Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 1:49 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-27 @ 2:53 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT00213395
Status:
TERMINATED
Last Update Posted:
2012-02-16
First Post:
2005-09-13
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Clinical Efficacy of a Cephalic Mask for Noninvasive Ventilation During Acute Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure
Sponsor:
University Hospital, Rouen
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
None
Status:
TERMINATED
Status Verified Date:
2012-02
Last Known Status:
None
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:
Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is now a major therapeutic option to manage patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF). Otherwise, patient-ventilator interfaces are determinant to get an optimal NIV efficacy in parallel with ventilatory comfort.
Facial masks during NIV are associated with deleterious consequences like gas leaks around the mask, skin breakdown (especially on the nasal bridge), claustrophobia and mask discomfort. In order to limit these side effects, a cephalic interface has been recently designed. Cephalic mask covers the whole anterior surface of the face and excessive mask fit pressure is therefore spread over a larger surface outside the nose area. However, this mask has a high volume that may interfere with NIV efficacy and may also induce claustrophobic sensations.
The aim of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy and tolerance of a cephalic mask versus a conventional oronasal mask during AHRF.
Facial masks during NIV are associated with deleterious consequences like gas leaks around the mask, skin breakdown (especially on the nasal bridge), claustrophobia and mask discomfort. In order to limit these side effects, a cephalic interface has been recently designed. Cephalic mask covers the whole anterior surface of the face and excessive mask fit pressure is therefore spread over a larger surface outside the nose area. However, this mask has a high volume that may interfere with NIV efficacy and may also induce claustrophobic sensations.
The aim of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy and tolerance of a cephalic mask versus a conventional oronasal mask during AHRF.
Detailed Description:
None
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
Is an Unapproved Device?:
Is a PPSD?:
Is a US Export?:
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: