Airway Pressure Release Ventilation in Acute Lung Injury

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Clinical Trial

Official title:

Airway Pressure Release Ventilation in Acute Lung Injury

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Recruiting

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT00750204
• Other study ID #: NA_00017371
• Status: Recruiting
• Phase: Phase 3
• First received: September 9, 2008
• Last updated: September 9, 2008
• Start date: July 2008
• Est. completion date: July 2010

Study information

• Verified date: September 2008
• Source: Johns Hopkins University
• Contact: Roy G Brower, M.D.
• Phone: 410-955-3467
• Email: rbrower[@]mail.jhmi.edu
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Health authority: United States: Institutional Review Board
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

The purpose of this study is to compare airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) to conventional mechanical ventilation (MV) in patients with acute lung injury (ALI) to determine if APRV can reduce agitation, delirium, and requirements for sedative medications. We will also compare markers of inflammation in the blood and lung to determine if APRV reduces ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI), compared to conventional mechanical ventilation.

The proposed study is a randomized, crossover trial. We plan to enroll 40 patients with ALI and randomize to APRV or conventional MV for 24 hours. After this time the patients will be switched to the alternative mode of ventilation (MV or APRV) for another 24 hours. To assess breathing comfort, at the end of each 24-hour period we will measure the amounts of sedative and analgesic medications used. We will also measure the concentrations of markers of inflammation in the blood and lung as measures of VILI. Finally, throughout the study we will compare the adequacy of gas exchange with APRV compared to conventional MV.

Description:

Acute respiratory failure is common in patients with acute lung injury. MV re-establishes adequate gas exchange; it allows time for administration of antibiotics, for the host's immune system to fight infections, and for natural healing. Approximately 60% of ALI patients survive to hospital discharge (1). However, conventional approaches to MV in ALI frequently cause dysynchrony between a patient's spontaneous respiratory efforts and the ventilator's respiratory cycle (2;3). Dysynchrony causes discomfort, anxiety, and agitation. To manage dysynchrony, physicians frequently prescribe large doses of sedative and analgesic medications. These medications contribute to delirium and sleep deprivation during the critical illness, and may delay weaning from MV and discharge from the intensive care unit (2;4). They may also contribute significantly to neuromuscular and neurocognitive sequelae after recovery from ALI (5;6). Moreover, MV may itself cause additional lung injury (ventilator-induced lung injury, VILI) which could, paradoxically, delay or prevent recovery from respiratory failure in some ALI patients (7;9).

Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is a mode of MV that is designed to reduce patient-ventilator dysynchrony and VILI. It differs from most other modes of MV in that it allows patients to breathe spontaneously at any time, independent of the ventilator's cycle. This feature may improve breathing comfort by minimizing patient-ventilator dysynchrony. Improving comfort and reducing agitation may ultimately curtail the use of sedative and analgesic medications. Since a substantial proportion of ventilation results from the patient's spontaneous efforts independent of the ventilator cycle, the frequency of mechanically assisted breaths can be reduced. This may reduce VILI from the cyclic opening-closing of alveoli and small bronchioles that results from assisted MV breaths. Another feature of APRV that distinguishes it from other modes of MV is that it applies a sustained high pressure during inspiration and a brief period of lower pressure during exhalation. This approach may maximize and maintain alveolar recruitment throughout the ventilatory cycle while limiting high airway pressures, thus further reducing VILI. Moreover, spontaneous contractions of the diaphragm during APRV may open dependent atelectatic lung regions, improving ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) matching and gas exchange. However, these potential advantages of APRV are unproven.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Recruiting
• Enrollment: 40
• Est. completion date: July 2010
• Est. primary completion date: July 2009
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: Both
• Age group: 18 Years and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

Acute onset of:

1. PaO2 / FiO2 = 300

2. Bilateral infiltrates consistent with pulmonary edema on frontal chest radiograph. The infiltrates may be patchy, diffuse, homogeneous, or asymmetric

3. Requirement for positive pressure ventilation via endotracheal tube, and

4. No clinical evidence of left atrial hypertension.

5. Receiving conventional MV, or LPV, in the AC mode with PEEP > 5 cm H2O Criteria 1-3 must occur within a 24-hour period. "Acute onset" is defined as follows: the duration of the hypoxemia criterion (#1) and the chest radiograph criterion (#2) must be < 7 days at the time of randomization.

