University Hospital of Padua
Padua, 35128, Italy
NCT Number: NCT05991258
Mechanical ventilation may be associated with ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). Several respiratory variables have been employed to estimate the risk of VILI, such as tidal volumes, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and mechanical power. This dissipation of energy during ventilation can contribute to VILI through two mechanisms, stress relaxation and pendelluft, which can be estimated at the bedside by applying an end-inspiratory pause and evaluating the slow decrease in airway pressure going from the pressure corresponding to zero flow (called pressure P1) and the final pressure at the end of the pause (called plateau pressure P2).
The choice of measuring the end-inspiratory airway pressure (PawEND-INSP) at a fixed, although relatively early, timepoint, i.e., after 0.5 second from the beginning of the pause, as prescribed by the indications of the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Network, while assessing the risk of VILI associated with the elastic pressure of the respiratory system, may not reflect the harmful potential associated with the viscoelastic properties of the respiratory system. It is still unclear whether an PawEND-INSP measured at the exact moment of zero flow (P1) is more reliable in the calculation of those variables, such as ΔP and MP, associated with the outcomes of patients with and without ARDS, as compared to the pressure measured at the end of the end-inspiratory pause (plateau pressure P2).
This multicenter prospective observational study aims to evaluate whether the use of P1, as compared to P2, affects the calculation of ΔP and MP. The secondary objectives are: 1) verify whether in patients with a lung parenchyma characterized by greater parenchymal heterogeneity, as assessed by EIT, P1-P2 decay is greater than in patients with greater parenchymal homogeneity; 2) evaluate whether patients with both ΔP values calculated using P1 and P2 <15 cmH2O (or both MP values calculated using P1 and P2 <17 J/min) develop shorter duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, shorter ICU and hospital length of stay and lower ICU and hospital mortality, as compared to patients with only ΔP calculated with P1 ≥ 15 cmH2O (or only MP calculated with P1 ≥ 17 J/min) and patients with both ΔP values calculated using P1 and P2 ≥ 15 cmH2O (or both MP values calculated using P1 and P2 ≥ 17 J/min).
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year and older
All sexes
Observational
Padua, 35128, Italy
Introduction
Mechanical ventilation is necessary to ensure survival in critically ill patients but may be associated with ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). Several respiratory variables have been employed to estimate the risk of VILI:
In patients with ARDS, the lung parenchyma is heterogeneous because of the coexistence of aerated alveolar units and other regions that are filled with edema or collapsed due to the superimposed pressure. Therefore, both the alveolar units with shorter time constants and those with longer time constants are at risk of VILI: the former are affected by higher transpulmonary pressures, while the latter are exposed to pendelluft. Even lungs of patients without ARDS may be heterogeneous and thus predisposed to VILI through these mechanisms, e.g., because of alveolar atelectasis or consolidation and bronchiolar obstruction. Some imaging techniques available for clinical use may help assessing the degree of lung parenchymal heterogeneity. Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is a non-invasive bedside technique that allows assessing the distribution of lung ventilation and perfusion by recording the impedance variation to small electrical currents delivered by an electrode belt wrapped around the patient's chest. This method has been shown to visualize and measure pendelluft during controlled mechanical ventilation. The EIT variables used to assess lung heterogeneity include the center of ventilation, i.e., the variation in the distribution of ventilation according to a ventro-dorsal gradient, the global inhomogeneity index, an index that estimates the heterogeneity of ventilation, and the regional ventilation delay, indicating the delay in ventilation compared to global ventilation due to atelectrauma or differences in the time constant of different lung areas.
Stress relaxation and pendelluft can be estimated at the bedside by applying an end-inspiratory pause. During this maneuver, the airway pressure curve exhibits two subsequent phases of decrease. First, a rapid pressure drop occurs, ranging from peak airway pressure to the pressure corresponding to zero flow (called pressure P1), which reflects the dissipation of pressure in the conduction airways. Then, a slow decrease in airway pressure follows, which goes from P1 to the final pressure at the end of the pause (called plateau pressure P2). The difference between P1 and P2 (P1-P2 decay) depends on stress relaxation and pendelluft and can be used as index of the time constant inequalities and viscoelastic tissue properties of the respiratory system.
The choice of measuring the end-inspiratory airway pressure (PawEND-INSP) at a fixed, although relatively early, timepoint, i.e., after 0.5 second from the beginning of the pause, as prescribed by the indications of the ARDS Network, while assessing the risk of VILI associated with the elastic pressure of the respiratory system, may not reflect the harmful potential associated with the viscoelastic properties of the respiratory system.
