Mechanical Ventilation ComplicationNCT06186557
Automated Detection of Patient Ventilator Asynchrony Using Pes Signal
An observational study of Mechanical Ventilation Complication, run by Leiden University Medical Center at 1 site in Netherlands.
Trial summary
Rationale: Patient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA) in mechanical ventilation is associated with adverse patient outcome such as a prolonged stay in the ICU and even mortality. The prevalence of asynchronies is, however, difficult to quantify. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 100 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Mechanical Ventilation Complication
- How many people
- 50 participants
- Where
- 1 siteNetherlands
- Study dates
- 1 Feb 2023to 30 Apr 2025
- 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 to 100 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: This study will recruit as much patients as possible, but at least 50 patients, during the study duration. After every 25 patients the algorithm will be tested for improvement. The study population consists of ICU patients on mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory failure or with a ventilation duration of at least 24 hours that are equipped with an esophageal balloon catheter. Patients are recruited in the ICU of the LUMC.
Who may be able to join
- admission to the ICU of the LUMC;
- age of 18 years or older;
- intubated and receiving mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory failure or with a ventilation duration of at least 24 hours; and
- equipped with an esophageal balloon catheter
Who cannot join
- after recent pneumectomy or lobectomy;
- no informed consent
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Netherlands1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Leiden University Medical Centre
Leiden, South Holland, 2333 ZA
Abraham Schoe, MD, PhD, +32-715265018, a.schoe@lumc.nl
Abraham Schoe, MD, PhD
About this study
Official title: Automated Detection of Patient Ventilator Asynchrony Using Pes Signal A Feasibility Study Towards a Detection Algorithm
Rationale: Patient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA) in mechanical ventilation is associated with adverse patient outcome such as a prolonged stay in the ICU and even mortality. The prevalence of asynchronies is, however, difficult to quantify. It is common to use only the pressure and flow signal of the ventilator to detect asynchronies. The detection method is often based on definitions. The investigators will use new techniques (esophageal pressure signal and machine learning (ML)) to improve detection and quantification of patient-ventilator asynchronies. The hypothesis is that an algorithm which uses the Pes signal and ML to detect and quantify asynchronies is superior to previous techniques.
Objective: 1. To develop an asynchrony detection algorithm based on pressure, flow and Pes signal using ML. 2. To develop a second algorithm with the same ML technique based on pressure an flow signal only. 3. To compare the performance of these models in comparison with an expert team and with each other.
Read more
Study design: The investigators will collect internal data from the ventilator connected to patients on mechanical ventilation (population described below). First, the investigators will, with a dedicated expert team, identify and annotate the asynchronies based on visual inspection of the pressure, flow and Pes signal. Second, the investigators will develop an ML algorithm which will be trained with the annotated data from the visual inspection. Third, the performance of the AI algorithm will be compared with the performance of the expert panel using newly obtained data. Fourth, the performance of the AI algorithm will be compared with the second algorithm which uses the pressure and flow signal only.
Study population: All patients admitted to the adult ICU of the LUMC on mechanical ventilation who are ventilated > 24 hours and are equipped with an esophageal balloon catheter.
Intervention (if applicable): None.
Main study parameters/endpoints: The performance of the detection algorithm.
Read the detailed description
- INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE Mechanical ventilation should unload the respiratory muscles, provide adequate gas exchange and should be safe, i.e., harm due to mechanical ventilation should be reduced to a minimum. To achieve this the interaction between the ventilator and the patient is preferentially synchronous. Ventilator settings not being synchronized with patient respiratory drive or activity is a phenomenon known as patient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA). PVA may induce several deleterious effects.1 Studies have shown asynchronies to be associated with patient discomfort, increased work of breathing, prolonged weaning, and in one study, even increased mortality. Monitoring PVA however is difficult. Clinicians often have to rely on physical examination of the patient as well as visual inspection of pressure, flow and volume waveforms to identify an asynchrony.6 The sensitivity and positive predictive value of analyzing breath-to-breath waveforms are very low (22% and 32%, respectively).1 Artifacts such as cardiac oscillation may mimic asynchronies, and there are times when clinicians standing at the bedside are unable to distinguish between asynchronies and artifacts with certainty.6 Furthermore, detection of PVA is dependent of bedside examination. This challenge leads to the desire of developing effective automated PVA recognition algorithms.7 Various automated algorithms have been developed, however with a variable performance.1 For a correct analysis of asynchronies, the use of an esophageal balloon catheter, which measures the esophageal pressure (Pes), or a catheter which measures the electrical activity of the diaphragm, is necessary.1 Since the use of Pes catheters, it is possible to describe other forms of PVA, such as reverse triggering, which is an asynchrony in which the ventilator triggers the patient.8 Until recently, however, the esophageal catheter has not been routinely used in daily practice but more as a research tool. Since the introduction of personalized medicine, clinicians have gained interest in esophageal manometry to better titrate care to the unique physiology of a patient.9 There are in the current literature no reports of PAV detection algorithms that use the Pes signal for detection. In the LUMC the investigators use the esophageal catheter in all patients admitted with acute respiratory failure and in patients ventilated for more than 48 hours per protocol. The esophageal signal gives the opportunity to detect asynchronies more easily than without. The investigators therefore hypothesize that an algorithm based on the esophageal signal will perform better than an algorithm that only uses other ventilator waveforms.
- OBJECTIVES 2.1 Primary Objective The primary objective of this study is to develop an asynchrony detection algorithm based on pressure, flow and Pes signals of patient data using ML. 2.2 Secondary Objectives Secondary objectives are to validate the detection algorithm by comparing its performance with the assessment of the expert panel and to compare its performance with the performance of a second algorithm which is based on pressure- and flow signals only.
- STUDY DESIGN This study will take place at the Intensive Care Unit of the LUMC. First, internal data of adult ICU patients on mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory failure or with a ventilation duration of at least 24 hours and that are equipped with an esophageal balloon catheter will be collected from the ventilator. The data of interest include pressure, flow and Pes signals of the ventilation. It is necessary to collect as much data as possible as this is required for the development of the algorithm. A minimum of 50 patients will be included with from each a ventilation recording between 4 and 8 hours, which amounts to 200 - 400 hours of mechanical ventilation recording.
The following labels will be assigned to the data:
- Trigger asynchrony (early (reversed), false, failed)
- Cycle (early, late )
- Double trigger (combination of trigger and cycle problem)
The data will be checked for regions of interest. Regions of interest are regions in which a lot of asynchronies can be visually detected. These regions of interest will be annotated and labeled by three independent experts with a lot of experience in the field. If two of the three experts agree on a asynchrony label than the breath cycle will be included for construction of the model. An equivalent amount of normal breaths will also be used to train the algorithm.
The data will be separated in two datasets. The first set will contain the first half of the patients, i.e. the patients with an odd research number. The second set will contain the second half of the patients (patients with an even research number). Research numbers are allocated consecutively to patients after consent.
The machine learning (ML) technique that will be used is a Convolutional Neural Network which will be developed in cooperation with the Technical University of Delft (Technical Medicine and Dr. D.M.J. Tax). The algorithm will be developed based on this training data and the purpose is that the algorithm learns to generalize from the training set.
The algorithm will be validated on the test data for the detection of PAV. The test data will also be annotated by the expert panel. The algorithm's detection performance will be compared with the annotation of the expert panel on the same data.
Together with the development of the main algorithm, which is based on three signals (flow, pressure and esophageal pressure (Pes)), another algorithm based on two signals (flow and pressure) will be developed with the same AI technique. This second algorithm has most in common with previous described algorithms in the current literature. The performance of the first algorithm will be compared with the second algorithm using the test data (second part of the data) in order to investigate if addition of the Pes signal is superior in the detection of asynchronies.
