Cardiac Arrest, Out-Of-HospitalVICAP-CPRNCT07026773
Validity of ICU Clinician's Appraisal of Proportionality in CPR
An observational study of Cardiac Arrest, Out-Of-Hospital, run by University Hospital, Ghent at 9 sites in 8 countries.
Trial summary
The VICAP-CPR study investigates whether doctors and nurses working in Intensive Care can determine neurological outcome and future quality of life after six months in patients treated for cardiac arrest outside the hospital based on clinical assessment in the first 24 hours after admission to Intensive Care. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Cardiac Arrest, Out-Of-Hospital
- How many people
- 1,000 participants
- Where
- 9 sitesin 8 countries
- Study dates
- 18 May 2025to 30 Dec 2026
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: The study population are doctors and nurses working in an Intensive Care Unit treating a patient included in the STEPCARE study (NCT 05564754) during the first 24 hours after admission to Intensive Care
Who may be able to join
- Doctors and nurses working in the Intensive Care Unit treating patients included in the STEPCARE study (NCT 05564754)
Who cannot join
- Doctors and nurses who do not have a direct treatment relationship with a patient included in the STEPCARE study
Trial locations and contacts
9 sites in 8 countries. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
9 sites in 8 countries
Belgium2 sites, 2 recruiting
- Recruiting
Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg
Genk, 3600
Koen Ameloot, MD, 003289807251, koen.ameloot@zol.be
- Recruiting
Ghent University Hospital
Ghent, 9000
Patrick Druwé, MD PhD, 003293321387, patrick.druwe@uzgent.be
Austria1 site, 1 recruiting
- Not yet recruiting
Medical University Innsbruck
Innsbruck, 6020
Michael Joannidis, MD PhD, michael.joannidis@i-med.ac.at
Finland1 site, 1 recruiting
- Not yet recruiting
Helsinki University Central Hospital
Helsinki, 000290
Markus Skrifvars, MD PhD, Markus.Skrifvars@hus.fi
Germany1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Universitätsklinikum Lübeck
Lübeck, 23538
Tobias Graf, MD, Tobias.Graf@uksh.de
Italy1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Policlinico San Martino
Genova, 16149
Chiara Robba, MD PhD, kiarobba@gmail.com
New Zealand1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Wakefield Hospital
Wellington, 6021
Paul Young, MD PhD, paul.young@ccdhb.org.nz
Saudi Arabia1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
King Abdulaziz Medical City
Riyadh, 22490
Yaseen Arabi, MD PhD, yaseenarabi@yahoo.com
Switzerland1 site, 1 recruiting
- Not yet recruiting
Zürich University Hospital
Zurich, 8091
Matthias Hilty, Matthias.Hilty@usz.ch
About this study
The VICAP-CPR study investigates whether doctors and nurses working in Intensive Care can determine neurological outcome and future quality of life after six months in patients treated for cardiac arrest outside the hospital based on clinical assessment in the first 24 hours after admission to Intensive Care. To conduct this study, the results of the questionnaire offered to Intensive Care doctors and nurses regarding the estimation of long-term neurological outcome and quality of life will be compared with the neurological outcome and quality of life as recorded in the STEPCARE study (NCT 05564754). The aim of the international STEPCARE study is to determine the best combination of post-resuscitation care to favourably influence survival and neurological outcome in patients treated for cardiac arrest outside hospital.
Read the detailed description
In the guidelines 2021 of the European Resuscitation Council it is acknowledged that apart from criteria related to the cardiac arrest circumstances, additional criteria can be used to support resuscitation decisions. For instance, the presence of severe chronic comorbidities or a very poor quality of life prior to cardiac arrest are allowed to support decisions to stop or not start resuscitation in unwitnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with an initial non-shockable rhythm. In current clinical practice, these factors are often not taken into account and patients with severe underlying comorbidities and poor general condition are also resuscitated. In intensive care, a wait-and-see approach is then usually adopted until additional information is gathered about the patient's likely prognosis based on repetitive clinical neurological examination, electrophysiological tests such as electro-encephalography and somatosensory evoked potentials, biomarker analysis and cerebral imaging (multimodal neuroprognostication).
At the ICU level, both physicians and nurses can have valuable insights into what the likely prognosis is of the OHCA patients they are treating. In subgroups with a poor prognosis (e.g. non-shockable unwitnessed arrest in older patient) the added value of the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication is potentially very limited or absent. The implication for intensive care could be that policy decisions could perhaps be made earlier in several situations. Exploring the prognostic value of the clinical perception of ICU physicians and ICU nurses regarding appropriateness of CPR and their prognostication of neurological outcome and quality of life relative to multimodal ICU neuroprognostication might help to refine the ethical guidance towards resuscitation decision making and towards ICU management after ROSC in general.
