ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT04269161Updated Jul 4, 2025Results posted

NICU Oxygen Control Study

An interventional study of Automatic control of inspired oxygen in Hyperoxia and Hypoxia, sponsored by University of Missouri-Columbia. Completed at 2 sites in United States. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-07-04.

Sponsored by University of Missouri-Columbia · Not applicable, Interventional, and Basic science

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
48
Allocation
Randomized
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Prematurely born infants in the hospital neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) will be included in the study. This clinical trial is a randomized crossover study to show that our automated oxygen control device performance is no worse than a NICU nurse in keeping a premature neonate's SPO2 within the prescribed range. Since subjects receive the device (automatic oxygen control) and the standard of care (manual control by a nurse), every subject serves as their own perfectly matched control. Performance measures include the average time it takes for the SpO2 to return to the desired range (primary endpoint) and the total amount of time that the SpO2 is within the desired range (secondary endpoint). The device will be applied to premature infants on respiratory support humidified high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) with oxygen controlled using a blend valve. Two groups include one that begins the study period with the device and one that begins the study period without the device. The two groups are switched between manual and automatic every 6 hours into the trial period and complete a total of 6 days. The target number of subjects is 60. We will analyze the study as a superiority trial if there is strong evidence of superiority.

Read the detailed description

We intend to enroll between 20-30 subjects at each of two separate institutions (University of Missouri Women's and Children's Hospital and Studer Family Children's Hospital in Pensacola, FL). The subjects will be premature infants \<34 weeks post conceptual age (PCA) requiring respiratory support. This randomized clinical trial will utilize a 24 period 2 treatment crossover design to show that the device performs no worse than (non-inferiority trial) an NICU nurse in keeping a premature neonate's SpO2 within the prescribed range while the infant is on respiratory support. Due to the nature of the study, any masking of the intervention is not possible. Upon enrollment, the subjects will be randomized into enrollment in two groups (A and B). The primary endpoint will be the mean time required to re-establish SpO2 within the prescribed range, as measured from the time an out-of-range alarm is triggered. A secondary endpoint will be proportion of time SpO2 is within the prescribed range, using an area-under-the-curve approach (with a discrete state) to account for varying time-on-test. These outcome measures are complementary because the former doesn't account for the number of alarms, while the latter does. This is important because the oxygen control device operates continuously in a proactive manner, rather than only reacting due alarms, so it is doing more than mimicking the nurse -- the second measure allows us to capture that.

Group A will initially have the automatic device interface with HFNC for 6 hours. The device will have the target SpO2 parameters ordered by the treating physician input into the device. A study laptop will interface with the device, cardiopulmonary monitor, and pulse oximeter to record the data for the study. Sensors will be used to record all adjustments to the device/respiratory support equipment (i.e. blend valve and flow valve used in HFNC). These sensors will continuously record the data for later analysis. The device will constantly evaluate data sent to it from the pulse oximeter and bedside monitor recording all of the data and alarms. In response to alarms, displayed data, doctor's orders, etc., nurses will continue to apply manual inputs to make adjustments to flow and provide tactile stimulus to the subject but not adjust FiO2 unless manual mode is selected. Recorded sensor measurements and manual inputs by the nurse will be used to refine the existing models as well as new models of response in HR, RR, and SpO2 to flow adjustments and tactile stimulus.

After the first 6 hours, the device will be switched to manual mode for the subject (nurse makes all adjustments for FiO2), but the laptop and sensor data logging system will continue to record data from the patient and the respiratory support equipment. This will record the information for the nurse intervention/baseline care part of the study, which continue for 6 hours. During the entire process, the bedside nurse will keep a diary of any events/interventions using the time prominently displayed on the monitoring laptop. This "time-stamped" diary system will allow for easier retrieval of and comparison to the data from the device and monitoring laptop. Also, the monitoring laptop will have a record of all the data, including alarms from the pulse oximeter as well as the bedside monitor to allow for easier retrieval of data related to alarm events and interventions. The laptop will also record any interventions made by the device to allow for easier retrieval of data related to device interventions. The treatment will then alternate periods of each treatment for a total of 6 days (24 6-hour periods).

Group B will have the exact opposite order as group A. Group B infants will initially have the laptop interface with all of the monitors and sensor measurements. However, the nurse intervention/baseline care stage of the study will take place for the first 6 hours. Next, group B will have the device interface with their respiratory equipment, and the data will be recorded as described above for the next 6 hours of the study. The the treatment will alternate every 6 hours for a total of 6 days.

This design was chosen because the premature infants should have fewer events as they grow older each day, and it will help take into account this potential bias. Also, the subjects will be randomized to group A or B in sets of 8 (i.e. in each group of 8 envelopes, 4 will be group A and 4 will be group B). During the entire study process the infants will receive normal NICU care and the parameters for the SpO2 range will be set by the physician caring for the infant. There are also built in manual overrides for the device which allow the NICU to make changes while the subject is on the device phase of the study. The device will be able to record these changes and the staff will record their manual interventions in the study diary.

