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
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.
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.
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.
Presence of acute circulatory failure defined as:
Exclusion criteria
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.
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.
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.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
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
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).
• 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.
Bolus of fluids of 4 ml/kg given within 10 minutes
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)
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)
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)
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)
Rate of failure of SIGH test
Presence of cough
Time frame: During the test execution
Rate of failure of EEOT test
Trigger of the ventilator
Time frame: During the test execution
Plan to share: Undecided — The datasets used and/or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
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.
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.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions 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.
Humanitas Clinical and Research Center