Flow Controlled Ventilation in Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Surgery (FCV-IMPALA)

February 5, 2024 updated by: Dr. Timur Yurttas, Cantonal Hospital of St. Gallen

Flow Controlled Ventilation to Improve Postoperative Pulmonary Outcome After Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Surgery - a Prospective, Randomised, Single-blinded, Controlled and Single-centre Investigation

The optimization of ventilation is especially important during general anaesthesia, when active, physiologic respiration suspends and is replaced by non-physiologic mechanical positive pressure ventilation. Aiming at preserving compliance of lung tissue to guarantee an effective gas exchange is to avoid an excessive pressure application, especially in extreme positioning of the patient (Trendelenburg positioning) and/or pneumoperitoneum resulting in additional non-physiologic intrathoracic pressure. Perioperative lung protection strategies have steadily improved in recent years to reduce complications from mechanical ventilation, but postoperative pulmonary complications remain a risk factor for increased morbidity and mortality.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

Mechanical ventilation is crucial during general anesthesia, with ongoing efforts to refine strategies for optimal respiratory support. Important articles on perioperative ventilation explored key aspects, including PEEP application, tidal volume effects, PPC after major surgeries, and perioperative oxygen titration to mitigate oxidative stress. PEEP plays a pivotal role in enhancing oxygenation and preventing atelectasis during mechanical ventilation. Landmark studies by the ARDS Network highlight the importance of customizing PEEP application. This tailored approach not only improves respiratory mechanics but also reduces the risk of barotrauma, underscoring the crucial impact of personalized PEEP strategies. Concurrently, adopting a lung-protective strategy with low tidal volumes, has proven effective in mitigating ventilator-induced lung injury. These strategies aim to strike a balance between optimal oxygenation and minimizing potential complications associated with mechanical ventilation. Despite advancements in perioperative care, PPC remain a concern, particularly following major surgical procedures. Recent investigations emphasize the multifactorial nature of these complications. Early identification of risk factors and meticulous monitoring are crucial to reducing the incidence of complications such as atelectasis, pneumonia, and respiratory insufficiency. Understanding the interplay between mechanical ventilation strategies and postoperative outcomes is essential for improving patient recovery. The pursuit of optimal oxygenation must be balanced against the potential for oxygen toxicity and oxidative stress. Available studies shed light on the delicate equilibrium required in maintaining adequate oxygen delivery while avoiding the detrimental effects of hyperoxia. Clinicians must consider individual patient factors and tailor oxygen therapy to prevent oxidative stress, which can contribute to tissue damage and compromise overall patient well-being. FCV is a new ventilation strategy designed to minimize the mechanical effects of perioperative ventilation on lung tissue. Compared to traditionally employed ventilation strategies, gas flow is controlled during both inspiration and expiration in FCV. In particular, the almost linear pressure drop during the expiratory phase of FCV has been shown in various ex vivo/experimental and clinical studies to improve gas exchange and the proportion of ventilated lung tissue.

Ongoing advancements in mechanical ventilation shape anesthesia practices with a focus on evidence-based approaches for patient safety. Building on prior findings, this study explores the benefits of the novel ventilation approach, FCV, aiming to reduce dissipative energy and alveolar stress. The investigators hypothesize positive impacts on perioperative ventilation, vital parameters, and a decreased incidence of PPC, contributing to overall postoperative morbidity and mortality reduction.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

774

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Patient undergoing elective robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (either abdominal, urologic or gynecologic surgery) with a duration of expected ventilation of ≥ 90 minutes
  • Male or female aged ≥ 18 years
  • ASA Physical Status Classification System score I - III
  • Must be willing and able to give written informed consent to participate in the study and agree to comply with the study protocol prior to initiation of any study-mandated procedure and study intervention

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patient with weight < 40 kg ideal body weight
  • ASA Physical Status Classification System score IV - VI
  • Previous enrolment into the current study
  • Enrolment of study investigator, his/her family members, employees and other dependent persons
  • If female and of childbearing potential: known pregnancy or a positive urine pregnancy test (confirmed by a positive serum pregnancy test), or lactating

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Flow-controlled ventilation
Experimental intervention FCV (EVONE, Ventinova Medical): PEEP and Peak inspiratory pressure titration guided by dynamic compliance.
FCV mode during robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery
Other Names:
  • FCV
Active Comparator: Pressure-controlled ventilation
Control intervention PCV (Dräger Medical, Atlan A350): lung-protective ventilation to current best practice. Settings determined by the attending anesthesiologist (based on the internal SOP: intraoperative ventilation in robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery).
PCVmode during robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery
Other Names:
  • PCV

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Differences in the number of patients developing postoperative pulmonary complications
Time Frame: to postoperative day 5/discharge

Development of PPC (composite endpoint including pneumonia, bronchospasm, atelectasis, pulmonary congestion, respiratory failure, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, requirement for mechanical ventilation) within the first 5 postoperative days (or until discharge).

  • Constant postoperative monitoring of clinical features indicating PPC
  • EIT parameters indicating atelectasis (defined by EIT derived parameters Global Inhomogenity Index, Tidal Impedance Variation, end-expiratory lung impedance) measurement after arrival at the PACU.
  • Requirement of additional oxygen will be evaluated after transfer to the PACU/ICU. Air test indicating additional oxygen requirement, SpO2 <90% / <88% in case of risk of hypercapnic respiratory failure.
  • If unplanned and continued mechanical ventilation is required after surgery this will count as fulfilled primary endpoint.
to postoperative day 5/discharge

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Differences in Clara-Cell 16 serum concentrations
Time Frame: periprocedural

Presence and increase of blood biomarkers indicating alveolar shear stress compared between groups. Blood samples will be required to determine CC16 (3x during the course of the study, approx. 5ml blood each).

  • Baseline (during preoperative anaesthesia consultation or during preparations before induction of anaesthesia
  • During intervention: ca. 60 minutes after final adjustments of Trendelenburg positioning/pneumoperitoneum
  • After transfer to PACU/ICU respectively
periprocedural
Differences in area under the curve of postoperative modified Horovitz index
Time Frame: first hour after surgery
maximal area under the curve of SpO2/FiO2 compared between groups during first hour after surgery/arrival at the PACU. Derived from data recorded in the electronic anesthesia protocol.
first hour after surgery
Differences in end-tidal to capillary/arterial CO2 gradient
Time Frame: periprocedural
Maximal end-tidal to capillary/arterial CO2 gradient compared between groups. (Capillary blood gases can accurately reflect arterial pH, pCO2 and Hb. Because arterial cannulation is not mandatory in the patient population, the investigators choose to determine the end-tidal to arterial CO2 gradient by assessing capillary blood gas, which has been shown to accurately reflect arterial CO2). Derived from data recorded in the electronic anesthesia protocol.
periprocedural
Differences in minimal required intraoperative FiO2 concentration
Time Frame: periprocedural
Minimal required intraoperative FiO2 to ensure an adequate perioperative oxygenation (defined as min. oximetric SpO2 of >94%). Derived from data recorded in the electronic anesthesia protocol.
periprocedural
Differences in parameters derived from the electrical impedance tomography
Time Frame: periprocedural

Comparison of spatial and regional ventilation patterns during intervention between groups. Comparison of respiratory system compliacen, end-expiratory lung volume between groups at baseline (before surgical procedures in supine position), during intervention (ca. 60 min after Trendelenburg/pneumoperitoneum) and after return to supine position/end of pneumoperitoneum.

Whether FCV has an influence on parameters visualized and measured by EIT, these data will be monitored and evaluated during (secondary outcome assessment) and after (primary outcome assessment) the intervention (measurements at: baseline - during intervention (60min after Trendelenburg/Pneumoperitoneum) - after Trendelenburg/Pneumoperitoneum - after arrival at PACU)

periprocedural
Differences in perioperative ventilation/oxygenation parameters
Time Frame: periprocedural
Differences in perioperative ventilation and oxygenation parameters (minimal FiO2, min/max. PEEP, min/max. compliance), compared between groups. Data derived from the electronic anesthesia protocol.
periprocedural

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Number of patients developing events defined as safety events
Time Frame: periprocedural
Determine number of patients with potential ventilation-related complications in the perioperative setting, which are not causally related to the surgical procedure and require a change in ventilation technique ((i.e., conversion from FCV to PCV/VCV; or conversion from PCV to VCV) in order to guarantee patient safety (based on sufficient oxygenation or sufficient elimination of CO2, respectively, and the decision of the responsible anesthesiologist). Further, the safety objective is to assess the occurrence of intervention-related serious adverse events.
periprocedural

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Estimated)

April 1, 2024

Primary Completion (Estimated)

March 31, 2027

Study Completion (Estimated)

March 31, 2027

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

January 29, 2024

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 5, 2024

First Posted (Estimated)

February 13, 2024

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimated)

February 13, 2024

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 5, 2024

Last Verified

February 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

YES

IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type

  • STUDY_PROTOCOL
  • SAP
  • ICF
  • ANALYTIC_CODE
  • CSR

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Mechanical Ventilation Complication

Clinical Trials on Flow-controlled ventilation

3
Subscribe