[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"mechanical-ventilation\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:mechanical-ventilation":29},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":7,"results":8},null,114,0,25,[9,54,81,102,137,172,203,241,279,305,331,359,390,412,441,464,496,517,544,570,599,627,653,679,701],{"id":10,"slug":11,"hasResults":12,"nctId":13,"briefTitle":14,"officialTitle":15,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":16,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":19,"enrollmentInfo":20,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":4,"briefSummary":24,"conditions":25,"keywords":30,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":42,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":43,"startDateStruct":46,"completionDateStruct":48,"leadSponsor":50,"locationsCount":53},"100652700","individualized-vs-standard-peep-and-oxygen-reserve-index-in-laparoscopic-hernia-surgery-100652700",false,"NCT07775573","Individualized vs Standard PEEP and Oxygen Reserve Index in Laparoscopic Hernia Surgery","The Effect of Individualized Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Application on Perioperative Oxygenation Assessed by Oxygen Reserve Index Compared to Standard PEEP in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Surgery: A Prospective Observational Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Aged 18-75 years\n* ASA physical status I-III\n* Scheduled for elective laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair under general anesthesia\n* Body mass index (BMI) \\\u003C 35 kg\u002Fm²\n* Written informed consent obtained\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age below 18 or above 75 years\n* ASA physical status IV-V\n* Emergency surgical procedure\n* Severe chronic or restrictive pulmonary disease\n* Pulmonary hypertension\n* Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome\n* Preoperative peripheral oxygen saturation \\\u003C 94% on room air\n* Respiratory tract infection within the last two weeks\n* Severe cardiac failure (NYHA III-IV)\n* Pregnancy\n* Communication difficulties preventing NRS assessment\n* Surgical complications during the procedure\n* Operation duration exceeding 3 hours\n* Refusal to provide informed consent","ALL","18 Years","75 Years",{"count":21,"type":22},60,"ESTIMATED","OBSERVATIONAL","During laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia, lung function can be affected by increased abdominal pressure and patient positioning. Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is a ventilator setting that helps keep the lungs open during surgery. In standard practice, a fixed PEEP level is applied to all patients. An individualized PEEP approach tailors this setting to each patient based on lung recruitment maneuvers.\n\nThis study investigates whether individualized PEEP improves oxygenation compared to standard PEEP in patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia surgery. Oxygenation will be continuously monitored using the Oxygen Reserve Index (ORI), a non-invasive sensor. Lung aeration will also be assessed before and after surgery using bedside lung ultrasound.",[26,27,28,29],"Atelectasis","Perioperative Oxygenation","Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair","Mechanical Ventilation",[31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40],"Positive End-Expiratory Pressure","PEEP titration","Oxygen Reserve Index","ORI","Lung Ultrasound","Recruitment Maneuver","Lung Protective Ventilation","Dynamic Compliance","Pneumoperitoneum","Trendelenburg Position","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-08-18",{"date":44,"type":45},"2026-08-20","ACTUAL",{"date":47,"type":22},"2026-09",{"date":49,"type":22},"2027-10",{"name":51,"class":52},"Fatih Sultan Mehmet Training and Research Hospital","OTHER",1,{"id":55,"slug":56,"hasResults":12,"nctId":57,"briefTitle":58,"officialTitle":58,"acronym":59,"eligibilityCriteria":60,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":61,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":4,"briefSummary":63,"conditions":64,"keywords":68,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":73,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":74,"startDateStruct":75,"completionDateStruct":77,"leadSponsor":79,"locationsCount":53},"100652685","use-of-connected-glasses-to-help-the-communication-of-non-temporarily-speaking-patients-in-intensive-care-unit--a-pilot-study-100652685","NCT07776795","Use of Connected Glasses to Help the Communication of Non Temporarily Speaking Patients in Intensive Care Unit : a Pilot Study","CASTOR-REA","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adult patients hospitalized in the Intensive Care Medicine Department of the Tenon Hospital, whatever their reason for admission to the department\n* Neuropsychiatric state compatible with the development of a coherent dialogue: good vigilance attested by a RASS -1 to +1 (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale), no confusion attested by a negative CAM-ICU test (Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit), no sedative treatment or light sedative treatment\n* Physically unable to communicate verbally for a foreseeable period of at least 48 hours, which may be linked to invasive mechanical ventilation (with endotracheal tube or tracheotomy without phonatory cannula) or to a speech and\u002For phonation disorder whatever the cause (eg: after-effects of ENT surgery, laryngeal oedema, etc.).\n* Have expressed no objection to participating in the study.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Neuropsychiatric state incompatible with the development of a coherent dialogue: agitation (RASS ≥ 2) or somnolence (RASS ≤ -2), confusion (CAM-ICU positive)\n* Simple, fluid appropriation by the patient of the slate as a communication tool : no motor deficit of the dominant upper limb, no graphic problems, no language barrier\n* Inability of patient to use connected glasses: blindness, eye conditions preventing eye opening, vision disorders without corrective lenses available, known patent cognitive disorders, mental retardation",{"count":62,"type":22},30,"Hospitalization in an intensive care unit (ICU) is accompanied by major physical and emotional stress for patients, a source of discomfort and a risk factor for post-resuscitation syndrome. Efficient patient-caregiver and patient-family communication is needed to: understand the patient's symptoms in order to relieve them, understand the patient's primary needs, understand the patient's questions and concerns in order to respond to them, rehumanize our care and re-establish a more balanced relationship with the patient. However, communication with the patient is often limited, due for example to invasive mechanical ventilation: it is estimated that half of intubated patients meet basic communication criteria (calm patient responding to simple commands and verbal requests) after 2 days of mechanical ventilation, without however being able to express themselves verbally.\n\nAugmentative and alternative communication tools exist, ranging from pictograms and slates to voice synthesizers, and are used in ICU. The critical care departments of the University Hospitals of Marseille and Tours use a communication interface consisting of a mobile screen with eye tracking for vigilant patients unable to communicate verbally, which seems to have been appreciated by patients and their families, although its effect has not been measured.\n\nConnected glasses are one of the tools available. These are pairs of glasses fitted with infrared sensors that detect a signal predefined with the patient (such as a wink) and thus enable a tablet with customized communication software to be clicked on and navigated. Potential advantages over eye tracking, which has already been used in critical care departments, include: use in low-light conditions, smaller size (no need for an arm to adjust screen orientation), less concentration (eye tracking requires precise, sustained eye fixation).\n\nThe objective is to conduct a pilot study to assess the feasibility of using this tool in non temporarily speaking patients hospitalized in ICU.",[29,65,66,67],"Critical Care, Intensive Care","Artificial Respiration","Communication Aids",[69,70,71,72],"Respiration","artificial","Communication aids for disabled","Augmentative and alternative communications systems","2026-08-17",{"date":44,"type":45},{"date":76,"type":22},"2026-10",{"date":78,"type":22},"2028-05",{"name":80,"class":52},"Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris",{"id":82,"slug":83,"hasResults":12,"nctId":84,"briefTitle":85,"officialTitle":86,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":87,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":88,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":89,"phases":90,"briefSummary":92,"conditions":93,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":94,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":95,"startDateStruct":96,"completionDateStruct":98,"leadSponsor":100,"locationsCount":53},"100652023","titration-of-ps-guided-by-fi--a-pilot-study-100652023","NCT07769307","Titration of PS Guided by FI : A Pilot Study","Titration of Pressure Support Guided by Flow Index: A Pilot Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) receiving pressure support ventilation (PSV)\n* Expected duration of invasive mechanical ventilation \\> 48 hours\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients who have received PSV for \\> 48 hours at the time of screening\n* Neuromuscular disease, diaphragmatic dysfunction, or central nervous system disease affecting the respiratory center\n* Incomplete lung or chest wall integrity (e.g., pneumothorax, tracheoesophageal fistula, rib fractures)\n* Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)\n* Body mass index (BMI) \\> 35 kg\u002Fm²\n* Pregnancy or lactation\n* Participation in another interventional study or refusal to participate",{"count":21,"type":22},"INTERVENTIONAL",[91],"NA","The goal of this single-center, pilot, randomized controlled trial is to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of using the Flow Index (FI) to guide Pressure Support (PS) titration in adult patients receiving Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV) who are expected to require invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours.\n\nThe main questions it aims to answer are:\n\n* Is FI-guided PS titration feasible and safe in a clinical ICU setting, as assessed by the proportion of failed safety assessments and the emergency termination rate?\n* Does FI-guided PS titration result in a greater proportion of data collection points with respiratory muscle pressure (Pmus) within the normal range (5-10 cmH₂O) compared to conventional PS titration based on tidal volume and respiratory rate? Researchers will compare the FI-guided PS titration group to the conventional PS titration group to see if FI-guided adjustment improves the proportion of assessments with adequate inspiratory effort (avoiding both excessive and insufficient support), and whether it leads to differences in clinical outcomes including duration of mechanical ventilation, extubation failure rate, tracheostomy rate, length of ICU and hospital stay, and in-hospital all-cause mortality.\n\nParticipants will:\n\n* Be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either conventional PS titration (adjusting PS to achieve tidal volume of 6-8 mL\u002Fkg predicted body weight and respiratory rate of 20-30 breaths\u002Fmin) or FI-guided PS titration (adjusting PS to maintain FI between 2.6 and 4.5)\n* Complete an intervention period with PS adjustments performed twice daily (at 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM) according to the assigned protocol\n* Have Pmus assessed at each data collection point to determine whether inspiratory effort falls within the target range\n* Undergo a 2-minute safety assessment after each PS adjustment to ensure adequate ventilation and avoid excessive airway pressures or respiratory distress\n* Be followed for up to 28 days after enrollment or until ICU discharge, with extended follow-up to hospital discharge or death for clinical outcome evaluation",[29],"2026-08-12",{"date":73,"type":45},{"date":97,"type":22},"2026-09-01",{"date":99,"type":22},"2027-04-30",{"name":101,"class":52},"Capital Medical University",{"id":103,"slug":104,"hasResults":12,"nctId":105,"briefTitle":106,"officialTitle":107,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":108,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":109,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":89,"phases":111,"briefSummary":112,"conditions":113,"keywords":117,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":128,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":129,"startDateStruct":130,"completionDateStruct":132,"leadSponsor":134,"locationsCount":53},"100651917","alveolar-recruitment-maneuver-induced-hypotension-a-dynamic-consequence-and-intraoperative-indicator-of-fluid-responsiveness-100651917","NCT07766967","Alveolar Recruitment Maneuver-Induced Hypotension: A Dynamic Consequence and Intraoperative Indicator of Fluid Responsiveness","Alveolar Recruitment Maneuver-Induced Hypotension: A Dynamic Outcome and Intraoperative Indicator of Fluid Responsiveness","Inclusion Criteria:Age 18 years or older ASA physical status I or II Scheduled for elective non-cardiac, non-thoracic surgery under general anesthesia Able to provide written informed consent -\n\nExclusion Criteria:Cardiac or thoracic surgery Hemodynamic instability at baseline (MAP \\\u003C65 mmHg or requirement for vasopressors) Severe valvular heart disease or known cardiac dysfunction (EF \\\u003C40%) Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or severe respiratory disease Atrial fibrillation or other significant arrhythmias Peripheral vascular disease affecting PVI signal quality Body mass index (BMI) \\>40 kg\u002Fm² Emergency surgery Refusal to participate or inability to provide informed consent Pregnancy\n\n\\-",{"count":110,"type":22},70,[91],"This study investigates whether two simple bedside tests - the Passive Leg Raising (PLR) test and the Pleth Variability Index (PVI) - can predict a drop in blood pressure that sometimes occurs during a lung-opening procedure called an Alveolar Recruitment Maneuver (ARM).\n\nARM is routinely performed during general anesthesia to prevent lung collapse and improve oxygen levels. However, in some patients - particularly those with low fluid levels - ARM can cause a temporary but significant drop in blood pressure (hypotension), which may require immediate treatment.\n\nIn this prospective observational study, adult patients scheduled for elective non-cardiac, non-thoracic surgery under general anesthesia will be enrolled. Before each ARM is performed, PLR test and PVI values will be measured. We will then evaluate how well these measurements predict whether the patient will develop ARM-induced hypotension.\n\nIf PLR and PVI can reliably identify patients at risk, clinicians may be able to take preventive steps before performing ARM, making the procedure safer for vulnerable patients.",[114,115,26,116,29],"Hypotension Drug-Induced","General Anesthesia Using Endotracheal Intubation","Fluid Responsiveness",[118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127],"Alveolar Recruitment Maneuver","Passive Leg Raising","Pleth Variability Index","hypotension","Fluid responsiveness","Dynamic preload indicators","Intraoperative monitoring","General anesthesia","Lung-protective ventilation","Perioperative hemodynamics","2026-08-11",{"date":73,"type":45},{"date":131,"type":22},"2026-07-15",{"date":133,"type":22},"2026-09-29",{"name":135,"class":136},"University of Health Sciences Balikesir Hospital Eduation and Research","OTHER_GOV",{"id":138,"slug":139,"hasResults":12,"nctId":140,"briefTitle":141,"officialTitle":142,"acronym":143,"eligibilityCriteria":144,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":145,"targetDuration":147,"studyType":23,"phases":4,"briefSummary":148,"conditions":149,"keywords":151,"overallStatus":162,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":128,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":163,"startDateStruct":165,"completionDateStruct":167,"leadSponsor":169,"locationsCount":171},"100640429","patient-ventilator-asynchrony-occurence-and-clinical-impact-in-usual-care-100640429","NCT07624786","Patient-Ventilator Asynchrony: Occurence and Clinical Impact in Usual Care","Unraveling the Clinical Impact of Patient-Ventilator Asynchrony in Usual Care","PVA-detection","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age \\> 18 years old.\n* Recordings available of ventilator waveforms synchronized with the patient's electronic health record during invasive mechanical ventilation.\n* Duration of mechanical ventilation of at least 24 hours.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* (Previous) registered objection of patient and\u002For relatives to re-use clinical data for research purposes\n* No consent for re-use of data for research",{"count":146,"type":22},110,"3 Months","The goal of this observational study is to unravel the occurence, impact and relations of Patient-Ventilator Aynchrony (PVA) in mechanically ventilated patients. The main questions it aims to answer are:\n\n* How often does PVA occur?\n* What are relations between clinical characteristics and PVA occurence?\n* What are relations between PVA occurence and patient outcomes?\n\nAll questions will be assessed using data collected during the whole course of mechanical ventilation. Mechanically ventilated patients' medical data will be re-used. PVAs will be automatically classified on ventilator waveform data, using validated Deep Breath software.",[29,150],"Patient-Ventilator Asynchrony",[152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161],"asynchrony","Patient-ventilator asynchrony","dyssynchrony","Patient-ventilator interaction","mechanical ventilation","AI","algorithm","classification algorithm","ICU","Artificial intelligence","RECRUITING",{"date":164,"type":45},"2026-08-13",{"date":166,"type":45},"2026-07-21",{"date":168,"type":22},"2027-02",{"name":170,"class":52},"Erasmus Medical Center",3,{"id":173,"slug":174,"hasResults":12,"nctId":175,"briefTitle":176,"officialTitle":177,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":178,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":179,"maxAge":180,"enrollmentInfo":181,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":89,"phases":183,"briefSummary":184,"conditions":185,"keywords":188,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":194,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":195,"startDateStruct":197,"completionDateStruct":199,"leadSponsor":201,"locationsCount":53},"100650826","effect-of-maternal-voice-on-pain-sedation-and-physiological-parameters-in-mechanically-ventilated-children-100650826","NCT07753486","Effect of Maternal Voice on Pain, Sedation, and Physiological Parameters in Mechanically Ventilated Children","The Effect of Maternal Voice Played to Children on Mechanical Ventilators on Pain, Sedation, and Physiological Parameters: A Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Children aged 1-3 years, intubated and mechanically ventilated under sedation\n* No change in sedation dose within the last 24 hours\n* No hearing impairment in the child\n* Parent has no visual, hearing, or speech impairment\n* Parent is a Turkish speaker\u002Freader with at least a primary school education\n* Parent provides written and verbal informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Children receiving care\u002Ftreatment due to surgical operation or trauma\n* Children who experience cardiac arrest during the study\n* Children whose parent withdraws consent during the study\n* Children who are extubated during the study","1 Year","3 Years",{"count":182,"type":22},28,[91],"Children in the pediatric intensive care unit often experience pain and stress from medical procedures, even while sedated. This study will test whether playing a recording of the child's mother's voice helps reduce pain and the need for sedation medication in children aged 1 to 3 years who are on a breathing machine (mechanical ventilator). Children will be randomly placed into one of two groups: one group will listen to a 10-minute recording of their mother's voice through headphones, while the other group will receive usual care with no recording. Researchers will measure pain and comfort levels, heart rate, oxygen levels, blood pressure, and breathing rate before, during, and after the session to see if listening to the mother's voice makes a difference.",[186,187,29],"Pain","Sedation",[189,190,191,192,193],"Maternal Voice","Pediatric Intensive Care Unite","Physiological Parameters","COMFORT Scale","Non-pharmacological Intervention","2026-08-06",{"date":196,"type":45},"2026-08-10",{"date":198,"type":22},"2026-08-15",{"date":200,"type":22},"2026-12-15",{"name":202,"class":52},"TC Erciyes University",{"id":204,"slug":205,"hasResults":12,"nctId":206,"briefTitle":207,"officialTitle":208,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":209,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":210,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":89,"phases":212,"briefSummary":213,"conditions":214,"keywords":221,"overallStatus":162,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":233,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":234,"startDateStruct":235,"completionDateStruct":237,"leadSponsor":239,"locationsCount":53},"100641181","compare-vent-feasibility-pilot-study-100641181","NCT07656259","COMPARE-VENT Feasibility Pilot Study","COMPARE-VENT Feasibility Pilot Study: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Crossover Trial for Ventilation Strategies and Hemodynamic Impact in Critically Ill Patients With Cardiovascular Disease","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nEligible adults ≥ 18 years of age admitted to the cardiac ICU with need for invasive mechanical ventilation of expected duration \\>12 hours.