An interventional study of Extubation Advisor in Airway Extubation, sponsored by Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Recruiting at 12 sites in Canada. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-04-22.
Sponsored by Ottawa Hospital Research Institute · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention
Timely and safe extubation in critically ill patients is vitally important as prolonged mechanical ventilation and failed attempts at extubation are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, costs, intensive care unit (ICU) stays, and a risk for aerosolization of COVID-19 to health care providers. A Spontaneous Breathing Trial (SBT) is the current standard of care to assess a patient's readiness for extubation. However, SBTs are performed in various ways and have poor ability to predict successful extubation on their own. There is an urgent need to improve and standardize extubation decision-making. In a prior multicenter study, the investigators showed that decreased respiratory rate variability during SBTs predicted extubation failure better than other predictive indices.
The Extubation Advisor (EA) tool combines clinician's assessments of extubation readiness with predictive analytics and risk mitigation strategies for individual patients. In a single centre observational study, the investigators demonstrated the ability to deliver EA reports to the bedside and acceptability of this decision-support tool to respiratory therapists (RTs) and physicians (MDs).
The investigators will conduct the Liberation from mechanical ventilation using EA Decision Support (LEADS) Pilot Trial to assess feasibility outcomes. They will include critically ill adults who are invasively ventilated for >48 hours and are ready to undergo an SBT.
Patients in the intervention arm undergo an EA assessment and treating clinicians (RTs, MDs) will receive an EA report for each SBT conducted. The EA report will help to guide extubation decision-making. Patients in the control arm receive standard care. SBTs will be directed by clinicians.
The primary feasibility outcome will reflect the ability to recruit the desired population. The investigators will also assess the usefulness of the tool to MDs and complete an analysis of resource utilization to inform future economic analyses of cost-effectiveness. The investigators aim to recruit 1 to 2 patients/month/center.
The LEADS trial is novel and low-risk. It is the first trial to evaluate use of a bedside decision support tool to assist ICU clinicians with extubation decision-making. The LEADS pilot trial will inform the design of a future, large-scale randomized controlled trial that is expected to enhance the care delivered to critically ill patients, improve extubation outcomes, and inform extubation practice in ICUs.
Background: Timely and safe extubation (i.e. endotracheal tube removal) in critically ill patients is vitally important as prolonged mechanical ventilation and failed attempts at extubation (i.e. re-intubation\<48 hrs; 15% incidence) are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, costs, intensive care unit (ICU) stays, and a risk for aerosolization of COVID-19 to health care providers. A Spontaneous Breathing Trial (SBT) is the current standard of care to assess a patient's readiness for extubation. However, SBTs are performed in various ways and have poor ability to predict successful extubation on their own. There is an urgent need to improve and standardize extubation decision-making in the intensive care unit. In a prior multicenter study (n=721), the investigators showed that decreased respiratory rate variability during SBTs predicted extubation failure better than other predictive indices. The Extubation Advisor (EA) tool combines clinician's assessments of extubation readiness with predictive analytics and risk mitigation strategies for individual patients. In a single centre observational study (n=117; 2 ICUs), the investigators demonstrated the ability to deliver EA reports to the bedside and acceptability of this decision-support tool to respiratory therapists (RTs) and physicians (MDs).
Proposed Trial: The investigators will conduct the Liberation from mechanical ventilation using EA Decision Support (LEADS) Pilot Trial to assess feasibility outcomes including recruitment of critically ill patients with and without COVID-19 and protocol adherence.
Patients: The investigators will include critically ill adults who are invasively ventilated for >48 hours and who are ready to undergo an SBT with a view to extubation.
Intervention: Patients in the intervention arm will undergo an EA assessment and treating clinicians (RTs, MDs) will receive an EA report for each SBT conducted. The EA report will help to guide, rather than direct extubation decision-making by MDs.
Control: Patients in the control arm will receive standard care. SBTs will be directed by clinicians, using current best evidence. No EA assessments will be made, and no EA reports will be generated.
Outcomes: The primary feasibility outcome will reflect the ability to recruit the desired population. Secondary feasibility outcomes will assess rates of (i) consent (for eligible patients approached), (ii) randomization, (iii) intervention adherence, (iv) crossovers (EA to standard care and standard care to EA), and (v) completeness of clinical outcomes collected. The investigators will also assess the usefulness of the tool to MDs and complete an analysis of resource utilization to inform future economic analyses of cost-effectiveness. The investigators aim to recruit 1 to 2 patients/month/center on average. The investigators aim to achieve >75% consent rate, >95% randomization rate in consented patients, >80% of EA reports generated and delivered (intervention arm), \<10% crossovers (both arms), and >90% of patients with complete clinical outcomes. The investigators will report feasibility outcomes overall and by site.