The study aims are:
- To assess whether and to what extent the following factors are associated with ICU clinician's perception regarding appropriateness of CPR: perceived presence of frailty, poor quality of life and severe comorbidities, as well as objective factors related to the OHCA (shockable rhythm, bystander CPR, witnessed arrest) and clinician characteristics (age, gender, years of experience and professional background).
- To assess the concordance between clinicians' combined perception of inappropriateness of CPR (i.e. whether or not at least 2 clinicians perceive CPR as inappropriate) and multimodal ICU neuroprognostication as performed in STEPCARE. The STEPCARE trial is an international, investigator-initiated, randomised trial on three different aspects of standard care after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. In a 2x2x2 factorial design the effect of continuous sedation vs. minimal sedation, fever management with a device vs. without a device and a higher blood pressure target vs. a lower blood pressure target are compared. The primary outcome of the trial will be survival at 180 days with secondary outcomes including neurological function and health-related quality of life.
- To investigate the prognostic value of clinicians' combined perception of inappropriateness of CPR, the clinician's prognostication (functional outcome and quality of life after 6 months) and the added prognostic value of the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication with regard to the long-term composite outcome (alive with a good functional outcome and good quality of life as defined in STEPCARE) above and beyond the prognostic value of clinicians' combined perception of inappropriateness of CPR and the clinician's prognostication within subgroups of initial non-shockable/shockable rhythm.
Statistical analysis Associations between the perception of ICU physicians and ICU nurses regarding appropriateness of CPR, on the one hand, and the ICU clinician's perceived presence of frailty, severe comorbidities, quality of life, as well as objective factors related to the OHCA (shockable rhythm, bystander CPR, witnessed arrest) and clinician characteristics (age, gender, years of experience and professional background), on the other hand, will be estimated (in terms of conditional odds ratios) using a generalised linear mixed effects model (with 'logit' link and a random intercept for center and for patient) to allow statistical inference (estimation of corresponding standard errors and confidence intervals) that correctly accounts for the multilevel structure of the data (i.e. clinicians clustered within patients, patients clustered within centers).
Subsequently, the concordance between clinicians' combined perception of inappropriateness of CPR (A) and the result of the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication (Y) will be assessed by estimating the following predictive metrics with Y being the outcome and A being the predictor:
- Positive Predictive Value (PPV)
- Negative Predictive Value (NPV)
- Sensitivity
- Specificity
- Area Under the Receiver-Operator Curve (AUC) The PPV expresses the percentage of poor multimodal ICU neuroprognostications among cases where at least two clinicians perceive CPR to have been inappropriate, while the NPV expresses the percentage of good multimodal ICU neuroprognostications among cases where less than two clinicians perceive CPR to have been inappropriate. Results of the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication will be imputed as 'good' or 'poor' whenever, respectively, patients were discharged alive or died before the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication could be conducted or completed. This enables calculation of the PPV and NPV in the population of patients originally included in the study and gives prospective insight into the extent to which clinicians' combined perception of inappropriateness of CPR in these patients is prognostic for the results of their multimodal ICU neuroprognostication. The sensitivity expresses the percentage of cases where at least two clinicians perceive CPR to have been inappropriate among poor multimodal ICU neuroprognostications, while the specificity expresses the percentage of cases where less than two clinicians perceive CPR to have been inappropriate among good multimodal ICU neuroprognostications. The latter two metrics will be calculated only in patients still hospitalized by the time the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication could be completed. This gives retrospective insight into the extent to which good or poor multimodal ICU neuroprognostication could already be anticipated by clinicians' combined perception of inappropriateness of CPR. Ideally, the multilevel nature of the data will be accounted for when estimating these metrics and their respective confidence intervals.