\n\nPre-Specified Subgroups for exploratory outcomes:\n\n1. SCAI Stages C-E Cardiogenic Shock\n2. Mechanical circulatory support use, including intra-aortic balloon pumps and microaxial flow pumps, including Impella CP, RP Impella Flex, and Impella 5.5 devices\n3. Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: LVEF \\\u003C40% or;\n4. Moderate to severe RV systolic dysfunction or;\n5. Moderate to severe Pulmonary hypertension, as defined by ACC\u002FAHA\u002FESC guidelines\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Expected duration of intubation \\\u003C12 hours.\n2. Severe COPD, bronchopleural fistulas, or severe ARDS (Berlin criteria P\u002FF \\\u003C100, in the absence of pulmonary edema)\n3. Home ventilator or chronic tracheostomy.\n4. Pregnant, incarcerated, patients or those receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation",{"count":211,"type":22},75,[91],"Cardiac disease complicated by respiratory insufficiency comprises the most frequent indication for cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) admission, with nearly one-third patients requiring advanced respiratory support and over 20% patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). IMV among patients with impaired cardiovascular reserve is further compounded by the adverse impact of positive pressure ventilation (PPV) and systemic sedation on intracardiac hemodynamics, pulmonary vascular mechanics and consequently end-organ perfusion. Despite widespread use, evidence guiding optimal ventilatory practices and mode selection in cardiovascular intensive care unit patients remains limited. Pressure-controlled and volume-controlled ventilation may differ in their effects on patient-ventilator synchrony, sedation requirements, and hemodynamic impact, but comparative data among patients with critical cardiac disease remains inconclusive. This pilot study will evaluate the feasibility of implementing a pragmatic cluster-randomized crossover trial comparing ventilatory modes in a contemporary cardiovascular intensive care unit.",[215,216,217,218,29,219,220],"Respiration Failure","Cardio Vascular Disease","Cardiogenic Pulmonary Oedema","Critical Illness","Cardiogenic Shock","Cardiopulmonary",[222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232],"Cardiovascular disease","Cardiac arrest","Cardiogenic shock","Respiratory failure","Cardiopulmonary interactions","Critical illness","Intensive care unit","Critical care therapies","Outcomes","Mechanical ventilation","Positive pressure ventilation","2026-08-05",{"date":196,"type":45},{"date":236,"type":45},"2026-07-01",{"date":238,"type":22},"2027-06-30",{"name":240,"class":52},"Mayo Clinic",{"id":242,"slug":243,"hasResults":12,"nctId":244,"briefTitle":245,"officialTitle":245,"acronym":246,"eligibilityCriteria":247,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":248,"maxAge":249,"enrollmentInfo":250,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":89,"phases":252,"briefSummary":254,"conditions":255,"keywords":259,"overallStatus":162,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":269,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":270,"startDateStruct":272,"completionDateStruct":274,"leadSponsor":276,"locationsCount":278},"100592516","phase-3-optimizing-pain-treatment-in-children-on-mechanical-ventilation-100592516","NCT06994442","Optimizing Pain Treatment in Children On Mechanical Ventilation","OPTICOM","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. At least 2 months of age to 17 years 6 months; AND\n2. Acute Respiratory Failure requiring endotracheal intubation; AND\n3. Opioid infusion planned or started; AND\n4. Expected duration of Invasive Mechanical Ventilation \\> 48 hours\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. History of allergic-type reaction to either acetaminophen or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) medications; OR\n2. Active peptic ulcer disease, recent gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation, or history of peptic ulcer disease or gastrointestinal bleeding; OR\n3. Expected need for continuous neuromuscular blockade for more than 24 hours following intubation; OR\n4. Requirement for tight temperature control (defined as the requirement for continuous administration of antipyretic medications to prevent secondary injuries associated with fever); OR\n5. Platelet count \\\u003C 100,000\u002Fmicroliter; OR\n6. Known liver disease (defined as pre-existing diagnosis of hepatic insufficiency, or a serum ALT \\> 5 times upper limit of normal or serum total bilirubin \\> 2 times the upper limit of normal, as defined by hospital laboratory standards); OR\n7. Known kidney disease (defined as pre-existing diagnosis of renal insufficiency, or an estimated creatinine clearance \\\u003C 30 mL\u002Fmin\u002Fm2 obtained within the previous 24-hours prior to eligibility, or high risk of renal failure due to volume depletion); OR\n8. Current treatment with extracorporeal therapies (e.g., ECMO, CVVH, plasma exchange); OR\n9. Cardiac bypass surgery within the past 24 hours prior to eligibility; OR\n10. Requirement for the patient to receive lithium, pentoxifylline or probenecid as part of their routine care; OR\n11. Unable to obtain consent and randomize within 12 hours of eligibility, OR\n12. Positive pregnancy test; OR\n13. Coma, Vegetative State, or Brain Death (Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category (PCPC) score of 5 or 6) suspected or confirmed; OR\n14. Cardiac arrest has occurred within 72 hours of eligibility criteria being met; OR\n15. Limitations in care in place at the time of eligibility, or anticipated to be considered during the 5-day study period, OR\n16. Use of high dose NSAIDS within the prior 6 months, OR\n17. Suspected or confirmed cerebrovascular bleeding or hemorrhagic diathesis","2 Months","17 Years",{"count":251,"type":22},644,[253],"PHASE3","In this clinical trial, investigators want to learn more about using non-opioid pain medications for children with acute respiratory failure. Right now, doctors give these children opioids to help with pain while they are on the ventilator, but investigators don't know if this is the best way to manage their pain. Even with strong doses of opioids, more than 90% of these children still feel pain. Other pain medicines, like acetaminophen (also called Tylenol) and ketorolac (also called Toradol), are available but aren't commonly used because we don't know if they help. The goal of this clinical trial is to test if acetaminophen and\u002For ketorolac can improve pain control and reduce the need for stronger pain medications (opioids) in these children.\n\nTo learn more about this, participants will be randomly placed in one of four study treatment groups. This means that a computer will decide by chance which group each participant is in, not the doctors running the study. Each group will receive a combination of intravenous acetaminophen, ketorolac or a harmless substance called a placebo. In this clinical trial, placebos help investigators see if the actual medications (acetaminophen and ketorolac) work better than something that doesn't contain medicine. By comparing participants who get the real medicine with those who get the placebo, investigators can find out if these medications effectively decrease pain.",[29,256,257,258],"Pediatric Acute Respiratory Failure","Analgesics, Opioid","Sedation and Analgesia",[260,261,262,263,264,265,266,267,268],"Acetaminophen","Ketorolac","Non-opioids","Acute Respiratory Failure in Children","Mechanically Ventilated Children in the ICU","Pediatric Delirium","Pain Treatment","opioids","sedation","2026-07-28",{"date":271,"type":45},"2026-07-30",{"date":273,"type":45},"2025-12-29",{"date":275,"type":22},"2029-08-31",{"name":277,"class":52},"Weill Medical College of Cornell University",16,{"id":280,"slug":281,"hasResults":12,"nctId":282,"briefTitle":283,"officialTitle":284,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":285,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":286,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":4,"briefSummary":288,"conditions":289,"keywords":291,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":297,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":298,"startDateStruct":300,"completionDateStruct":301,"leadSponsor":303,"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":287,"type":22},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",[218,29,290],"Respiratory Insufficiency",[292,293,231,227,228,294,295,296],"Inhaled sedation","Propofol","Cost-effectiveness","Critical care sedation","Adult ICU patients","2026-07-27",{"date":299,"type":45},"2026-07-29",{"date":299,"type":22},{"date":302,"type":22},"2026-10-31",{"name":304,"class":52},"Hospital H+ Queretaro",{"id":306,"slug":307,"hasResults":12,"nctId":308,"briefTitle":309,"officialTitle":309,"acronym":310,"eligibilityCriteria":311,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":4,"maxAge":18,"enrollmentInfo":312,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":89,"phases":313,"briefSummary":315,"conditions":316,"keywords":318,"overallStatus":162,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":322,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":323,"startDateStruct":325,"completionDateStruct":327,"leadSponsor":329,"locationsCount":53},"100609285","phase-2-biomarker-and-renal-angina-validation-to-assess-heart-kidney-outcomes-after-amino-acid-therapy-100609285","NCT07212595","Biomarker and Renal Angina Validation to Assess Heart-Kidney Outcomes After Amino Acid Therapy","BRAVE-HEART","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Expected to be at high risk of developing acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery based on Age, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons-European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (STAT) score, and anticipated cardiopulmonary bypass time\n* Age less than or equal to 18 years\n* Weight greater than or equal to 5 kilograms\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Preoperative extracorporeal organ support\n* History of chronic kidney disease\n* Known or suspected inborn errors of amino acid metabolism\n* Known hypersensitivity to amino acids\n* Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) or Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) \\> 3 times the upper limit of normal for age\u002Fgender\n* Preterm infants less than 6 months of age who were born at less than 36 weeks gestational age\n* Anuria at the time of randomization\n* Expected use of total parental nutrition (TPN) within the first 72 hours post-operatively",{"count":62,"type":22},[314],"PHASE2","The goal of the BRAVE-HEART study is to learn if an amino acid infusion can reduce the risk of developing acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery in children. The main questions it aims to answer are:\n\n1. Does an amino acid infusion decrease the number of participants with acute kidney injury?