Skip to content

Comparison of Humidification Devices During Non Invasive Ventilation, in Acute Respiratory Failure

Randomized RCT Comparing HH and HME During NIV in Acute Respiratory Failure

Status
Terminated
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00190346
Enrollment
250
Registered
2005-09-19
Start date
2001-12-31
Completion date
2003-04-30
Last updated
2011-10-26

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

COPD, Hypoxemia, Non Invasive Ventilation, Respiratory Failure

Keywords

Acute respiratory distress, with hypercapnia, with hypoxemia, requiring NIV

Brief summary

Comparison of humidification devices during non invasive ventilation, in acute respiratory failure. The hypothesis was, due to dead space, lower humidification, a reduced efficiency of the technique (NIV) when HME are used in comparison with HH.

Detailed description

Comparison of humidification devices during non invasive ventilation, in acute respiratory failure. The hypothesis was, due to dead space, lower humidification, a reduced efficiency of the technique (NIV) when HME are used in comlparison with HH Several physiological previously performed showed that 1) with HME, because of its working principles, humidification was reduced because of leaks 2) work of breathing was increased with HME because of dead space and 3) alveolar ventilation was reduced with HME because of additional technical dead space. For these reasons, the hypothesis was an improvement of NIV tolerance, of efficiency to clear te CO2 with HH in comparison with HME and finally to reduce the intubation rate with HH. The patients were included when requiring NIV (see inclusion and exclusion criteria) and randomisation was performed with stratification according to presence or absence of respiratory acidosis. The number of patients to include was baszd on the hypothesis that intubation rate would be reduced from 40 with HME to 25% with HME. A total of 250 patients was required with alpha risk of 0,05 and beta risk of 0,2 (power 80%). Intubation criteria were predefined according to the litterature. The expected duration was 18 months. The official support was institutional (DRRC of AP-HP). HH were furnished free of charge, as well as HME. Masks used were the same in both groups.

Interventions

DEVICEHumidification devices: HH vs HME

Sponsors

Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 85 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Age between 18 and 85 years * Exacerbation of dyspnea lasting less than two weeks TWO OR THREE following criteria : * Respiratory rate higher or equal to 25 b/min * SaO2 lower or equal to 90% (breathing room air or oxygen) * Arterial pH \< 7.35

Exclusion criteria

* immediate need for intubation * cardiac arrest or RR\< 10 breaths/min. * systemic hypotension (SAP \< 80 mmHg ) with no response to 500 ml of macromolecules * coma defined by GCS \< 8. * high probability of surgical procedure * major facial deformity * pneumothorax * bad short-term prognosis * refusal of intubation by the patient or do not intubated order.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Intubation rateduring the study

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
-Intolerance of NIVduring the study
- Frequency of VAPduring the study
- Duration of total MV durationduring the study
-Physiological outcome at 1,3 and 6 hours (arterial blood gases, respiratory rate)during the study
- Hospital LOSduring the study
- Mortality (ICU and hospital)during the study
- ICU LOSduring the study

Countries

Canada, France, Italy, Tunisia

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026