Working…
COVID-19 is an emerging, rapidly evolving situation.
Get the latest public health information from CDC: https://www.coronavirus.gov.

Get the latest research information from NIH: https://www.nih.gov/coronavirus.
ClinicalTrials.gov
ClinicalTrials.gov Menu

End-expiratory Occlusion Test and Lung Recruitment Maneuver to Assess Fluid responsiVeness In Surgical Patients (ELVIS)

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details.
 
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03820440
Recruitment Status : Not yet recruiting
First Posted : January 29, 2019
Last Update Posted : February 11, 2020
Sponsor:
Collaborator:
Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Maggiore della Carita
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Antonio Messina, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center

Brief Summary:

The functional hemodynamic test (FHT) called passive leg raising (PLR) has been successfully used for assessing the fluid responsiveness in ICU patients since 2009 and its reliability has been confirmed by three large meta-analyses. However, the PLR is not usually practicable in the OR.

A lot of different FHTs have been proposed, as alternative to the PLR, in ICU and, more recently, OR. These tests could be basically subdivided in two groups. A subgroup of FHTs is based on sudden and brief variations of the mechanical ventilation to induce a change in right ventricle preload and/or after load and, as consequence, of left ventricle SV. A second subgroup aims at testing the increase in SV after the rapid administration of a small aliquot of the predefined FC.

Among the first group, the end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) and the lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) have been previously successfully tested in surgical patients. The EEOT consists of the interruption of the mechanical ventilation for 30 seconds, whereas the LRM consists in the increase in the peak inspiratory pressure up to 30 cmH20 for 30 seconds and in the assessment of the changes in the SV after the maneuvers. These tests are safe and can be easily applicable during the surgery to predict fluid responsiveness and optimize the fluid therapy.

The primary aim of the present study is to compare the reliability of EEOT and LRM in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing general surgery.


Condition or disease Intervention/treatment Phase
Hemodynamic Instability Surgery Fluid Overload Diagnostic Test: End-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) Diagnostic Test: Lung recruitment manovre (LRM) Not Applicable

Detailed Description:

Targeted fluid therapy has received increasing attention in the management of patients showing acute circulatory failure in both intensive care unit (ICU) and operating room (OR), aiming at preventing both inadequate tissue blood flow and fluid overload [1]. In fact, unnecessary fluid administration can increase morbidity and mortality and length of hospital stay of critically ill and surgical patients [2-10].

Since the only physiological reason to give a fluid challenge (FC) is to increase the stroke volume (SV) [11-13] and this effect is obtained only in about 50% of ICU and OR patients [14, 15], a vast literature investigated the possibility of predict this effect before FC administration, but the issue remains extremely challenging [1, 13, 16-18]. Bedside clinical signs and pressure and static volumetric static variables, do not predict fluid responsiveness [17]. Moreover, several physiological factors affect the reliability of the ventilator-induced dynamic changes in pulse pressure and stroke volume [pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV), respectively], and their echographic surrogates, in a significant number of ICU and OR patients [19-22].

To overcome these limitations, the functional hemodynamic assessment (i.e. the assessment of the dynamic interactions of hemodynamic variables in response to a defined perturbation), of fluid responsiveness has gained in popularity [17, 18, 23]. A functional hemodynamic test (FHT) consist in a manoeuvre determining a sudden change in cardiac function and/or heart lung interaction, affecting the hemodynamics of fluid responders and non-responders to a different extent [17, 18, 23].

The FHT called passive leg raising (PLR) has been successfully used for assessing the fluid responsiveness in ICU patients since 2009 [24] and its reliability has been confirmed by three large meta-analyses [25-27]. However, the PLR is not usually practicable in the OR.

A lot of different FHTs have been proposed, as alternative to the PLR, in ICU and, more recently, OR. These tests could be basically subdivided in two groups. A subgroup of FHTs is based on sudden and brief variations of the mechanical ventilation to induce a change in right ventricle preload and/or after load and, as consequence, of left ventricle SV [24, 28]. A second subgroup aims at testing the increase in SV after the rapid administration of a small aliquot of the predefined FC [29, 30].

Among the first group, the end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) and the lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) have been previously successfully tested in surgical patients [31-33]. The EEOT consists of the interruption of the mechanical ventilation for 30 seconds, whereas the LRM consists in the increase in the peak inspiratory pressure up to 30 cmH20 for 30 seconds and in the assessment of the changes in the SV after the maneuvers. These tests are safe and can be easily applicable during the surgery to predict fluid responsiveness and optimize the fluid therapy.

