We're a network developed to design and conduct comparative effectiveness clinical trials in critical care.

Learn More

Posts

Current Trials

Posted on

WAVE

May 2025

Doctors and scientists started the “Waveform capnography and colorimetric carbon dioxide detection during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults (WAVE)” study in April of 2025. This website provides information about the WAVE study.
 
The goal of the WAVE study is to determine whether one of the two methods that doctors commonly use to verify that a recently-placed breathing tube is correctly located in the windpipe (trachea) is best.

Why the WAVE Study is Needed:

When doctors care for some patients who are very sick, a plastic breathing tube is inserted through the mouth and into the windpipe (called the trachea). A breathing machine (called a ventilator) is then connected to this plastic tube to help the patient breathe.

After the breathing tube is inserted, doctors must know for sure that it is in the correct place (the windpipe). If the breathing tube was accidentally inserted somewhere else, such as the passage that carries food to the stomach (the esophagus), air won’t reach the lungs, and the patient will get worse.

Doctors watch the breathing tube during placement to be sure that it correctly enters the windpipe. To confirm that it is inserted correctly, doctors use one of two simple tests at the bedside every time a breathing tube is inserted. Both tests work in a similar way—by looking for carbon dioxide in the breathing tube. Carbon dioxide is a substance that leaves the body only through your breath when you exhale so if carbon dioxide is detected coming from the breathing tube, the doctor knows it is in the correct place.

  • Waveform test: One carbon dioxide test in widespread use senses the amount of carbon dioxide exhaled every breath and displays that information for the doctor as a graph (also known as a waveform) on a digital monitor.
  • Color test: The other carbon dioxide test uses a special color-changing paper to show the doctor that carbon dioxide is present in each breath from the breathing tube. Both tests are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Both work and are used for millions of patients each year, but the study is trying to figure out if one is best.

What we are doing

Doctors and nurses are doing a research study to try and learn which carbon dioxide test is best for our patients who are very sick and need a breathing tube inserted. The study is named the WAVE Trial.

Normally a doctor would use either the waveform test or the color test right after the breathing tube is inserted to be sure it is in the correct location. In this study:

  • Doctors will use both tests at the exact same time
  • During and right after the breathing tube insertion, detailed information is collected on the breathing tube procedure, patient vital signs, and whether the two tests showed doctors that the breathing tube was in the correct location.
  • Researchers will collect more information about the patient and the breathing tube procedure from the medical record.
Photograph of both color and waveform tests in use on a patient with a breathing tube in the Emergency Department, as is done during the WAVE study.

The doctors and nurses will care for all patients as they normally would, including using the information from both carbon dioxide tests to deliver the best care. Participating in this study will not change the quality of care that patients receive.


Consent for Emergency Care

Placing seriously ill adults on a breathing machine is an emergency procedure. There is often no time for doctors to discuss the risks and benefits of the procedure. Patients are often unconscious or too sick to make decisions. So, doctors go ahead with life-saving care without the patient’s okay (consent).

Consent for Research during Emergency Care

For these same reasons, doctors may enroll patients in the WAVE Trial and collect information from both carbon dioxide tests after breathing tube insertion without getting the patient’s okay (consent). Important research to find the best emergency care, like the WAVE study, can sometimes be done without getting patients’ okay (consent) ahead of time through a process called “Waiver of informed consent”. Studies done with waiver of informed consent are reviewed by researchers, doctors, and an independent ethics committee.

Participating Sites

  • Hennepin County Medical Center

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a breathing machine?

Some seriously ill patients in the hospital need help to breathe. In this situation a breathing machine – also known as a “mechanical ventilator” – is used to breathe for the patient while they heal. A breathing machine helps move air in and out of the lungs to maintain proper levels of oxygen in the blood. To use a breathing machine, the doctors and nurses insert a tube through the mouth to reach the lungs. The procedure for inserting a tube into the mouth to reach the lungs is called “intubation”.

Who is eligible for the WAVE study?

Adults who are receiving treatment in an emergency room or intensive care unit (ICU) whose doctors have determined that they need a breathing tube may be eligible for this study. Patients are eligible only if their doctors and nurses think that using both the color and waveform tests after intubation is safe for the patient. Patients can only participate if they are undergoing breathing tube placement at a hospital participating in the study. They cannot volunteer at any other time.

What is the difference between the waveform device and the colorimetry device?

Both are FDA approved devices that are used every day by doctors to make sure the breathing tube is correctly positioned in the windpipe.

  • The waveform device checks the air that passes through the breathing tube so that it can measure how much carbon dioxide (CO2) is present. This amount of CO2 is then shown on a medical monitor as a graph of CO2 in the air going in and out of the breathing tube over time. The doctor can look at the graph and see the CO2 levels rise as air leaves the lungs and fall as fresh air enters the lungs.
  • The colorimetry device connects to the breathing tube and has a small piece of litmus paper that changes color when the level of CO2 changes. When air leaves the lungs the paper turns yellow, and when fresh air enters the lungs the paper turns purple.

What are the risks of each test?

There are no known risks to either method of confirming the location of the tube. Both are used every day across the world. Normally your doctor would use either the waveform method or the colorimetry method to check tube location. In this study, your doctor used the information from both methods to confirm the tube is in the correct location.

Why are you sharing information about this trial with the community?

The goal of the WAVE trial is to produce information that helps patients, families, and doctors  choose the best test to check breathing tube placement so that patients can receive the best care possible. Making sure that patients, families, and community members know about the study and its findings is important to achieving this goal.

We want to know what you think about the WAVE Trial

We welcome feedback and questions from the community about research like this. If you have comments or questions please contact Dr. Brian Driver at brian.driver@hcmed.org or call him at 612-873-7448.

Uncategorized

Posted on

Patient Stakeholder Quotes

Sep 2024

Eileen Rubin, co-founder of the ARDS Foundation, has served as President and CEO for over two decades. An attorney by profession, Ms. Rubin experienced a life-altering diagnosis in her early 30’s that resulted in a lengthy ICU stay and long road to recovery. Today, she is a well- known advocate for patients and their families serving in a variety of roles to help educate medical professionals and to improve and inform research. Ms. Rubin stresses, “Including the patient and family perspective is critical in medical research to ensure studies are designed from beginning to end with the patient in mind and with objectives focused on concerns, issues and endpoints of importance not only to advance medical research but also to include priorities of patients.” She has served in an advisory capacity for numerous organizations including the American College of Chest Physicians, the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the American Thoracic Society. She was also the lead investigator for a PCORI Pipeline to Proposal Award. Ms. Rubin is a Patient Stakeholder for the RSI Trial.

Sherman Transou was an active business owner but in 2015 his life was changed when he learned that a virus was attacking his heart. Five months later he joined the growing community of transplant recipients and has embraced this opportunity to inspire and educate others in his community. In addition to serving on the Board of Directors for HonorBridge, he is an active advocate and leadership coach. Mr. Transou uses his experience to help research teams effectively connect with patients and their families. Mr. Transou is the Patient Stakeholder for Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist.

Barbara Gould is a COVID intubation and liver transplant survivor and has personalexperience with post ICU syndrome and PTSD. As a retired social worker, Ms. Gouldunderstands the importance of patients’ physical and mental health and has used herexperience to platform the needs of patients and families. She shared, “I strongly believethat medical research saves lives and that patient representation in that process isessential.” Ms. Gould has spoken with the media about her hospitalization with COVID to raise awareness. She currently serves as the Patient Investigator for the University of Colorado Anschutz and the University of Colorado Denver.

Patrick Luther brings a wealth of knowledge to the RSI team as someone who has experience in advising the research enterprise at large, clinical trials in particular, and as a critical care survivor and former paramedic. Professionally, he works in nonprofit public health spaces developing and managing programs and community engaged research projects that address the needs of our most vulnerable while building their agency to take their place within research to change and improve it. His experiences provide
insight into patient communication and troubleshooting for trial implementation. Mr.
Luther is the Patient Stakeholder for Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

Jasmine McIntosh

is a young adult cancer survivor who is an active advocate in the community. She is passionate about health inequities and supports research that is working to improve outcomes for all patients. Her background in systems and technology is an asset to the RSI Trial. “I believe clinical trial research is important because for me personally, as a two-time cancer survivor with a rare gene, research has allowed me to be on the receiving end of innovative care. I am grateful for that access as not everyone has that same opportunity. Research helps to make it more accessible and to continue the work toward health equity.” Ms. McIntosh is the Patient Stakeholder for the University of Alabama, Birmingham.

News

Posted on

PREOXI Featured in First10EM

Jun 2024

News

Posted on

Featured in Journal Feed: PREOXI RCT – Preoxygenation with Noninvasive Ventilation vs. Non-rebreather Mask

Jun 2024

News

Posted on

Feature in HIPPO Education: Revolutionizing Preoxygenation: Insights from the PREOXI Trial

Jun 2024

Is there anything more bread and butter in emergency medicine than intubating patients in high-stress situations? With five million adults needing emergency intubation annually, staying updated on intubation best practices is crucial. The PRagmatic trial Examining OXygenation prior to Intubation (PREOXI), just published in the NEJM and discussed on ERcast in this free segment, could revolutionize our approach to preoxygenation and, most importantly, improve patient safety.

