APPOINT: Assessment of PaO2/FiO2 Ratio Pre and POst INTubation
Study Details
Study Description
Brief Summary
We designed this study to dtermine whether invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) would have an impact on the reclassification of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) -treated previously with non-invasive respiratory support- into categories of severity (mild, moderate, and severe). Our hypothesis is that the assessment of PaO2/FiO2 ratio on PEEP greater or equal to 5 cmH2O after intubation, in patients labeled as mild/moderate/severe AHRF while on non-invasive respiratory support, would identify that a marked proportion of patients would change the degree of severity after a brief period of invasive MV
| Condition or Disease | Intervention/Treatment | Phase |
|---|---|---|
|
Detailed Description
Current criteria for definition of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (AHRF) are inadequate for inclusion of patients into clinical trials due to: (i) the lack of standardization for measuring the oxygenation defect (as assessed by the PaO2/FiO2 ratio) and (ii) the inclusion of non-intubated patients into the mild category of severity. We questioned whether the PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ratio calculated before endotracheal intubation in non-intubated patients who otherwise meet AHRF criteria, would still meet the severity threshold once patients are intubated.
We will examine at 24 after intubation and initiation of MV whether adult patients with AHRF remained in the same AHRF category of severity (mild, moderate, severe) or do not meet the PaO2/FiO2 criterion for AHRF. If our hypothesis is supported, it would suggest that stratification of patients labeled based on P/F ratio while treated with non-invasive respiratory support is of limited utility for testing specific therapies for AHRF in non-intubated patients.
This is a high quality screening, longitudinal, defined population, retrospective study.
Study Design
Arms and Interventions
| Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
|---|---|
| Patients on non-invasive ventilatory support to IMV Patients with AHRF treated with non-invasive ventilatory support [for the purpose of this study we included High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and non-invasive ventilation (NIV)] who required endotracheal intubation and invasive mechical ventilation. |
Device: Mechanical ventilation
Need for endotracheal intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation
|
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
- Change in the degree of lung severity [60 days]
from severe/moderate to moderate/mild, from moderate/mild to mild after a brief period of invasive MV
Eligibility Criteria
Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
-
Patients meeting criteria for AHRF while they are on non-invasive respiratory support.
-
We will only include patients who had arterial blood gases (ABG) within a time-frame of the last 5 hours of NIV and the first 5 hours of invasive MV.
-
We will only include patients treated with high-flow oxygen nasal cannula (HFNC), or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), or bilevel positive pressure (BiPAP).
Exclusion Criteria:
-
Patients who never required HFNC, or CPAP, or BiPAP before intubation.
-
Patients with no ABG during the last 5 hours of NIV before intubation.
-
Patients with no ABG during the first 5 hours after initiation of invasive MV.
-
Patients treated with inhaled pulmonary vasodilator only before or only after intubation.
Contacts and Locations
Locations
| Site | City | State | Country | Postal Code | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rush University Medical Center | Chicago | Illinois | United States | 60612 |
| 2 | Jesús Villar | Las Palmas De Gran Canaria | Las Palmas | Spain | 35003 |
Sponsors and Collaborators
- Dr. Negrin University Hospital
- Rush University Medical Center
Investigators
- Study Chair: Jesús Villar, Hospital Universitario D. Negrin
Study Documents (Full-Text)
None provided.More Information
Publications
None provided.- 2022-161-1