CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT05090696INEXPAUpdated Sep 19, 2024

Efficacy and Tolerance Study on the Use of the In-exsufflator in the Hospitalized Elderly

An observational study in Airway Obstruction, sponsored by University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand. Completed at 1 site in France. Open to participants aged 60 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-09-19.

Sponsored by University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Case-only
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
15
Ages
60 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The mechanical in-exsufflator (MI-E) is a medical device used to facilitate coughing when the patients' cough is not efficient. Studies have shown positive results in helping airway clearance in children and adults with neuromuscular disorders however there is lack of evidence in older populations. This study's aim is to evaluate the feasibility of the MI-E in older adults. The hypothesis is that the use of MI-E in older adults is feasible.

Read the detailed description

Background: One of the most frequent reasons for hospital admission of older adults are respiratory disorders. Physiological aging processes decrease respiratory muscle strength and can reduce the efficacity of cough. The mechanical in-exsufflator (MI-E) is a medical device used to help coughing. Studies have shown positive results in helping airway clearance in children and adults with neuromuscular pathologies however there is lack of evidence in older populations. This study's aim is to evaluate the feasibility of the MI-E in older adults. The hypothesis is that the use of MI-E in older adults is feasible.

Methods: Feasibility will be evaluated by outcomes such as the discomfort of each session (use of a numerical scale of discomfort from 0 to 10) and the relief felt before and after each session (use of a modified Borg scale to quantify dyspnea). Two sessions a day of MI-E will be done for a total of four sessions. Furthermore, other outcomes shall be used, before and after each session, such as vital signs (heart and respiratory rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation), auscultation as well as the measure of cough peak flow.

Discussion: The protocol of this study is the first to evaluate the use of MI-E in hospitalized older adults by the measure of discomfort and relief. In regard to literature on the use of MI-E in patients suffering from neuromuscular pathologies and on the effects of aging on the respiratory system, the hypothesis of the study seems justified. On top of bringing physical benefits to the patient, the study will pave the way for other randomized controlled studies.

02

Conditions studied

  • Airway Obstruction

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Airway Obstruction
  • Mechanical Insufflator Exsufflator
  • Older Adults
03

In context

Airway Obstruction

154 studies on the registry are indexed under Airway Obstruction; 30 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 15 is below the median of 120 across 59 observational studies indexed under Airway Obstruction.

Browse Airway Obstruction studies →

Lead sponsor

University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand is the lead sponsor of 841 studies on the registry; 178 are open to participants now.

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

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
60 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

  • older adults, inpatients having airway clearance problem associated with mucus hypersecretion and weak or insufficient cough.

Inclusion criteria

  • patient hospitalize in Intensive Care Unit or Pulmonary Unit,
  • having airway clearance problem associated with mucus hypersecretion,
  • peak expiratory flow (PEF) \<280 l/min,
  • medical indication for respiratory physical therapy.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • contraindication to use of MI-E device (ex. bronchospasm, immediate follow-up to surgery of airway system, chest or abdominal region, untreated pneumothorax, hemodynamic failure, etc.),
  • refuse to participate,
  • pregnant,
  • breastfeeding,
  • insufficient cognitive status.
05

Study design

Observational model
Case-only
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
15 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • One group only

    Participants recruited from patients hospitalized in intensive care units and pulmonary unit of the University Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand, France.

    Device: Mechanical In-Exsufflator (MI-E)

Interventions

  • DeviceMechanical In-Exsufflator (MI-E)

    The feasibility will be estimated by quantifying relief and discomfort of four MI-E sessions (2 days x 2 sessions = 4 sessions). Vital signs will be also noted before and after such MI-E session.

    Also known as: Cough Assist

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Discomfort

    Use of a numerical scale of discomfort from 0 to 10, (0 - very comfortable, 10 - extremely uncomfortable). The percentage of sessions being evaluated less than or equal to 6 will be presented.

    Time frame: The MI-E sessions are realized once in the morning and once in the afternoon on two consecutive days, (4 MI-E sessions totally). Discomfort is evaluated after each MI-E session, (4 evaluations totally).

  2. Relief - change in dyspnea

    Use of a modified Borg scale to quantify dyspnea, (0 - no dyspnea, 10 - maximal dyspnea). Relief is defined as a change in Borg score of dyspnea before and after each MI-E session.

    Time frame: The MI-E sessions are realized once in the morning and once in the afternoon on two consecutive days, (4 MI-E sessions totally). Relief is evaluated for each session, (4 evaluations totally/8 Borg scores).

Secondary outcomes

  1. Heart rate

    Number of contractions of the heart per minute measured with a standard intensive care unit monitoring devices.

    Time frame: The MI-E sessions are realized once in the morning and once in the afternoon on two consecutive days, (4 MI-E sessions totally). Heart rate is noted before and after each session, (8 times totally).

  2. Peak cough flow (PCF)

    Measurement of PCF through the peak flow meter.

    Time frame: PCF is measured before and after each session, (8 times totally).

  3. Respiratory rate

    Number of breaths for one minute measured with a standard intensive care unit monitoring devices.

    Time frame: Respiratory rate is noted before and after each session, (8 times totally).

  4. Blood pressure

    Pressure of circulating blood against the walls of blood vessels measured in mmHg with a standard intensive care unit monitoring devices.

    Time frame: Blood pressure is noted before and after each session, (8 times totally).

  5. Blood oxygen saturation

    Measure of the oxygen level of the blood in percent with a standard intensive care unit monitoring devices.

    Time frame: Blood oxygen saturation is noted before and after each session, (8 times totally).

07

Study locations

1 site
  • CHU clermont-ferrand
    Clermont-Ferrand, France
08

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Sep 19, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05090696
Lead sponsor
University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Oct 25, 2021
Start date
Dec 15, 2021
Primary completion
Dec 31, 2023
Completion
Dec 31, 2023
Last update
Sep 19, 2024

Study contacts

Claire Estenne
principal investigator · University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand

Oversight

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

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Sep 2024. 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