News

Posted on

PREOXI featured on Critical Care Time

Jun 2024

Extra Extra – Read All About It!! It is our pleasure to bring to you – hot off the presses – the results from the PREOXI Trial which looks at whether or not preoxygenation with non-invasive positive pressure ventilation results in better peri-intubation outcomes versus non-pressurized preoxygenation strategies. Joining us is the primary author on this paper, Dr. Kevin Gibbs, MD of Wake Forest University School of Medicine. Practice changing? Practice affirming? Does it even matter?! Check out our interview with Dr. Gibbs and see what you think!

News

Posted on

EMCrit 377 – Breaking News – The PREOXI Trial changes everything about Preoxygenation for Intubations in the Critically Ill

Jun 2024

News

Posted on

PREOXI featured on ICU Ed and Todd-Cast

Jun 2024

Episode 40! In this special episode releasing at the conclusion of the PREOXI presentation at the Critical Care Reviews 2024 conference in Belfast, Ireland – we discuss the recently published PREOXI trial evaluating NIV vs facemask as pre-oxygenation for emergent endotracheal intubation. Kevin Gibbs, the first author and presenter at the conference, is our special guest.  

Mechanical Ventilation

Posted on

PILOT Trial

Jan 2024


Many patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) receive oxygen through a breathing
machine. Doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapist adjust the amount of oxygen given
through the breathing machine to target oxygen levels, but the ideal oxygen level to target
is unknown. To understand which oxygen level is best for patients, we conducted a
research study called the PILOT study. A total of 2,541 patients on breathing machines in
the Vanderbilt intensive care unit participated in the study and had their clinicians target
an oxygen level of 90%, 94%, or 98%. The results of the study suggested that patients
did equally well when their clinicians targeted an oxygen level of 90%, 94%, or 98%.
Background: Invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults involves adjusting
the fraction of inspired oxygen to maintain arterial oxygen saturation. The oxygen-
saturation target that will optimize clinical outcomes in this patient population remains
unknown.

Methods

In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, cluster-crossover trial conducted in the
emergency department and medical intensive care unit at an academic center, we
assigned adults who were receiving mechanical ventilation to a lower target for oxygen
saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (Spo2) (90%; goal range, 88 to 92%), an
intermediate target (94%; goal range, 92 to 96%), or a higher target (98%; goal range, 96
to 100%). The primary outcome was the number of days alive and free of mechanical
ventilation (ventilator-free days) through day 28. The secondary outcome was death by
day 28, with data censored at hospital discharge.

Results

A total of 2541 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median number of ventilator-free days was 20 (interquartile range, 0 to 25) in the lower-target group, 21 (interquartile range, 0 to 25) in the intermediate-target group, and 21 (interquartile range, 0 to 26) in the higher-target group (P = 0.81). In-hospital death by day 28 occurred in 281 of the 808 patients (34.8%) in the lower-target group, 292 of the 859 patients (34.0%) in the intermediate-target group, and 290 of the 874 patients (33.2%) in the higher-target group. The incidences of cardiac arrest, arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, stroke, and pneumothorax were similar in the three groups.

Conclusions

Among critically ill adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, the number of ventilator-free days did not differ among groups in which a lower, intermediate, or higher Spo2 target was used.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT03537937.
Manuscript Title: Oxygen-Saturation Targets for Critically Ill Adults Receiving
Mechanical Ventilation
Journal: New England Journal of Medicine

PMID: 36278971

Antibiotics

Posted on

ACORN Trial

Jan 2024

Patients in the emergency department and intensive care unit who are suspected of having infections are treated with antibiotics. Most patients received either cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam, antibiotics targeting resistant gram-negative bacteria. The two antibiotics are believed to have different risks. Cefepime may cause “neurotoxicity” (symptoms like agitation or coma). Piperacillin-tazobactam may cause kidney injury. To learn whether cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam affects the chances of experiencing neurotoxicity or kidney injury, we conducted a research study called the ACORN study. A total of 1,172 patients receiving antibiotics for resistant gram-negative bacteria in the Vanderbilt Emergency Department or Intensive Care Unit participated in the study. The results of the study suggested that cefepime does cause neurotoxicity but piperacillin- tazobactam does not cause kidney injury and may be a safer alternative for patients being treated in the emergency department or intensive care unit.

Importance

Cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam are commonly administered to hospitalized adults for empirical treatment of infection. Although piperacillin-tazobactam has been hypothesized to cause acute kidney injury and cefepime has been hypothesized to cause neurological dysfunction, their comparative safety has not been evaluated in a randomized clinical trial.

Objective

To determine whether the choice between cefepime and piperacillin- tazobactam affects the risks of acute kidney injury or neurological dysfunction. Design, setting, and participants: The Antibiotic Choice on Renal Outcomes (ACORN) randomized clinical trial compared cefepime vs piperacillin-tazobactam in adults for whom a clinician initiated an order for antipseudomonal antibiotics within 12 hours of presentation to the hospital in the emergency department or medical intensive care unit at an academic medical center in the US between November 10, 2021, and October 7, 2022. The final date of follow-up was November 4, 2022.

Interventions

Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to cefepime or piperacillin- tazobactam.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was the highest stage of acute kidney injury or death by day 14, measured on a 5-level ordinal scale ranging from no acute kidney injury to death. The 2 secondary outcomes were the incidence of major adverse kidney events at day 14 and the number of days alive and free of delirium and
coma within 14 days.

Results

There were 2511 patients included in the primary analysis (median age, 58 years [IQR, 43-69 years]; 42.7% were female; 16.3% were Non-Hispanic Black; 5.4% were Hispanic; 94.7% were enrolled in the emergency department; and 77.2% were receiving vancomycin at enrollment). The highest stage of acute kidney injury or death was not significantly different between the cefepime group and the piperacillin-tazobactam group; there were 85 patients (n = 1214; 7.0%) in the cefepime group with stage 3 acute kidney injury and 92 (7.6%) who died vs 97 patients (n = 1297; 7.5%) in the piperacillin- tazobactam group with stage 3 acute kidney injury and 78 (6.0%) who died (odds ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.80 to 1.13], P = .56). The incidence of major adverse kidney events at day 14 did not differ between groups (124 patients [10.2%] in the cefepime group vs 114 patients [8.8%] in the piperacillin-tazobactam group; absolute difference, 1.4% [95% CI, -1.0% to 3.8%]). Patients in the cefepime group experienced fewer days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days (mean [SD], 11.9 [4.6] days vs 12.2 [4.3] days in the piperacillin-tazobactam group; odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.95]).

Conclusions and relevance

Among hospitalized adults in this randomized clinical trial, treatment with piperacillin-tazobactam did not increase the incidence of acute kidney injury or death. Treatment with cefepime resulted in more neurological dysfunction.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05094154.
Manuscript Title: Cefepime vs Piperacillin-Tazobactam in Adults Hospitalized With
Acute Infection: The ACORN Randomized Clinical Trial.
Journal: JAMA
PMID: 37837651

Scientific Presentations

Posted on

The DEVICE Trial: An Embedded, Pragmatic Trial of Emergency Airway Management

Sep 2023

Location: NIH Collaboratory Grand Rounds
Presenter(s): Jon Casey and Matthew Prekker

Results of Randomized Trials

Posted on

Video versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Tracheal Intubation of Critically Ill Adults.

Aug 2023

Journal: New England Journal of Medicine
PMID: 37326325

Secondary Analyses of Clinical Trial Results

Posted on

Prophylactic Administration of Vasopressors Prior to Emergency Intubation in CriticallyIll Patients: A Secondary Analysis of Two Multicenter Clinical Trials

Jul 2023

Journal: Critical Care Explorations
PMID: 37457916

Secondary Analyses of Clinical Trial Results

Posted on

Individualized Treatment Effects of Bougie versus Stylet for Tracheal Intubation inCritical Illness

Jun 2023

Journal: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
PMID: 36877594

Scientific Presentations

Posted on

DEVICE Trial Results

Jun 2023

Location: Critical Care Reviews Meeting 2023
Presenter(s): Matthew Prekker and Matt Semler

Uncategorized

Posted on

Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan for the PREOXI Trial of Preoxygenation withNoninvasive Ventilation vs Oxygen Mask in Critically Ill Adults.

Mar 2023

Journal: CHEST Critical Care
oPMID: 36993496

Trial Statistical Analysis Plans

Posted on

Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan for the Antibiotic Choice On ReNal Outcomes(ACORN) Randomised Clinical Trial.

Mar 2023

Journal: BMJ Open
PMID: 36898748

Uncategorized

Posted on

Effect of Laryngoscope Blade Size on First Pass Success of Tracheal Intubation inCritically Ill Adults

Mar 2023

Journal: Critical Care Explorations
PMID: 36895888

Uncategorized

Posted on

Effect of Laryngoscope Blade Size on First Pass Success of Tracheal Intubation inCritically Ill Adults

Mar 2023

Journal: Critical Care Explorations
PMID: 36895888

Trial Statistical Analysis Plans

Posted on

DirEct versus VIdeo LaryngosCopE (DEVICE): Protocol and Statistical Analysis Planfor a Randomised Clinical Trial in Critically Ill Adults Undergoing Emergency TrachealIntubation

Jan 2023

Journal: BMJ Open
PMID: 36639210

Letters to Editor

Posted on

Reply to: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation transport for severe COVID-19 – why we can and should!

Dec 2022

Journal: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
PMID: 35882061

Scientific Presentations

Posted on

Bougie Trial Results

Dec 2022

Scientific Presentations

Posted on

Pilot Trial Results

Dec 2022

Scientific Presentations

Posted on

Prepare II

Dec 2022