Active clinical trials for "Respiratory Insufficiency"

The purpose of this study is to compare a specific mode of artificial ventilation (help from a breathing machine) with other modes. This specific mode is called Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) and is different from other modes as it uses direct signals from the diaphragm (breathing muscle) to help patients breathe. The investigators believe that using these signals, NAVA can determine the exact timing for patients' spontaneous breathing effort and delivers the artificial breath at the same time (in synchrony) with their own breath. Other modes (breathing methods) may cause asynchrony between the patient and the ventilator while delivering artificial breaths because of the way they operate. Asyncrony between patient and ventilator is a risk factor for increasing the length of artificial ventilation and number of related complications. The investigators would like to find out if NAVA performs better in establishing synchrony between patient and ventilator and as a result decreasing time for artificial ventilation and increasing better outcomes.

Aims: There is increasing evidence that volume-targeted ventilation (VTV) holds benefits for preterm infants in comparison to pressure-limited ventilation. This study aims to compare pressure-limited to VTV in preterm infants. Hypothesis: Volume-targeted will be associated with more rapid achievement of weaning criteria compared to pressure-limited ventilation Primary outcome: Time taken to achieve pre-specified weaning criteria. Methods: Ventilated infants less than 34 weeks gestational age at birth were recruited within the first 24 hours of life and randomly allocated to receive either pressure-limited or VTV. Adjustments to ventilator settings were made according to the trial protocol. Infants were deemed to have met failure criteria if they required HFOV, required peak pressures of more than 26 cm of water or developed pulmonary haemorrhage. Analysis will be by intention-to-treat.

The investigators design a pilot randomised, single-centred, controlled trial to compare different withdrawal methods of Non-invasive ventilation. Our study aims at comparing stepwise withdrawal of Non-invasive ventilation versus immediate withdrawal of Non-invasive ventilation. The primary endpoint is to compare the rate of success between two withdrawal methods. The investigators define success as no recurrence of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure or restitution of Non-invasive ventilation within 48 hours after NIV is stopped. The secondary endpoints include time to recurrence of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure measured from the time of randomisation, the total days of Non-invasive ventilation use and the days of hospitalisation. Results from this trial will inform design of future randomised trial in this area.

Objectives: to compare intermittent mandatory ventilation (IMV) with synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation associated with pressure support (SIMV/PS) related to duration of mechanical ventilation/weaning and length of stay in PICU (LS). Design: randomized clinical trial. Setting: Pediatric intensive care unit at a university-affiliated hospital.

During assist control ventilation and pressure support ventilation (PSV), the start of ventilator inflation is determined by the start of the infant's inspiratory effort. During PSV, termination of inflation is determined by the level of the infant's inspiratory flow. In a randomized trial, no significant differences were found between assist control and pressure support ventilation with regard to the duration of weaning, time to successful extubation, work of breathing, rate of asynchrony and level of respiratory muscle strength.

The study is aimed to assess the possible benefit of non-positive pressure mechanical support in front of conventional ventilation in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) because of pure hypoxemic respiratory failure.

During mechanical ventilation (MV) hypoxemic or hyperoxemic events should be carefully monitored and a quick response should be provided by the caregiver at the bedside. Pediatric mechanical ventilation consensus conference (PEMVECC) guidelines suggest to measure SpO2 in all ventilated children and furthermore to measure partial arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2) in moderate-to-severe disease. There were no predefined upper and lower limits for oxygenation in pediatric guidelines, however, Pediatric acute lung injury consensus conference PALICC guidelines proposed SpO2 between 92 - 97% when positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is smaller than 10 cm H2O and SpO2 of 88 - 92% when PEEP is bigger or equal to 10 cm H2O. [1] For healthy lung, PEMVECC proposed the SpO2>95% when breathing a FiO2 of 21%.[2] As a rule of thumb, the minimum fraction of inspired O2 (FiO2) to reach these targets should be used. A recent Meta-analyze showed that automated FiO2 adjustment provides a significant improvement of time in target saturations, reduces periods of hyperoxia, and severe hypoxia in preterm infants on positive pressure respiratory support. [3] This study aims to compare the closed-loop FiO2 controller with conventional control of FiO2 during mechanical ventilation of pediatric patients

Prone positioning is one of the few therapies known to improve mortality in ARDS. Traditionally, patients are proned for 16 hours per 24 hour period. Some retrospective data suggests improvement may persist beyond 16 hours. We aim to perform a pilot study comparing traditional prone positioning to prolonged prone positioning in patients with COVID-induced ARDS.

This proposal will test the feasibility of implementing an assist volume control ventilation protocol in patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the medical intensive care unit. The trial will consist of a before-and-after trial design of block assignment to either adaptive pressure control (baseline) or assist volume control . This is a feasibility study looking at the management of patients in the ventilator.

Mechanical ventilation of ICU patients universally involves titration of the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) to maintain arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2). Despite decades of ICU practice, however, the optimal SpO2 target remains unknown. Current guidelines offer divergent recommendations as to the optimal SpO2 target. Therefore, we propose a 2,250-patient cluster-randomized cluster-crossover trial comparing a lower SpO2 target (90%; range 88-92%), an intermediate SpO2 target (94%; range 92-96%), and a higher SpO2 target (98%; range 96-100%) with regard to the outcome of days alive and free of invasive mechanical ventilation.