ARDSVentijetNCT07121257
Continuous Flow Ventilation With the Ventijet System in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: a First-in-Human Feasibility and Non-Inferiority Trial
A study testing VENTIJET system in people with ARDS and Mechanical Ventilation, run by Hospital del Mar at 1 site in Spain.
Trial summary
This prospective, non-randomized, single-arm, proof-of-concept clinical trial evaluates the physiological performance and safety of the Ventijet System, a hybrid ventilation system based on continuous high-velocity gas flow. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- ARDS, Mechanical Ventilation, Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure
- What is being tested?
- VENTIJET system
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 14 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSpain
- Study dates
- 8 Jun 2021to 16 Mar 2023
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Age ≥ 18 years.
- Invasive mechanical ventilation via endotracheal tube.
- Diagnosis of moderate ARDS according to the Berlin Definition (PaO₂/FiO₂ between 150 and 200 mmHg with PEEP ≥ 5 cmH₂O).
- Lung-protective ventilation strategy prior to inclusion (VT ≤ 6 mL/kg PBW, PEEP titrated to transpulmonary pressure 0-2 cmH₂O).
- Deep sedation with RASS score of -5 at the time of inclusion.
- Informed consent obtained from the patient's legal representative.
Who cannot join
- Known obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g., COPD, asthma).
- Severe hemodynamic instability or uncontrolled shock.
- Pregnancy.
- Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders or limitations of life support.
- Anticipated need for ECMO in the next 24 hours.
- Presence of pneumothorax or bronchopleural fistula.
- Contraindications to esophageal pressure monitoring.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Descriptive Analysis of the Functioning of the Ventijet Mechanical Ventilator During the COVID-19 Health Crisis in Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure
This prospective, non-randomized, single-arm, proof-of-concept clinical trial evaluates the physiological performance and safety of the Ventijet System, a hybrid ventilation system based on continuous high-velocity gas flow. The system was conceived during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as a response to ventilator shortages, building upon a previously patented continuous-flow nozzle system developed by Dr. Lucas Picazo in the 1990s. The concept combines the physiological benefits of continuous flow ventilation (CFV) with the potential ease of design, monitoring, and scalability.
Patients with moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) - defined by a ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to inspired oxygen fraction (PaO₂/FiO₂) between 150 and 200 mmHg - were first stabilized on a conventional mechanical ventilator (Puritan Bennett 840, PB840) using lung-protective settings. They were then transitioned to the Ventijet system following a structured protocol that included real-time monitoring and esophageal pressure measurements.
Read more
The primary endpoint was oxygenation, measured as the change in PaO₂ after one hour of ventilation with the Ventijet system compared to baseline values under conventional ventilation. The study was designed to demonstrate non-inferiority, with a predefined margin of ±20 mmHg in PaO₂.
Secondary outcomes included carbon dioxide clearance (PaCO₂), respiratory system mechanics, safety events, and feasibility in intensive care unit (ICU) conditions.
Read the detailed description
This is a prospective, interventional, single-center clinical study conducted to evaluate the physiological effects and safety of a novel ventilation system-continuous flow ventilation with Ventijet-in adult patients diagnosed with moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The objective was to compare gas exchange and pulmonary mechanics between conventional pressure-controlled ventilation and the Ventijet system, which delivers continuous flow through a high-velocity nozzle.
Ventijet is a prototype mechanical ventilator developed during the COVID-19 pandemic, motivated by the urgent need for scalable and physiologically effective ventilatory support. The system builds on the concept of continuous-flow extratracheal jet ventilation (VC-ET), originally described and patented by Dr. Lucas Picazo in the 1990s. It generates a high-speed continuous gas stream via a proximally placed nozzle (tobera), which creates an expiratory braking effect. This facilitates alveolar recruitment throughout the respiratory cycle while maintaining low airway pressures and small tidal volumes. Unlike classical jet systems, Ventijet integrates real-time safety monitoring and operates using time-cycled, volume-controlled settings, making it suitable for intensive care unit (ICU) use.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Patients were screened in the ICU and included if they met all of the following:
- Age ≥ 18 years
- Intubated and on invasive mechanical ventilation
- Diagnosis of moderate ARDS (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio between 150-200 mmHg, Berlin definition)
- Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score of -5 (deep sedation)
- Stable hemodynamic and ventilatory parameters
Exclusion criteria included:
- Obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], asthma)
- Known intracranial hypertension
- Pregnancy
- Morbid obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 40 kg/m²)
- Contraindication to esophageal balloon catheter placement
Study Protocol and Ventilation Phases
All patients were first stabilized on a conventional ICU ventilator (Puritan Bennett™ 840) with lung-protective settings:
- Tidal volume ≤ 6 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW)
- Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titrated to maintain an end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (PLexp) between 0-2 cm H₂O
- Respiratory rate adjusted to maintain arterial pH > 7.30
- Fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) adjusted to maintain oxygen saturation (SpO₂) > 92%
Once stability was confirmed, patients remained on these settings for 1 hour (Conventional-1h phase), after which a full dataset was collected, including:
- Arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis
- Respiratory and ventilatory parameters
- Hemodynamic variables
- Pulmonary mechanics
Patients were then transitioned to the Ventijet system using end-expiratory clamping to avoid alveolar derecruitment. Ventijet parameters were adjusted to approximate the previous conventional settings. After 1 hour on Ventijet (VJ-1h phase), the same dataset was recorded. This timepoint served as the primary comparison for non-inferiority analysis of oxygenation (PaO₂).