We have planned our sample size using a non-inferiority test for a cross-over design, based on our primary endpoint, t_delta. For a given patient, define t_delta = (mean elapsed time needed for device to re-establish SpO2 after alarm) - (mean elapsed time needed for nurse to re-establish SpO2 after alarm). The margin of non- inferiority will be chosen as t_delta > -10 sec, so that a device which is no worse than 10 sec, on average, than a nurse will be considered non-inferior. Assuming the standard deviation of t_delta =12 and the true mean difference is zero under the alternate hypothesis, a sample size of 48 achieves 88% with alpha=0.05. If there is 16% patient drop-out before crossover, so that the final n=40, the power drops to 82%. In all analysis, a (paired) t-test will be used. Our secondary endpoint is secondary endpoint is the proportion of time SpO2 is within the prescribed range, using an area-under-the-curve approach (with a discrete state) to account for varying time-on-test. Our secondary endpoint will be analyzed in a similar manner.

We will plan for one interim analysis to determine if the trial should be stopped early due to futility (strong evidence of inferiority, where a confidence interval for t_delta lies entirely to the left of -10 and doesn't intersect -10) or for efficacy (strong evidence of superiority with margin > +20 sec). This will be carried out when n=32 (16 subjects per site) is attained and stopping decisions will be based on O'Brien-Fleming stopping principles. The interim analysis will be carried out by an independent statistician on the University of Missouri's Data Safety and Monitoring Committee, which is also available to monitor the study for adverse events if requested by the IRB. In the event that the patient drop-out is greater than 16% before crossover, then a more complicated estimation procedure will be employed using mixed effects models; otherwise, complete cases will be used.

02

Conditions studied

  • Hyperoxia
  • Hypoxia
03

In context

Hyperoxia

115 studies on the registry are indexed under Hyperoxia; 13 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 48 is close to the median of 48 across 82 interventional studies indexed under Hyperoxia.

Browse Hyperoxia studies →

Lead sponsor

University of Missouri-Columbia is the lead sponsor of 365 studies on the registry; 69 are open to participants now.

Of its 43 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 29 (67%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Child (0–17), Adult (18–64), Older adult (65+)
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Infants admitted to the NICU
  • Less than 31 weeks estimated gestational age or less than 1500 grams at birth
  • Currently on high flow nasal cannula or bubble CPAP
  • Require at least 2 adjustments to the FiO2 per shift and/or have at least 2 desaturation events per shift

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Infants admitted to the NICU with congenital heart disease.
  • Infants who are set on a minimum FiO2 set point by their healthcare provider
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Basic science
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Crossover assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
48 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Crossover Sequence 1

    In this arm, an automatic oxygen control device will be used to make adjustments to the blend of oxygen and air supplied to the subject for the first six hours. In this arm, a nurse will manually make adjustments to the blend of oxygen and air supplied to the subject for the second six hours. The study continues in an automatic and manual repeating pattern for six days.

    Device: Automatic control of inspired oxygen

  • Experimental
    Crossover Sequence 2

    In this arm, a nurse will manually make adjustments to the blend of oxygen and air supplied to the subject as in the standard of care for the first six hours. In this arm, an automatic oxygen control device will be used to make adjustments to the blend of oxygen and air supplied to the subject for the second six hours. The study continues in a manual and automatic repeating pattern for six days.

    Device: Automatic control of inspired oxygen

Interventions

  • DeviceAutomatic control of inspired oxygen

    A device will be used to automatically adjust the blend of oxygen and air with the ability to return to manual control as needed.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Elapsed Time to Respond to SpO2 Alarm

    Mean in elapsed time needed to re- establish SpO2 within the desired range after an alarm. The alarms and alarm times are recorded directly from the bedside monitor and the responses are measured directly in terms of the blend valve position and SpO2 response measured by the pulse oximeter.

    Time frame: Twenty-four study periods consisting of 6-hour manual study periods and 6-hour automatic study periods over six days for each of the subjects in the analysis.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Proportion of Time SpO2 is Within the Prescribed Range in a Six-hour Time Block

    For each 6-hour time block, we calculate the proportion of time the patient stays within the prescribed SpO2 range. The proportion of time that the SpO2 is within the prescribed range is computed using an area-under-the-curve approach for data taken during automatic control by the experimental device and manual control by the nurse.

    Time frame: Twelve 6-hour manual study periods and 6-hour automatic study periods over six days for each of the subjects in the analysis.

07

Results

Posted Jun 26, 2025

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneCrossover Sequence 1Crossover Sequence 2
Started2424
Completed1920
Not completed54
Withdrew: Change of modality and no longer eligible33
Withdrew: Required procedure outside of nicu10
Withdrew: Equipment issue11

Outcome measures

PrimaryElapsed Time to Respond to SpO2 Alarm

Mean in elapsed time needed to re- establish SpO2 within the desired range after an alarm. The alarms and alarm times are recorded directly from the bedside monitor and the responses are measured directly in terms of the blend valve position and SpO2 response measured by the pulse oximeter.

