Active clinical trials for "Respiratory Distress Syndrome"

The purpose of this study is to assess the safety of inhaled carbon monoxide (iCO) in intubated patients with sepsis-induced ARDS.

This short pilot study is to assess the tolerance of preterm infants, born below 32 weeks gestation with respiratory distress syndrome, to flow-cycle ventilation, and see if infants require less overall pressure from the ventilator than the usual conventional settings used, with the aim of providing data to construct a larger trial looking at the longer term outcome of these infants using this type of ventilation in the future. Many preterm infants at these gestations require assistance from a ventilator due to the immaturity of their lungs. The lungs of preterm infants are susceptible to damage, especially if high pressures are needed or prolonged periods of ventilation. There is concern that if the infant's breathing pattern does not synchronise with the ventilator, this causes additional distress, longer duration of ventilation needed and increased risk of complications. Over the past 20 years, a different type of ventilation, known as flow-cycle ventilation, has been trialed, with limited use in preterm infants. This allows the baby to determine the duration of breathing in and out and how many breaths they require per minute. This would help babies to synchronise better with the ventilator, and consequently require less pressure from the ventilator. This pilot study is being conducted at St. Mary's Hospital, Manchester. All babies born under 32 weeks gestation, with a stable respiratory effort, will be eligible for consideration for the study. The study will last no longer than 5 hours and involve the babies receiving different pressures from the ventilator in flow-cycle mode for 1-hour epochs. Blood gases after each epoch and continuous ventilator data will be downloaded to assess their tolerance on the different settings, before being returned to the usual conventional settings used on the unit. The babies will have continuous monitoring throughout as per standard neonatal intensive care.

The objective of the study is to compare the effectiveness of treatment with Non Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation (NIPPV) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in decreasing the requirement for endotracheal ventilation in neonates with respiratory distress within the first hours of birth.Primary outcome is the non invasive respiratory support failure and the need for intubated ventilatory support during the first 72 hours of life. Randomized control , single center trial. Eighty neonates admitted to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) were randomly allocated to NIPPV and CPAP. Outcomes of respiratory support were observed and information on risk factors were obtained by going through bed head ticket.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a widely prevalent and morbid disease for which the current standard treatment is supportive care and avoidance of complications with lung-protective ventilation. Lower-tidal volume ventilation has been largely accepted as a means of lung protective ventilation, but the mechanism for its effectiveness is not yet clear, and debate remains as to how best to choose positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). Reduction in driving pressure (plateau pressure minus PEEP) has been suggested as a possible means to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury. This protocol aims to identify the range of safe paired-settings of PEEP and tidal volume, with selection guided by driving pressure and the stress index, a tool to recognize potential lung hyperinflation during mechanical ventilation.

In very preterm infants with severe respiratory distress syndrome(RDS), invasive ventilation(IV) , besides nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) and early/selective pulmonary surfactant administration, is one key cornerstone to reduce neonatal mortality. However, IV is related to increased risks of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and abnormal developmental outcomes in the survival.Weaning from IV is therefore a key procedure to reducing these risks above, and if extubation does not success, repeated intubation and/or prolonged duration of IV will result in increased medical burden and intubation-associated complications and death. How to minimize the need for endotracheal ventilation and subsequent complications constitutes a challenge for neonatologists.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of lung recruitment maneuver in patients with early ALI/ARDS

This is an early phase (Phase IIa), randomized, double-blind, parallel group, multi-centre study for subjects with trauma (physical injury) who are at risk for developing Acute Lung Injury (ALI) or Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). The primary purpose of the study is to evaluate the safety and tolerability of SB-681323, which is a potent, selective inhibitor of p38 alpha (MAPK) (prevents inflammation of tissue), in comparison to a placebo.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the hypothesis that nasal intermittent positive pressure(NIPP), used as a primary mode of ventilation in preterm infants with RDS, will decrease the need for conventional endotracheal ventilation when compared to nasal continuous positive airway pressure.(NCPAP)

To evaluate the feasibility, safety and tolerability of aerosolized lucinactant delivered by nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) for the prevention of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in premature infants.

This is a prospective, randomized (1:1), double-blind, multi-center, Phase II clinical study to test the safety and efficacy of a recombinant chimeric anti-tissue factor antibody (ALT-836) versus placebo in patients with sepsis and acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS). This study was divided into two parts and the first part of the study has been completed. In the first part of the study, sixty patients were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive one dose of the study drug or placebo. In the second part of the study, ninety patients will be randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive a multi-dose treatment regimen of single doses every 72 hours up to a maximum of 4 doses of the study drug or placebo, provided there are no safety concerns.