Exclusion Criteria:

1. FiO2 > 70% or PaO2/FiO2 < 125 or arterial pH < 7.25

2. Greater than 6 days since all inclusion criteria are met

3. Anticipated to begin weaning from MV within 48 hours

4. Neuromuscular disease that prevents the ability to generate spontaneous tidal volumes.

5. Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) < 15 within 1 week of intubation

6. Acute stroke (vascular occlusion or hemorrhage)

7. Current alcoholism or previous daily use of opioids or benzodiazepines before hospitalization

8. Acute meningitis or encephalitis

9. Pregnancy (negative pregnancy test required for women of child-bearing potential) or breast-feeding.

10. Severe chronic respiratory disease

11. Previous barotraumas during the current hospitalization

12. Clinical evidence of bronchoconstriction on bedside examination (i.e., wheezing).

13. Patient, surrogate, or physician not committed to full support

14. Severe chronic liver disease (Child-Pugh Score B or C)

15. INR > 2.0

16. Platelet level < 50,000

17. Mean arterial pressure < 65, or patient receiving intravenous vasopressors (any dose of epinephrine, norepinephrine, phenylephrine, or dopamine > 5 mcg/kg/min)

18. Age < 16 years old

19. Morbid obesity (greater than 1kg/cm body weight).

20. No consent/inability to obtain consent

21. Unwillingness of the clinical team to use conventional low tidal-volume protocol for MV.

22. Moribund patient not expected to survive 24 hours.

Study Design

Allocation: Randomized, Endpoint Classification: Safety/Efficacy Study, Intervention Model: Crossover Assignment, Masking: Open Label, Primary Purpose: Treatment

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Acute Lung Injury
• Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
• Lung Injury
• Mechanical Ventilation
• Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Adult
• Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn

Intervention

Device:
• APRV
APRV Protocol Set FiO2 at 0.1 higher than the setting on conventional MV currently used Tlow = 1.0 second (this setting shall remain unchanged throughout the trial). Respiratory rate (RR) to equal 60-65% of RR on conventional MV. Phigh = the inspiratory plateau pressure. Maximum Phigh = 30 cm H20. Plow = 5 cm H2O. Adjust Plow to achieve pressure release volumes 5.5-6.5 ml/kg of PBW. If release volumes on APRV are greater than desired, increase Plow by 2-4 cm H2O increments to a maximum of Plow = 12 cm H2O. If release volumes are larger than desired despite raising Plow to 12 cm H20, decrease Phigh in increments of 2-4 cm H20 to achieve desired release volumes (minimum Phigh = 12 cm H20). If release volumes on APRV still remain larger than desired,the participant will be excluded from the study and placed on conventional MV.
• Conventional MV
Low tidal-volume mechanical ventilation

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United States	Johns Hopkins Hospital Medical Intensive Care Unit	Baltimore	Maryland

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Johns Hopkins University

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

References & Publications (9)

Amato MB, Barbas CS, Medeiros DM, Magaldi RB, Schettino GP, Lorenzi-Filho G, Kairalla RA, Deheinzelin D, Munoz C, Oliveira R, Takagaki TY, Carvalho CR. Effect of a protective-ventilation strategy on mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1998 Feb 5;338(6):347-54. — View Citation

Cooper AB, Thornley KS, Young GB, Slutsky AS, Stewart TE, Hanly PJ. Sleep in critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Chest. 2000 Mar;117(3):809-18. Erratum in: Chest 2001 Mar;119(3):993. — View Citation

Herridge MS, Cheung AM, Tansey CM, Matte-Martyn A, Diaz-Granados N, Al-Saidi F, Cooper AB, Guest CB, Mazer CD, Mehta S, Stewart TE, Barr A, Cook D, Slutsky AS; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. One-year outcomes in survivors of the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2003 Feb 20;348(8):683-93. — View Citation

Hopkins RO, Weaver LK, Pope D, Orme JF, Bigler ED, Larson-LOHR V. Neuropsychological sequelae and impaired health status in survivors of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999 Jul;160(1):50-6. — View Citation

Ranieri VM, Suter PM, Tortorella C, De Tullio R, Dayer JM, Brienza A, Bruno F, Slutsky AS. Effect of mechanical ventilation on inflammatory mediators in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1999 Jul 7;282(1):54-61. — View Citation

Rubenfeld GD, Caldwell E, Peabody E, Weaver J, Martin DP, Neff M, Stern EJ, Hudson LD. Incidence and outcomes of acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2005 Oct 20;353(16):1685-93. — View Citation

Sassoon CS, Foster GT. Patient-ventilator asynchrony. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2001 Feb;7(1):28-33. Review. — View Citation

Thille AW, Rodriguez P, Cabello B, Lellouche F, Brochard L. Patient-ventilator asynchrony during assisted mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med. 2006 Oct;32(10):1515-22. Epub 2006 Aug 1. — View Citation

Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network. N Engl J Med. 2000 May 4;342(18):1301-8. — View Citation

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Amount of sedatives used		48 hours	No
Secondary	Cytokine levels in the blood and lungs		48 hours	No