CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT05125952ASOPUpdated Oct 15, 2025Results posted

Assessing Ventilator Safety in Patients on Pressure-Support Ventilation

An interventional study of Viasys Avea Ventilator and Philips Respironics NM3 device in Acute Respiratory Failure, Mechanical Ventilation Complication and Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury, sponsored by Duke University. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-10-15.

Sponsored by Duke University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
16
Allocation
Not applicable
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

ASOP is a prospective cohort study comparing three methods for assessing risk of self-induced lung injury in patients with acute respiratory failure being managed with pressure-support ventilation. We will describe the relationship between three different assessment methods for risk of self-induced lung injury and compare them to a gold standard measurement.

Read the detailed description

Ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) is known to cause significant morbidity and mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure. Most studies on VILI have involved the effects of inappropriate (often excessive) mechanical ventilator settings. More recently, it has been noted that similar lung damage can be caused by large, patient generated, uncontrolled tidal volumes and driving pressures, which has been termed "self-induced lung injury," or SILI.

Pressure-support ventilation (PSV) is a common mechanical ventilation mode often used in patients with active inspiratory efforts to help reduce patient inspiratory work and improve comfort. PSV effectively allows spontaneously breathing patients to determine their breath flow-rate and breath duration, eliminating flow and cycle dyssynchrony. However, pressure support ventilation does not allow for physicians to control tidal volume or driving pressure. The risk of SILI may thus be increased with PSV.

Several different methods have been proposed to address these challenges. However, to date none of these methods have been compared to assess for concordance in their ability to indicate an increased risk of self-induced lung injury. ASOP is a prospective cohort study comparing three methods for assessing risk of self-induced lung injury in patients with acute respiratory failure being managed with pressure-support ventilation.

02

Conditions studied

  • Acute Respiratory Failure
  • Mechanical Ventilation Complication
  • Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury

Keywords

  • Self-induced lung injury
  • Pressure-support ventilation
03

In context

Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury

97 studies on the registry are indexed under Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury; 35 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 16 is below the median of 37 across 58 interventional studies indexed under Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury.

Browse Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury studies →

Lead sponsor

Duke University is the lead sponsor of 2,025 studies on the registry; 275 are open to participants now.

Of its 194 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 159 (82%) have results posted.

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

Inclusion criteria

  • Adult patients age ≥18 years with acute respiratory failure receiving invasive mechanical ventilation
  • Managed in pressure-support mode of ventilation

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Actively undergoing a spontaneously awakening trial or SAT
  • Patient or surrogate is unable to provide informed consent
  • Currently pregnant
  • Currently incarcerated
  • Acute exacerbation of an obstructive lung disease
  • Known esophageal varices or any other condition for which the attending physician deems an orogastric catheter to be unsafe
  • Esophageal, gastric or duodenal surgical procedures within the last 6 months
05

Study design

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

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Acute Respiratory Failure

    Patients with acute respiratory failure managed with pressure-support ventilation.

    Device: Viasys Avea Ventilator · Device: Philips Respironics NM3 device · Device: Servo U ventilator · Device: Vyaire SmartCath adult nasogastric tube with Esophageal balloon

Interventions

  • DeviceViasys Avea Ventilator

    Measuring dynamic airway driving pressure and static airway driving pressure during pressure support breath, and static airway driving pressure during a volume control breath. Measuring airway occlusion pressure during pressure support breath.

  • DevicePhilips Respironics NM3 device

    Measuring static airway driving pressure during pressure support breath

  • DeviceServo U ventilator

    Measuring static airway driving pressure and p0.1 during pressure support breath.

  • DeviceVyaire SmartCath adult nasogastric tube with Esophageal balloon

    Measuring static and dynamic esophageal driving pressure during pressure support breath, and esophogeal pressure change during airway occlusion maneuver.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Respiratory System Driving Pressure Measure by Servo Ventilator (DPrs-servo)

    Driving pressure in centimeters of water measured with inspiratory hold on Servo Ventilator in pressure-support ventilation.

    Time frame: Study day 1

  2. Respiratory System Driving Pressure Measure by Respironics NM3 Device (DPrs-NM3)

    Driving pressure in centimeters of water measured with Phillips Respironics NM3 device in pressure-support ventilation.

    Time frame: Study day 1

  3. Airway Occlusion Test (AOC)

    Maximum negative airway pressure in centimeters of water during an airway occlusion maneuver. The Vyaire SmartCath adult nasogastric tube with esophageal balloon was used to measure esophogeal pressure change during airway occlusion maneuver.

    Time frame: Study day 1

  4. Respiratory System Driving Pressure Measured During Volume Control Breath.

    Airway driving pressure in centimeters of water measured with inspiratory hold in volume control/assist control.

    Time frame: Study day 1

  5. Transpulmonary Driving Pressure Measured During Volume Control Breath.

    Transpulmonary driving pressure in centimeters of water measured via esophageal balloon with inspiratory hold in volume control/assist control.

    Time frame: Study day 1

Secondary outcomes

  1. Duration of Mechanical Ventilation

    Number of days receiving mechanical ventilation

    Time frame: Index hospitalization (up to 28 days)

  2. Duration of Intensive Care Unit Admission

    Number of days admitted to intensive care unit

    Time frame: Index hospitalization (up to 28 days)

  3. Duration of Hospital Admission

    Number of days admitted to hospital

    Time frame: Index hospitalization (up to 28 days)

  4. Ventilator Free Days

    Number of days free from mechanical ventilation

    Time frame: Index hospitalization (up to 28 days)

  5. In-hospital Survival

    Survival to discharge

    Time frame: Index hospitalization (up to 28 days)

07

Results

Posted Oct 15, 2025

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneAcute Respiratory Failure
Started16
Viasys avea ventilator15
Philips respironics nm3 device15
Servo u ventilator15
Vyaire smartcath adult nasogastric tube with esophageal balloon15
Completed15
Not completed1
Withdrew: Physician decision1

Outcome measures

PrimaryRespiratory System Driving Pressure Measure by Servo Ventilator (DPrs-servo)

Driving pressure in centimeters of water measured with inspiratory hold on Servo Ventilator in pressure-support ventilation.

Time frame:
Study day 1
Reported as:
Mean · centimeters of water
Respiratory System Driving Pressure Measure by Servo Ventilator (DPrs-servo)
centimeters of waterAcute Respiratory Failure
Respiratory System Driving Pressure Measure by Servo Ventilator (DPrs-servo)12.3 ± 2.9
PrimaryRespiratory System Driving Pressure Measure by Respironics NM3 Device (DPrs-NM3)

Driving pressure in centimeters of water measured with Phillips Respironics NM3 device in pressure-support ventilation.

Time frame:
Study day 1
Reported as:
Mean · centimeters of water
Respiratory System Driving Pressure Measure by Respironics NM3 Device (DPrs-NM3)
centimeters of waterAcute Respiratory Failure
Respiratory System Driving Pressure Measure by Respironics NM3 Device (DPrs-NM3)8.8 ± 3.2
PrimaryAirway Occlusion Test (AOC)

Maximum negative airway pressure in centimeters of water during an airway occlusion maneuver. The Vyaire SmartCath adult nasogastric tube with esophageal balloon was used to measure esophogeal pressure change during airway occlusion maneuver.

Time frame:
Study day 1
Reported as:
Mean · centimeters of water
Airway Occlusion Test (AOC)
centimeters of waterAcute Respiratory Failure - Esophageal Balloon
Airway Occlusion Test (AOC)17.4 ± 10.1
PrimaryRespiratory System Driving Pressure Measured During Volume Control Breath.

Airway driving pressure in centimeters of water measured with inspiratory hold in volume control/assist control.

Time frame:
Study day 1
Reported as:
Mean · centimeters of water
Respiratory System Driving Pressure Measured During Volume Control Breath.
centimeters of waterAcute Respiratory Failure
Respiratory System Driving Pressure Measured During Volume Control Breath.12.3 ± 3.4
PrimaryTranspulmonary Driving Pressure Measured During Volume Control Breath.

Transpulmonary driving pressure in centimeters of water measured via esophageal balloon with inspiratory hold in volume control/assist control.

Time frame:
Study day 1
Reported as:
Mean · centimeters of water
Transpulmonary Driving Pressure Measured During Volume Control Breath.
centimeters of waterAcute Respiratory Failure
Transpulmonary Driving Pressure Measured During Volume Control Breath.9.5 ± 3.6
SecondaryDuration of Mechanical Ventilation

Number of days receiving mechanical ventilation

Time frame:
Index hospitalization (up to 28 days)
Reported as:
Mean · days
Duration of Mechanical Ventilation
daysAcute Respiratory Failure
Duration of Mechanical Ventilation12.4 ± 9.1
SecondaryDuration of Intensive Care Unit Admission

Number of days admitted to intensive care unit

Time frame:
Index hospitalization (up to 28 days)
Reported as:
Mean · days
Duration of Intensive Care Unit Admission
daysAcute Respiratory Failure
Duration of Intensive Care Unit Admission17.2 ± 6.9
SecondaryDuration of Hospital Admission

Number of days admitted to hospital

Time frame:
Index hospitalization (up to 28 days)
Reported as:
Mean · days
Duration of Hospital Admission
daysAcute Respiratory Failure
Duration of Hospital Admission28 ± 0.8
SecondaryVentilator Free Days

Number of days free from mechanical ventilation

Time frame:
Index hospitalization (up to 28 days)
Reported as:
Median · days
Ventilator Free Days
daysAcute Respiratory Failure
Ventilator Free Days16 (0 to 21.5)
SecondaryIn-hospital Survival

Survival to discharge

Time frame:
Index hospitalization (up to 28 days)
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
In-hospital Survival
ParticipantsAcute Respiratory Failure
In-hospital Survival7

Adverse events

Collected over 28 days. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Acute Respiratory Failure8/15 (53.3%)1/15 (6.7%)0/15 (0%)
Most frequent serious events
Most frequent serious events
EventAcute Respiratory Failure
AgitationNervous system disorders1/15

Baseline characteristics

Participants who completed the study.

Age, Categorical
Age, Categorical(Participants)Acute Respiratory Failure
<=18 years0
Between 18 and 65 years8
>=65 years7
Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Acute Respiratory Failure
Median63 (37 to 71)
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Acute Respiratory Failure
Female6
Male9
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Acute Respiratory Failure
Hispanic or Latino2
Not Hispanic or Latino13
Unknown or Not Reported0
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Acute Respiratory Failure
American Indian or Alaska Native0
Asian0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander0
Black or African American2
White10
More than one race0
Unknown or Not Reported3
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(Participants)Acute Respiratory Failure
United States15
08

Study locations

1 site
  • Duke University Hospital
    Durham, North Carolina 27710, United States
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Beitler JR, Malhotra A, Thompson BT. Ventilator-induced Lung Injury. Clin Chest Med. 2016 Dec;37(4):633-646. doi: 10.1016/j.ccm.2016.07.004. Epub 2016 Oct 14. PubMed 27842744 ↗
  • Slutsky AS, Ranieri VM. Ventilator-induced lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2013 Nov 28;369(22):2126-36. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1208707. No abstract available. PubMed 24283226 ↗
  • Sottile PD, Albers D, Smith BJ, Moss MM. Ventilator dyssynchrony - Detection, pathophysiology, and clinical relevance: A Narrative review. Ann Thorac Med. 2020 Oct-Dec;15(4):190-198. doi: 10.4103/atm.ATM_63_20. Epub 2020 Oct 10. PubMed 33381233 ↗
  • Grieco DL, Menga LS, Eleuteri D, Antonelli M. Patient self-inflicted lung injury: implications for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and ARDS patients on non-invasive support. Minerva Anestesiol. 2019 Sep;85(9):1014-1023. doi: 10.23736/S0375-9393.19.13418-9. Epub 2019 Mar 12. PubMed 30871304 ↗
  • Hess DR. Ventilator waveforms and the physiology of pressure support ventilation. Respir Care. 2005 Feb;50(2):166-86; discussion 183-6. PubMed 15691390 ↗
  • Mauri T, Yoshida T, Bellani G, Goligher EC, Carteaux G, Rittayamai N, Mojoli F, Chiumello D, Piquilloud L, Grasso S, Jubran A, Laghi F, Magder S, Pesenti A, Loring S, Gattinoni L, Talmor D, Blanch L, Amato M, Chen L, Brochard L, Mancebo J; PLeUral pressure working Group (PLUG-Acute Respiratory Failure section of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine). Esophageal and transpulmonary pressure in the clinical setting: meaning, usefulness and perspectives. Intensive Care Med. 2016 Sep;42(9):1360-73. doi: 10.1007/s00134-016-4400-x. Epub 2016 Jun 22. PubMed 27334266 ↗

Study documents

  • Study protocol · May 26, 2022
  • Statistical analysis plan · Mar 25, 2024

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

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 Oct 15, 2025, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05125952
Lead sponsor
Duke University
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Nov 18, 2021
Start date
Feb 8, 2022
Primary completion
Nov 21, 2023
Completion
Dec 21, 2023
Results posted
Oct 15, 2025
Last update
Oct 15, 2025

Study contacts

Neil R MacIntyre, MD
principal investigator · Professor of Medicine

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
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 Sep 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