Subsequently, the prognostic value of clinicians' combined perception of inappropriate CPR and the clinician's prognostication with respect to the primary composite endpoint (alive with a good functional outcome and good quality of life as defined in STEPCARE) will be assessed in terms of the PPV, NPV and AUC. Additionally, the added or incremental prognostic value of the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication above and beyond that of ICU clinicians' combined perception of inappropriate CPR and the clinician's prognostication will be assessed in terms of increase in AUC. More specifically, two logistic regression model will be fitted: a logistic regression model for the primary outcome with clinicians' combined perception of inappropriate CPR, the clinician's prognostication as only predictor (model 1), and a logistic regression model for the primary outcome with clinicians' combined perception of inappropriate CPR, the clinician's prognostication and the result of the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication (and their interaction) as predictors (model 2). The AUCs of these models will be reported, as well as their respective PPV and NPV. AUC of model 2 minus AUC of model 1 will be estimated and used as a metric to quantify the added prognostic value. These analyses will be conducted for the entire study population, as well as in separate subgroups of patients with shockable versus non-shockable initial rhythms. For this analysis, whenever patients were discharged alive or died before the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication could be conducted or completed, results of the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication will be imputed in such a way that their coding is identical to that of the corresponding clinicians' combined perception of inappropriate CPR to reflect the fact that, in such cases, multimodal ICU neuroprognostication can by definition not have any added prognostic value. Ideally, the multilevel nature of the data will be accounted for when estimating these metrics and their respective confidence intervals.
The study will collect additional data apart from the STEPCARE study (NCT 05564754):
ICU doctors and nurses treating the patient in the first 24 hours after ICU admission are requested to complete a short (less than 3 minutes) survey, ideally as soon as possible since we are interested in the predictive value of clinical appraisal of the ICU doctor and ICU nurse.
The survey comprises questions regarding clinician characteristics, perception regarding frailty, quality of life, comorbidities, appropriateness of CPR and prognostication of the outcome 6 months after OHCA.
- Conditions
- Cardiac Arrest, Out-Of-Hospital
- Keywords
- cardiac arrest, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, appropriateness of care, frailty, perception, prognostication, outcome, quality of life, Intensive Care
- Medical subject headings
- Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest, Heart Arrest, Frailty
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Nurses and doctors working in Intensive Care Units | Not described |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Composite endpoint of survival, good functional outcome and good quality of life 6 months after OHCA
Good functional outcome defined as modified Rankin scale 0 - 3; quality of life based on EuroQol-VAS
Measured: 6 months after return of spontaneous circulation
Secondary outcomes (1)
Assessment of a likely poor neurological outcome based on the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication as performed in the Stepcare study NCT 05564754
Stepcare criteria for a likely poor neurological outcome are fulfilled yes or no
Measured: More than 72 hours after randomisation in the Stepcare study NCT 05564754
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted18 Jun 2025
- Study start18 May 2025
- Primary completion30 Dec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion30 Dec 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Cardiac Arrest, Out-Of-HospitalStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University Hospital, GhentThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Enrolment
- 1,000 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, Ghent
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07026773
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- ONZ-2025-0119
- Acronym
- VICAP-CPR
- Status last verified
- Jun 2025
- First submitted
- 10 Jun 2025
- Last updated
- 18 Jun 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 18 Jun 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Validity of ICU Clinician's Appraisal of Proportionality in CPR
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07026773
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- VICAP-CPR / ONZ-2025-0119
- Conditions
- Cardiac Arrest, Out-Of-Hospital
- Keywords
- cardiac arrest, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, appropriateness of care, frailty, perception, prognostication, outcome
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 1,000 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, GhentUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 18 May 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Dec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 30 Dec 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 18 Jun 2025 (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 VICAP-CPR study investigates whether doctors and nurses working in Intensive Care can determine neurological outcome and future quality of life after six months in patients treated for cardiac arrest outside the hospital based on clinical assessment in the first 24 hours after admission to Intensive Care. To conduct this study, the results of the questionnaire offered to Intensive Care doctors and nurses regarding the estimation of long-term neurological outcome and quality of life will be compared with the neurological outcome and quality of life as recorded in the STEPCARE study (NCT 05564754). The aim of the international STEPCARE study is to determine the best combination of post-resuscitation care to favourably influence survival and neurological outcome in patients treated for cardiac arrest outside hospital.
Detailed description
In the guidelines 2021 of the European Resuscitation Council it is acknowledged that apart from criteria related to the cardiac arrest circumstances, additional criteria can be used to support resuscitation decisions. For instance, the presence of severe chronic comorbidities or a very poor quality of life prior to cardiac arrest are allowed to support decisions to stop or not start resuscitation in unwitnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with an initial non-shockable rhythm. In current clinical practice, these factors are often not taken into account and patients with severe underlying comorbidities and poor general condition are also resuscitated. In intensive care, a wait-and-see approach is then usually adopted until additional information is gathered about the patient's likely prognosis based on repetitive clinical neurological examination, electrophysiological tests such as electro-encephalography and somatosensory evoked potentials, biomarker analysis and cerebral imaging (multimodal neuroprognostication).
At the ICU level, both physicians and nurses can have valuable insights into what the likely prognosis is of the OHCA patients they are treating. In subgroups with a poor prognosis (e.g. non-shockable unwitnessed arrest in older patient) the added value of the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication is potentially very limited or absent. The implication for intensive care could be that policy decisions could perhaps be made earlier in several situations. Exploring the prognostic value of the clinical perception of ICU physicians and ICU nurses regarding appropriateness of CPR and their prognostication of neurological outcome and quality of life relative to multimodal ICU neuroprognostication might help to refine the ethical guidance towards resuscitation decision making and towards ICU management after ROSC in general.
The study aims are:
- To assess whether and to what extent the following factors are associated with ICU clinician's perception regarding appropriateness of CPR: perceived presence of frailty, poor quality of life and severe comorbidities, as well as objective factors related to the OHCA (shockable rhythm, bystander CPR, witnessed arrest) and clinician characteristics (age, gender, years of experience and professional background).
- To assess the concordance between clinicians' combined perception of inappropriateness of CPR (i.e. whether or not at least 2 clinicians perceive CPR as inappropriate) and multimodal ICU neuroprognostication as performed in STEPCARE. The STEPCARE trial is an international, investigator-initiated, randomised trial on three different aspects of standard care after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. In a 2x2x2 factorial design the effect of continuous sedation vs. minimal sedation, fever management with a device vs. without a device and a higher blood pressure target vs. a lower blood pressure target are compared. The primary outcome of the trial will be survival at 180 days with secondary outcomes including neurological function and health-related quality of life.
- To investigate the prognostic value of clinicians' combined perception of inappropriateness of CPR, the clinician's prognostication (functional outcome and quality of life after 6 months) and the added prognostic value of the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication with regard to the long-term composite outcome (alive with a good functional outcome and good quality of life as defined in STEPCARE) above and beyond the prognostic value of clinicians' combined perception of inappropriateness of CPR and the clinician's prognostication within subgroups of initial non-shockable/shockable rhythm.
Statistical analysis Associations between the perception of ICU physicians and ICU nurses regarding appropriateness of CPR, on the one hand, and the ICU clinician's perceived presence of frailty, severe comorbidities, quality of life, as well as objective factors related to the OHCA (shockable rhythm, bystander CPR, witnessed arrest) and clinician characteristics (age, gender, years of experience and professional background), on the other hand, will be estimated (in terms of conditional odds ratios) using a generalised linear mixed effects model (with 'logit' link and a random intercept for center and for patient) to allow statistical inference (estimation of corresponding standard errors and confidence intervals) that correctly accounts for the multilevel structure of the data (i.e. clinicians clustered within patients, patients clustered within centers).
Subsequently, the concordance between clinicians' combined perception of inappropriateness of CPR (A) and the result of the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication (Y) will be assessed by estimating the following predictive metrics with Y being the outcome and A being the predictor:
- Positive Predictive Value (PPV)
- Negative Predictive Value (NPV)
- Sensitivity
- Specificity
- Area Under the Receiver-Operator Curve (AUC) The PPV expresses the percentage of poor multimodal ICU neuroprognostications among cases where at least two clinicians perceive CPR to have been inappropriate, while the NPV expresses the percentage of good multimodal ICU neuroprognostications among cases where less than two clinicians perceive CPR to have been inappropriate. Results of the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication will be imputed as 'good' or 'poor' whenever, respectively, patients were discharged alive or died before the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication could be conducted or completed. This enables calculation of the PPV and NPV in the population of patients originally included in the study and gives prospective insight into the extent to which clinicians' combined perception of inappropriateness of CPR in these patients is prognostic for the results of their multimodal ICU neuroprognostication. The sensitivity expresses the percentage of cases where at least two clinicians perceive CPR to have been inappropriate among poor multimodal ICU neuroprognostications, while the specificity expresses the percentage of cases where less than two clinicians perceive CPR to have been inappropriate among good multimodal ICU neuroprognostications. The latter two metrics will be calculated only in patients still hospitalized by the time the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication could be completed. This gives retrospective insight into the extent to which good or poor multimodal ICU neuroprognostication could already be anticipated by clinicians' combined perception of inappropriateness of CPR. Ideally, the multilevel nature of the data will be accounted for when estimating these metrics and their respective confidence intervals.