\n2. Does an amino acid infusion decrease the number of days that participants are on a ventilator after cardiac surgery?\n\nResearchers will compare amino acids to a placebo (a look-alike substance that contains no drug) to see if amino acids decrease the number of participants with acute kidney injury.\n\nParticipants will receive an amino acid or placebo infusion for up to 72 hours starting during cardiac surgery and only while in the operating room or the intensive care unit.",[317,29],"Acute Kidney Injury",[319,320,317,321],"Cardiac Bypass","Pediatric","Amino Acids","2026-07-22",{"date":324,"type":45},"2026-07-24",{"date":326,"type":45},"2026-07-08",{"date":328,"type":22},"2027-12-31",{"name":330,"class":52},"Dana Fuhrman",{"id":332,"slug":333,"hasResults":12,"nctId":334,"briefTitle":335,"officialTitle":336,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":337,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":338,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":89,"phases":340,"briefSummary":341,"conditions":342,"keywords":345,"overallStatus":162,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":351,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":352,"startDateStruct":353,"completionDateStruct":355,"leadSponsor":357,"locationsCount":53},"100648070","brain-monitoring-during-peep-based-respiratory-therapy-in-critically-ill-patients-100648070","NCT07716787","Brain Monitoring During PEEP-Based Respiratory Therapy in Critically Ill Patients","Assessment of Brain Function Changes During PEEP-Based Respiratory Therapy in Critically Ill Patients Using Multimodal Neurophysiological Monitoring","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥18 years.\n* Admission to the neurocritical care unit with acute brain injury requiring intensive care management.\n* Receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.\n* Undergoing clinically indicated recruitment maneuvers and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) adjustments.\n* Availability of an adequate temporal acoustic window for transcranial Doppler monitoring.\n* Written informed consent obtained from the participant or a legally authorized representative.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Pregnancy.\n* Hemodynamic instability precluding recruitment maneuvers or PEEP adjustments.\n* Severe cardiac dysfunction judged by the treating physician to contraindicate study procedures.\n* Inability to obtain adequate transcranial Doppler signals.\n* Conditions preventing EEG monitoring, including extensive scalp injury or dressings that preclude electrode placement.\n* Withdrawal of informed consent.",{"count":339,"type":22},50,[91],"Mechanical ventilation is commonly used in critically ill patients with acute brain injury. Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and lung recruitment maneuvers are important ventilator strategies for improving oxygenation, but they may also influence cerebral blood flow, systemic hemodynamics, carbon dioxide levels, and brain electrical activity. The effects of PEEP-related ventilator changes on cortical function in neurocritical care patients remain insufficiently understood.\n\nThis prospective observational physiological study will evaluate changes in brain electrical activity and cerebral blood flow during clinically indicated lung recruitment maneuvers and PEEP adjustments in mechanically ventilated neurocritical care patients. Multimodal monitoring will include electroencephalography (EEG), transcranial Doppler ultrasound, invasive arterial blood pressure, end-tidal carbon dioxide, and routine clinical variables.\n\nEEG-derived measures, including delta power ratio and related frequency-domain indicators, will be used to describe cortical activity. Cerebral blood flow velocity and low-frequency neurovascular coupling measures will be explored as secondary physiological outcomes. The study will examine whether PEEP-related changes are associated with alterations in EEG activity, cerebral blood flow, and neurovascular coupling, and whether these responses differ according to clinical status.\n\nThe results may help improve understanding of brain-lung interactions during mechanical ventilation and inform future studies on individualized ventilation strategies in neurocritical care.",[343,29,344],"Acute Brain Injury","Neurocritical Care",[29,31,344,346,347,348,349,350],"Brain-Lung Interaction","Neurovascular Coupling","Electroencephalography","Transcranial Doppler","Cerebral Blood Flow","2026-07-16",{"date":166,"type":45},{"date":354,"type":45},"2024-02-01",{"date":356,"type":22},"2027-02-01",{"name":358,"class":52},"Shengli Oilfield Hospital",{"id":360,"slug":361,"hasResults":12,"nctId":362,"briefTitle":363,"officialTitle":364,"acronym":365,"eligibilityCriteria":366,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":367,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":4,"briefSummary":369,"conditions":370,"keywords":374,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":351,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":383,"startDateStruct":385,"completionDateStruct":386,"leadSponsor":388,"locationsCount":4},"100647520","analysis-of-weaning-of-analgosedation-and-kinetics-of-emergence-in-critically-ill-patients-100647520","NCT07710066","Analysis of Weaning of Analgosedation and Kinetics of Emergence in Critically Ill Patients","AWAKE-ICU: Analysis of Weaning of Analgosedation and Kinetics of Emergence in Critically Ill Patients","AWAKE-ICU","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nAdult critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure or requiring invasive mechanical ventilation in the context of critical illness will be consecutively enrolled. Eligible participants must meet all of the following criteria:\n\n* Age ≥18 years.\n* Receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for ≥24 hours.\n* Prior exposure to continuous analgosedation before undergoing a first valid Structured Awakening Evaluation (SAE) during the ICU stay, as defined by the study's operational criteria.\n* Availability of sufficient clinical information to identify the baseline time point (t0) and characterize the first valid Structured Awakening Evaluation according to the study's operational definitions.\n* Provision of informed consent for participation in the study.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Acute primary structural brain injury in which the level of consciousness is primarily determined by the neurological condition or constitutes a therapeutic target, including but not limited to:\n\n   * Moderate or severe traumatic brain injury.\n   * Subarachnoid hemorrhage.\n   * Ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke.\n   * Central nervous system infections.\n   * Other structural brain injuries requiring therapeutic sedation or goal-directed intensive neurological monitoring.\n2. Ongoing therapeutic sedation for neurological indications at the time of the first valid Structured Awakening Evaluation (SAE), including:\n\n   * Intracranial hypertension management.\n   * Status epilepticus.\n   * Other neuroprotective strategies requiring deep sedation.\n3. ICU admission following cardiac arrest with return of spontaneous circulation and suspected hypoxic-ischemic brain injury or the need for targeted therapeutic sedation.\n4. Insufficient clinical information to accurately identify the baseline time point (t0) and characterize the architecture of the first valid Structured Awakening Evaluation.\n5. Patients receiving extracorporeal life support (ECLS\u002FECMO), in whom assessment of hemodynamic and respiratory stability before initiation of awakening and liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation is substantially more complex.",{"count":368,"type":22},500,"The goal of this prospective multicenter observational study is to characterize early trajectories of consciousness recovery following the first valid structured awakening trial in mechanically ventilated critically ill adults, a phase that is not captured by current weaning classifications.\n\nThe main questions it aims to answer are:\n\n1. What trajectories of consciousness recovery occur during the first 72 hours after the first valid structured awakening trial?\n2. Are different early consciousness trajectories associated with clinically relevant outcomes, including successful liberation from mechanical ventilation, delirium, duration of mechanical ventilation, ventilator-free days, mortality, and long-term functional and cognitive outcomes?\n\nParticipants will:\n\n1. Undergo standardized serial assessments of consciousness during the first 72 hours after the first valid structured awakening trial using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) and a standardized motor command assessment.\n2. Receive daily assessments for delirium and weaning-related outcomes during the ICU stay.\n3. Be followed for clinical outcomes during hospitalization and for functional and cognitive recovery up to 1 year after ICU admission.",[218,29,371,258,372,373],"Weaning Invasive Mechanical Ventilation","Critical Care Medicine","Delirium",[375,376,377,29,378,379,380,381,382],"Emergence from Analgosedation","Structured Awakening Evaluation","Recovery of Consciousness","Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS)","Motor Command Assessment","Consciousness Trajectories","Mechanical Ventilation Weaning","Delayed Awakening",{"date":384,"type":45},"2026-07-17",{"date":97,"type":22},{"date":387,"type":22},"2028-09-01",{"name":389,"class":52},"Patricia Rodriguez Villamizar",{"id":391,"slug":392,"hasResults":12,"nctId":393,"briefTitle":394,"officialTitle":395,"acronym":396,"eligibilityCriteria":397,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":398,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":89,"phases":399,"briefSummary":400,"conditions":401,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":131,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":404,"startDateStruct":406,"completionDateStruct":408,"leadSponsor":410,"locationsCount":53},"100647839","trcheal-high-flow-for-weaning-from-mechanical-ventilation-100647839","NCT07714564","Trcheal High-flow for Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation","Tracheal High-flow vs. Conventional Oxygen for Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation in Tracheostomized Patients: an Open-label, Multicentre, Randomized Trial","TRACFLOW","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Tracheostomy\n* Plan to receive weaning from mechanical ventilation after more than 48 hours of mechanical ventilation\n* Hypoxemia (PaO2\u002FFiO2\\\u003C300) while on mechanical ventilation\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* anticipated need for long-term mechanical ventilation\n* scheduled reconnections to mechanical ventilation\n* neuromuscular disease\n* chronic ventilator dependence\n* planned nocturnal home ventilation",{"count":368,"type":22},[91],"Multicentre randomized trial to determine whether tracheal high-flow nasal oxygen can improve weaning outcome vs. conventional oxygen therapy in critically ill tracheostomized patients who are hypoxemic.",[402,29,403],"Tracheostomy","Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure",{"date":405,"type":45},"2026-07-20",{"date":407,"type":22},"2026-10-01",{"date":409,"type":22},"2029-04-30",{"name":411,"class":52},"Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS",{"id":413,"slug":414,"hasResults":12,"nctId":415,"briefTitle":416,"officialTitle":416,"acronym":417,"eligibilityCriteria":418,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":419,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":420,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":89,"phases":422,"briefSummary":423,"conditions":424,"keywords":429,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":434,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":435,"startDateStruct":436,"completionDateStruct":437,"leadSponsor":439,"locationsCount":53},"100647290","heart-rate-variability-for-practitioner-stimulated-reflection-and-decision-making-optimisation-100647290","NCT07709364","Heart Rate Variability for Practitioner Stimulated Reflection and Decision-making Optimisation","HRV-PRO","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Nurse working in Enhanced Recovery Unit at Royal Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust\n* Willingness to participate in the trial\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Staff with permanent pacemakers\n* Staff on medication that could affect HRV (e.g. b-blockers)","21 Years",{"count":421,"type":22},20,[91],"At the heart of healthcare is the interaction between healthcare practitioners and patients. It is believed that optimisation of this interaction can improve patient relevant outcomes, safety and patient experience. Through utilisation of practitioner physiological data, heart rate variability (HRV), to help practitioners make better decisions and optimise practice, it is considered possible to improve decision making around patient care and improve outcomes and safety.\n\nThe modern intensive care unit (ICU) is a dynamic data rich environment requiring rapid and accurate decision making. Advances in ventilator technology, electronic patient monitoring and electronic health records (EHR) have provided exponential growth in data produced for patients and the need for complex decision making. However, data overload and alarm fatigue can result in poor understanding and a delayed response from the practitioner in addressing the patient's needs.\n\nThe aim of this study is to present and evaluate a psychophysiology training approach for practitioners derived from their cardiovascular response through the course of the working day, this will be measured using heart rate variability (HRV). Practitioner HRV has been shown to be linked to work related stress and is considered a biomarker of decision-making.",[425,426,29,427,428],"Critical Care Nursing","Decision Making","Cognition","Heart Rate Variability (HRV)",[430,431,432,433],"Heart Rate Variability","HRV","Healthcare practitioner","Practitioner HRV","2026-07-13",{"date":351,"type":45},{"date":351,"type":22},{"date":438,"type":22},"2027-06-01",{"name":440,"class":136},"Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust",{"id":442,"slug":443,"hasResults":12,"nctId":444,"briefTitle":445,"officialTitle":446,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":447,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":448,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":89,"phases":449,"briefSummary":450,"conditions":451,"keywords":454,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":326,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":457,"startDateStruct":459,"completionDateStruct":460,"leadSponsor":462,"locationsCount":53},"100645481","mechanical-ventilator-adjustments-and-patient-dyspnea-100645481","NCT07701850","Mechanical Ventilator Adjustments and Patient Dyspnea","The Influence of Standard Ventilator Setting Adjustments on Dyspnea Experienced in Awake Mechanically-ventilated Patients: A Pilot Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Admitted to a participating ICU at BIDMC\n* Requiring mechanical ventilation\n* Awake by both of the following criteria\n* RASS -2 to +2\\*\n* CAM-ICU negative‡\n* Able to communicate\u002Fanswer dyspnea questionnaire\n\n  * RASS (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale) is a validated scale commonly used in the ICU to assess patient's level of sedation and agitation. It ranges from -5 to +4. While -5 means an unarousable coma, +4 means violent patient with immediate self danger. The scale from -2 to +2 ranges from light sedation to agitated.\n\n    * CAM-ICU (Confusion Assessment Method) is an ICU validated scale used to assess the presence of delirium. A negative CAM-ICU scale has good positive and negative predictive value to diagnose or exclude delirium.\n\nPhysicians and nurses are trained to evaluate patients using both scales\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age \\\u003C 18 years old\n* Comfort measures only\n* Hemodynamic instability (MAP \\\u003C 65 mmHg) or increasing requirement of vasopressor\n* PEEP \\> 10 cmH2O\n* FiO2 \\> 0.6\n* Current Prone position\n* Current Pneumothorax\n* Bronchopleural fistula\n* Neuromuscular conditions that impair responding to the dyspnea scale or expression\n* Dementia\n* Prisoners\n* Pregnant women\n* Patients intubated and ventilated for less than 12 hours during the current ventilation episode\n* pH \\\u003C 7.20 or \\> 7.55\n* Presence of chest tube\n* Status post thoracotomy\n* Treating clinician refusal",{"count":421,"type":22},[91],"In the past 5 years, there are increasing data suggesting that patients treated with mechanical ventilation experience shortness of breath, despite appropriate sedation. This adverse experience is believed to contribute to the finding that up to 25% of patients who survive severe respiratory diseases experience mental health problems including post traumatic distress syndrome (PTSD). The purpose of this study is to evaluate if\u002Fhow sequential changes in the delivery of mechanical ventilation affect shortness of breath sensation in awake patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Improving the knowledge of the impact of the patient-ventilator interaction on shortness of breath sensation may lead to strategies to improve the comfort of non-sedated and sedated ventilated patients, and thereby reduce mental health sequelae in survivors of acute severe respiratory diseases The investigators hypothesize that current ventilator strategies, particularly reduced tidal volume (size of breath given by the ventilator) utilized in managing patients with severe respiratory diseases, contribute to shortness of breath in patients with increased drive to breathe. In this setting, some safe ventilator changes may improve or worsen the shortness of breath sensation in awake patients on mechanical ventilation.",[452,453,29],"Respiratory Failure","Dyspnea During Mechanical Ventilation",[455,156,456],"respiratory failure","dyspnea",{"date":458,"type":45},"2026-07-14",{"date":97,"type":22},{"date":461,"type":22},"2027-07-01",{"name":463,"class":52},"Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center",{"id":465,"slug":466,"hasResults":12,"nctId":467,"briefTitle":468,"officialTitle":469,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":470,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":471,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":89,"phases":472,"briefSummary":473,"conditions":474,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":162,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":326,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":488,"startDateStruct":490,"completionDateStruct":492,"leadSponsor":494,"locationsCount":53},"100569296","the-effects-of-endotracheal-suctioning-on-pain-and-serum-markers-100569296","NCT06692400","The Effects of Endotracheal Suctioning on Pain and Serum Markers","The Impact of Endotracheal Suctioning on Pain, Hypoxia, and Oxidative Stress Biomarkers in Intubated Adult ICU Patients: A Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults (aged 18 years and older)\n* Current diagnosis of flu, pneumonia, COVID, or sepsis\n* Intubated and receiving mechanical ventilation.\n* Have arterial lines placed\n* Require endotracheal suctioning as part of their care\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients receiving neuromuscular blocking agents\n* Contraindications for blood draws (hemoglobin levels below 8.0 g\u002FdL; Jehovah's Witness)",{"count":146,"type":22},[91],"The goal of this experimental study is to understand if endotracheal tube (ETT) suctioning increases pain and causes stress on the body in intubated adult ICU patients. These patients are already on ventilators, which means they need suctioning to keep their airways clear, but this procedure may be uncomfortable and cause stress.\n\nThe main questions this study aims to answer are:\n\nDoes ETT suctioning raise pain levels as measured by the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT)? Does ETT suctioning increase certain chemicals in the blood (hypoxanthine, xanthine, and uric acid) that show stress and lack of oxygen in the body? Researchers will compare patients who have ETT suctioning (intervention group) with those who do not have suctioning during the study period (control group) to see if there are differences in pain and blood markers of stress.\n\nParticipants will:\n\nHave pain measured before and after suctioning using the CPOT. Have blood samples taken from an existing line at three time points: 5 minutes before, 5 minutes after, and 30 minutes after suctioning.\n\nProvide demographic information (like age, gender, and diagnosis) from medical records.\n\nThis research will help improve how pain is managed for ICU patients who cannot speak for themselves, potentially leading to better pain relief methods in the future.",[475,476,218,29,477,478,479,480,481,482,483,484,485,486,487],"Intensive Care Unit ICU","Intubation","Pain Measurement","Pain, Procedural","Oxidative Stress","Hypoxia","Biomarkers \u002F Blood","Adult","Uric Acid","Sepsis","COVID","Influenza","Pneumonia",{"date":489,"type":45},"2026-07-10",{"date":491,"type":45},"2025-01-30",{"date":493,"type":22},"2026-12",{"name":495,"class":52},"Loma Linda University",{"id":497,"slug":498,"hasResults":12,"nctId":499,"briefTitle":500,"officialTitle":501,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":502,"healthyVolunteers":503,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":504,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":89,"phases":506,"briefSummary":507,"conditions":508,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":162,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":511,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":512,"startDateStruct":513,"completionDateStruct":514,"leadSponsor":515,"locationsCount":53},"100644563","mechanical-power-during-different-ventilation-modes-in-laparoscopic-surgery-100644563","NCT07670494","Mechanical Power During Different Ventilation Modes in Laparoscopic Surgery","Comparison of Mechanical Power in Pressure-Regulated Volume Control and Volume-Controlled Ventilation Modes During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery.\n* Patients between 18 and 75 years of age.\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I, II or III.\n* Body Mass Index (BMI) between 18.5 and 35 kg\u002Fm².\n* Voluntary written informed consent for participation.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* History of significant chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma.\n* Previous lung resection or major thoracic surgery.\n* Heavy smokers (more than 20 cigarettes per day).\n* Presence of spontaneous breathing effort during mechanical ventilation.\n* Conversion from laparoscopic surgery to open surgery during the procedure.\n* Emergency surgery cases.\n* Known pregnancy.",true,{"count":505,"type":22},80,[91],"This study investigates how different breathing machine (ventilator) settings affect the energy delivered to the lungs during surgery. Mechanical power is a measure of this energy, and high levels can sometimes lead to lung irritation. In clinical practice, a mode called Pressure-Regulated Volume Control (PRVC) is often used because it lowers the \"peak\" pressure in the airways, which is generally thought to be safer. However, doctors have noticed that even though the peak pressure goes down in PRVC mode, the total mechanical power displayed on the monitor might actually increase compared to the standard Volume-Controlled Ventilation (VCV) mode. In this study, patients undergoing gallbladder surgery will be monitored using both ventilation modes in a random order. The researchers will compare the machine-calculated mechanical power for both modes to see if the perceived benefit of lower peak pressure in PRVC actually results in lower overall energy transfer to the lungs.",[509,29,510],"Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy","Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury","2026-07-07",{"date":326,"type":45},{"date":236,"type":45},{"date":94,"type":22},{"name":516,"class":52},"Dr Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Ankara Oncology Training and Research Hospital",{"id":518,"slug":519,"hasResults":12,"nctId":520,"briefTitle":521,"officialTitle":522,"acronym":523,"eligibilityCriteria":524,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":525,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":89,"phases":527,"briefSummary":528,"conditions":529,"keywords":530,"overallStatus":162,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":536,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":537,"startDateStruct":538,"completionDateStruct":540,"leadSponsor":542,"locationsCount":53},"100620470","effect-of-post-suction-recruitment-on-lung-volume-in-mechanically-ventilated-icu-patients-100620470","NCT07358039","Effect of Post-suction Recruitment on Lung Volume in Mechanically Ventilated ICU Patients","Impact of a Recruitment Maneuver After Closed Endotracheal Suctioning on End-expiratory Lung Volume in Mechanically Ventilated ICU Patients Assessed by Electrical Impedance Tomography","RESPIRE","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults aged ≥18 years\n* Covered by national health insurance\n* Admitted to the intensive care unit\n* Intubated and mechanically ventilated\n* Neuromuscular blockade at inclusion\n* Written informed consent obtained from a legally authorized representative or next of kin\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Contraindication to electrical impedance tomography (e.g. pacemaker, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, or implanted electrical stimulation device)\n* Contraindication to recruitment maneuvers (e.g. emphysema, undrained pneumothorax, hemodynamic instability)\n* Refractory intracranial hypertension\n* Acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring prone positioning\n* Pregnant or breastfeeding women\n* Patients deprived of liberty or under legal protection\n* Any condition judged by the investigator to interfere with study evaluation",{"count":526,"type":22},32,[91],"Patients who are intubated and mechanically ventilated in the intensive care unit (ICU) require repeated endotracheal suctioning to remove airway secretions. Although this procedure is necessary, it can cause a temporary collapse of lung units (alveolar derecruitment), leading to a decrease in lung volume and impaired oxygenation.\n\nA recruitment maneuver consists of briefly applying a higher airway pressure after suctioning in order to reopen collapsed lung areas and restore lung volume. However, the clinical benefit of performing a recruitment maneuver systematically after suctioning remains uncertain.\n\nThis study aims to evaluate whether performing a recruitment maneuver immediately after closed-circuit endotracheal suctioning improves lung volume compared with suctioning alone. Lung volume will be assessed using electrical impedance tomography (EIT), a non-invasive bedside imaging technique that allows real-time monitoring of lung aeration.\n\nIn a randomized crossover design, each patient will undergo two suctioning procedures: one followed by a recruitment maneuver and one without, in a random order. The main outcome will be the change in end-expiratory lung volume 15 minutes after suctioning. The results may help optimize ventilatory care in mechanically ventilated ICU patients.",[29],[531,532,533,534,535,231],"Endotracheal suction","Alveolar recruitment","Electrical impedance tomography","End-expiratory lung volume","Intensive care","2026-07-06",{"date":511,"type":45},{"date":539,"type":45},"2026-04-02",{"date":541,"type":22},"2027-04",{"name":543,"class":52},"Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Toulon La Seyne sur Mer",{"id":545,"slug":546,"hasResults":12,"nctId":547,"briefTitle":548,"officialTitle":549,"acronym":550,"eligibilityCriteria":551,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":552,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":89,"phases":554,"briefSummary":555,"conditions":556,"keywords":558,"overallStatus":162,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":536,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":562,"startDateStruct":563,"completionDateStruct":565,"leadSponsor":567,"locationsCount":569},"100598875","effects-of-permissive-lung-protective-ventilation-on-outcome-in-critically-ill-invasively-ventilated-patients-100598875","NCT07077174","Effects of PERMISSive Lung-protective Ventilation on Outcome in Critically Ill Invasively Ventilated Patients","Effects of PERMISSive Lung-protective Ventilation on Outcome in Critically Ill Invasively Ventilated Patients (PERMISS) - a Feasibility and Safety Pilot Study for a Randomized Clinical Trial","PERMISS pilot","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* admission to one of the participating ICUs;\n* intubated and receiving invasive ventilation with an expected duration of ventilation of at least 24 hours.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* age below 18 years;\n* receiving invasive ventilation \\> 1 hour in the ICU, or receiving invasive ventilation \\> 6 hours directly preceding the current ICU admission (i.e., in the operating room or in the emergency department);\n* receiving or planned to receive veno-venous, veno-arterial or arterio-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO);\n* having COPD GOLD III and IV;\n* contra-indication for hypercapnia, such as ongoing cardiac ischemia (as defined in the guideline of the European Society of Cardiology), or having suspected or confirmed increased intracranial pressure due to brain injury, judged by the attending physician;\n* any neurologic diagnosis that can prolong duration of mechanical ventilation, e.g., Guillain-Barré syndrome, high spinal cord lesion or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, or myasthenia gravis;\n* suspected or confirmed pregnancy;\n* participation in another interventional trial using similar endpoints;\n* previously randomized in this study;\n* no informed consent; or\n* admitted for terminal care",{"count":553,"type":22},56,[91],"RATIONALE Lung-protective ventilation using a lower respiratory rate (RR) is an appealing strategy to reduce ventilation intensity, which may require permissive hypercapnia. However, the feasibility and safety of this so-called 'permissive lung-protective ventilation' must be investigated, before conducting a large randomized clinical trial to evaluate its effectiveness on patient-centered outcomes.\n\nOBJECTIVE To study the feasibility and safety of permissive lung-protective ventilation in adult critically ill patients receiving invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, and to inform the design of a future randomized clinical trial in this patient population.\n\nHYPOTHESIS Permissive lung-protective ventilation is a feasible and safe ventilation strategy.\n\nSTUDY DESIGN Multicenter, randomized clinical pilot trial. STUDY POPULATION Critically ill patients, aged \\> 18 years, intubated for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, and expected to receive ventilation for \\> 24 hours.\n\nMETHODS Patients are randomized to permissive lung-protective ventilation wherein RR is stepwise reduced, or to conventional lung-protective ventilation.\n\nOUTCOME MEASURES The primary endpoint is feasibility, assessed by the difference in respiratory rate (RR) between the two groups, from the start of mechanical ventilation until first extubation. Secondary endpoints include protocol compliance and feasibility of collecting data, and safety, assessed by the occurrence of unacceptable hypercapnia and hypoxemia and the incidence of ventilator-associated complications SAMPLE SIZE To estimate the appropriate sample size for this pilot study, we considered the primary feasibility endpoint of detecting a difference in the respiratory rate (RR). Assuming an expected mean difference in RR of 7.5, based on previous studies \\[1, 2\\], with an SD of 10, a power of 90% and an alpha of 0.05, with a drop-out rate estimated at 10%, a two-tailed t-test was used. The required sample size is 84 patients (42 patients per group).