Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 11:39 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-25 @ 9:29 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT03511651
Status:
UNKNOWN
Last Update Posted:
2020-05-29
First Post:
2018-04-08
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
False
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
The Effect of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure on Functional Residual Capacity During Mechanical Ventilation
Sponsor:
Capital Medical University
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
The Effect of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure on Functional Residual Capacity During Mechanical Ventilation
Status:
UNKNOWN
Status Verified Date:
2020-05
Last Known Status:
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
Although positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) has been widely used in mechanical ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), how to select the "optimal" PEEP is far from consensus. The application of PEEP may result in beneficial effect by recruiting previously collapsed lung areas, harmful effect by over-distending previously aerated lung areas, or a combination of the both. The net effect of PEEP in a certain patient may depend on the recruitability. Because recruitability varies extremely in ARDS patients and strongly correlates with the response to PEEP, estimation of end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) may be essential for individualized setting of PEEP. Whether the FRC changes at different PEEP levels remains unknown.
Detailed Description:
Although positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) has been widely used in mechanical ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), how to select the "optimal" PEEP is far from consensus. The application of PEEP may result in beneficial effect by recruiting previously collapsed lung areas, harmful effect by over-distending previously aerated lung areas, or a combination of the both. The net effect of PEEP in a certain patient may depend on the recruitability. Because recruitability varies extremely in ARDS patients and strongly correlates with the response to PEEP, estimation of end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) may be essential for individualized setting of PEEP.
Passive spirometry has long been used to measure the lung recruitment volume (VREC). A prolonged expiration to zero end-expiratory pressure (ZEEP) or airway release maneuver is required and PEEP induced lung volume change above functional residual capacity (FRC) is measured. This technique assumes that FRC does not change at different PEEP levels.
This assumption that PEEP has no effect on FRC can date back to the study of Valta et al in the early 1990s. Using respiratory inductive plethysmography (RIP), they found that in ALI/ARDS patients, after expiring from different PEEP levels to ZEEP, the plethysmography signal returned to the same baseline value. They concluded that FRC does not change with PEEP, and that changes of EELV are attributable only to change in ∆EELV. Ranieri et al arrived at similar conclusions by measuring differences in lung volumes at different PEEP levels using standardized pressure-volume (P-V) curves derived from the ventilator circuit monitors. However, Patroniti et al found an elevation of FRC as increasing of PEEP in patients with ARDS. In this study, FRC was measured with the helium dilution technique, and concluded that neglecting this effect resulted in marked underestimation of VREC. Whether the FRC changes at different PEEP levels remains controversial. The aim of the study is to assess the effect of PEEP on FRC during mechanical ventilation.
Passive spirometry has long been used to measure the lung recruitment volume (VREC). A prolonged expiration to zero end-expiratory pressure (ZEEP) or airway release maneuver is required and PEEP induced lung volume change above functional residual capacity (FRC) is measured. This technique assumes that FRC does not change at different PEEP levels.
This assumption that PEEP has no effect on FRC can date back to the study of Valta et al in the early 1990s. Using respiratory inductive plethysmography (RIP), they found that in ALI/ARDS patients, after expiring from different PEEP levels to ZEEP, the plethysmography signal returned to the same baseline value. They concluded that FRC does not change with PEEP, and that changes of EELV are attributable only to change in ∆EELV. Ranieri et al arrived at similar conclusions by measuring differences in lung volumes at different PEEP levels using standardized pressure-volume (P-V) curves derived from the ventilator circuit monitors. However, Patroniti et al found an elevation of FRC as increasing of PEEP in patients with ARDS. In this study, FRC was measured with the helium dilution technique, and concluded that neglecting this effect resulted in marked underestimation of VREC. Whether the FRC changes at different PEEP levels remains controversial. The aim of the study is to assess the effect of PEEP on FRC during mechanical ventilation.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
True
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: