Pulse Wave vs. Saline Contrast EIT for Pulmonary Perfusion in ARDS

Conditions: ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome), Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT), Mechanical Ventilation

Sex: All

Ages: 18 Years – 80 Years

Healthy volunteers: No

Enrollment: 20

Sponsor: Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology

Location: Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology Wuhan Hubei

Summary

Monitoring pulmonary perfusion is crucial in critical care, especially for conditions like ARDS. Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT) is a valuable, non-invasive tool for real-time bedside monitoring.While well-established for lung ventilation, EIT faces a challenge in perfusion imaging because the related impedance signal is very weak. Currently, two main methods are used:Saline Bolus EIT: Involves injecting a saline solution during a breath-hold to track blood flow.Pulse Wave EIT: Utilizes cardiac-induced vascular pulsations to assess perfusion.However, both methods have limitations in ARDS patients, as the disease's altered physiology can affect their accuracy. This study compares pulse wave versus saline bolus EIT for pulmonary perfusion assessment in ARDS patients and investigates the impact of different PEEP levels.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria: 1. Age: 18-80 years; 2. Endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation; 3. Presence of a subclavian or internal jugular venous catheter in place; 4. Diagnosis of ARDS according to the 2023 global ARDS definition. Exclusion Criteria: 1. Age \80 years; 2. Severe obesity (BMI ≥35 kg/m²); 3. Pregnant or lactating women; 4. Pulmonary diseases: acute asthma exacerbation, COPD, pulmonary fibrosis, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, or pulmonary embolism; 5. Cardiac diseases: arrhythmias, significant valvular regurgitation, or cardiac dysfunction (LVEF \

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07908368). StuddyBuddy aggregates publicly available trial information.