\n\nNATURE AND EXTENT OF THE BURDEN AND RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PARTICIPATION, BENEFIT AND GROUP RELATEDNESS Ventilation with a lower RR may require permissive hypercapnia, which, when kept within safe limits, is safe. In current daily practice, there is no guidance in setting RR; consequently, RR varies widely across patients and is often set high. This pilot study compares two forms of lung-protective ventilation, both considered standard care in current ICU practice. The control group receives conventional ventilation with low tidal volumes and high RR to maintain normal PaCO₂ and pH. The intervention group, permissive ventilation, uses a lower RR to reduce mechanical power, accepting mild hypercapnia and acidosis. Permissive ventilation is most often reserved for patients with severe lung conditions, where ventilator settings are more complex and ventilation intensity is high. In these patients, permissive ventilation is considered safe, and may even be beneficial. We aim to evaluate this strategy more broadly in critically ill patients. The collection of demographic, ventilation and outcome data causes no harm to patients. Blood is drawn for arterial blood gas analysis, but this is also part of standard care.",[29,557],"Intensive Care (ICU)",[156,559,560,561],"intensive care unit","mechanical power","respiratory rate",{"date":326,"type":45},{"date":564,"type":45},"2025-08-31",{"date":566,"type":22},"2026-08-31",{"name":568,"class":52},"Reinier de Graaf Groep",5,{"id":571,"slug":572,"hasResults":12,"nctId":573,"briefTitle":574,"officialTitle":575,"acronym":576,"eligibilityCriteria":577,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":578,"enrollmentInfo":579,"targetDuration":581,"studyType":23,"phases":4,"briefSummary":582,"conditions":583,"keywords":587,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":592,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":593,"startDateStruct":594,"completionDateStruct":596,"leadSponsor":597,"locationsCount":53},"100646441","asv-and-targeted-fluid-resuscitation-in-severe-burns-100646441","NCT07689097","ASV and Targeted Fluid Resuscitation in Severe Burns","Adaptive Support Ventilation and Targeted Fluid Resuscitation in Patients With Severe Burn Injury: A Prospective Cohort Study","BURN-ASV\u002FTFR","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults aged 18 years or older.\n* Hospital admission with severe burn injury involving ≥20% total body surface area (TBSA).\n* Requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation within 24 hours after admission to the intensive care unit.\n* Expected need for mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours.\n* Treatment with Adaptive Support Ventilation (ASV) and targeted fluid resuscitation according to institutional protocols.\n* Written informed consent provided by the patient or legally authorized representative, in accordance with local regulations.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age younger than 18 years.\n* Burn injury involving \\\u003C20% TBSA.\n* Mechanical ventilation initiated more than 24 hours after ICU admission.\n* Pregnancy.\n* Pre-existing chronic dependence on invasive mechanical ventilation.\n* Severe traumatic brain injury requiring a specific ventilation strategy.\n* Terminal illness with an expected survival of less than 24 hours.\n* Enrollment in another interventional clinical trial that may influence study outcomes.\n* Inability to obtain essential clinical data required for study analysis.","50 Years",{"count":580,"type":22},100,"7 Days","This prospective cohort study will evaluate the use of Adaptive Support Ventilation (ASV) together with targeted fluid resuscitation in adult patients with severe burn injuries requiring mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit.\n\nPatients with extensive burns often develop respiratory failure and require both invasive mechanical ventilation and large-volume fluid resuscitation during the first days after injury. The study will assess whether the combination of ASV and targeted fluid resuscitation is associated with improved oxygenation, respiratory mechanics, fluid balance, and early clinical outcomes during the first 72 hours of intensive care.\n\nClinical data, ventilatory parameters, laboratory results, hemodynamic variables, and fluid resuscitation characteristics will be collected as part of routine clinical care. The findings may help optimize early intensive care management for patients with severe burn injuries and improve future treatment strategies.",[584,585,29,586],"Burn","War-Related Injuries","Infusion Fluid",[588,589,590,591],"burns","war - ralated injury","addaptive support ventilation","fluid therapy","2026-07-04",{"date":326,"type":45},{"date":595,"type":22},"2026-09-23",{"date":595,"type":22},{"name":598,"class":52},"Ukrainian Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Therapy",{"id":600,"slug":601,"hasResults":12,"nctId":602,"briefTitle":603,"officialTitle":604,"acronym":605,"eligibilityCriteria":606,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":607,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":4,"briefSummary":609,"conditions":610,"keywords":612,"overallStatus":162,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":618,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":619,"startDateStruct":621,"completionDateStruct":623,"leadSponsor":625,"locationsCount":569},"100561856","intelligent-lung-support-in-the-intensive-care-unit-100561856","NCT06595602","Intelligent Lung Support in the Intensive Care Unit","Intelligent Lung Support in the Intensive Care Unit (IntelliLung): An Observational, Prospective, Multicentre Study","IntelliLung","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Male and female patients, age ⪰18 years\n2. Written informed consent\n3. Invasively mechanically ventilated patients expected to be intubated for more than 24 hours.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Expected to die within ≤48 hours\n2. Participation in an interventional mechanical ventilation trial\n3. Mechanical Ventilation with a closed-loop ventilation mode\n4. Persons dependent on the sponsor and\u002For investigator\n5. Subjects who are currently imprisoned or otherwise in confinement ordered by law or other official authorities",{"count":608,"type":22},530,"The aim of this observational study is to test the IntelliLung decision support system based on artificial intelligence. This system is intended to help to set the ventilator. The study includes patients with and without ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome) who are receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, as well as patients with additional extracorporeal lung support. The study will be conducted in several centers.\n\nThe main question of the study:\n\nHow well do the mechanical ventilation settings of healthcare staff match the recommendations of the IntelliLung system?",[29,611],"Intensive Care Medicine",[613,614,615,616,617],"Invasive mechanical ventilation","Intensive care medicine","critical care medicine","artificial intelligence","decision support","2026-06-30",{"date":620,"type":45},"2026-07-02",{"date":622,"type":45},"2025-05-25",{"date":624,"type":22},"2027-12",{"name":626,"class":52},"Technische Universität Dresden",{"id":628,"slug":629,"hasResults":12,"nctId":630,"briefTitle":631,"officialTitle":632,"acronym":633,"eligibilityCriteria":634,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":635,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":89,"phases":637,"briefSummary":638,"conditions":639,"keywords":641,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":646,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":647,"startDateStruct":648,"completionDateStruct":649,"leadSponsor":651,"locationsCount":53},"100643157","flow-controlled-ventilation-to-improve-postoperative-pulmonary-outcome-after-thoracic-surgery-100643157","NCT07623395","Flow-Controlled Ventilation to Improve Postoperative Pulmonary Outcome After Thoracic Surgery","PROtective Ventilation With FLOW-Controlled Ventilation to Improve Postoperative Pulmonary Outcome After THORACic Surgery - an International Multicenter Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial","PROFLOW-THORAC","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* aged ≥ 18 years; and\n* scheduled for elective open, video- or robot-assisted thoracic surgery with one-lung ventilation using a double-lumen tube (DLT); and\n* able to give written informed consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* body weight \\\u003C 40 kg;\n* ASA score IV - VI;\n* lung separation with other method than DLT (e.g. difficult airway, tracheostomy);\n* previous lung surgery;\n* COPD GOLD grades III and IV, lung fibrosis, documented bullae, severe emphysema, pneumothorax;\n* uncontrolled asthma;\n* Heart failure NYHA Grade 3 and 4, Coronary Heart Disease CCS Grade 3 and 4;\n* documented pulmonary arterial hypertension \\>25 mmHg mPAP at rest or \\>40mmHg syst. (estimated by ultrasound) or \\>20 mmHg mPAP measured by right heart catheterization, or pulmonary vascular resistance \\> 2.0 Wood units;\n* documented or suspected neuromuscular disease (thymoma, myasthenia, myopathies, muscular dystrophies, others);\n* planned mechanical ventilation after surgery;\n* bilateral procedures;\n* surgery in prone position;\n* persistent hemodynamic instability, intractable shock;\n* intracranial injury or tumor;\n* esophagectomy, pleural surgery only, sympathectomy surgery only, chest wall surgery only, mediastinal surgery only, lung transplantation;\n* presence before induction of anesthesia of one of the adverse events, listed as postoperative pulmonary complications (aspiration, moderate respiratory failure, infiltrates, pulmonary infection, atelectasis, cardiopulmonary oedema, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, pulmonary embolism, purulent pleuritis, lung hemorrhage);\n* documented preoperative hypercapnia \\> 45mmHg (6kPa)\n* previous enrolment in the current study;\n* being the study investigator of this study, his\u002Fher family members, employees and other dependent persons;\n* if female and of childbearing potential, known pregnancy or a positive urine pregnancy test (confirmed by a positive serum pregnancy test), or lactating; or\n* no written informed consent.",{"count":636,"type":22},140,[91],"In an international multicenter randomized clinical pilot trial, intraoperative flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) will be compared with volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) in patients scheduled for (open, video- or robot-assisted) thoracic surgery with one-lung ventilation (OLV). This pilot trial is designed to test the feasibility and safety of FCV during all phases of intraoperative ventilation, and in particular during OLV, and to inform the design of a future trial testing the efficacy of FCV with regard to postoperative outcomes, including postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC).\n\nThe ventilation modes are conducted with CE-marked medical devices (anesthesia ventilators or medical ventilators), however these medical devices themselves are not under investigation. All CE-marked standard medical devices from varied manufacturers in use at the participating study centers will be used in full accordance with their instructions for use. FCV has shown safety and feasibility in various surgical settings, including thoracic surgery with OLV, however its feasibility in a multicenter trial has not been investigated yet.",[29,640],"Postoperative Pulmonary Complications (PPCs)",[642,643,644,645],"Flow-Controlled Ventilation","Thoracic Surgery","One-Lung Ventilation","Mechanical Power","2026-06-28",{"date":236,"type":45},{"date":97,"type":22},{"date":650,"type":22},"2027-12-01",{"name":652,"class":52},"Cantonal Hospital of St. Gallen",{"id":654,"slug":655,"hasResults":12,"nctId":656,"briefTitle":657,"officialTitle":658,"acronym":659,"eligibilityCriteria":660,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":578,"enrollmentInfo":661,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":89,"phases":662,"briefSummary":663,"conditions":664,"keywords":669,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":672,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":673,"startDateStruct":675,"completionDateStruct":676,"leadSponsor":678,"locationsCount":4},"100644682","burn-asv-trial-adaptive-support-ventilation-in-severe-burn-injury-100644682","NCT07674563","BURN-ASV Trial: Adaptive Support Ventilation in Severe Burn Injury","Adaptive Support Ventilation Versus Conventional Lung-Protective Ventilation in Severe Burn Injury Including Thermobaric and Drone-Related Burns: The BURN-ASV Randomized Controlled Trial","BURN-ASV","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age 18 years or older.\n* Thermal burn injury involving ≥20% total body surface area (TBSA).\n* Requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation expected to exceed 24 hours.\n* Admission to a participating intensive care unit within 48 hours of injury.\n* Burn injury resulting from conventional flame burns, explosion-related burns, drone-related burns, or thermobaric blast burns.\n* Written informed consent provided by the patient or a legally authorized representative.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age younger than 18 years.\n* Pregnancy or breastfeeding.\n* Pre-existing chronic respiratory failure requiring home oxygen therapy or long-term mechanical ventilation.\n* Severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD GOLD IV) or other end-stage pulmonary disease.\n* Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) at the time of enrollment.\n* Severe traumatic brain injury requiring controlled hyperventilation.\n* Expected death within 24 hours of ICU admission.\n* Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order or limitations of life-sustaining treatment.\n* Previous enrollment in the current study.\n* Participation in another interventional trial that may interfere with study outcomes.",{"count":580,"type":22},[91],"Severe burn injury frequently requires prolonged mechanical ventilation because of inhalation injury, respiratory failure, systemic inflammation, and repeated surgical procedures. Patients with extensive burns are at high risk of ventilator-associated complications, prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and death.\n\nAdaptive Support Ventilation (ASV) is an automated mode of mechanical ventilation that continuously adjusts breathing support according to the patient's respiratory needs and lung mechanics. Although ASV has shown potential benefits in general ICU populations, its effectiveness in patients with severe burn injuries has not been adequately studied.\n\nThe purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to compare Adaptive Support Ventilation with conventional lung-protective mechanical ventilation in critically ill adult burn patients, including those with inhalation injury, drone-related burns, and thermobaric blast burns. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive either ASV or conventional ventilation. The study will evaluate whether ASV improves ventilator-free days, reduces duration of mechanical ventilation, decreases ventilator-associated complications, and improves clinical outcomes.\n\nThe results of this study may help identify optimal ventilation strategies for patients with severe burn injuries and improve critical care management in both civilian and military burn centers.",[584,29,665,160,666,65,667,668],"Mechanical Ventilation Complication","ICU Hospitalization","Military Activity","Combat-Related Burn Injury",[670,668,671,156],"burn","adaptive support mechanical ventilation","2026-06-24",{"date":674,"type":45},"2026-06-29",{"date":595,"type":22},{"date":677,"type":22},"2026-11-23",{"name":598,"class":52},{"id":680,"slug":681,"hasResults":12,"nctId":682,"briefTitle":683,"officialTitle":684,"acronym":685,"eligibilityCriteria":686,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":687,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":4,"briefSummary":689,"conditions":690,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":692,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":693,"startDateStruct":695,"completionDateStruct":697,"leadSponsor":699,"locationsCount":53},"100641424","swallowing-assessment-for-predicting-extubation-failure-in-critically-ill-patients-100641424","NCT07659275","Swallowing Assessment for Predicting Extubation Failure in Critically Ill Patients","Prospective Evaluation of the Prognostic Performance of an Orotracheal Tube-Adapted Swallowing Biomechanics Assessment for Predicting Extubation Failure in Critically Ill Patients","APEX","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥18 years.\n* Admission to an intensive care unit.\n* Invasive mechanical ventilation for ≥48 hours.\n* Successful completion of a spontaneous breathing trial according to local practice.\n* Ability to undergo bedside swallowing biomechanics assessment using the APEX score before extubation.\n* Written informed consent from the patient or legally authorized representative, when required by local regulations.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Presence of a tracheostomy.\n* Decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatments.\n* Structural abnormalities of the upper airway or face precluding APEX assessment.\n* Conditions preventing assessment of swallowing biomechanics (e.g., maxillofacial trauma, recent head and neck surgery, or other conditions judged by the investigator to interfere with the evaluation).",{"count":688,"type":22},800,"Extubation failure, defined as the need for reintubation after planned removal of the endotracheal tube, occurs in up to 20% of critically ill patients and is associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, longer intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and increased mortality. Current assessments of extubation readiness focus primarily on respiratory performance and do not routinely evaluate upper airway protective function.\n\nThe Airway Protection for Extubation (APEX) score is a bedside assessment tool based on swallowing biomechanics designed to evaluate airway protection before extubation. In a pilot prospective cohort study, the APEX score demonstrated promising performance for identifying patients at increased risk of extubation failure.\n\nThis prospective multicenter cohort study will be conducted across ICUs in Brazil to externally validate the APEX score in critically ill adults undergoing planned extubation. The study will evaluate the discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility of the APEX score for predicting extubation failure and will assess its performance across different patient populations and hospital settings.\n\nThe results of this study may support the incorporation of a simple bedside assessment of swallowing biomechanics into extubation readiness evaluation and contribute to more individualized decision-making regarding extubation in critically ill patients.",[691,29,218],"Extubation Failure","2026-06-15",{"date":694,"type":45},"2026-06-22",{"date":696,"type":22},"2027-03-30",{"date":698,"type":22},"2030-10-30",{"name":700,"class":52},"Universidade Federal de Pernambuco",{"id":702,"slug":703,"hasResults":12,"nctId":704,"briefTitle":705,"officialTitle":706,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":707,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":708,"minAge":18,"maxAge":709,"enrollmentInfo":710,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":4,"briefSummary":712,"conditions":713,"keywords":717,"overallStatus":162,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":721,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":722,"startDateStruct":724,"completionDateStruct":726,"leadSponsor":728,"locationsCount":53},"100643495","intraoperative-driving-pressure-and-postoperative-lung-ultrasound-score-in-robot-assisted-radical-prostatectomy-100643495","NCT07610824","Intraoperative Driving Pressure and Postoperative Lung Ultrasound Score in Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy","Evaluation of the Relationship Between Intraoperative Driving Pressure and Postoperative Lung Ultrasound Score in Patients Undergoing Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Male patients aged between 18 and 80 years.\n\nScheduled for elective robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.\n\nAmerican Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I, II, or III.\n\nWillingness to provide written informed consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patient refusal to participate.\n\nSevere obstructive or restrictive pulmonary disease (e.g., severe COPD, uncontrolled asthma).\n\nBody Mass Index (BMI) \\> 35 kg\u002Fm\\^2.\n\nPre-existing severe lung pathology or active pulmonary infection.\n\nHemodynamic instability or severe cardiovascular disease (e.g., severe heart failure, recent myocardial infarction).\n\nRequirement for postoperative mechanical ventilation.\n\nEmergency surgery.","MALE","80 Years",{"count":711,"type":22},76,"The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the relationship between intraoperative driving pressure and postoperative lung ultrasound scores in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. During this specific surgery, factors such as pneumoperitoneum and patient positioning can significantly affect respiratory mechanics. Postoperative lung condition will be objectively assessed using the lung ultrasound score (LUS). The findings may provide valuable insights for optimizing intraoperative mechanical ventilation strategies.",[29,640,714,715,716],"Prostatic Neoplams","Driving Pressure","Lung Ultrasonography Score",[718,719,720],"driving pressure","lung ultrasonography score","postoperative pulmonary comlications","2026-06-09",{"date":723,"type":45},"2026-06-11",{"date":725,"type":22},"2026-05-30",{"date":727,"type":22},"2026-09-15",{"name":729,"class":136},"Ankara Etlik City Hospital"]