation by the treatment team in combination with ICU discharge protocols. In addition, Pacmed Critical will be used as an additional source of information. Final discharge decision will be made by lead unit intensivist responsible for medical care. |
| Discharged patients without decision support (Off-period) | – | –For patients that have been evaluated as eligible for discharge: the current ICU discharge process will be followed based on routine clinical evaluation by the treatment team in combination with ICU discharge protocols. Final discharge decision will be made by lead unit intensivist responsible for medical care. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Adult (age >= 18 years) patients admitted to Intensive Care unit
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Admission to intensive care or medium care unit
- Age >= 18 years
- ICU admission > 4 hours
- Eligible for discharge at the discretion of the treatment team by not requiring treatment that can only be provided on the ICU (including but not limited to mechanical ventilation, high flow oxygen, vasopressor/inotropes, continuous renal replacement therapy).
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- No-return (to ICU/MCU) policy and/or palliative/end-of-life care
- Coronavirus disease (COVID)-19
- Patients directly transferred to other hospitals after discharge
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Pacmed CriticalFor patients in the On-period, Pacmed Critical will be available as decision support after initial eligibility screening for ICU discharge by treatment team | Device | Discharged patients with decision support (On-period) |
Primary outcome
area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC)
Time frame: 7 days after ICU discharge
comparison of AUROC between Pacmed Critical model and intensivists estimation in predicting ICU readmission and/or mortality within 7 days following ICU discharge
calibration curve (goodness-of-fit)
Time frame: 7 days after ICU discharge
comparison of calibration curves (binned estimations) of Pacmed Critical model and intensivists estimation in predicting ICU readmission and/or mortality within 7 days following ICU discharge
9 secondary outcomes
Number of changes in ready-for-discharge decision after reviewing decision support
Time frame: through study completion (estimated 1 year)
Readmission rate within 7 days after ICU discharge
Time frame: 7 days after ICU discharge
Mortality rate within 7 days after ICU discharge
Time frame: 7 days after ICU discharge
Length of ICU stay
Time frame: up to 90 days after ICU admission
Length of hospital stay
Time frame: up to 90 days after hospital admission
Estimation of intra-cluster correlation
Time frame: through study completion (estimated 1 year)
Average score on the 3-point Likert-scale 'confidence of risk estimation' with and without decision support
Time frame: through study completion (estimated 1 year)
Number of risk determinants, categorized by organ system as determined by physicians vs model
Time frame: through study completion (estimated 1 year)
Software usage metrics
Time frame: through study completion (estimated 1 year)
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 11 Aug 2022.
- Background: PubMed 34589713Thoral PJ, Fornasa M, de Bruin DP, Tonutti M, Hovenkamp H, Driessen RH, Girbes ARJ, Hoogendoorn M, Elbers PWG. Explainable Machine Learning on AmsterdamUMCdb for ICU Discharge Decision Support: Uniting Intensivists and Data Scientists. Crit Care Explor. 2021 Sep 10;3(9):e0529. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000529. eCollection 2021 Sep.
- Background: PubMed 33625129Thoral PJ, Peppink JM, Driessen RH, Sijbrands EJG, Kompanje EJO, Kaplan L, Bailey H, Kesecioglu J, Cecconi M, Churpek M, Clermont G, van der Schaar M, Ercole A, Girbes ARJ, Elbers PWG; Amsterdam University Medical Centers Database (AmsterdamUMCdb) Collaborators and the SCCM/ESICM Joint Data Science Task Force. Sharing ICU Patient Data Responsibly Under the Society of Critical Care Medicine/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Joint Data Science Collaboration: The Amsterdam University Medical Centers Database (AmsterdamUMCdb) Example. Crit Care Med. 2021 Jun 1;49(6):e563-e577. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004916.
- Sponsor Corporate WebsiteLink provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Pseudonomized data collected for predictions, evaluations/predictions by intensivists, predictions by model (Pacmed Critical)
Related trials for Critical Illness
RecruitingPhase 4
Effect of a Furosemide Stress Test-Guided Strategy on Liberation From Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy in Critically Ill Patients With Acute Kidney Injury
Acute Kidney Injury
Not yet recruiting
Building Resilience Through Anxiety Virtual Education in PICU Survivors
Critical Illness Recovery, Mental Health
Active, not recruiting
PICU Up!: A Pilot Stepped-wedge Trial of a Multicomponent Early Mobility Intervention for Critically Ill Children
Critical Illness
RecruitingPhase 3
A Trial of Adjunctive Fludrocortisone (50mcg, 100mcg or Placebo) in Critically Ill Patients With Septic Shock Receiving Hydrocortisone, Evaluating Survival and Functional Recovery and the Influence of Transcriptomic Response
Septic Shock
Not yet recruiting
Feasibility Study on the Use of a Walking Exoskeleton in the Intensive Care Unit
Neuromuscular Disease in Post-Intensive Care Syndrome
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.
Patrick J Thoral, MD study director
Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Critical Illness, run by Patrick J. Thoral at 2 sites in Netherlands.
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 4 inclusion and 3 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 Aug 2022. 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 Netherlands. 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?
Contact Patrick J Thoral, MD (+31 20 444 3924, p.thoral@amsterdamumc.nl), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) (time frame: 7 days after ICU discharge). 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 NCT05497505, 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 Aug 2022.