Impact: The LEADS trial was informed by extensive preparatory work conducted within two parallel programs of research on weaning and extubation. The LEADS trial is novel and low-risk. It is the first trial to evaluate use of a bedside decision support tool to assist ICU clinicians with extubation decision-making. The LEADS pilot trial will inform the design of a future, large-scale randomized controlled trial that is expected to enhance the care delivered to critically ill patients, improve extubation outcomes, and inform extubation practice in ICUs.
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute is the lead sponsor of 538 studies on the registry; 100 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Wave form data from participants' spontaneous breathing trials (SBT) will be analyzed using Extubation Advisor (EA) to generate an EA report that provides clinical decision support regarding extubation.
Device: Extubation Advisor
Participants will undergo SBTs as directed by clinicians. The EA device will not be used.
Participants undergoing a Spontaneous Breathing Trial (SBT) to assess readiness for extubation will be connected to a portable monitor displaying ECG, capnography, and other waveforms. This monitor will also be connected to a laptop containing the Extubation Advisor (EA) software. During the SBT, relevant patient information will be entered into the EA application and the EA application will record waveform data. When the SBT is complete, the EA application will analyze the waveform and patient data to generate a score summarizing the risk of extubation failure. A report will be generated and provided to the respiratory therapist and attending physician to help determine whether to proceed with extubation or not. The clinical outcome case report form will be completed at the time of hospital discharge.
Evaluate the feasibility of enrolling 1-2 patients per centre per month
Feasibility of patient enrolment will be evaluated by determining if 1-2 patients are enrolled per centre per month.
Time frame: Upon study completion, 12 months after study initiation
Evaluate feasibility of consenting greater than 75% of eligible patients
Feasibility of consenting eligible patients will be evaluated by determining if greater than 75% of eligible patients are consented to participate.
Time frame: Upon study completion, 12 months after study initiation
Evaluate feasibility of randomizing greater the 95% of consented patients
Feasibility of randomizing consented patients will be evaluated by determining if greater than 95% of consented patients are randomized to either the intervention or standard of care arm.
Time frame: Upon study completion, 12 months after study initiation
Evaluate feasibility of generating and delivering greater than 80% of EA reports to the attending physician
Feasibility of EA report generation will be evaluated by determining if greater than 80% of the time, EA reports are generated and delivered to the attending physician.
Time frame: Upon study completion, 12 months after study initiation
Evaluate feasibility of crossovers between the intervention and control arms occurring less than 10% of the time
Feasibility of limiting crossovers will be evaluated by determining if crossovers between the intervention and control arms occur less than 10% of the time.
Time frame: Upon study completion, 12 months after study initiation
Evaluate feasibility of collecting complete patient outcomes greater than 90% of the time
Feasibility of collecting complete patient outcomes will be evaluated by determining if complete patient outcomes are collected greater than 90% of the time.
Time frame: Upon study completion, 12 months after study initiation
Evaluate usefulness of EA reports
Usefulness of EA reports will be evaluated by MDs using a Likert scale (1-6) and be evaluated overall, by centre, by MD experience, and by MD gender. The minimum value of the scale (1) will be "not useful" and the maximum value of the scale (6) will be "very useful", with a higher value indicating a more positive opinion of the EA report.
Time frame: Upon study completion, 12 months after study initiation
Evaluate institutional costs required to implement the EA device
The institutional costs required to implement the EA device will be evaluated by collecting institutional costs.
Time frame: Upon study completion, 12 months after study initiation
Evaluate the time required by respiratory therapists to implement the EA device
The time required by respiratory therapists to implement the EA device will be evaluated by collecting the amount of time respiratory therapist spend implementing the EA device.
Time frame: Upon study completion, 12 months after study initiation
Evaluate the time required by research coordinators to implement the EA device
The time required by research coordinators to implement the EA device will be evaluated by collecting the amount of time research coordinators spend implementing the EA device.
Time frame: Upon study completion, 12 months after study initiation
Plan to share: Yes — The authors will make the trial data available in a de-identified format upon submission, review and approval of a written request and study outline. This may include all IPD that underlie results in a publication.
Supporting information: Study protocol, Sap, Icf, Csr, Analytic code
Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.
Contact study teamGet 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.
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute