The NEUROlogically-impaired Extubation Timing Trial

NCT ID: NCT02920580

Last Updated: 2020-02-05

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

UNKNOWN

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

27 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2017-02-01

Study Completion Date

2022-01-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

This randomized controlled trial will enrol patients with acute severe brain injury who pass a spontaneous breathing trial but have decreased level of consciousness. It will directly compare (1) prompt extubation vs. (2) usual care, with extubation or tracheostomy timed according to physicians' discretion. The primary outcome will be ICU free days (days spent alive and outside an ICU).

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Thousands of patients suffer severe brain injuries every year, from causes such as trauma, stroke, and infection. Extensive clinical research in weaning from mechanical ventilation has led to recommendations for prompt extubation following a successful trial of spontaneous breathing in general intensive care unit (ICU). However, little evidence exists to guide decisions about when to remove the breathing tube in patients with severe brain injury. It is unclear which of the following strategies would optimize important patient outcomes: prompt extubation vs. waiting and extubating or performing a tracheostomy, timed according to physicians' discretion. Each strategy has associated risks: prompt extubation may lead to higher rates of extubation failure and reintubation, whereas waiting longer may expose patients to complications from prolonged mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy may lead to procedural complications (or unnecessary procedures, if prompt extubation would be successful). This trial in brain-injured patients will test which of the following will lead to better patient outcomes: (1) removing the endotracheal tube promptly once a spontaneous breathing trial is passed; or (2) usual care, with the airway management strategy selected according to the preference of the treating physician.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Acute Brain Injury

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Extubation

Extubation by removal of endotracheal tube.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Extubation

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

This is an extubation by removal of endotracheal tube which must be done on the day of randomization or the following day. Any decision to subsequently reintubate the patient will be left to the discretion of the clinical team. Similarly, if a tracheostomy is deemed necessary in a patient who fails the extubation attempt, this will be managed at the discretion of the treating team. If for any reason the patient is not extubated according to the randomized schedule, the reason(s) will be recorded on a protocol violation form and the site investigator will be notified. If a patient receives a tracheostomy instead of being extubated we will again record reasons for this, but the patient will be analysed in the extubation group according to the intention-to-treat principle.

Usual care

The usual clinical practice is removal of the endotracheal tube (extubation), or insertion of tracheostomy, timed according to physicians' discretion

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Usual Care

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Patients in this group will be treated according to usual care, which may include extubation (removal of endotracheal tube) or insertion of a tracheostomy, timed according to physicians' discretion. The inclusion of this arm will allow prompt extubation to be compared to usual practice, which often involves further observation and delayed decision-making due to clinician uncertainty about the optimal airway management strategy. Incorporation of usual care arms has been promoted as a design feature to improve the safety and interpretability of critical care clinical trials.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Extubation

This is an extubation by removal of endotracheal tube which must be done on the day of randomization or the following day. Any decision to subsequently reintubate the patient will be left to the discretion of the clinical team. Similarly, if a tracheostomy is deemed necessary in a patient who fails the extubation attempt, this will be managed at the discretion of the treating team. If for any reason the patient is not extubated according to the randomized schedule, the reason(s) will be recorded on a protocol violation form and the site investigator will be notified. If a patient receives a tracheostomy instead of being extubated we will again record reasons for this, but the patient will be analysed in the extubation group according to the intention-to-treat principle.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Usual Care

Patients in this group will be treated according to usual care, which may include extubation (removal of endotracheal tube) or insertion of a tracheostomy, timed according to physicians' discretion. The inclusion of this arm will allow prompt extubation to be compared to usual practice, which often involves further observation and delayed decision-making due to clinician uncertainty about the optimal airway management strategy. Incorporation of usual care arms has been promoted as a design feature to improve the safety and interpretability of critical care clinical trials.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Age \> 16 years
* Acute brain injury (subarachnoid hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage, seizure, traumatic brain injury, brain tumor, global cerebral anoxia/cardiac arrest, meningitis/encephalitis/cerebral abscess) that occurred within the previous 4 weeks.
* Receiving invasive mechanical ventilation via endotracheal tube for \> 72 hours
* Glasgow Coma Scale motor score 3 to 6 with improvement or no change from previous day
* passed spontaneous breathing trial (SBT)

Exclusion Criteria

* Previous extubation during this ICU admission
* Quadriplegic
* Neuromuscular disease that will result in prolong need for mechanical ventilation, including but not limited to Guillain-Barre syndrome, cervical spinal cord injury, advanced multiple sclerosis
* Do-Not-Reintubate order in place
* Previously randomized in this trial
* Underlying pre-existing condition with expected mortality less than 6-months.
* Anticipated/scheduled for surgical procedures within 48 hours
* C-spine not yet cleared for activity as tolerated (cleared for activity as tolerated while wearing hard collar is acceptable)
* Currently known or suspected to have an difficult airway
* Absence of an endotracheal tube cuff leak, if checked
* Absence of spontaneous or induced cough
* Current enrolment in an RCT that precludes NEURO-ETT co-enrollment
Minimum Eligible Age

16 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)

OTHER_GOV

Sponsor Role collaborator

Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Dr. Damon Scales

MD, PhD, FRCPC

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Niall Ferguson, MD, MSc,

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Toronto General Hospital

Damon Scales, MD, PhD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

University of Alberta Hospital

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Site Status

Royal Columbian Hospital

New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada

Site Status

Vancouver General Hospital

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Site Status

Hamilton General Hospital

Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Site Status

Kingston General Hospital

Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Site Status

London Health Sciences Centre

London, Ontario, Canada

Site Status

Ottawa Hospital

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Site Status

Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Site Status

St. Michael's Hospital

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Site Status

Toronto Western Hospital

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Site Status

Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal

Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Site Status

Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal

Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Site Status

L'Hôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus

Québec, Quebec, Canada

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Canada

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

NEURO-ETT (Vanguard)

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.