The primary aim of the present study is to compare the reliability of EEOT and LRM in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing general surgery.

(for Bibliography please refer to the original protocol)

Layout table for study information
Study Type : Interventional  (Clinical Trial)
Estimated Enrollment : 60 participants
Allocation: N/A
Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment
Intervention Model Description: The study protocol is started during a period of intraoperative hemodynamic stability, as previously defined (change in mean arterial pressure of less than 10% during 5 minutes). The study protocol is the following: 1) a set of measurements is recorded (T0) at a baseline ventilation of 7 ml/Kg and then the EEOT is performed by using the software function, "expiratory hold", to interrupt mechanical ventilation; 2) after one minute a set of measurements was recorded (T1); 3) the LRM is then performed; 4) after one minute another set of measurements is recorded (T2) and then a fluid challenge of 4 mL/Kg of crystalloid solution is infused over 10 minutes. The attending anesthetist is allowed to interrupt the protocol at any stage for either hemodynamic instability or any other adverse effects requiring urgent treatment. The sequence of application of EEOT and LRM on the same patient (EEOT_LRM or LRM_EEOT) is randomly generated.
Masking: None (Open Label)
Primary Purpose: Diagnostic
Official Title: End-expiratory Occlusion Test and Lung Recruitment Maneuver to Assess Fluid responsiVeness In Surgical Patients: an Open-label, Randomized Clinical Trial
Estimated Study Start Date : May 1, 2020
Estimated Primary Completion Date : December 31, 2020
Estimated Study Completion Date : December 31, 2020

Arm Intervention/treatment
Experimental: Treatment - hemodynamic tests

Treatment - hemodynamic tests:

The EEOT is performed by interrupting the mechanical ventilation for 30 seconds, by using and end-expiratory hold on the ventilator.

The LRM is performed by using a single act of mechanical ventilation in pressure-controlled mode at 30 cmH20 for 30 seconds

Diagnostic Test: End-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT)
The EEOT is performed by interrupting the mechanical ventilation for 30 seconds, by using and end-expiratory hold on the ventilator.

Diagnostic Test: Lung recruitment manovre (LRM)
The LRM is performed by using a single act of mechanical ventilation in pressure-controlled mode at 30 cmH20 for 30 seconds




Primary Outcome Measures :
  1. AUC difference [ Time Frame: 10 minutes after fluid challenge administration ]
    To assess the difference in the area under (AUC) the receiving operator characteristic curve (ROC)


Secondary Outcome Measures :
  1. Sensitivity and Specificity [ Time Frame: 10 minutes after fluid challenge administration ]
    ROC curve analysis to assess the sensitivity and specificity of EEOT and LRM in predicting fluid responsiveness.



Information from the National Library of Medicine

Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.


Layout table for eligibility information
Ages Eligible for Study:   18 Years and older   (Adult, Older Adult)
Sexes Eligible for Study:   All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:   No
Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Adult patients aged ≥ 18 years;
  2. Scheduled for elective supine abdominal surgery and requiring invasive arterial monitoring;
  3. Glasgow coma scale 15 at recruitment. All the patients must be able to sign an informed consent at the admission.

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Any recurrent cardiac arrhythmias;
  2. Reduced left (ejection fraction <30%) or right (systolic peak velocity of tricuspid annular motion <0.17 m/s) ventricular systolic function;
  3. Chronic use beta-blocking agents.
  4. History of pneumothorax.
  5. BMI > 40

Information from the National Library of Medicine

To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.

Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT03820440


Locations
Layout table for location information
Italy
Humanitas Research Hospital
Rozzano, Milano, Italy, 20089
Sponsors and Collaborators
Humanitas Clinical and Research Center
Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Maggiore della Carita
Publications of Results:
Layout table for additonal information
Responsible Party: Antonio Messina, ICU senior consultant, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03820440    
Other Study ID Numbers: ELVIS
First Posted: January 29, 2019    Key Record Dates
Last Update Posted: February 11, 2020
Last Verified: February 2020
Individual Participant Data (IPD) Sharing Statement:
Plan to Share IPD: Undecided

Layout table for additional information
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product: No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product: No
Keywords provided by Antonio Messina, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center:
End-expiratory occlusion test
Lung Recruitment Manovre
Fluid responsiveness
Functional Hemodynamic Test