Patients who remained stable on Ventijet continued for up to 24 hours. Additional datasets were collected at 6, 12, and 24 hours (VJ-6h, VJ-12h, VJ-24h). Afterward, they were reconnected to the conventional ventilator (again using end-expiratory clamping), and evaluations were repeated at 1, 12, and 24 hours post-reconnection (Post-VJ-1h, Post-VJ-12h, Post-VJ-24h).
Monitoring and Data Collection Each study phase was supervised continuously by a trained investigator. A CARESCAPE™ B650 monitoring system (General Electric™) was used to capture ventilatory and hemodynamic parameters. Active humidification was maintained throughout. Deep sedation (RASS -5) was ensured during all Ventijet phases.
Variables collected at each phase included:
- Clinical and demographic data
- Age, sex, ICU admission diagnosis
- Comorbidities, corticosteroid use
- Neuromuscular blockers, vasoactive drugs
- Gas exchange
- Arterial partial pressures: oxygen (PaO₂), carbon dioxide (PaCO₂)
- pH, bicarbonate (HCO₃-), arterial oxygen saturation (SaO₂)
- Ventilatory variables
- Tidal volume (VT), respiratory rate (RR), PEEP
- FiO₂, inspiratory time, end-tidal CO₂ (EtCO₂), SpO₂
- Hemodynamics
- Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR)
- Pulmonary mechanics
- Esophageal pressure (Pes)
- Transpulmonary pressures (PLinsp, PLexp)
- Compliance of the respiratory system (Crs), lung (CL), and chest wall (Ccw)
- Driving pressures (airway and transpulmonary)
Outcomes
- Primary outcome: Change in PaO₂ between Conventional-1h and VJ-1h phases. The study was powered as a non-inferiority trial using a predefined margin of ±20 mmHg in PaO₂. Based on an estimated standard deviation of 30 mmHg, the required sample size was 14 patients (α=0.05, β=0.2).
- Secondary outcomes: Change in PaCO₂ across all phases.
- Other prespecified outcomes (collected and reported):
- Changes in respiratory mechanics (compliance, pressures)
- Duration of mechanical ventilation
- ICU and hospital length of stay
- Need for tracheostomy
- ICU, in-hospital, and 1-year mortality
Safety and Oversight
Adverse events were continuously monitored. Protocol mandated immediate reconnection to the conventional ventilator in case of:
- Hemodynamic instability
- Worsening gas exchange
- Equipment malfunction
The study was conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines and was externally monitored by the Clinical Research Support Unit (SEIC) at Biocruces Bizkaia.
- Conditions
- ARDS, Mechanical Ventilation, Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure
- Being tested
- VENTIJET system
- Keywords
- Continuous Flow Ventilation, Mechanical Ventilation, Jet Ventilation, VENTIJET, ARDS, Respiratory Mechanics
- Medical subject headings
- Respiratory Insufficiency
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
VENTIJET systemDevice
Also called Continuous Flow Ventilation
The Ventijet system is an investigational ventilation device delivering continuous high-velocity gas flow through a proximal nozzle. The system is designed to maintain alveolar recruitment with low driving pressures, acting as an expiratory brake. Patients received continuous flow ventilation using Ventijet for 1 to 24 hours after baseline assessment with conventional mechanical ventilation.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Continuous Flow Ventilation with VENTIJET | Experimental | All patients were initially ventilated with a conventional mechanical ventilator (PB840) under lung-protective settings. After a 1-hour stabilization and baseline assessment period, patients were transitioned to continuous flow ventilation using the Ventijet system for up to 24 hours, followed by reconnection to the conventional ventilator for post-intervention follow-up. Receives: Device: VENTIJET system |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Oxygenation efficiency (PaO₂ variation at 1 hour)
Change in arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO₂) measured by arterial blood gas analysis after 1 hour of ventilation with the Ventijet system, compared to PaO₂ under conventional mechanical ventilation (PB840) after 1 hour of stabilization (conventional-1h phase).
