IntHyx : Intubation Strategies for Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

Condition(s) studied

Investigational drug(s) / intervention(s)

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.

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.

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.

Eligibility

Primary outcome measure(s)

• Impact of a liberal intubation strategy compared to a restrictive strategy in regards to organ support duration, taking mortality into account — Day 28
  Composite endpoint consisting of death and number of days with organ failure at D28, analyzed using the Win Ratio method.

Trial sites (9)

More University Hospital, Angers trials in France

Other trials for the same condition