Factors Associated With the Use of Lung Protective Ventilation Strategy (LPV) in Acute Lung Injury/Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ALI/ARDS) Patients in Intensive Care Unit (ICU)

This study has been completed.
Sponsor:
Information provided by:
National Taiwan University Hospital
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT01102322
First received: March 17, 2010
Last updated: February 18, 2011
Last verified: February 2011
  Purpose

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.


Condition Intervention
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Behavioral: Quality

Study Type: Observational
Study Design: Observational Model: Cohort
Time Perspective: Prospective
Official Title: Factors Associated With the Use of Lung Protective Ventilation Strategy (LPV) in ALI/ARDS Patients in ICU

Resource links provided by NLM:


Further study details as provided by National Taiwan University Hospital:

Primary Outcome Measures:
  • The rate of appropriately use of Lung Protective strategy in ALI/ARDS patients [ Time Frame: 7 days ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Enrollment: 111
Study Start Date: March 2010
Study Completion Date: February 2011
Primary Completion Date: January 2011 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
Groups/Cohorts Assigned Interventions
1 Behavioral: Quality
Factors associated with the use of lung protective ventilation strategy (LPV) in ALI/ARDS patients in ICU

Detailed Description:

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. The syndrome, initially called acute respiratory distress in adult and is now named as the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). 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. We 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

  Eligibility

Ages Eligible for Study:   18 Years and older
Genders Eligible for Study:   Both
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:   No
Sampling Method:   Non-Probability Sample
Study Population

Acute respiratory distress syndrome patients

Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

  • 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

Exclusion Criteria:

  • 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.
  • The patient who meets inclusion criteria initially but rapidly improved within 24 hours of diagnosis of ARDS/ALI
  Contacts and Locations
Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the Contacts provided below. For general information, see Learn About Clinical Studies.

Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01102322

Locations
Taiwan
Jih-Shuin Jerng
Taipei, Taiwan, 100
Sponsors and Collaborators
National Taiwan University Hospital
Investigators
Principal Investigator: Jih-Shuin Jerng National Taiwan University Hospital
  More Information

No publications provided

Responsible Party: Jih-Shuin Jerng, Medical department of National Taiwan University Hospital
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01102322     History of Changes
Other Study ID Numbers: 201002021R
Study First Received: March 17, 2010
Last Updated: February 18, 2011
Health Authority: Taiwan: Department of Health

Keywords provided by National Taiwan University Hospital:
Acute respiratory distress syndrome

Additional relevant MeSH terms:
Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn
Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Adult
Acute Lung Injury
Lung Diseases
Respiratory Tract Diseases
Respiration Disorders
Infant, Premature, Diseases
Infant, Newborn, Diseases
Lung Injury

ClinicalTrials.gov processed this record on August 26, 2014