Measured: 1 hour after connection to Ventijet system.
Secondary outcomes (1)
Change in arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) after 1 hour of ventilation with VENTIJET compared to conventional ventilation.
Arterial blood gas samples will be obtained after 1 hour of conventional lung-protective ventilation (conventional-1h phase) and after 1 hour of ventilation with the Ventijet system (VJ-1h phase). The primary secondary endpoint is the absolute difference in PaCO₂ between both time points. Values will be reported in mmHg.
Measured: 1 hour after connection to the Ventijet system.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted13 Aug 2025
- Study start8 Jun 2021
- Primary completion16 Dec 2022
- Study completion16 Mar 2023
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for ARDSStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Model description
- Prospective, unicentric, non-randomized, single-group assignment study. All enrolled patients were initially managed with conventional mechanical ventilation (PB840) and subsequently transitioned to the Ventijet system in a sequential protocol that included predefined assessment phases (1 hour, 6 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours), followed by re-connection to conventional ventilation for additional monitoring. Each patient served as their own control.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 14 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Hospital del Mar
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Hospital del Mar Research Institute (IMIM)
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Lucía Picazo Moreno, Hospital del Mar
- Investigators
- Lucía Picazo, MD, Principal investigator, Intensive Care Department, Hospital del Mar
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07121257
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Ventijet01
- Other IDs
- 2020/9238
- Acronym
- Ventijet
- Status last verified
- Aug 2025
- First submitted
- 31 Jul 2025
- Last updated
- 13 Aug 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: This was a single-center, non-randomized, proof-of-concept study with a small sample size. At present, there are no plans to share individual participant data (IPD) publicly. Data may be made available upon reasonable request and with appropriate ethical approvals.
Publications
Picazo Moreno L, Castellvi-Font A, Acer Puig M, Camanes Mayordomo C, Soriano Rodriguez C, Masclans Enviz JR, Parrilla-Gomez FJ. Continuous-flow ventilation with VENTIJET in moderate ARDS: a pilot safety and feasibility study. Intensive Care Med Exp. 2026 Apr 3;14(1):42. doi: 10.1186/s40635-026-00876-7.
PubMed 41928031
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 Aug 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Descriptive Analysis of the Functioning of the Ventijet Mechanical Ventilator During the COVID-19 Health Crisis in Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07121257
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Ventijet / Ventijet01
- Conditions
- ARDS, Mechanical Ventilation, Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure
- Keywords
- Continuous Flow Ventilation, Mechanical Ventilation, Jet Ventilation, VENTIJET, ARDS, Respiratory Mechanics
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 14 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Hospital del MarUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Hospital del Mar Research Institute (IMIM)
- Study start
- 8 Jun 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 16 Dec 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 16 Mar 2023 (actual)
- First posted
- 13 Aug 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.
This prospective, non-randomized, single-arm, proof-of-concept clinical trial evaluates the physiological performance and safety of the Ventijet System, a hybrid ventilation system based on continuous high-velocity gas flow. The system was conceived during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as a response to ventilator shortages, building upon a previously patented continuous-flow nozzle system developed by Dr. Lucas Picazo in the 1990s. The concept combines the physiological benefits of continuous flow ventilation (CFV) with the potential ease of design, monitoring, and scalability.
Patients with moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) - defined by a ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to inspired oxygen fraction (PaO₂/FiO₂) between 150 and 200 mmHg - were first stabilized on a conventional mechanical ventilator (Puritan Bennett 840, PB840) using lung-protective settings. They were then transitioned to the Ventijet system following a structured protocol that included real-time monitoring and esophageal pressure measurements.
The primary endpoint was oxygenation, measured as the change in PaO₂ after one hour of ventilation with the Ventijet system compared to baseline values under conventional ventilation. The study was designed to demonstrate non-inferiority, with a predefined margin of ±20 mmHg in PaO₂.
Secondary outcomes included carbon dioxide clearance (PaCO₂), respiratory system mechanics, safety events, and feasibility in intensive care unit (ICU) conditions.
Detailed description
This is a prospective, interventional, single-center clinical study conducted to evaluate the physiological effects and safety of a novel ventilation system-continuous flow ventilation with Ventijet-in adult patients diagnosed with moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The objective was to compare gas exchange and pulmonary mechanics between conventional pressure-controlled ventilation and the Ventijet system, which delivers continuous flow through a high-velocity nozzle.
Ventijet is a prototype mechanical ventilator developed during the COVID-19 pandemic, motivated by the urgent need for scalable and physiologically effective ventilatory support. The system builds on the concept of continuous-flow extratracheal jet ventilation (VC-ET), originally described and patented by Dr. Lucas Picazo in the 1990s. It generates a high-speed continuous gas stream via a proximally placed nozzle (tobera), which creates an expiratory braking effect. This facilitates alveolar recruitment throughout the respiratory cycle while maintaining low airway pressures and small tidal volumes. Unlike classical jet systems, Ventijet integrates real-time safety monitoring and operates using time-cycled, volume-controlled settings, making it suitable for intensive care unit (ICU) use.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Patients were screened in the ICU and included if they met all of the following:
- Age ≥ 18 years
- Intubated and on invasive mechanical ventilation
- Diagnosis of moderate ARDS (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio between 150-200 mmHg, Berlin definition)
- Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score of -5 (deep sedation)
- Stable hemodynamic and ventilatory parameters
Exclusion criteria included:
- Obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], asthma)
- Known intracranial hypertension
- Pregnancy
- Morbid obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 40 kg/m²)
- Contraindication to esophageal balloon catheter placement
Study Protocol and Ventilation Phases
All patients were first stabilized on a conventional ICU ventilator (Puritan Bennett™ 840) with lung-protective settings:
- Tidal volume ≤ 6 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW)
- Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titrated to maintain an end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (PLexp) between 0-2 cm H₂O
- Respiratory rate adjusted to maintain arterial pH > 7.30
- Fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) adjusted to maintain oxygen saturation (SpO₂) > 92%
Once stability was confirmed, patients remained on these settings for 1 hour (Conventional-1h phase), after which a full dataset was collected, including:
- Arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis
- Respiratory and ventilatory parameters
- Hemodynamic variables
- Pulmonary mechanics
Patients were then transitioned to the Ventijet system using end-expiratory clamping to avoid alveolar derecruitment. Ventijet parameters were adjusted to approximate the previous conventional settings. After 1 hour on Ventijet (VJ-1h phase), the same dataset was recorded. This timepoint served as the primary comparison for non-inferiority analysis of oxygenation (PaO₂).
Patients who remained stable on Ventijet continued for up to 24 hours. Additional datasets were collected at 6, 12, and 24 hours (VJ-6h, VJ-12h, VJ-24h). Afterward, they were reconnected to the conventional ventilator (again using end-expiratory clamping), and evaluations were repeated at 1, 12, and 24 hours post-reconnection (Post-VJ-1h, Post-VJ-12h, Post-VJ-24h).
Monitoring and Data Collection Each study phase was supervised continuously by a trained investigator. A CARESCAPE™ B650 monitoring system (General Electric™) was used to capture ventilatory and hemodynamic parameters. Active humidification was maintained throughout. Deep sedation (RASS -5) was ensured during all Ventijet phases.
Variables collected at each phase included:
- Clinical and demographic data
- Age, sex, ICU admission diagnosis
- Comorbidities, corticosteroid use
- Neuromuscular blockers, vasoactive drugs
- Gas exchange
- Arterial partial pressures: oxygen (PaO₂), carbon dioxide (PaCO₂)
- pH, bicarbonate (HCO₃-), arterial oxygen saturation (SaO₂)
- Ventilatory variables
- Tidal volume (VT), respiratory rate (RR), PEEP
- FiO₂, inspiratory time, end-tidal CO₂ (EtCO₂), SpO₂
- Hemodynamics
- Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR)
- Pulmonary mechanics
- Esophageal pressure (Pes)
- Transpulmonary pressures (PLinsp, PLexp)
- Compliance of the respiratory system (Crs), lung (CL), and chest wall (Ccw)
- Driving pressures (airway and transpulmonary)
Outcomes
- Primary outcome: Change in PaO₂ between Conventional-1h and VJ-1h phases. The study was powered as a non-inferiority trial using a predefined margin of ±20 mmHg in PaO₂. Based on an estimated standard deviation of 30 mmHg, the required sample size was 14 patients (α=0.05, β=0.2).
- Secondary outcomes: Change in PaCO₂ across all phases.
- Other prespecified outcomes (collected and reported):
- Changes in respiratory mechanics (compliance, pressures)
- Duration of mechanical ventilation
- ICU and hospital length of stay
- Need for tracheostomy
- ICU, in-hospital, and 1-year mortality
Safety and Oversight
Adverse events were continuously monitored. Protocol mandated immediate reconnection to the conventional ventilator in case of:
- Hemodynamic instability
- Worsening gas exchange
- Equipment malfunction
The study was conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines and was externally monitored by the Clinical Research Support Unit (SEIC) at Biocruces Bizkaia.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
- Model description
- Prospective, unicentric, non-randomized, single-group assignment study. All enrolled patients were initially managed with conventional mechanical ventilation (PB840) and subsequently transitioned to the Ventijet system in a sequential protocol that included predefined assessment phases (1 hour, 6 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours), followed by re-connection to conventional ventilation for additional monitoring. Each patient served as their own control.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Continuous Flow Ventilation with VENTIJET | Experimental | Device: VENTIJET systemAll patients were initially ventilated with a conventional mechanical ventilator (PB840) under lung-protective settings. After a 1-hour stabilization and baseline assessment period, patients were transitioned to continuous flow ventilation using the Ventijet system for up to 24 hours, followed by reconnection to the conventional ventilator for post-intervention follow-up. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Age ≥ 18 years.
- Invasive mechanical ventilation via endotracheal tube.
- Diagnosis of moderate ARDS according to the Berlin Definition (PaO₂/FiO₂ between 150 and 200 mmHg with PEEP ≥ 5 cmH₂O).
- Lung-protective ventilation strategy prior to inclusion (VT ≤ 6 mL/kg PBW, PEEP titrated to transpulmonary pressure 0-2 cmH₂O).
- Deep sedation with RASS score of -5 at the time of inclusion.
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- Known obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g., COPD, asthma).
- Severe hemodynamic instability or uncontrolled shock.
- Pregnancy.
- Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders or limitations of life support.
- Anticipated need for ECMO in the next 24 hours.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| VENTIJET systemAlso: Continuous Flow VentilationThe Ventijet system is an investigational ventilation device delivering continuous high-velocity gas flow through a proximal nozzle. The system is designed to maintain alveolar recruitment with low driving pressures, acting as an expiratory brake. Patients received continuous flow ventilation using Ventijet for 1 to 24 hours after baseline assessment with conventional mechanical ventilation. | Device | Continuous Flow Ventilation with VENTIJET |
Primary outcome
Oxygenation efficiency (PaO₂ variation at 1 hour)
Time frame: 1 hour after connection to Ventijet system.
Change in arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO₂) measured by arterial blood gas analysis after 1 hour of ventilation with the Ventijet system, compared to PaO₂ under conventional mechanical ventilation (PB840) after 1 hour of stabilization (conventional-1h phase).
1 secondary outcome
Change in arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) after 1 hour of ventilation with VENTIJET compared to conventional ventilation.
Time frame: 1 hour after connection to the Ventijet system.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 13 Aug 2025.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 41928031Picazo Moreno L, Castellvi-Font A, Acer Puig M, Camanes Mayordomo C, Soriano Rodriguez C, Masclans Enviz JR, Parrilla-Gomez FJ. Continuous-flow ventilation with VENTIJET in moderate ARDS: a pilot safety and feasibility study. Intensive Care Med Exp. 2026 Apr 3;14(1):42. doi: 10.1186/s40635-026-00876-7.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. This was a single-center, non-randomized, proof-of-concept study with a small sample size. At present, there are no plans to share individual participant data (IPD) publicly. Data may be made available upon reasonable request and with appropriate ethical approvals.
Related trials for ARDS
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Early Switch in Moderate ARDS
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)
RecruitingPhase 3
Efficacy and Safety of Tozorakimab in Patients Hospitalised for Viral Lung Infection Requiring Supplemental Oxygen
Viral Lung Infection and Acute Respiratory Failure
Not yet recruiting
The Hemodynamic Impact of High-frequency Oscillatory Ventilation and Periodic Sighs in Preterm Infants
Preterm, Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Premature Infant
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Fostamatinib for Treating Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) in Hospitalized Adults
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, ARDS
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Development and Prospective Validation of the AutoEIT Foundation Model for ARDS
ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome), Respiratory Failure
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.
Lucía Picazo, MD principal investigator
Intensive Care Department, Hospital del Mar
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing VENTIJET system in people with ARDS and Mechanical Ventilation, run by Hospital del Mar at 1 site in Spain.
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 6 inclusion and 7 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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 13 Aug 2025. 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 Spain. 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?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Oxygenation efficiency (PaO₂ variation at 1 hour) (time frame: 1 hour after connection to Ventijet system.). 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 NCT07121257, which also lists 1 linked publication.
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 Aug 2025.