CClinicalTrials.gg
TerminatedNCT03439995GOLDUpdated May 6, 2021

Goal of Open Lung Ventilation in Donors

An interventional study of Open lung protective ventilation and Conventional ventilation in Brain Death, Organ Donation and Organ Transplant Failure or Rejection, sponsored by Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Terminated at 4 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 13 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-05-06.

Sponsored by Vanderbilt University Medical Center · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Why this study was terminated
Trial no longer feasible
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
154
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
13 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The primary goal of this study is to assess whether ventilation of deceased organ donors with an open lung protective ventilatory strategy will improve donor lung utilization rates and donor oxygenation compared to a conventional ventilatory strategy.

Read the detailed description

Deceased organ donors are maintained on life support including mechanical ventilation during the time between brain death and organ procurement. The optimal mode of mechanical ventilation for deceased organ donors has not been definitively established. Since deceased organ donors may develop atelectasis leading to impaired oxygenation, an open lung protective ventilatory strategy with higher positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP), lower tidal volume and recruitment maneuvers has been hypothesized to be beneficial. Favorable outcomes were observed in a European clinical trial comparing open lung protective ventilation (OLPV) to a conventional ventilatory strategy in terms of donor oxygenation and lung utilization for transplantation (Mascia L et al, Journal of the American Medical Association 2010). However, donor management procedures in Europe are much shorter in duration compared to the US and it is not clear that these findings are generalizable to the US donor management environment.

The GOLD trial will test the effect of an OLPV strategy compared to conventional ventilation (CV) in the US donor management environment. This multi center trial will enroll 400 brain dead organ donors randomized into 1 of 2 treatment arms. After randomization, mechanical ventilation will be protocolized according to treatment arm with one arm receiving control ventilation (CV) utilizing standard Donor Network West (DNW) protocols and the other arm receiving the OLPV strategy with higher positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) and lower tidal volume compared to CV. The primary outcomes is donor lung utilization for transplantation.

02

Conditions studied

  • Brain Death
  • Organ Donation
  • Organ Transplant Failure or Rejection

Browse trials for

03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
13 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Brain death
  • Authorization for research
  • ≥13 years of age

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Arterial/Inspired oxygen ratio (PaO2/FiO2) ≤ 150 mmHg
  • PaO2/FiO2 ≥ 400 mmHg
  • BMI > 40
  • Hepatitis B surface antigen positive
  • Hepatitis C positive
  • Failure to complete donation process
  • Hemodynamic instability
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
154 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Open Lung Protective Ventilation

    Volume cycled assist control ventilation with tidal volume 8 cc/kg predicted body weight, PEEP 10 cm water (H2O), recruitment maneuvers every 8 hours and after any ventilator disconnect

    Other: Open lung protective ventilation

  • Active comparator
    Conventional Ventilation

    Volume cycled assist control ventilation with tidal volume 10 cc/kg predicted body weight, PEEP 5 cm H2O, recruitment maneuvers after any ventilator disconnect

    Other: Conventional ventilation

Interventions

  • OtherOpen lung protective ventilation

    Higher PEEP, lower tidal volume mechanical ventilation

  • OtherConventional ventilation

    Lower PEEP, standard tidal volume mechanical ventilation

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Donor lung utilization rate

    Percent of donor lungs procured and transplanted into recipient

    Time frame: during donor management period (usually 12-48 hours)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Donor lung utilization in likely donors

    Percent of donor lungs used from donors with \< 50 pack year smoking, age \< 65, negative serologies, and no underlying chronic lung disease

    Time frame: during donor management period (usually 12-48 hours)

  2. Donor oxygenation

    Change in donor arterial oxygen (PaO2) from enrollment to procurement

    Time frame: during donor management period (usually 12-48 hours)

  3. Donor static compliance of the respiratory system

    Change in compliance of the respiratory system (in ml/cm H2O) from enrollment to procurement. Static compliance (Cstat) is calculated as Cstat = ΔV / Pplat - PEEP where V is the volume delivered by the ventilator, Pplat is the end-inspiratory plateau pressure and PEEP is the level of positive end expiratory pressure.

    Time frame: during donor management period (usually 12-48 hours)

  4. Donor radiographic atelectasis scoring

    Change in chest radiograph atelectasis score from enrollment to procurement

    Time frame: during donor management period (usually 12-48 hours)

  5. Recipient primary graft dysfunction

    International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation grade 2 or 3 primary graft dysfunction in lung transplant recipient

    Time frame: 72 hours after transplant

  6. Recipient mortality

    Lung transplant recipient death

    Time frame: 30 days after transplant

06

Study locations

4 sites
  • UCLA
    Los Angeles, California 90095, United States
  • Stanford University
    Palo Alto, California 94305, United States
  • University of California San Francisco
    San Francisco, California 94143, United States
  • Donor Network West
    San Ramon, California 94583, United States
07

References and documents

Publications

  • Mascia L, Pasero D, Slutsky AS, Arguis MJ, Berardino M, Grasso S, Munari M, Boifava S, Cornara G, Della Corte F, Vivaldi N, Malacarne P, Del Gaudio P, Livigni S, Zavala E, Filippini C, Martin EL, Donadio PP, Mastromauro I, Ranieri VM. Effect of a lung protective strategy for organ donors on eligibility and availability of lungs for transplantation: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2010 Dec 15;304(23):2620-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1796. PubMed 21156950 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03439995
Lead sponsor
Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Collaborators
University of California, San Francisco, University of California, Los Angeles, Stanford University, Donor Network West
Responsible party
Lorraine B. Ware (Professor of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center) — Principal investigator
First posted
Feb 20, 2018
Start date
Jul 9, 2018
Primary completion
Jan 1, 2020
Completion
Jan 1, 2021
Last update
May 6, 2021

Study contacts

Lorraine B Ware, MD
principal investigator · Vanderbilt University Medical Center

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is terminated, as verified in May 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion