Spontaneous Ventilation Strategy
ProcedureInvasive mechanical ventilation strategy allowing spontaneous breathing while receiving ventilatory support from a standard ICU mechanical ventilator.
NCT Number: NCT07463885
Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure may progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome, a life-threatening condition that often requires mechanical ventilation. The optimal ventilation strategy in this patient population remains uncertain.
The SVALBARD trial is a feasibility and pilot study designed to compare spontaneous versus controlled mechanical ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemia respiratory failure.
The primary objective is to assess the feasibility of the study procedures and interventions, while also collecting descriptive data on key clinical variables to inform the design of a future randomized controlled trial.
Trial opening soon.
Get Notified18 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is a condition that can progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), requiring invasive mechanical ventilation to support gas exchange and limit lung injury. ARDS guidelines recommend lung-protective ventilation strategies-specifically low tidal volumes and limited airway pressures-to reduce ventilator-induced lung injury. Observational studies, including the global LUNG SAFE project, have described the epidemiology and management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and ARDS. These studies report high mortality rates (global hospital mortality, 38.6%) associated with the severity of lung injury rather than strict fulfilment of ARDS criteria. They also reveal variability in the application of evidence-based ventilation strategies across institutions. This inconsistency highlights a barrier to progress: the lack of conclusive evidence guiding ventilation management in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.
One unresolved issue is the role of spontaneous breathing during mechanical ventilation. Observational studies suggest that allowing spontaneous effort may reduce need for sedation and increase ventilator-free days. In contrast, preclinical models indicate that spontaneous breathing in severe lung injury may worsen outcomes through mechanisms such as patient-ventilator asynchrony and regional overdistension. This contrast underscores the need to balance potential benefits against physiological risks in the absence of adequate trial data. ARDS guidelines do not provide clear recommendations on this issue due to limited evidence. Only one large RCT has compared controlled ventilation to spontaneous breathing modes, finding no difference in short-term outcomes and not assessing long-term endpoints such as cognitive impairment or quality of life.As a result, clinicians must choose between guideline-based controlled ventilation and approaches that incorporate spontaneous breathing, within the context of evolving sedation practices and recovery goals. Given the variability of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and the current evidence gap, genuine uncertainty ('clinical equipoise') exists regarding the optimal ventilation strategy. This supports the need for well-designed RCTs to determine whether spontaneous ventilation offers clinical benefit or harm. A recent survey of Nordic clinicians showed support for such a trial in patients with moderately severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, underscoring the relevance of this research.
The SVALBARD study is a feasibility and pilot trial comparing spontaneous and controlled mechanical ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The study will evaluate whether it is possible to recruit patients, apply the assigned ventilation strategies, and collect the required data in a reliable way.
In addition, the study will collect descriptive clinical data to better understand patient characteristics and outcomes. The results will be used to improve the design and planning of a future randomized controlled trial.
The trial will accrue 80 patients from eight different intensive care units, four in Norway and four in Denmark.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
We will include patients who fulfil all the following criteria:
Exclusion criteria
Invasive mechanical ventilation strategy allowing spontaneous breathing while receiving ventilatory support from a standard ICU mechanical ventilator.
Invasive mechanical ventilation strategy in which spontaneous respiratory effort is suppressed and breaths are fully delivered by a standard ICU mechanical ventilator.
Time frame: 1 year from trial initiation
Proportion of eligible patients who are enrolled in the trial (primary feasibility outcome).
Time frame: 1 year from trial initiation
Proportion of eligible patients who provide informed consent to participate in the trial.
Time frame: 1 year from trial initiation
Proportion of consented participants who are randomised.
Time frame: 1 year from trial initiation
Proportion of study procedures completed according to protocol requirements.
Time frame: 1 year from trial initiation
Proportion of enrolled participants with at least one major protocol deviation.
Time frame: 1 year from trial initiation
Proportion of randomised participants who complete study follow-up.
Time frame: Up to 1 year
Time from trial initiation to completion of feasibility study recruitment and follow-up.
Time frame: 48 hours from randomisation
Proportion of randomised participants achieving the predefined therapeutic target within 48 hours after randomisation.
Time frame: 48 hours
Difference between study groups in the proportion of participants achieving the predefined therapeutic target at 48 hours.
Time frame: 48 hours from randomisation
Proportion of randomised participants with missing data for the predefined therapeutic target assessed 48 hours after randomisation.
Time frame: 30 days
Proportion of enrolled participants who have died from any cause by 30 days.
Time frame: 90 days
Proportion of enrolled participants who have died from any cause by 90 days.
Time frame: 180 days
Proportion of enrolled participants who have died from any cause by 180 days.
Time frame: 90 days
Number of days alive and free of life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, or vasoactive drug support) from randomisation through day 90. Life support-free days are calculated as the number of calendar days alive and free of all listed life support modalities during the 90-day period. Participants who die before day 90 will be assigned 0 days.
Time frame: 90 days
Number of days alive and out of hospital from randomisation through day 90. Participants who die before day 90 will be assigned 0 days.
Time frame: 180 days
Health-related quality of life measured using the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) index score. The index value ranges from less than 0 (health state worse than death) to 1 (best health), with higher scores indicating better health. Participants who die before assessment will be assigned a value of 0.
Time frame: 180 days
Health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), ranging from 0 (worst imaginable health) to 100 (best imaginable health). Higher scores indicate better health. Participants who die before assessment will be assigned a value of 0.
Time frame: 180 days
Cognitive function assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Version 2.1 (telephone version). Scores range from 0 to 15, with higher scores indicating better cognitive function. Participants who die before assessment will be assigned a score of 0.
Time frame: 180 days
Post-traumatic stress symptoms assessed using the Impact of Event Scale-6 (IES-6). The scale consists of six items rated from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). The mean score ranges from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe post-traumatic stress symptoms.
Time frame: 180 days
Dyspnea assessed using the Modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) Dyspnea Scale. Scores range from 0 (breathless only with strenuous exercise) to 4 (too breathless to leave the house or while dressing/undressing), with higher scores indicating worse dyspnea.
Time frame: 180 days
Fatigue assessed using the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire (CFQ), consisting of 11 items scored from 0 to 3. Total scores range from 0 to 33, with higher scores indicating greater fatigue.
Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.
Jon Henrik Laake, MD, PHD
CONTACT
Tayyba Naz Aslam, MD
CONTACT
Oslo University Hospital
Other
Spontaneous Versus Controlled Mechanical Ventilation in Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Feasibility Study and Pilot Trial
Acronym: SVALBARD
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.
NCT06936618
Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)
Bangkok, Thailand
View Trial DetailsNCT06938217
Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)
San Antonio, Texas, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT07673250
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
La Jolla, California, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT07558265
Acute Hypoxic Respiratory Failure, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)
Columbus, Ohio, United States
View Trial Details