Dataset Information

A Phase II randomized controlled trial for lung and diaphragm protective ventilation (Real-time Effort Driven VENTilator management).

ABSTRACT: Lung Protective Mechanical Ventilation (MV) of critically ill adults and children is lifesaving but it may decrease diaphragm contraction and promote Ventilator Induced Diaphragm Dysfunction (VIDD). An ideal MV strategy would balance lung and diaphragm protection. Building off a Phase I pilot study, we are conducting a Phase II controlled clinical trial that seeks to understand the evolution of VIDD in critically ill children and test whether a novel computer-based approach (Real-time Effort Driven ventilator management (REDvent)) can balance lung and diaphragm protective ventilation to reduce time on MV. REDvent systematically adjusts PEEP, FiO₂, inspiratory pressure, tidal volume and rate, and uses real-time measures from esophageal manometry to target normal levels of patient effort of breathing. This trial targets 276 children with pulmonary parenchymal disease. Patients are randomized to REDvent vs. usual care for the acute phase of MV (intubation to first Spontaneous Breathing Trial (SBT)). Patients in either group who fail their first SBT will be randomized to REDvent vs usual care for weaning phase management (interval from first SBT to passing SBT). The primary clinical outcome is length of weaning, with several mechanistic outcomes. Upon completion, this study will provide important information on the pathogenesis and timing of VIDD during MV in children and whether this computerized protocol targeting lung and diaphragm protection can lead to improvement in intermediate clinical outcomes. This will form the basis for a larger, Phase III multi-center study, powered for key clinical outcomes such as 28-day ventilator free days. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT03266016.

SUBMITTER: Khemani RG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6952541 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Phase II randomized controlled trial for lung and diaphragm protective ventilation (Real-time Effort Driven VENTilator management).

Khemani Robinder G RG Hotz Justin C JC Klein Margaret J MJ Kwok Jeni J Park Caron C Lane Christianne C Smith Erin E Kohler Kristen K Suresh Anil A Bornstein Dinnel D Elkunovich Marsha M Ross Patrick A PA Deakers Timothy T Beltramo Fernando F Nelson Lara L Shah Shilpa S Bhalla Anoopindar A Curley Martha A Q MAQ Newth Christopher J L CJL

Contemporary clinical trials 20191116

Lung Protective Mechanical Ventilation (MV) of critically ill adults and children is lifesaving but it may decrease diaphragm contraction and promote Ventilator Induced Diaphragm Dysfunction (VIDD). An ideal MV strategy would balance lung and diaphragm protection. Building off a Phase I pilot study, we are conducting a Phase II controlled clinical trial that seeks to understand the evolution of VIDD in critically ill children and test whether a novel computer-based approach (Real-time Effort Dri ...[more]

PMID: 31740425

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesMechanical ventilation of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome should balance lung and diaphragm protective principles, which may be difficult to achieve in routine clinical practice. Through a Phase I clinical trial, we sought to determine whether a computerized decision support-based protocol (real-time effort-driven ventilator management) is feasible to implement, results in improved acceptance for lung and diaphragm protective ventilation, and improves clinical outcomes over historical controls.DesignInterventional nonblinded pilot study.SettingPICU.PatientsMechanically ventilated children with acute respiratory distress syndrome.InterventionsA computerized decision support tool was tested which prioritized lung-protective management of peak inspiratory pressure-positive end-expiratory pressure, positive end-expiratory pressure/FIO2, and ventilatory rate. Esophageal manometry was used to maintain patient effort in a physiologic range. Protocol acceptance was reported, and enrolled patients were matched 4:1 with respect to age, initial oxygenation index, and percentage of immune compromise to historical control patients for outcome analysis.Measurements and main resultsThirty-two patients were included. Acceptance of protocol recommendations was over 75%. One-hundred twenty-eight matched historical controls were used for analysis. Compared with historical controls, patients treated with real-time effort-driven ventilator management received lower peak inspiratory pressure-positive end-expiratory pressure and tidal volume, and higher positive end-expiratory pressure when FIO2 was greater than 0.60. Real-time effort-driven ventilator management was associated with 6 more ventilator-free days, shorter duration until the first spontaneous breathing trial and 3 fewer days on mechanical ventilation among survivors (all p ≤ 0.05) in comparison with historical controls, while maintaining no difference in the rate of reintubation.ConclusionsA computerized decision support-based protocol prioritizing lung-protective ventilation balanced with reduction of controlled ventilation to maintain physiologic levels of patient effort can be implemented and may be associated with shorter duration of ventilation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Lung-protective ventilation (LPV) has been found to minimize the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). However, whether LPV is able to diminish ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction (VIDD) remains unknown. This study was designed to test the hypothesis that LPV protects the diaphragm against VIDD. METHODS:Adult male Wistar rats received either conventional mechanical (tidal volume [VT]: 10 ml/kg, positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP]: 2 cm H2O; CV group) or lung-protective (VT: 5 ml/kg, PEEP: 10 cm H2O; LPV group) ventilation for 12 h. Then, diaphragms and lungs were collected for biochemical and histological analyses. Transcriptome sequencing (RNA-seq) was performed to determine the differentially expressed genes in the diaphragms between groups. RESULTS:Our results suggested that LPV was associated with diminished pulmonary injuries and reduced oxidative stress compared with the effects of the CV strategy in rats. However, animals that received LPV showed increased protein degradation, decreased cross-sectional areas (CSAs) of myofibers, and reduced forces of the diaphragm compared with the same parameters in animals receiving CV (p < 0.05). In addition, the LPV group showed a higher level of oxidative stress in the diaphragm than the CV group (p < 0.05). Moreover, RNA-seq and western blots revealed that the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ coactivator-1alpha (PGC-1α), a powerful reactive oxygen species (ROS) inhibitor, was significantly downregulated in the LPV group compared with its expression in the CV group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Compared with the CV strategy, the LPV strategy did not protect the diaphragm against VIDD in rats. In contrast, the LPV strategy worsened VIDD by inducing oxidative stress together with the downregulation of PGC-1α in the diaphragm. However, further studies are required to determine the roles of PGC-1α in ventilator-induced diaphragmatic oxidative stress.

