Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT04827927

The Effect of Closed-Loop Versus Conventional Ventilation on Mechanical Power

Several studies suggest fully-automated ventilation to ventilate with a lower amount of MP in unselected ICU patients, patients after cardiac surgery, and patients with and without ARDS. The current study will directly compare the amount of MP in invasively ventilated critically ill patients by calculating MP breath-by-breath, using the various equations proposed in the literature.

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

Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands

Loading trial locations.

About this study

Rationale:

Mechanical ventilation can cause ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). Lung protective ventilation, consisting of a low tidal volume (VT), a low plateau pressure (Pplateau) and a low driving pressure (ΔP) improves survival and shortens duration of ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Lung protective ventilation may also benefit critically ill patients with respiratory failure not caused by ARDS. 'Mechanical Power of ventilation' (MP), the amount of energy per time transferred from the ventilator to the respiratory system, is a summary variable that includes all the components that play a role in VILI. With fully-automated closed-loop ventilation, these components are no longer set by the operator, but under control of the algorithms in the ventilator.

Objective:

To compare MP under INTELLiVENT-adaptive support ventilation (ASV), a fully-automated closed-loop ventilation, with MP under conventional ventilation.

Hypothesis:

INTELLiVENT-ASV compared to conventional ventilation results in a lower MP.

Study design:

National, multicenter, crossover, randomized clinical trial.

Study population:

Invasively ventilated critically ill patients.

Methods:

The ventilator will be randomly switched between INTELLiVENT-ASV for 3 hours and conventional ventilation for 3 hours. The amount of MP is calculated using various equations proposed in the literature.

Study endpoints:

The primary endpoint is the amount of MP with each form of invasive ventilation.

Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, benefit and group relatedness:

Differences in burden and risks of the two ventilation strategies compared in the current study are not expected. Both modes of ventilation are interchangeably used as part of standard care in the participating centers. No other interventions are performed. Neither the collection of demographic and outcome data, nor the capturing of ventilation characteristics causes harm to patients.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

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

Inclusion criteria

  • Admitted to one of the participating ICUs;
  • Receiving invasive ventilation through a standard endotracheal (i.e., oral) tube;
  • Expected to be ventilated > 24 hours; and
  • Ventilation is applied by a ventilator that can provide INTELLiVENT-ASV and conventional ventilation.

Exclusion criteria

  • Age under 18 years;
  • No written informed consent;
  • Morbidly obese; and
  • Any contra-indication for use of INTELLiVENT-ASV

Treatment and study plan

Procedure: INTELLiVENT-ASV

Procedure

With INTELLiVENT-ASV, the patient's conditions, 'ARDS', 'Chronic Hypercapnia' or 'Traumatic Brain Injury' can be chosen, if applicable. The controllers for minute volume, PEEP and FiO2 are all activated, and the target shifts for etCO2 and SpO2 are adjusted, if necessary.

Procedure: Conventional ventilation

Procedure

With conventional ventilation, the same etCO2 and SpO2 levels are targeted as with INTELLiVENT-ASV, but here the caregiver is fully responsible for choosing the settings.

Primary outcomes

  1. The amount of MP delivered with each form of invasive ventilation

    Time frame: 3 hours per ventilation mode

    The amount of MP delivered with INTELLiVENT-ASV and conventional ventilation

Secondary outcomes

  1. Duration of ventilation

    Time frame: first 28 days after start of ventilation

    Duration of ventilation in survivors

  2. ICU-length and hospital of stay

    Time frame: first 28 days after start of ventilation

    Length of stay in the intensive care unit and in the hospital

  3. 28 day-mortality

    Time frame: first 28 days after start of ventilation

    Any death during ICU-, hospital-stay and within 28 days

  4. Tidal volume

    Time frame: 3 hours per ventilation mode

    Tidal volume in ml/kg

  5. Respiratory rate

    Time frame: 3 hours per ventilation mode

    Respiratory rate per minute

  6. Pmax

    Time frame: 3 hours per ventilation mode

    Maximum airway pressure in cmH2O

  7. Driving pressure

    Time frame: 3 hours per ventilation mode

    Difference between end-inspiratory pressure and total Positieve End Expiratory Pressure in cmH2O

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Academisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA)

Other

Collaborators

  • Dijklander Ziekenhuis
  • Reinier de Graaf Groep
  • University of Zurich

Registry information

Official study title

The Effect of Closed-Loop Versus Conventional Ventilation on Mechanical Power - a Multicenter Crossover Randomized Clinical Trial

Acronym: INTELLiPOWER

Important dates

Study start
2021
Primary completion
2023
Study completion
2023
First posted
Apr 1, 2021
Registry last updated
Aug 24, 2023

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.