Previous pilot studies discouraged the use of inspiratory pauses of less than 3 seconds not to underestimate respiratory system compliance and resistance. However, a delayed measurement of the PawEND-INSP could lead to neglect the contribution of pulmonary viscoelastic properties and pendelluft to VILI. It is still unclear whether an PawEND-INSP measured at the exact moment of zero flow (P1) is more reliable in the calculation of those variables, such as ΔP and MP, associated with the outcomes of patients with and without ARDS, as compared to the pressure measured at the end of the end-inspiratory pause (plateau pressure P2).
Rationale of the study
Objectives of the study
This multicenter prospective observational study aims to evaluate whether the use of P1, as compared to P2, affects the calculation of ΔP and MP. The secondary objectives are: 1) verify whether in patients with a lung parenchyma characterized by greater parenchymal heterogeneity, as assessed by EIT, P1-P2 decay is greater than in patients with greater parenchymal homogeneity; 2) evaluate whether patients with both ΔP values calculated using P1 and P2 <1 5 cmH2O (or both MP values calculated using P1 and P2 < 17 cmH2O) develop shorter duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, shorter ICU and hospital length of stay and lower ICU and hospital mortality, as compared to patients with only ΔP calculated with P1 ≥ 15 cmH2O (or only MP calculated with P1 ≥ 17 cmH2O) and patients with both ΔP values calculated using P1 and P2 ≥ 15 cmH2O (or both MP values calculated using P1 and P2 ≥ 17 cmH2O).
Data collection
Data will be collected for 1 year. Demographic, anthropometric and anamnestic variables, ventilation settings, respiratory mechanics, and EIT variables normally collected during daily clinical practice at the involved centers will be recorded within 48 hours since ICU admission. Data collection for each patient will end upon discharge from the hospital. The methodology of the study involves the following phases:
5.1. Peak pressure 5.2. Ppause: Pplat automatically recorded by the ventilator with the 10% automatic inspiratory pause (this can be also recorded during tidal breathing) 5.3. P1: after the initial brief fluctuation of the flow, P1 is read at the point of zero flow at the bottom of any pressure fluctuation caused by cardiac contraction 5.4. P2: P2 is recorded after 5 seconds of end-inspiratory pause at the bottom of any pressure fluctuation caused by cardiac contraction 5.5. P0.5s: PawEND-INSP recorded after 0.5 seconds during the pause at the bottom of any pressure fluctuation caused by cardiac contraction 5.6. P2s: PawEND-INSP recorded after 2 seconds during the pause at the bottom of any pressure fluctuation caused by cardiac contraction 5.7. P3s: PawEND-INSP recorded after 3 seconds during the pause at the bottom of any pressure fluctuation caused by cardiac contraction 5.8. Tidal volume at the end of the inspiratory hold to check for the presence of air leaks If the flow does not reach zero and/or the pressure waveform shows oscillations not attributable to cardiac contractions, but to the patient's respiratory efforts, the measurement is not reliable and cannot be recorded. The patient should be evaluated later on or excluded from the study.
9.1. Increase in airway pressure from the value immediately preceding the occlusion and the plateau after 5 seconds (static intrinsic PEEP) 9.2. Increase in airway pressure from the end-expiratory value to the value at zero flow in the respiratory cycle without expiratory pause (dynamic intrinsic PEEP) If the flow does not reach zero and/or the pressure waveform shows oscillations not attributable to cardiac contractions, but to the patient's respiratory efforts, the measurement is not reliable and cannot be recorded. The patient should be evaluated later on or excluded from the study.
Data will be generated in the participating centers and recorded via web application on the servers of the University of Padua using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) management software developed by the Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health of the University of Padua, which will be disseminated at a multicenter level.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Time frame: Once per patient within 48 h from ICU admission
Calculation of ΔP with end-inspiratory airway pressure measured at different timepoints (automatic pause of the ventilator, first point of zero flow [P1], 0.5 s, 2 s, 3 s, 5 s [P2]) and comparison of the different values
Time frame: Within 2 days from ICU admission
Calculation of MP with end-inspiratory airway pressure measured at different timepoints (automatic pause of the ventilator, first point of zero flow [P1], 0.5 s, 2 s, 3 s, 5 s [P2]) and comparison of the different values
Time frame: Within 2 days from ICU admission
Measurement of end-inspiratory airway pressure at different timepoints (automatic pause of the ventilator, first point of zero flow [P1], 0.5 s, 2 s, 3 s, 5 s [P2]) and comparison of the different values
Time frame: Within 2 days from ICU admission
Calculation of respiratory system compliance with end-inspiratory airway pressure measured at different timepoints (automatic pause of the ventilator, first point of zero flow [P1], 0.5 s, 2 s, 3 s, 5 s [P2]) and comparison of the different values
Time frame: Within 2 days from ICU admission
Calculation of airway resistance with end-inspiratory airway pressure measured at different timepoints (automatic pause of the ventilator, first point of zero flow [P1], 0.5 s, 2 s, 3 s, 5 s [P2]) and comparison of the different values
Time frame: Within 2 days from ICU admission
In the subgroup of patients undergoing EIT, calculation of center of ventilation, global inhomogeneity index, regional ventilation delay, and pendelluft and correlation with P1-P2 decay and the difference between ΔP (or MP) measured with P1 and P2
Time frame: From date of randomization until the date of ICU discharge/death assessed up to 12 months
Assess whether those patients ventilated with ΔP values calculated using both P1 and P2 < 15 cmH2O develop shorter duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, as compared to patients ventilated with only ΔP calculated with P1 ≥ 15 cmH2O and patients ventilated with ΔP values calculated using both P1 and P2 ≥ 15 cmH2O
Time frame: Within 28 days from ICU admission
Assess whether those patients ventilated with ΔP values calculated using both P1 and P2 < 15 cmH2O develop more 28-day ventilation-free days, as compared to patients ventilated with only ΔP calculated with P1 ≥ 15 cmH2O and patients ventilated with ΔP values calculated using both P1 and P2 ≥ 15 cmH2O
Time frame: From date of randomization until the date of ICU or hospital discharge/death assessed up to 12 months
Assess whether those patients ventilated with ΔP values calculated using both P1 and P2 < 15 cmH2O develop shorter ICU and hospital length of stay, as compared to patients ventilated with only ΔP calculated with P1 ≥ 15 cmH2O and patients ventilated with ΔP values calculated using both P1 and P2 ≥ 15 cmH2O
Time frame: From date of randomization until the date of ICU or hospital discharge/death assessed up to 12 months
Assess whether those patients ventilated with ΔP values calculated using both P1 and P2 < 15 cmH2O develop lower ICU and hospital mortality, as compared to patients ventilated with only ΔP calculated with P1 ≥ 15 cmH2O and patients ventilated with ΔP values calculated using both P1 and P2 ≥ 15 cmH2O
Time frame: From date of randomization until the date of ICU discharge/death assessed up to 12 months
Assess whether those patients ventilated with MP values calculated using both P1 and P2 < 17 J/min develop shorter duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, as compared to patients ventilated with only MP calculated with P1 ≥ 17 J/min and patients ventilated with MP values calculated using both P1 and P2 ≥ 17 J/min
Time frame: Within 28 days from ICU admission
Assess whether those patients ventilated with MP values calculated using both P1 and P2 < 17 J/min develop more 28-day ventilation-free days, as compared to patients ventilated with only MP calculated with P1 ≥ 17 J/min and patients ventilated with MP values calculated using both P1 and P2 ≥ 17 J/min
Time frame: From date of randomization until the date of ICU or hospital discharge/death assessed up to 12 months
Assess whether those patients ventilated with MP values calculated using both P1 and P2 < 17 J/min develop shorter ICU and hospital length of stay, as compared to patients ventilated with only MP calculated with P1 ≥ 17 J/min and patients ventilated with MP values calculated using both P1 and P2 ≥ 17 J/min
Time frame: From date of randomization until the date of ICU or hospital discharge/death assessed up to 12 months
Assess whether those patients ventilated with MP values calculated using both P1 and P2 < 17 J/min develop lower ICU and hospital mortality, as compared to patients ventilated with only MP calculated with P1 ≥ 17 J/min and patients ventilated with MP values calculated using both P1 and P2 ≥ 17 J/min
University of Padova
Other
Effect of Different Measurements of End-inspiratory Airway Pressure on Driving Pressure and Mechanical Power in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: the P1-P2 Decay Study
Acronym: P1P2Decay
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.
NCT05125952
Acute Respiratory Failure, Lung Diseases
Durham, North Carolina, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT06562725
Acute Respiratory Failure, Critical Illness
Arras, France
View Trial DetailsNCT05295186
Acute Respiratory Failure, Mechanical Ventilation Complication
Bari, Italy
View Trial DetailsNCT03288311
Acute Respiratory Failure, Intubation Complication
Nashville, Tennessee, United States
View Trial Details