[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"leadSponsorName\":\"Hospital H+ Queretaro\",\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:":100},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,3,0,[8,44,72],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":15,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":18,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":4,"briefSummary":22,"conditions":23,"keywords":25,"overallStatus":32,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":33,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":34,"startDateStruct":37,"completionDateStruct":39,"leadSponsor":41,"locationsCount":4},"100649641","validation-of-an-effort-based-cough-peak-flow-algorithm-to-predict-extubation-outcomes-100649641",false,"NCT07737483","Validation of an Effort-Based Cough Peak Flow Algorithm to Predict Extubation Outcomes","Validation of an Effort-Based Cough Peak Flow Algorithm to Predict Extubation Outcomes in the ICU: A Prospective Blinded Cohort Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adult patients (≥18 years) admitted to the ICU who received invasive mechanical ventilation for \\>24 hours and successfully completed a Spontaneous Breathing Trial (SBT).\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Prior indication for tracheostomy (e.g., severe maxillofacial trauma, upper airway obstruction).\n\n  * Self-extubation or accidental extubation.\n  * Decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatments.\n  * Severe primary neuromuscular diseases.","ALL","18 Years",{"count":19,"type":20},150,"ESTIMATED","OBSERVATIONAL","This study aims to prospectively validate the diagnostic accuracy of an effort-stratified Cough Peak Flow (CPF) decision algorithm for predicting extubation failure, maintaining strict blinding of the clinical team. The model classifies patients by neurological status and uses an effort-based approach, including a \"Gray Zone\" (40-59 L\u002Fmin) managed by tidal volume evaluation.",[24],"Extubation Failure",[26,27,28,29,30,31],"Cough Peak Flow","Mechanical Ventilation","Intensive Care Unit","Airway Protection","Tidal Volume","Respiratory Weaning","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-07-27",{"date":35,"type":36},"2026-07-30","ACTUAL",{"date":38,"type":20},"2026-07-01",{"date":40,"type":20},"2026-11-30",{"name":42,"class":43},"Hospital H+ Queretaro","OTHER",{"id":45,"slug":46,"hasResults":11,"nctId":47,"briefTitle":48,"officialTitle":49,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":50,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":51,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":4,"briefSummary":53,"conditions":54,"keywords":57,"overallStatus":32,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":33,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":66,"startDateStruct":68,"completionDateStruct":69,"leadSponsor":71,"locationsCount":4},"100649378","cost-effectiveness-of-inhaled-sedation-versus-intravenous-propofol-in-mechanically-ventilated-critically-ill-adults-100649378","NCT07734350","Cost-Effectiveness of Inhaled Sedation Versus Intravenous Propofol in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Adults","Cost-effectiveness of Inhaled Sedation Versus Intravenous Propofol in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Patients: a Retrospective ICU Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults aged 18 years or older\n* Admission to the intensive care unit at Hospital H+ Querétaro\n* Invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours\n* Receipt of inhaled sedation or continuous intravenous propofol sedation during ICU stay\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation\n* Severe traumatic brain injury\n* Transfer to another hospital unit\n* Less than 24 hours of mechanical ventilation",{"count":52,"type":20},400,"The goal of this observational study is to learn whether inhaled sedation is a cost-effective alternative to intravenous propofol in mechanically ventilated critically ill adults admitted to the intensive care unit. The main questions it aims to answer are:\n\n* Does inhaled sedation reduce the total cost of care compared with intravenous propofol?\n* Does inhaled sedation reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay?\n* Are adverse events different between patients receiving inhaled sedation and those receiving intravenous propofol?\n\nResearchers will compare patients who received inhaled sedation with patients who received intravenous propofol to see if inhaled sedation improves clinical outcomes and reduces overall costs.\n\nParticipants will:\n\n* Be identified through review of electronic medical records\n* Be included if they are adults who received mechanical ventilation and were sedated with inhaled sedation or intravenous propofol\n* Contribute data on total costs of care, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, and adverse event",[55,27,56],"Critical Illness","Respiratory Insufficiency",[58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65],"Inhaled sedation","Propofol","Mechanical ventilation","Critical illness","Intensive care unit","Cost-effectiveness","Critical care sedation","Adult ICU patients",{"date":67,"type":36},"2026-07-29",{"date":67,"type":20},{"date":70,"type":20},"2026-10-31",{"name":42,"class":43},{"id":73,"slug":74,"hasResults":11,"nctId":75,"briefTitle":76,"officialTitle":77,"acronym":78,"eligibilityCriteria":79,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":80,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":82,"phases":83,"briefSummary":85,"conditions":86,"keywords":89,"overallStatus":93,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":33,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":94,"startDateStruct":95,"completionDateStruct":96,"leadSponsor":98,"locationsCount":99},"100649377","ultrasound-vs-nasofibroscopy-for-evaluating-dysphagia-after-extubation-in-the-icu-100649377","NCT07734298","Ultrasound vs. Nasofibroscopy for Evaluating Dysphagia After Extubation in the ICU","Comparison Between Ultrasonographic and Nasofibroscopic Evaluation in Extubated Patients With Dysphagia in the Intensive Care Unit.","DISFEX","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Critically ill patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).\n* Patients aged 18 years or older.\n* Patients who have required orotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation for a period exceeding 48 hours.\n* Patients successfully liberated from mechanical ventilation (post-extubation phase).\n* Obtainment of signed Informed Consent from the patient or their legal representative.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients with a known prior history of oropharyngeal dysphagia, esophageal disorders, or structural abnormalities of the upper airway.\n* Patients with pre-existing neurological diseases that compromise the swallowing reflex (e.g., advanced Parkinson's disease, previous stroke with residual dysphagia, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis).\n* Patients with a history of head and neck surgery or radiotherapy.\n* Patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score \\\u003C 13 at the time of evaluation.\n* Patients with hemodynamic instability or severe respiratory distress that precludes the diagnostic procedures.\n* Anatomical limitations that prevent the correct placement of the ultrasound transducer or the introduction of the nasofibroscope (e.g., severe facial trauma, nasal obstruction).\n* Medical contraindication for Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES).",{"count":81,"type":20},40,"INTERVENTIONAL",[84],"NA","The goal of this observational study is to evaluate the diagnostic performance and concordance of bedside cervical ultrasonography compared to Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) for the early detection of post-extubation dysphagia in critically ill adult patients.\n\nThe main questions it aims to answer are:\n\n* What is the degree of diagnostic concordance (Kappa index) between cervical ultrasonography and nasofibroscopy (FEES) for detecting dysphagia in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU)?\n* What are the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of ultrasonography as a non-invasive screening tool compared to the gold standard (FEES)?\n* Are there specific cut-off points for ultrasonographic parameters (such as hyoid bone displacement and laryngeal elevation) that accurately identify patients at risk of aspiration? Methodology and Comparison: Researchers will evaluate a cohort of patients who have undergone mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours. The study compares the findings of cervical ultrasonography (an accessible and non-invasive bedside method) with FEES (the clinical gold standard) to determine the feasibility of ultrasound as an initial screening tool in the ICU setting. Participant Tasks: Participants will undergo the following procedures within 24 to 48 hours post-extubation: A bedside cervical ultrasonography to measure swallowing-related anatomical movements, such as hyoid displacement and laryngeal elevation. A nasofibroscopy (FEES) performed by trained personnel to directly visualize the pharyngeal and laryngeal structures during swallowing. A clinical evaluation of cranial nerve function and monitoring for respiratory complications like bronchoaspiration or pneumonia.",[87,88],"Swallowing Disorders","Aspiration",[90,91,92],"post-extubation dysphagia","Critical care ultrasonography","Swallowing disorders","RECRUITING",{"date":67,"type":36},{"date":33,"type":20},{"date":97,"type":20},"2026-08-31",{"name":42,"class":43},1,""]