Project description:ObjectivesLung- and diaphragm-protective ventilation is a novel concept that aims to limit the detrimental effects of mechanical ventilation on the diaphragm while remaining within limits of lung-protective ventilation. The premise is that low breathing effort under mechanical ventilation causes diaphragm atrophy, whereas excessive breathing effort induces diaphragm and lung injury. In a proof-of-concept study, we aimed to assess whether titration of inspiratory support based on diaphragm effort increases the time that patients have effort in a predefined "diaphragm-protective" range, without compromising lung-protective ventilation.DesignRandomized clinical trial.SettingMixed medical-surgical ICU in a tertiary academic hospital in the Netherlands.PatientsPatients (n = 40) with respiratory failure ventilated in a partially-supported mode.InterventionsIn the intervention group, inspiratory support was titrated hourly to obtain transdiaphragmatic pressure swings in the predefined "diaphragm-protective" range (3-12 cm H2O). The control group received standard-of-care.Measurements and main resultsTransdiaphragmatic pressure, transpulmonary pressure, and tidal volume were monitored continuously for 24 hours in both groups. In the intervention group, more breaths were within "diaphragm-protective" range compared with the control group (median 81%; interquartile range [64-86%] vs 35% [16-60%], respectively; p < 0.001). Dynamic transpulmonary pressures (20.5 ± 7.1 vs 18.5 ± 7.0 cm H2O; p = 0.321) and tidal volumes (7.56 ± 1.47 vs 7.54 ± 1.22 mL/kg; p = 0.961) were not different in the intervention and control group, respectively.ConclusionsTitration of inspiratory support based on patient breathing effort greatly increased the time that patients had diaphragm effort in the predefined "diaphragm-protective" range without compromising tidal volumes and transpulmonary pressures. This study provides a strong rationale for further studies powered on patient-centered outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundThe effects of different modes of mechanical ventilation in the same ventilatory support level on ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction onset were assessed in healthy rabbits.MethodsTwenty New Zealand rabbits were randomly assigned to 4 groups (n = 5 in each group). Group 1: no mechanical ventilation; group 2: controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV) for 24 hours; group 3: assist/control ventilation (A/C) mode for 24 hours; group 4: high-level pressure support ventilation (PSV) mode for 24 hours. Heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, PH, partial pressure of arterial oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen and partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide were monitored and diaphragm electrical activity was analyzed in the 4 groups. Caspase-3 was evaluated by protein analysis and diaphragm ultra structure was assessed by electron microscopy.ResultsThe centroid frequency and the ratio of high frequency to low frequency were significantly reduced in the CMV, A/C and PSV groups (P < 0.001). The percent change in centroid frequency was significantly lower in the PSV group than in the CMV and A/C groups (P = 0.001 and P = 0.028, respectively). Electromyography of diaphragm integral amplitude decreased by 90% ± 1.48%, 67.8% ± 3.13% and 70.2% ± 4.72% in the CMV, A/C and PSV groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Caspase-3 protein activation was attenuated in the PSV group compared with the CMV and A/C groups (P = 0.035 and P = 0.033, respectively). Irregular swelling of mitochondria along with fractured and fuzzy cristae was observed in the CMV group, whereas mitochondrial cristae were dense and rich in the PSV group. The mitochondrial injury scores (Flameng scores) in the PSV group were the lowest among the 3 ventilatory groups (0.93 ± 0.09 in PSV versus 2.69 ± 0.05 in the CMV [P < 0.01] and PSV versus A/C groups [2.02 ± 0.08, P < 0.01]).ConclusionsThe diaphragm myoelectric activity was reduced in the PSV group, although excessive oxidative stress and ultra-structural changes of diaphragm were found. However, partial diaphragm electrical activity was retained and diaphragm injury was minimized using the PSV mode.

Project description:BackgroundInsufficient or excessive respiratory effort during acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) increases the risk of lung and diaphragm injury. We sought to establish whether respiratory effort can be optimized to achieve lung- and diaphragm-protective (LDP) targets (esophageal pressure swing - 3 to - 8 cm H2O; dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure ≤ 15 cm H2O) during AHRF.MethodsIn patients with early AHRF, spontaneous breathing was initiated as soon as passive ventilation was not deemed mandatory. Inspiratory pressure, sedation, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), and sweep gas flow (in patients receiving veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO)) were systematically titrated to achieve LDP targets. Additionally, partial neuromuscular blockade (pNMBA) was administered in patients with refractory excessive respiratory effort.ResultsOf 30 patients enrolled, most had severe AHRF; 16 required VV-ECMO. Respiratory effort was absent in all at enrolment. After initiating spontaneous breathing, most exhibited high respiratory effort and only 6/30 met LDP targets. After titrating ventilation, sedation, and sweep gas flow, LDP targets were achieved in 20/30. LDP targets were more likely to be achieved in patients on VV-ECMO (median OR 10, 95% CrI 2, 81) and at the PEEP level associated with improved dynamic compliance (median OR 33, 95% CrI 5, 898). Administration of pNMBA to patients with refractory excessive effort was well-tolerated and effectively achieved LDP targets.ConclusionRespiratory effort is frequently absent under deep sedation but becomes excessive when spontaneous breathing is permitted in patients with moderate or severe AHRF. Systematically titrating ventilation and sedation can optimize respiratory effort for lung and diaphragm protection in most patients. VV-ECMO can greatly facilitate the delivery of a LDP strategy.Trial registrationThis trial was registered in Clinicaltrials.gov in August 2018 (NCT03612583).

Dataset Information

A Phase II randomized controlled trial for lung and diaphragm protective ventilation (Real-time Effort Driven VENTilator management).

Publications

A Phase II randomized controlled trial for lung and diaphragm protective ventilation (Real-time Effort Driven VENTilator management).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets