ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT05886387Updated Oct 9, 2024

a Bayesian Analysis of Three Randomised Clinical Trials of Intraoperative Ventilation

An observational study in Mechanical Ventilation Complication, Surgery and Pulmonary Complication, sponsored by Instituto de Investigacion Sanitaria La Fe. Completed at 4 sites in 4 countries. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-10-09.

Sponsored by Instituto de Investigacion Sanitaria La Fe · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
3,836
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The investigators designed a protocol for a Bayesian unplanned posthoc analysis using the pooled dataset from three large randomized clinical trials. The primary endpoint will be a composite of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) within the first seven postoperative days, which reflects the primary endpoint of the original studies. The investigators will carry out a reanalysis of the harmonised database using Bayesian statistics.

Read the detailed description

Background: Using the frequentist approach, a recent meta-analysis of three randomized clinical trials in patients undergoing intraoperative ventilation during general anesthesia for major surgery. failed to show the benefit of ventilation that uses high positive end expiratory pressure with recruitment maneuvers when compared to ventilation that uses low positive end-expiratory pressure without recruitment maneuvers.

Methods: The investigators designed a protocol for a Bayesian analysis using the pooled dataset. The multilevel Bayesian logistic model will use the individual patient data. Prior distributions will be prespecified to represent a varying level of skepticism for the effect estimate. The primary endpoint will be a composite of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) within the first seven postoperative days, which reflects the primary endpoint of the original studies. The investigators preset a range of practical equivalence to assess the futility of the intervention with an interval of odds ratio (OR) between 0.9 and 1.1 and assess how much of the 95% of highest density interval (HDI) falls between the region of practical equivalence.

02

Conditions studied

  • Mechanical Ventilation Complication
  • Surgery
  • Pulmonary Complication
  • Postoperative Complications

Keywords

  • Mechanical ventilation,
  • Bayesian analysis
  • PEEP
  • Recruitment Maneuvers
  • Intraoperative Mechanical Ventilation
  • Postoperative complications
  • Perioperative medicine
03

In context

Postoperative Complications

1,269 studies on the registry are indexed under Postoperative Complications; 299 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 3,836 is above the median of 251 across 531 observational studies indexed under Postoperative Complications.

Browse Postoperative Complications studies →

Lead sponsor

Instituto de Investigacion Sanitaria La Fe is the lead sponsor of 59 studies on the registry; 15 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
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

Adult patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for general anesthesia for surgery.

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Planned for major surgery
  • At risk for pulmonary complications

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Planned thoracic surgery .
  • Unscheduled surgery (i.e., urgent, or emergent surgeries)
05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
3,836 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • High PEEP + Recruitment Maneuvers

    Patients who received intraoperatively high PEEP (10-12 cmH2O) after a recruitment maneuvers as per the original study protocol

    Other: High PEEP + Recruitment maneuvers

  • Standard PEEP

    Patients who received intraoperatively standard PEEP (0-5 cmH2O) without recruitment maneuvers

    Other: Standard PEEP. Low positive end-expriatory pressure

Interventions

  • OtherHigh PEEP + Recruitment maneuvers

    The use of a High PEEP (positive end-expiratory pressure) level after recruiting collapsed alveoli can protect from mechanical ventilation associated lung injury

  • OtherStandard PEEP. Low positive end-expriatory pressure

    Mechanical ventilation is managed with a low standard PEEP without recruitment manneuvers

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications

    Time frame: Until day seven or hospital discharge, whichever comes first ]

07

Study locations

4 sites
  • Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein
    São Paulo, Brazil
  • IRCCS San Martino Policlinico Hospital
    Genoa, Italy
  • Academisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA)
    Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • Hospital Clinic
    Barcelona, Spain
08

References and documents

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Oct 9, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05886387
Lead sponsor
Instituto de Investigacion Sanitaria La Fe
Collaborators
Academisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA), Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jun 2, 2023
Start date
Sep 22, 2022
Primary completion
Dec 10, 2023
Completion
Dec 25, 2023
Last update
Oct 9, 2024

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 Oct 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