Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT03787173

Patient-ventilator Synchronisation Study for Intensive Care Unit Patients

This cross-over study will compare the asynchrony index between standard manual ventilator settings, optimized manual ventilator settings, and automated ventilator setting in intensive care patients ventilated in non-invasive ventilation with a high asynchrony index. The hypothesis is that both manual optimized ventilator settings and automated ventilator settings are associated with a lower patient-ventilator asynchrony index as compared to manual standard ventilator settings.

A randomized cross-over design method will be used. Patient requiring NIV with an asynchrony index over 35% will be included. An esophageal catheter with a balloon will be inserted to monitor esophageal pressure. Patients will be ventilated during 3 periods of 30 min, with 10 minutes of washout in between. Recordings of airway pressure, airway flow, and esophageal pressure will be analyzed by two investigators blinded of the trigger settings.

The primary outcome will be the asynchrony index. The secondary outcome will be the ineffective inspiratory effort index, autotrigering index, double triggering index, inspiratory trigger delay, cycling delay, total time spent in asynchrony, patient comfort, and blood gas results.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal Toulon La Seyne sur Mer

Toulon, Var, 83056, France

About this study

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is used in 35% of patient admitted in intensive care unit (ICU) with a failure rate of 10 to 70% depending on the indication and clinician experience. Patient-ventilator asynchrony is a frequent cause of NIV failure. Therefore, optimizing patient-ventilator synchronization is important for its comfort, tolerance, and efficacy. An optimal patient-ventilation is achieved when the mechanical breath provided by the ventilator match the patient inspiratory effort. The ratio between the number of asynchronies divided by the number of patient inspiratory effort define the asynchrony index (AI). AI over 10% is considered as severe and occurs in 30 to 43% of patients ventilated in NIV. Patient ventilator asynchronies occurs because ventilator settings of inspiratory and expiratory triggers remain constant in patient with variable respiratory drive, and unintentionnals leaks that are difficult to control in NIV. Thus using an automatic adjustment of inspiratory and expiratory triggers setting according to patient effort and unintentional leaks may decrease the number of patient-ventilator asynchronies. This cross-over study will compare the asynchrony index between standard manual ventilator settings, optimized manual ventilator settings, and automated ventilator setting in intensive care patients ventilated in non-invasive ventilation with a high asynchrony index. The hypothesis is that both manual optimized ventilator settings and automated ventilator settings are associated with a lower patient-ventilator asynchrony index as compared to manual standard ventilator settings.

A randomized cross-over design method will be used. Patient requiring NIV with an asynchrony index over 30% will be included. An esophageal catheter with a balloon will be inserted to monitor esophageal pressure. Patients will be ventilated during 3 periods of 30 min, with 10 minutes of washout in between. Recordings of airway pressure, airway flow, and esophageal pressure will be analyzed by two investigators blinded of the trigger settings.

The primary outcome will be the asynchrony index. The secondary outcome will be the ineffective inspiratory effort index, autotrigering index, double triggering index, inspiratory trigger delay, cycling delay, total time spent in asynchrony, patient comfort, and blood gas results.

The sample size was calculated from the total asynchrony index (primary outcome). Patients with an asynchrony index over 30% in using manual standard ventilator settings will be included. Considering an asynchrony index of 30 ± 15 % in manual standard ventilator settings with a clinically significant objective to reduce the asynchrony index to 15% in manual optimized ventilator settings and automated ventilator settings, a sample size of 30 patients is required with a risk at 0.05 and a power at 80%. Therefore, 35 patients are planned.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

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

Inclusion criteria

  • Patient aged over 18 years old
  • Covered by social insurance
  • Consent for study signed by patient or next-of-kin
  • NIV session indicated for at least 2 hours
  • Asynchrony index ≥ 30% with standard manual settings

Exclusion criteria

  • Patient requiring continuous NIV
  • Contra-indication to esophageal catheter insertion: gastric ulcer, esophageal varices, pharyngeal or laryngeal tumor.
  • Patient with withholding decision about intubation
  • Moribund patient
  • Patient included in another interventional study in the last 30 days
  • Patient that does not speak French
  • Pregnant women

Treatment and study plan

Optimized

Device

Inspiratory trigger and Expiratory trigger settings optimized by investigator

Automated

Device

Inspiratory trigger and Expiratory trigger settings automatized

Primary outcomes

  1. Asynchrony index

    Time frame: Continuous measurement over 30min

    Ratio between the total number of asynchronies divided by the number of patient inspiratory effort

Secondary outcomes

  1. Lineffective inspiratory effort index

    Time frame: Continuous measurement over 30min

    Ratio between the total number of ineffective inspiratory effort divided by the number of patient inspiratory effort

  2. Autotrigering index

    Time frame: Continuous measurement over 30min

    Ratio between the total number of autotriggered breath divided by the number of patient inspiratory effort

  3. Double triggering index

    Time frame: Continuous measurement over 30min

    Ratio between the total number of double triggered breath divided by the number of patient inspiratory effort

  4. Inspiratory trigger delay

    Time frame: Continuous measurement over 30min

    Time between the beginning of patient effort assessed on oesophageal pressure and beginning of mechanical breath.

  5. Cycling delay

    Time frame: Continuous measurement over 30min

    Time between the end of patient effort assessed on oesophageal pressure and the end of mechanical breath.

  6. Total time spent in asynchrony

    Time frame: Continuous measurement over 30min

    Ratio of total time of ineffective inspiratory effort, inspiratory trigger delay, and cycling delay on total time of recording.

  7. Patient comfort

    Time frame: 1 day (Single measurement)

    Visual analog scale of Likert type measuring patient comfort going from 0 (very uncomfortable) to 10 (very comfortable)

  8. Blood PaO2 results

    Time frame: After each period at 30 min, 1 h and 1 h 30 min

    PaO2

  9. Blood PaCO2 results

    Time frame: After each period at 30 min, 1 h and 1 h 30 min

    PaCO2

  10. Blood pH results

    Time frame: After each period at 30 min, 1 h and 1 h 30 min

    pH

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Toulon La Seyne sur Mer

Other

Collaborators

  • Hamilton Medical AG

Registry information

Official study title

Patient-ventilator Synchronisation Study in Non Invasive Ventilation for Intensive Care Unit Patients: Comparison Between Manual and Automated Ventilator Settings.

Acronym: SyncAutoVNI

Important dates

Study start
2019
Primary completion
2024
Study completion
2024
First posted
Dec 26, 2018
Registry last updated
Jan 28, 2025

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.