Time frame:
Twenty-four study periods consisting of 6-hour manual study periods and 6-hour automatic study periods over six days for each of the subjects in the analysis.
Reported as:
Mean · seconds
Elapsed Time to Respond to SpO2 Alarm
secondsManual Mode (Nurse)Automatic Mode (Device)
Elapsed Time to Respond to SpO2 Alarm51.408 ± 66.16841.523 ± 30.771
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Mode (Nurse) vs Automatic Mode (Device) · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.003 (The p-value is significant at 0.01.) · Mean difference (net): -9.885 · 95% CI -16.51 to -3.27The difference is time to re-establish in automatic mode minus time to re-establish in manual mode. (a negative number favors automatic mode)
SecondaryProportion of Time SpO2 is Within the Prescribed Range in a Six-hour Time Block

For each 6-hour time block, we calculate the proportion of time the patient stays within the prescribed SpO2 range. The proportion of time that the SpO2 is within the prescribed range is computed using an area-under-the-curve approach for data taken during automatic control by the experimental device and manual control by the nurse.

Time frame:
Twelve 6-hour manual study periods and 6-hour automatic study periods over six days for each of the subjects in the analysis.
Reported as:
Mean · proportion of time
Proportion of Time SpO2 is Within the Prescribed Range in a Six-hour Time Block
proportion of timeManual Mode (Nurse)Automatic Mode (Device)
Proportion of Time SpO2 is Within the Prescribed Range in a Six-hour Time Block0.676 ± 0.2140.695 ± 0.224
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Mode (Nurse) vs Automatic Mode (Device) · t-test, 2 sided · p = .02 (The threshold for statistical significance is p=.05) · Mean difference (net): .018 · 95% CI 0.003 to .034Treatment difference = automatic - manual. A positive number favors automatic.

Adverse events

Collected over Adverse event data were collected over the, up to, six-day experimental crossover period for each participant in the study.. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Manual Mode (Nurse)0/48 (0%)0/48 (0%)0/48 (0%)
Automatic Mode (Device)0/48 (0%)0/48 (0%)0/48 (0%)

Baseline characteristics

Data from 39 participants completing six days of the study evaluated for the recruitment period.

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(days)Crossover Sequence 1 and 2, Automatic, Manual and Manual, Automatic
Mean42.897 ± 27.649
Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(weeks)Crossover Sequence 1 and 2, Automatic, Manual and Manual, Automatic
Mean27.428 ± 2.448
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Crossover Sequence 1 and 2, Automatic, Manual and Manual, Automatic
Female16
Male23
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Crossover Sequence 1 and 2, Automatic, Manual and Manual, Automatic
American Indian or Alaska Native0
Asian0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander0
Black or African American7
White30
More than one race2
Unknown or Not Reported0
Crossover Sequence 1 or 2
Crossover Sequence 1 or 2(Participants)Crossover Sequence 1 and 2, Automatic, Manual and Manual, Automatic
Sequence 1 - Automatic, Manual19
Sequence 2 - Manual, Automatic20
Modality
Modality(Participants)Crossover Sequence 1 and 2, Automatic, Manual and Manual, Automatic
High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC)22
Bubble CPAP (BCPAP)17
Weight at start of study
Weight at start of study(grams)Crossover Sequence 1 and 2, Automatic, Manual and Manual, Automatic
Mean1702.205 ± 531.817
Bed type
Bed type(Participants)Crossover Sequence 1 and 2, Automatic, Manual and Manual, Automatic
Isolette32
Open Crib7
08

Study locations

2 sites
  • Studer Family Children's Hospital at Sacred Heart
    Pensacola, Florida 32513-2700, United States
  • University of Missouri
    Columbia, Missouri 65212, United States
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Hou X, Faqeeh A, Amjad R, Pardalos J, Fales R. Clinical Evaluation of an Automatic Oxygen Control System for Premature Infants Receiving High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Respiratory Support: A Pilot Study. J Med Device. 2022 Sep 1;16(3):031005. doi: 10.1115/1.4054250. Epub 2022 May 10. PubMed 35646226 ↗

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jul 4, 2025, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04269161
Collaborators
Sacred Heart Health System
Responsible party
Roger C Fales (Associate Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Missouri-Columbia) — Principal investigator
First posted
Feb 13, 2020
Start date
May 24, 2022
Primary completion
Jun 6, 2024
Completion
Jun 6, 2024
Results posted
Jun 26, 2025
Last update
Jul 4, 2025

Study contacts

John A Pardalos, MD
principal investigator · University of Missouri-Columbia
Ramak R Amjad, MD
principal investigator · Studer Family Children's Hospital at Sacred Heart
Roger C Fales, PhD
principal investigator · University of Missouri-Columbia

Oversight

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

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jun 2025. 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