Subsequently, the prognostic value of clinicians' combined perception of inappropriate CPR and the clinician's prognostication with respect to the primary composite endpoint (alive with a good functional outcome and good quality of life as defined in STEPCARE) will be assessed in terms of the PPV, NPV and AUC. Additionally, the added or incremental prognostic value of the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication above and beyond that of ICU clinicians' combined perception of inappropriate CPR and the clinician's prognostication will be assessed in terms of increase in AUC. More specifically, two logistic regression model will be fitted: a logistic regression model for the primary outcome with clinicians' combined perception of inappropriate CPR, the clinician's prognostication as only predictor (model 1), and a logistic regression model for the primary outcome with clinicians' combined perception of inappropriate CPR, the clinician's prognostication and the result of the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication (and their interaction) as predictors (model 2). The AUCs of these models will be reported, as well as their respective PPV and NPV. AUC of model 2 minus AUC of model 1 will be estimated and used as a metric to quantify the added prognostic value. These analyses will be conducted for the entire study population, as well as in separate subgroups of patients with shockable versus non-shockable initial rhythms. For this analysis, whenever patients were discharged alive or died before the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication could be conducted or completed, results of the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication will be imputed in such a way that their coding is identical to that of the corresponding clinicians' combined perception of inappropriate CPR to reflect the fact that, in such cases, multimodal ICU neuroprognostication can by definition not have any added prognostic value. Ideally, the multilevel nature of the data will be accounted for when estimating these metrics and their respective confidence intervals.
The study will collect additional data apart from the STEPCARE study (NCT 05564754):
ICU doctors and nurses treating the patient in the first 24 hours after ICU admission are requested to complete a short (less than 3 minutes) survey, ideally as soon as possible since we are interested in the predictive value of clinical appraisal of the ICU doctor and ICU nurse.
The survey comprises questions regarding clinician characteristics, perception regarding frailty, quality of life, comorbidities, appropriateness of CPR and prognostication of the outcome 6 months after OHCA.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Nurses and doctors working in Intensive Care Units | – | – |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- The study population are doctors and nurses working in an Intensive Care Unit treating a patient included in the STEPCARE study (NCT 05564754) during the first 24 hours after admission to Intensive Care
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Doctors and nurses working in the Intensive Care Unit treating patients included in the STEPCARE study (NCT 05564754)
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Doctors and nurses who do not have a direct treatment relationship with a patient included in the STEPCARE study
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Composite endpoint of survival, good functional outcome and good quality of life 6 months after OHCA
Time frame: 6 months after return of spontaneous circulation
Good functional outcome defined as modified Rankin scale 0 - 3; quality of life based on EuroQol-VAS
1 secondary outcome
Assessment of a likely poor neurological outcome based on the multimodal ICU neuroprognostication as performed in the Stepcare study NCT 05564754
Time frame: More than 72 hours after randomisation in the Stepcare study NCT 05564754
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 18 Jun 2025.
- Information regarding STEPCARE studyLink provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Cardiac Arrest, Out-Of-Hospital
Not yet recruitingObservational study
CAROTID DOPPLER AND CEREBRAL OXIMERY IN POST CARDIAC ARREST ICU PATIENTS
Cardiac Arrest (CA), Carotid Doppler
Active, not recruitingPhase 3
The Danish Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Study
Out-Of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest, Post-Cardiac Arrest Syndrome
Not yet recruiting
Compression-Only Versus Standard Basic Life Support Training in Nursing Students
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
Not yet recruiting
Execution of Prehospital Transesophageal Echocardiography During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Patients With Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest
Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA)
Active, not recruiting
The REVIVE-PEEP Trial: Positive End-expiratory Pressure Versus Sham Valve/Zero End-expiratory Pressure in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation During Manual Ventilation to Improve Neurological Outcomes at Discharge in Adult Patients Suffering an Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest
Cardiac Arrest, Out-Of-Hospital
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.
9 sites in 8 countries: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Cardiac Arrest, Out-Of-Hospital, run by University Hospital, Ghent at 9 sites in 8 countries.
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 1 inclusion and 1 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: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 18 Jun 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 9 sites in Belgium, Austria, Finland, Germany, Italy and 3 more countries. 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?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Patrick Druwé, MD, PhD (003293321387, patrick.druwe@uzgent.be), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Composite endpoint of survival, good functional outcome and good quality of life 6 months after OHCA (time frame: 6 months after return of spontaneous circulation). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 18 Jun 2025.