- Conditions
- Mechanical Ventilation Complication
- Being tested
- No intervention
- Keywords
- detection algorithm, mechanical ventilation, patient-ventilator interaction, convolutional neural network
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
No interventionOther
No intervention
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Performance of detection algorithm
Model evaluation:
The first part of the dataset will be used to construct/train the model. The second part of the dataset will be used to evaluate the performance of the model. The labels attained by the experts are considered the ground truth. The labeling of the algorithm will be compared with the labels of the experts to assess the performance of the algorithm.
The performance of the primary algorithm will be compared with the performance of the second algorithm, which is based only on pressure and flow signals. The performance of the second algorithm will be assessed as described above.
The agreement between the experts will be assessed using Fleiss's kappa, which evaluates the agreement between more than two raters.
Measured: 8 hours
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted2 Jan 2024
- Study start1 Feb 2023
- Primary completion31 Dec 2024 (estimated)
- Study completion30 Apr 2025 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (7)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Mechanical Ventilation ComplicationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Leiden University Medical CenterThe 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
- Other
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Leiden University Medical Center
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Abraham Schoe, MD, PhD., Leiden University Medical Center
- Investigators
- Abraham Schoe, MD, PhD, Principal investigator, Leiden University Medical Centre
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06186557
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2202-061
- Status last verified
- Mar 2024
- First submitted
- 1 Mar 2023
- Last updated
- 13 Mar 2024
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Esperanza JA, Sarlabous L, de Haro C, Magrans R, Lopez-Aguilar J, Blanch L. Monitoring Asynchrony During Invasive Mechanical Ventilation. Respir Care. 2020 Jun;65(6):847-869. doi: 10.4187/respcare.07404.
PubMed 32457175Shi ZH, Jonkman A, de Vries H, Jansen D, Ottenheijm C, Girbes A, Spoelstra-de Man A, Zhou JX, Brochard L, Heunks L. Expiratory muscle dysfunction in critically ill patients: towards improved understanding. Intensive Care Med. 2019 Aug;45(8):1061-1071. doi: 10.1007/s00134-019-05664-4. Epub 2019 Jun 24.
PubMed 31236639Doorduin J, Roesthuis LH, Jansen D, van der Hoeven JG, van Hees HWH, Heunks LMA. Respiratory Muscle Effort during Expiration in Successful and Failed Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2018 Sep;129(3):490-501. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002256.
PubMed 29771711Gilstrap D, MacIntyre N. Patient-ventilator interactions. Implications for clinical management. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013 Nov 1;188(9):1058-68. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201212-2214CI.
PubMed 24070493Blanch L, Villagra A, Sales B, Montanya J, Lucangelo U, Lujan M, Garcia-Esquirol O, Chacon E, Estruga A, Oliva JC, Hernandez-Abadia A, Albaiceta GM, Fernandez-Mondejar E, Fernandez R, Lopez-Aguilar J, Villar J, Murias G, Kacmarek RM. Asynchronies during mechanical ventilation are associated with mortality. Intensive Care Med. 2015 Apr;41(4):633-41. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-3692-6. Epub 2015 Feb 19.
PubMed 25693449Rehm GB, Han J, Kuhn BT, Delplanque JP, Anderson NR, Adams JY, Chuah CN. Creation of a Robust and Generalizable Machine Learning Classifier for Patient Ventilator Asynchrony. Methods Inf Med. 2018 Sep;57(4):208-219. doi: 10.3414/ME17-02-0012. Epub 2018 Sep 24.
PubMed 30919393Akoumianaki E, Lyazidi A, Rey N, Matamis D, Perez-Martinez N, Giraud R, Mancebo J, Brochard L, Richard JM. Mechanical ventilation-induced reverse-triggered breaths: a frequently unrecognized form of neuromechanical coupling. Chest. 2013 Apr;143(4):927-938. doi: 10.1378/chest.12-1817.
PubMed 23187649
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 Mar 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Automated Detection of Patient Ventilator Asynchrony Using Pes Signal A Feasibility Study Towards a Detection Algorithm
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06186557
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2202-061
- Conditions
- Mechanical Ventilation Complication
- Keywords
- detection algorithm, mechanical ventilation, patient-ventilator interaction, convolutional neural network
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Leiden University Medical CenterUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Feb 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2024 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 30 Apr 2025 (estimated)
- First posted
- 2 Jan 2024 (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.
Rationale: Patient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA) in mechanical ventilation is associated with adverse patient outcome such as a prolonged stay in the ICU and even mortality. The prevalence of asynchronies is, however, difficult to quantify. It is common to use only the pressure and flow signal of the ventilator to detect asynchronies. The detection method is often based on definitions. The investigators will use new techniques (esophageal pressure signal and machine learning (ML)) to improve detection and quantification of patient-ventilator asynchronies. The hypothesis is that an algorithm which uses the Pes signal and ML to detect and quantify asynchronies is superior to previous techniques.
Objective: 1. To develop an asynchrony detection algorithm based on pressure, flow and Pes signal using ML. 2. To develop a second algorithm with the same ML technique based on pressure an flow signal only. 3. To compare the performance of these models in comparison with an expert team and with each other.
Study design: The investigators will collect internal data from the ventilator connected to patients on mechanical ventilation (population described below). First, the investigators will, with a dedicated expert team, identify and annotate the asynchronies based on visual inspection of the pressure, flow and Pes signal. Second, the investigators will develop an ML algorithm which will be trained with the annotated data from the visual inspection. Third, the performance of the AI algorithm will be compared with the performance of the expert panel using newly obtained data. Fourth, the performance of the AI algorithm will be compared with the second algorithm which uses the pressure and flow signal only.
Study population: All patients admitted to the adult ICU of the LUMC on mechanical ventilation who are ventilated > 24 hours and are equipped with an esophageal balloon catheter.
Intervention (if applicable): None.
Main study parameters/endpoints: The performance of the detection algorithm.
Detailed description
- INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE Mechanical ventilation should unload the respiratory muscles, provide adequate gas exchange and should be safe, i.e., harm due to mechanical ventilation should be reduced to a minimum. To achieve this the interaction between the ventilator and the patient is preferentially synchronous. Ventilator settings not being synchronized with patient respiratory drive or activity is a phenomenon known as patient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA). PVA may induce several deleterious effects.1 Studies have shown asynchronies to be associated with patient discomfort, increased work of breathing, prolonged weaning, and in one study, even increased mortality. Monitoring PVA however is difficult. Clinicians often have to rely on physical examination of the patient as well as visual inspection of pressure, flow and volume waveforms to identify an asynchrony.6 The sensitivity and positive predictive value of analyzing breath-to-breath waveforms are very low (22% and 32%, respectively).1 Artifacts such as cardiac oscillation may mimic asynchronies, and there are times when clinicians standing at the bedside are unable to distinguish between asynchronies and artifacts with certainty.6 Furthermore, detection of PVA is dependent of bedside examination. This challenge leads to the desire of developing effective automated PVA recognition algorithms.7 Various automated algorithms have been developed, however with a variable performance.1 For a correct analysis of asynchronies, the use of an esophageal balloon catheter, which measures the esophageal pressure (Pes), or a catheter which measures the electrical activity of the diaphragm, is necessary.1 Since the use of Pes catheters, it is possible to describe other forms of PVA, such as reverse triggering, which is an asynchrony in which the ventilator triggers the patient.8 Until recently, however, the esophageal catheter has not been routinely used in daily practice but more as a research tool. Since the introduction of personalized medicine, clinicians have gained interest in esophageal manometry to better titrate care to the unique physiology of a patient.9 There are in the current literature no reports of PAV detection algorithms that use the Pes signal for detection. In the LUMC the investigators use the esophageal catheter in all patients admitted with acute respiratory failure and in patients ventilated for more than 48 hours per protocol. The esophageal signal gives the opportunity to detect asynchronies more easily than without. The investigators therefore hypothesize that an algorithm based on the esophageal signal will perform better than an algorithm that only uses other ventilator waveforms.
- OBJECTIVES 2.1 Primary Objective The primary objective of this study is to develop an asynchrony detection algorithm based on pressure, flow and Pes signals of patient data using ML. 2.2 Secondary Objectives Secondary objectives are to validate the detection algorithm by comparing its performance with the assessment of the expert panel and to compare its performance with the performance of a second algorithm which is based on pressure- and flow signals only.
- STUDY DESIGN This study will take place at the Intensive Care Unit of the LUMC. First, internal data of adult ICU patients on mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory failure or with a ventilation duration of at least 24 hours and that are equipped with an esophageal balloon catheter will be collected from the ventilator. The data of interest include pressure, flow and Pes signals of the ventilation. It is necessary to collect as much data as possible as this is required for the development of the algorithm. A minimum of 50 patients will be included with from each a ventilation recording between 4 and 8 hours, which amounts to 200 - 400 hours of mechanical ventilation recording.
The following labels will be assigned to the data:
- Trigger asynchrony (early (reversed), false, failed)
- Cycle (early, late )
- Double trigger (combination of trigger and cycle problem)
The data will be checked for regions of interest. Regions of interest are regions in which a lot of asynchronies can be visually detected. These regions of interest will be annotated and labeled by three independent experts with a lot of experience in the field. If two of the three experts agree on a asynchrony label than the breath cycle will be included for construction of the model. An equivalent amount of normal breaths will also be used to train the algorithm.
The data will be separated in two datasets. The first set will contain the first half of the patients, i.e. the patients with an odd research number. The second set will contain the second half of the patients (patients with an even research number). Research numbers are allocated consecutively to patients after consent.
The machine learning (ML) technique that will be used is a Convolutional Neural Network which will be developed in cooperation with the Technical University of Delft (Technical Medicine and Dr. D.M.J. Tax). The algorithm will be developed based on this training data and the purpose is that the algorithm learns to generalize from the training set.
The algorithm will be validated on the test data for the detection of PAV. The test data will also be annotated by the expert panel. The algorithm's detection performance will be compared with the annotation of the expert panel on the same data.
Together with the development of the main algorithm, which is based on three signals (flow, pressure and esophageal pressure (Pes)), another algorithm based on two signals (flow and pressure) will be developed with the same AI technique. This second algorithm has most in common with previous described algorithms in the current literature. The performance of the first algorithm will be compared with the second algorithm using the test data (second part of the data) in order to investigate if addition of the Pes signal is superior in the detection of asynchronies.
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Prospective
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 100 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- This study will recruit as much patients as possible, but at least 50 patients, during the study duration. After every 25 patients the algorithm will be tested for improvement. The study population consists of ICU patients on mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory failure or with a ventilation duration of at least 24 hours that are equipped with an esophageal balloon catheter. Patients are recruited in the ICU of the LUMC.
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- admission to the ICU of the LUMC;
- age of 18 years or older;
- intubated and receiving mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory failure or with a ventilation duration of at least 24 hours; and
- equipped with an esophageal balloon catheter
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- after recent pneumectomy or lobectomy;
- no informed consent
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 |
|---|---|---|
| No interventionNo intervention | Other | – |
Primary outcome
Performance of detection algorithm
Time frame: 8 hours
Model evaluation: The first part of the dataset will be used to construct/train the model. The second part of the dataset will be used to evaluate the performance of the model. The labels attained by the experts are considered the ground truth. The labeling of the algorithm will be compared with the labels of the experts to assess the performance of the algorithm. The performance of the primary algorithm will be compared with the performance of the second algorithm, which is based only on pressure and flow signals. The performance of the second algorithm will be assessed as described above. The agreement between the experts will be assessed using Fleiss's kappa, which evaluates the agreement between more than two raters.
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 13 Mar 2024.
- Background: PubMed 32457175Esperanza JA, Sarlabous L, de Haro C, Magrans R, Lopez-Aguilar J, Blanch L. Monitoring Asynchrony During Invasive Mechanical Ventilation. Respir Care. 2020 Jun;65(6):847-869. doi: 10.4187/respcare.07404.
- Background: PubMed 31236639Shi ZH, Jonkman A, de Vries H, Jansen D, Ottenheijm C, Girbes A, Spoelstra-de Man A, Zhou JX, Brochard L, Heunks L. Expiratory muscle dysfunction in critically ill patients: towards improved understanding. Intensive Care Med. 2019 Aug;45(8):1061-1071. doi: 10.1007/s00134-019-05664-4. Epub 2019 Jun 24.
- Background: PubMed 29771711Doorduin J, Roesthuis LH, Jansen D, van der Hoeven JG, van Hees HWH, Heunks LMA. Respiratory Muscle Effort during Expiration in Successful and Failed Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2018 Sep;129(3):490-501. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002256.
- Background: PubMed 24070493Gilstrap D, MacIntyre N. Patient-ventilator interactions. Implications for clinical management. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013 Nov 1;188(9):1058-68. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201212-2214CI.
- Background: PubMed 25693449Blanch L, Villagra A, Sales B, Montanya J, Lucangelo U, Lujan M, Garcia-Esquirol O, Chacon E, Estruga A, Oliva JC, Hernandez-Abadia A, Albaiceta GM, Fernandez-Mondejar E, Fernandez R, Lopez-Aguilar J, Villar J, Murias G, Kacmarek RM. Asynchronies during mechanical ventilation are associated with mortality. Intensive Care Med. 2015 Apr;41(4):633-41. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-3692-6. Epub 2015 Feb 19.
- Background: PubMed 30919393Rehm GB, Han J, Kuhn BT, Delplanque JP, Anderson NR, Adams JY, Chuah CN. Creation of a Robust and Generalizable Machine Learning Classifier for Patient Ventilator Asynchrony. Methods Inf Med. 2018 Sep;57(4):208-219. doi: 10.3414/ME17-02-0012. Epub 2018 Sep 24.
- Background: PubMed 23187649Akoumianaki E, Lyazidi A, Rey N, Matamis D, Perez-Martinez N, Giraud R, Mancebo J, Brochard L, Richard JM. Mechanical ventilation-induced reverse-triggered breaths: a frequently unrecognized form of neuromechanical coupling. Chest. 2013 Apr;143(4):927-938. doi: 10.1378/chest.12-1817.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Mechanical Ventilation Complication
Active, not recruiting
CT for Personalized Mechanical Ventilation
Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury, Sepsis Syndrome
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Potential Impact of the Use of the Application VentilO
Mechanical Ventilation Complication
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Evaluation of Gas Humidification Practices in Patients Under Invasive Mechanical Ventilation
Humidifier Lung, Mechanical Fragility
Active, not recruiting
VentilO Prospective Study
Mechanical Ventilation Complication, Respiratory Acidosis
Not yet recruitingPhase 1/2
Little Lungs Study
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation, Severe Respiratory Distress 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.
Abraham Schoe, MD, PhD principal investigator
Leiden University Medical Centre
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Mechanical Ventilation Complication, run by Leiden University Medical Center at 1 site 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 2 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 13 Mar 2024. 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 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 Abraham Schoe, MD, PhD (+31-715265018, a.schoe@lumc.nl), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Performance of detection algorithm (time frame: 8 hours). 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 NCT06186557, which also lists 7 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 13 Mar 2024.