NCT01102322

Brief Summary

In 1967, Ashbaugh et al first described 12 patients with a syndrome characterized by the acute onset dyspnea, severe hypoxemia, diffuse lung infiltrates on the chest radiography and decreased lung compliance. Moreover, in 1988, Murray et al proposed a lung injury scoring system based on the level of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), PaO2-to-FiO2 ratio, static lung compliance, degree of infiltrates on the chest radiograph, and clinical cause. A score of 2.5 or greater was considered to be consistent with a diagnosis of ARDS. The current definition of ARDS was proposed by Bernard et al and the American-European Consensus Conference in 1994. The criteria of ARDS included: 1) acute onset; 2) a PaO2/FIO2 ratio, or hypoxia score, of \< 200, regardless of positive endexpiratory pressure; 3) bilateral infiltrates on chest radiograph; and 4) a pulmonary artery occlusion pressure of \<18 mm Hg or the absence of clinical evidence of left atrial hypertension. However, despite advances in ventilator management, the mortality rate of acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome remains very high (approximately 40 to 50 percent). In 2000, ARDS Network trial compared the effects of 6 versus 12 mL/kg of tidal volume per predicted body weight (PBW) among 861 patients and noted an overall 22% reduction in mortality rate, more ventilator-free days, and more organ-failure-free days in the low-tidal-volume group. Therefore, the current approach to mechanical ventilation of a patient with ARDS emphasizes the use of lower tidal volumes with lower pressures to avoid causing lung overdistension and ventilator associated lung injury. Nevertheless, one year after publication of the ARDSnet trial, Rubenfeld et al noted that lung-protective ventilation strategies were applied in less than 5% of patients with ARDS or ALI at a single ARDSnet center. Rubenfeld et al found that common barriers to the initiation of low tidal volume ventilation include unwillingness to relinquish control of the ventilator, failure to recognize patients as having ALI/ARDS, and perceived contraindications to low tidal volume ventilation. Significant barriers to the continuation of low tidal volume ventilation include concerns regarding patient discomfort and tachypnea or hypercapnia and acidosis. In addition, Kalhan et al also evaluated factors associated with the choice of tidal volume and he reported that underuse of LPV may be related to clinicians' under-recognition of less severe cases of ALI, and their reserving of low-tidal volume ventilation for more severe cases, or both. However, the factors such as comorbidity and pathophysiological change associated with underuse of lung protective ventilation strategy are not clear. The investigators perform a prospective single-center study to investigate the factors associated with the use of lung protective ventilation strategy (LPV) in ALI/ARDS patients in ICU.

Trial Health

87
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
111

participants targeted

Target at P50-P75 for all trials

Timeline
Completed

Started Mar 2010

Shorter than P25 for all trials

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
completed

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

Study Start

First participant enrolled

March 1, 2010

Completed
16 days until next milestone

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

March 17, 2010

Completed
27 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

April 13, 2010

Completed
9 months until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

January 1, 2011

Completed
1 month until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

February 1, 2011

Completed
Last Updated

February 21, 2011

Status Verified

February 1, 2011

Enrollment Period

10 months

First QC Date

March 17, 2010

Last Update Submit

February 18, 2011

Conditions

Keywords

Acute respiratory distress syndrome

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

  • The rate of appropriately use of Lung Protective strategy in ALI/ARDS patients

    7 days

Study Arms (1)

1

Behavioral: Quality

Interventions

QualityBEHAVIORAL

Factors associated with the use of lung protective ventilation strategy (LPV) in ALI/ARDS patients in ICU

1

Eligibility Criteria

Age18 Years+
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersNo
Age GroupsAdult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)
Sampling MethodNon-Probability Sample
Study Population

Acute respiratory distress syndrome patients

You may qualify if:

  • All intubated and mechanically ventilated patients who meet the criteria of American-European Consensus Conference (AECC) criteria for ALI/ ARDS:
  • Acute onset of illness
  • Bilateral (patchy, diffuse, or homogeneous) infiltrates consistent with pulmonary edema
  • PaO2/FiO2 \<=300 (corrected for altitude): (P/F \<300 for ALI and P/F \<200 for ARDS)
  • No clinical evidence of left atrial hypertension

You may not qualify if:

  • Age \<18 years
  • Enrolled in other clinical trials
  • Had confirmed alternative diagnoses that would have different clinical course than ARDS/ALI, e.g., diffuse alveolar hemorrhage, vasculitis, interstitial pneumonitis, etc.
  • Congestive heart failure related pulmonary edema
  • Acute myocardial infarction
  • Pregnancy
  • Patients with definite contraindication to the use of low-tidal volume ventilation, e.g., increased intracranial pressure, tricyclic antidepressant overdose, etc.

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

Jih-Shuin Jerng

Taipei, 100, Taiwan

Location

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Lung DiseasesRespiratory Tract DiseasesRespiration Disorders

Study Officials

  • Jih-Shuin Jerng

    National Taiwan University Hospital

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

Study Type
observational
Observational Model
COHORT
Time Perspective
PROSPECTIVE
Sponsor Type
OTHER

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

March 17, 2010

First Posted

April 13, 2010

Study Start

March 1, 2010

Primary Completion

January 1, 2011

Study Completion

February 1, 2011

Last Updated

February 21, 2011

Record last verified: 2011-02

Locations