NCT00308022: Percussive versus conventional ventilation in adult ARDS

Medicine Signal Editorial Desk
Updated 2026-10-10

Registry status when checked 2026-10-10Withdrawn

This was a proposed randomized comparison of high-frequency percussive ventilation and conventional ventilation for acute lung injury/ARDS or patients at risk. The University of Texas Southwestern/Parkland protocol planned 180 participants and identified ventilator-associated pneumonia as a primary outcome. It also proposed evaluating ventilation duration, ICU/hospital stay, gas exchange, hemodynamics, complications, and inflammatory markers. 1 2

The January 2019 historical update lists the study as withdrawn. The proposed 180 participants must therefore not be presented as an actual analyzed cohort. I did not verify comparative patient outcomes from this exact identifier. The protocol's hypothesis that a ventilation strategy could reduce lung injury is not an observed result or evidence of improved survival. 1 2

Sources

1. ClinicalTrials.gov — ClinicalTrials.gov — NCT00308022. Original study registration: sponsor, design, population, endpoints and dated history.Original study registration · Original record checked against the registry API. Checked 2026-10-10. Registration and current registry fields do not by themselves establish efficacy. Historical details in the article retain their stated date. Supplied note: ClinicalTrials.gov — NCT00308022. Original study registration: sponsor, design, population, endpoints and dated history.

2. ICH GCP — ICH GCP — readable reproduction of the sponsor-submitted ClinicalTrials.gov record. Supports the registration details quoted here; not an independent clinical-results publication.Cited supporting source · Link and description preserved from supplied research. Checked in supplied research dated 2026-10-10. Source description comes from supplied research; underlying page was not independently re-read for this update.