Partial automation of mechanical ventilation in resuscitation has been available for several years. New modalities are being developed to completely automate ventilation and oxygenation parameters (IntelliVent®. This pilot study compares over a 48h period the safety and efficacy of IntelliVent®, versus a conventional ventilation modality.
Rational: Partial automation of mechanical ventilation in resuscitation has been available for several years. It can deliver a continuous ventilation adapted in real time to the patient's clinical condition,and decrease care workload and ventilation weaning duration. New modalities are being developed to completely automate ventilation and oxygenation parameters (IntelliVent®) and preliminary studies show that over short periods (2 to 4 h) such a system can ventilate patients more optimally and more safely, with a better ventilation efficiency (comparable effect on gas exchanges for a less "aggressive" ventilation). This pilot study compares over a longer period (48 hours), the safety and efficacy of IntelliVent®, versus a usual ventilation modality. Type of study: Monocenter, comparative, prospective, randomized, parallel study. Objective: To assess IntelliVent® safety, efficacy, and care workload. Assessment criteria: * Safety is assessed by measuring the number of times it is necessary to manually intervene on the ventilator settings because for one the following parameters: A range SpO2, EtCO2, plateau pressure (Pplat), tidal volume (VT), respiratory rate (RR),values considered as non-optimal, as defined a priori and consensually by a panel of experts. * Efficacy, in terms of ventilation, is assessed by the time spent within a range EtCO2 and Pplat and VT and RR values considered as optimal, as defined a priori and consensually by a panel of experts. Efficacy, in terms of oxygenation, is assessed by the time spent within a range SpO2 values considered as optimal, as defined a priori and consensually by a panel of experts. \- Care workload is assessed by the number of ventilator setting adjustments by nursing staff in each group. Number of subjects: 80 patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure. Methods: The selected patients presenting with inclusion criteria are ventilated either with IntelliVent® or with the unit's usual ventilation following a random selection.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
80
Intellivent allows an automatic adjustment of the following parameters: FiO2, PEEP and %VM according to adjusted parameters: Size, SpO2 and EtCO2
Polyvalent Intensive Care, St Luc Clinics
Brussels, Belgium
Safety
Safety is assessed by measuring the number of times it is necessary to manually intervene on the ventilator settings because for one the following parameters: A range SpO2, EtCO2, plateau pressure (Pplat), tidal volume (VT), respiratory rate (RR) values considered as non-optimal, as defined a priori and consensually by a panel of experts.
Time frame: 48 Hours
Efficacy
Efficacy, in terms of ventilation, is assessed by the time spent within a range EtCO2 and Pplat-proxi and VT and RR values considered as optimal, as defined a priori and consensually by a panel of experts. Efficacy, in terms of oxygenation, is assessed by the time spent within a range SpO2 values considered as optimal, as defined a priori and consensually by a panel of experts.
Time frame: 48 Hours
Care workload
Care workload is assessed by the number of ventilator setting adjustments by nursing staff in each group.
Time frame: 48H
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.