NCT00351741

BEST (Burn Center Evaluation of Standard Therapies) Ventilator Mode Study-

BEST (Burn Center Evaluation of Standard Therapies) Ventilator Mode Study: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

• Status: Terminated
• Phase: N/A
• Study type: Interventional
• Enrollment: 62 (actual)
• Sponsor: United States Army Institute of Surgical Research · Federal
• Sex: All
• Age: 18 Years
• Healthy volunteers: Not accepted

Summary

The purpose of this study is to compare High Frequency Pressure Ventilation (HFPV) to conventional mechanical ventilation. Hypothesis: Patients placed on HFPV will have significantly higher number of ventilator-free days compared to patients placed on a conventional volume mode.

Detailed description

This is a prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing HFPV to conventional ventilator modes in the support of burn patients with respiratory failure. Burn patients who develop the need for mechanical ventilation present a variety of challenges that call for innovative therapeutic options. Even in the absence of smoke inhalation injury,decreased chest wall compliance from full thickness burns as well as massive fluid requirements are just a few variables that make it difficult to achieve gas exchange goals when attempting to apply conventional lung protective strategies recommended by the ARDS Net investigators.

Conditions

• Burns

Interventions

Type	Name	Description
DEVICE	Ventilation - High Frequency Percussive Ventilation	Ventilatory support delivering high frequency percussive ventilation using the Volumetric Diffusive Respirator
DEVICE	Ventilation - ARDSnet	Respiratory support with a conventional mode of ventilation using a conventional ventilator (Draeger Evita XL)

Timeline

• Start date: 2006-07-01
• Primary completion: 2010-02-01
• Completion: 2010-02-01
• First posted: 2006-07-13
• Last updated: 2015-09-21
• Results posted: 2010-12-28

Locations

1 site across 1 country: United States