ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT04924920SETUPUpdated Apr 2, 2024

Sigh35 and End-expiratory Occlusion Test (EEOT) for Assessing flUid Responsiveness in Critically Ill Patients Undergoing Pressure Support Ventilation

An interventional study of SIGH and EEOT in Critically Ill Patients, Hemodynamic Instability and Mechanical Ventilation Pressure High, sponsored by Humanitas Clinical and Research Center. Recruiting at 2 sites in Italy. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-04-02.

Sponsored by Humanitas Clinical and Research Center · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic

From the registry’s dates

  • Primary completion was expected by Oct 2024, 2 years 1 month ago, but the record still lists the study as recruiting.
  • Started Feb 2022; still recruiting 4 years 9 months later.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
60
Allocation
Not applicable
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The application of a brief SIGH of 4 seconds at 35 cmH20 has shown to reliably predict fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients undergoing pressure support ventilation.

The end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) has been also used in the same type of patients, with the same purpose, but in a limited amount of studies.

The aim of this study is to compare the reliability of the the two test in assessing fluid responsiveness.

Read the detailed description

Assessing preload dependence in critically ill patients is a challenge for the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) physicians. During controlled mechanical ventilation, dynamic indexes can be applied in non-arrhythmic patients with sufficiently high tidal volume (VT), i.e., >8 ml/kg and non-severely impaired lung compliance. The interplay between mechanical ventilation and hemodynamic is more complex in patients with a spontaneous breathing activity, whose respiratory efforts affect intrathoracic pressure and venous return to the right ventricle (RV).

To overcome these limitations, functional hemodynamic assessment, consisting in maneuvers determining a sudden change in cardiac preload, such as Passive leg raising (PLR) or end-expiratory occlusion test (EEO), represents a valuable means for assessment of fluid responsiveness.

Both PLR and EEO have been successfully utilized for assessing fluid responsiveness, regardless of ventilatory assistance and mode of ventilation. Unfortunately, however, some drawbacks limit the extensive use of these maneuvers in clinical practice. One the one hand, PLR cannot be applied in some clinical situations, such as traumatisms of the hip, legs or lumbar spine, deep venous thrombosis, intracranial or abdominal hypertension. Indeed, a recent large observational study showed PLR to be the most common form of assessment of fluid responsiveness, being used, nonetheless, in only 10.7% of the patients necessitating the assessment of fluid responsiveness. On the other hand, rates of EEO failure as high as 22.5 % have been reported, consequent to visible patient's effort against the occluded airway.

It has been recently successfully tested a new approach for assessing fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing partial ventilatory assistance. It has been proposed that the changes from baseline of systolic arterial pressure (SAP), pulse pressure (PP) and stroke volume index (SVI) in relationship to the airway pressure (Paw) generated during a "sigh" maneuver can predict fluid responsiveness in ICU patients undergoing pressure support ventilation (PSV) In the first "proof of concept" study (performed in 40 hemodynamically unstable ICU patients) three sighs has been tested, in a computer-generated random order, at either 15 (SIGH15), 25 (SIGH25) and 35 (SIGH35) cmH2O of total inspiratory Paw (PEEP + PSV). The results showed that only the variation of the pulse pressure recorded after SIGH35 application successfully predicted fluid responsiveness. [AUC of PP after SIGH35 = 0.91 (0.82 - 0.99); sensitivity 75% (47.6%-92.7%) and specificity 91.6 (73.0%- 98.9%); best threshold value of the ROC curve was -35% from baseline].

Hemodynamic Measurements. All patients will be equipped with a continuous hemodynamic monitoring of arterial waveform.

The primary end point will be assessed by means comparison of the areas (AUC) under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves: considering the data reported in the literature, we assumed that the AUC of the SIGH35 should be of at least 0.85 to be clinically relevant. This value was compared to the null hypothesis (AUC = 0.65; ratio of samples sizes in negative and positive groups of 1:1): the calculated sample size is 50 patients. Considering the possibility of the occurrence extrasystoles during the beat-to-beat evaluation of the EEOT and the SIGH, the sample size is inflated by the 20% to account for the rate of loss of patients during the post-hoc data analysis. The final sample size is 60 patients.

Fluid responsiveness is defined as a CI increase ≥ 10% after FC infusion.

02

Conditions studied

  • Critically Ill Patients
  • Hemodynamic Instability
  • Mechanical Ventilation Pressure High
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Humanitas Clinical and Research Center is the lead sponsor of 33 studies on the registry; 6 are open to participants now.

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

04

Who can participate

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

Eligibility criteria

  • Adult (>18 yo) ICU patients undergoing PSV ventilation
  • Inspiratory support level (PS) between 8 and 15 cmH2O and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) between 5 and 12 cmH2O,
  • Presence of acute circulatory failure defined as:

    • Systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≤90 mmHg or mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≤70 mmHg or requiring vasopressors to maintain SBP >90 mmHg or MAP >70 mmHg or decline of SBP > 50 mm Hg in known hypertensive patients, along with one or more of the following:
    • urinary flow ≤0.5 mL/kg/min for ≥2 hours
    • heart rate ≥100 beats per minute
    • presence of skin mottling and 4) blood lactate concentration ≥4 mmol/L.

Exclusion criteria

  • \<30% or severe valvular dysfunction
  • atrial fibrillation
  • severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)
  • abdominal compartment syndrome
  • air leakage through chest drains
  • artifacts in arterial waveform
  • pathological respiratory patterns due to neurological diseases
  • signs of fatigue or respiratory distress
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

LVEF (left ventricular ejection fraction)

The share of blood the heart’s main pumping chamber (the left ventricle) pushes out with each beat, measured by an echocardiogram (heart ultrasound) or a MUGA scan. About 50–70% is normal.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Diagnostic
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
60 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Intervention EEO_SIGH

    Single arm intervention. All the patients will receive the two tests (SIGH and EEOT) in 1:1 random sequence order

    Diagnostic Test: SIGH · Diagnostic Test: EEOT · Diagnostic Test: Fluid challenge

Interventions

  • Diagnostic testSIGH

    To add the Sigh35 to PSV, the ventilator is set in pressure controlled synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation plus PSV \[SIMV (PC) + PS mode\], with SIMV rate set a 1/min and inspiratory time of 4 seconds. SIMV (PC) = 35 cmH20 of total inspiratory support (PEEP + PS).

  • Diagnostic testEEOT

    • The EEOT is performed by interrupting the mechanical ventilation for 15 seconds, by using and end-expiratory hold on the ventilator. The ventilator trigger is set at 2 L/min.

  • Diagnostic testFluid challenge

    Bolus of fluids of 4 ml/kg given within 10 minutes

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Pulse pressure prediction of fluid responsiveness

    Pulse pressure changes after SIGH35 application

    Time frame: Evaluated before and after SIGH35 (within 1 minute from SIGH35 application)

  2. Stroke volume prediction of fluid responsiveness

    Stroke Volume changes after SIGH35 application

    Time frame: Evaluated before and after SIGH35 (within 1 minute from SIGH35 application)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Pulse pressure prediction of fluid responsiveness

    Pulse pressure changes after EEOT application

    Time frame: Evaluated before and after EEOT (within 1 minute from EEOT application)

  2. Stroke volume prediction of fluid responsiveness

    Stroke Volume changes after EEOT application

    Time frame: Evaluated before and after EEOT (within 1 minute from EEOT application)

Other outcomes

  1. Rate of failure of SIGH test

    Presence of cough

    Time frame: During the test execution

  2. Rate of failure of EEOT test

    Trigger of the ventilator

    Time frame: During the test execution

07

Study locations

2 of 2 sites recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Messina A, Colombo D, Barra FL, Cammarota G, De Mattei G, Longhini F, Romagnoli S, DellaCorte F, De Backer D, Cecconi M, Navalesi P. Sigh maneuver to enhance assessment of fluid responsiveness during pressure support ventilation. Crit Care. 2019 Jan 28;23(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s13054-018-2294-4. PubMed 30691523 ↗
  • Patroniti N, Foti G, Cortinovis B, Maggioni E, Bigatello LM, Cereda M, Pesenti A. Sigh improves gas exchange and lung volume in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome undergoing pressure support ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2002 Apr;96(4):788-94. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200204000-00004. PubMed 11964584 ↗
  • Monnet X, Osman D, Ridel C, Lamia B, Richard C, Teboul JL. Predicting volume responsiveness by using the end-expiratory occlusion in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med. 2009 Mar;37(3):951-6. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181968fe1. PubMed 19237902 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided — The datasets used and/or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Started Feb 2022 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Oct 2024, 32 months after the start.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Jun 4, 2021
First posted
Jun 14, 2021
StartActual
Feb 1, 2022
Primary completionEst.
Oct 1, 2024
CompletionEst.
Oct 1, 2024
Last update
Apr 2, 2024
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Apr 2, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04924920
Lead sponsor
Humanitas Clinical and Research Center
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jun 14, 2021
Start date
Feb 1, 2022
Primary completion
Oct 1, 2024 (estimated)
Completion
Oct 1, 2024 (estimated)
Last update
Apr 2, 2024

Oversight

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

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

No contact was published for this record. The registry link below has the sponsor’s details.

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