Intellivent Versus Conventional Ventilation

Comparative Monocenter RCT Comparing Safety and Efficacy of an Automated Closed-loop Oxygenation and Ventilation(IntelliVent® System - HAMILTON MEDICAL AG) With Non-automated Conventional Ventilation and Oxygenation

Status

Completed

Phases

Phase 3

Study type

Interventional

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT01577667

Acronym

Intellivent

Enrollment

Registered

2012-04-16

Start date

2011-02-28

Completion date

2012-06-30

Last updated

2012-12-06

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

Conditions

Respiratory Failure, Self Efficacy

Keywords

automation, closed loop, oxygenation, ventilation

Brief summary

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.

Detailed description

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.

Interventions

DEVICEIntellivent; automatic mode implemented on a S1 ventilator

Intellivent allows an automatic adjustment of the following parameters: FiO2, PEEP and %VM according to adjusted parameters: Size, SpO2 and EtCO2

Study design

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Intervention model

PARALLEL

Primary purpose

SUPPORTIVE_CARE

Masking

SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Age

18 Years to 90 Years

Healthy volunteers

Inclusion criteria

* Age ≥ 18 years old * Patient under invasive ventilation for more than 6 hours and for a planned duration of at least 48 hours * Body Mass Index (current weight (kg)/height (m)²) \< 40 * Signature of an informed consent by the family

Exclusion criteria

* Need for ventricular assistance with intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. * Presence of a bronchopleural fistula * Pregnant women: A pregnancy blood test will be performed in women of reproductive age. The results will be communicated to the patient by a physician of her choice. * Adults under guardianship * People deprived of freedom * Inclusion in another study protocol under consent

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame	Description
Safety	48 Hours	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.

Secondary

Measure	Time frame	Description
Efficacy	48 Hours	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.
Care workload	48H	Care workload is assessed by the number of ventilator setting adjustments by nursing staff in each group.

Countries

Belgium

Outcome results

None listed

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