Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Not Yet Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT07567768

Continuous vs Bolus Neuromuscular Blockade Regimens in Moderate to Severe Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and ARDS (COBRA)

Current clinical guidelines, such as those from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign and ARDSNet, recommend short-term NMBA use for patients with moderate to severe ARDS who exhibit persistent ventilator dyssynchrony or high plateau pressures despite deep sedation . However, they do not provide clear recommendations regarding the mode of administration. As a result, clinicians are left to extrapolate from limited or indirect evidence, which may lead to practice variation, uncertainty, and suboptimal care.

This pilot randomized controlled trial is designed to directly address this critical gap by comparing intermittent bolus administration versus continuous infusion of NMBAs in a pragmatic, real-world ICU setting. The study will assess feasibility metrics necessary to plan a definitive trial and generate preliminary clinical data on safety and effectiveness. By clarifying the comparative benefits and risks of each approach, the results may influence practice guidelines, reduce variation in care, and improve patient outcomes and reduce practice variation.patient outcomes, optimize resource use, and inform future guidelines on the management of moderate to severe ARDS.

Not Yet Recruiting

Trial opening soon.

Get Notified

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Phase 2

About this study

Study Title: The Effect of Continuous vs Bolus Neuromuscular Blockade for Patients with Moderate to Severe HRF and ARDS: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Background:

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) affects ~10% of ICU patients and carries high morbidity and mortality. Neuromuscular blockade agents (NMBAs), especially cisatracurium, have historically been administered via continuous infusion to improve oxygenation and reduce ventilator-induced lung injury. However, recent evidence (e.g., ROSE trial) questions this approach, and emerging guidelines suggest intermittent bolus dosing may offer similar benefits with fewer adverse effects. There is a lack of direct comparative data, creating uncertainty in clinical practice.

Hypothesis & Objectives:

The study hypothesizes that a multicenter RCT comparing intermittent bolus vs continuous NMBA infusion in ARDS is feasible and that bolus dosing may show trends toward improved outcomes (e.g., ventilator-free days, fewer adverse events).

Primary objective: Assess feasibility of a definitive trial. Feasibility aims: 1. Recruitment rate (target ≥75%) 2. Protocol adherence (≥85%) 3. Data completeness (≥95%) 4. Safety monitoring of adverse events.

Secondary (exploratory) objectives: Compare 28-day ventilator-free days (VFDs), mortality, ICU/hospital length of stay, and ICU-acquired weakness.

Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, pilot RCT in Alberta ICUs. 100 adult patients with moderate to severe ARDS will be randomized within 24 hours of diagnosis to either: 1. Intermittent bolus NMBA dosing OR 2. Continuous NMBA infusion (up to 48 hours). Both arms will receive lung-protective ventilation and guideline-based sedation.

Analysis: Feasibility outcomes will be described with 95% confidence intervals. Exploratory clinical outcomes will follow intention-to-treat principles using regression models. Results will inform design and sample size for a full-scale trial.

Risks & Mitigation: Risks such as protocol non-adherence, ICU-acquired weakness, and data loss will be managed via clinician education, adherence monitoring, and real-time data checks. Safety protocols, including allowance for rescue boluses and adherence to sedation best practices, will be enforced.

Team: Led by Drs. Parhar and Doig with a multidisciplinary team of critical care and clinical trial experts, the group has a strong track record in ICU research and implementation.

Significance & Knowledge Translation: This study addresses a critical evidence gap in ARDS care. Findings will inform future guidelines and practice by establishing whether bolus NMBA administration is a feasible, effective, and safer alternative to continuous infusion. Results will be disseminated through academic and clinical networks and will lay the groundwork for a large-scale, definitive RCT.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

Age ≥18 years

  • Mechanically ventilated and on a controlled ventilation mode
  • Diagnosis of moderate to severe ARDS (PaO₂/FiO₂ ≤150 mmHg on PEEP ≥5 cm H₂O)
  • Bilateral pulmonary infiltrates consistent with ARDS
  • Randomized within 24 hours of meeting ARDS criteria

Exclusion criteria

  • Pregnancy
  • Known allergy or contraindication to rocuronium
  • Neuromuscular disorders (e.g., myasthenia gravis, Guillain-Barré syndrome)
  • Brain death or decision for withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy
  • Enrollment in a conflicting interventional trial

Treatment and study plan

Neuromuscular Blocking Agent - Bolus Dosing

Drug

Intermittent administration of NMBA

Other names: Bolus dosing

Neuromuscular Blocking Agent - Continuous Infusion

Drug

Continuous infusion of NMBA

Other names: Continuous infusion

Primary outcomes

  1. Recruitment rate among eligible patients

    Time frame: Within 48 hours of meeting ARDS criteria

    Recruitment rate among eligible patients

  2. Protocol adherence rate

    Time frame: for the first 28 days of mechanical ventilation

    Protocol adherence rate

  3. Proportion of missing baseline characteristics and outcomes

    Time frame: First 28 days of invasive ventilation post ARDS diagnosis.

    Proportion of baseline characteristics and outcomes that are missing

  4. Compositive Safety

    Time frame: First 28 days of invasive ventilation post ARDS diagnosis.

    rates of ICU acquired weakness, unplanned extubation, and other SAE

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Ken Parhar, MD MSc MPH

CONTACT

[email protected]

000-000-0000

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University of Calgary

Other

Registry information

Official study title

The Effect of Continuous vs Bolus Neuromuscular Blockade Regimens for Patients With Moderate to Severe Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and ARDS (COBRA): A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Acronym: COBRA

Important dates

Study start
2027
Primary completion
2027
Study completion
2028
First posted
May 5, 2026
Registry last updated
May 14, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.