IntHyx : Intubation Strategies for Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

NCT07189078 · Status: RECRUITING · Phase: NA · Type: INTERVENTIONAL · Enrollment: 200

Last updated 2025-12-29

No results posted yet for this study

Summary

Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure requires endotracheal intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation in approximately 30-40% of cases, due to severe hypoxemia and/or clinical signs of acute respiratory distress. The primary objectives of invasive mechanical ventilation are to reduce respiratory effort and improve oxygenation. However, this intervention is also associated with both direct and indirect adverse effects, mainly linked to the need for sedation and often neuromuscular blockade. These include hemodynamic compromise, neuromuscular weakness, ventilator-induced lung injury, and infectious complications.

An ideal intubation strategy would therefore strike a balance: avoiding the risks of delayed intubation-such as refractory hypoxemia, excessive respiratory effort, and patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI)-while limiting complications associated with invasive mechanical ventilation by withholding it in patients who might otherwise recover without. To date, the optimal strategy for achieving this risk-benefit balance remains uncertain.

Clinical practice suggests a broad consensus on the necessity of intubation when so-called safety criteria are met: severe hypoxemia (SaO₂/FiO₂ ratio \< 88), marked respiratory distress (use of accessory muscles, thoracoabdominal paradox, respiratory rate \> 40/min), extra-respiratory manifestations of hypoxia (e.g., altered consciousness), and/or uncontrolled hemodynamic instability. Beyond these safety thresholds, however, debate persists. Some advocate for earlier intubation-a so-called liberal approach-triggered by predefined hypoxemia criteria (e.g., SpO₂/FiO₂ \< 110), with the aim of limiting the deleterious consequences of sustained hypoxemia.

In routine practice, the criteria guiding intubation vary widely between clinicians and cannot be attributed to strong scientific evidence. This study therefore seeks to compare, in a randomized interventional design, the two main strategies currently applied across centers:

* Liberal intubation strategy: prioritizing the prevention of organ dysfunction related to hypoxemia (notably hypoxic cardiac arrest) and the risk of P-SILI.
* Restrictive intubation strategy: prioritizing the reduction of invasive mechanical ventilation use, with the goal of minimizing ventilation-related harm and its associated therapeutic burden.

Conditions

  • Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

Interventions

PROCEDURE

Restrictive intubation strategy

Endotracheal intubation is recommended only if at least one of the following criteria persists for more than 5 minutes: 1. Respiratory rate \> 40/min, persistent use of accessory muscles, or thoracoabdominal paradox. 2. SpO₂/FiO₂ \< 88. 3. Neurological or systemic impairment attributable to hypoxemia, defined as: altered higher brain functions without another identifiable cause, Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 12, uncontrolled hemodynamic instability, or rising lactate levels.

PROCEDURE

Liberal intubation strategy

Endotracheal intubation is recommended if SpO₂/FiO₂ \< 110 for more than 5 minutes. In addition, intubation is also recommended in the liberal strategy if any of the restrictive strategy criteria occur and persist for more than 5 minutes.

Sponsors & Collaborators

  • University Hospital, Angers

    lead OTHER_GOV

Principal Investigators

  • Mathilde TAILLANTOU-CANDAU, Doctor · University Hospital, Angers

Study Design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Model
PARALLEL

Eligibility

Min Age
18 Years
Sex
ALL
Healthy Volunteers
No

Timeline & Regulatory

Start
2025-12-13
Primary Completion
2026-12-31
Completion
2027-03-31

Countries

  • France

Study Locations

More Related Trials

Read the full study record

This page highlights key information. For complete eligibility criteria, study locations, investigator contacts, and the full protocol, visit the original record on ClinicalTrials.gov.

View NCT07189078 on ClinicalTrials.gov