The Pragmatic Critical Care Research Group (PCCRG) is a network of emergency medicine, anesthesiology, and critical care clinicians and researchers at more than 25 hospitals across the United States that embeds pragmatic trials within clinical care to improve outcomes for acutely ill patients.

Learn More

Posts

Current Trials

Posted on

EXPRESS

Jun 2026

What We Need To Learn

Each year, millions of people in the U.S. become critically ill and requiresupport from a breathing machine (invasive mechanical ventilation).  About 25-35% of critically ill adults on a breathing machine die in the hospital. For all patients on a breathing machine, clinicians adjust the amount of oxygen patients breathe in to keep the patients’ oxygen levels (SpO2) in a safe range. Higher oxygen targets (96-100%) can protect against low oxygen levels in the blood but could cause damage from too much oxygen. Lower targets (88-92%) may prevent the risks of too much oxygen but could increase the chance of damage from too little oxygen. Recent studies, including one at Vanderbilt, showed no overall difference in outcomes between higher and lower oxygen targets for patients on a breathing machine. However,  the best approach to oxygen therapy may depend on a patient’s unique characteristics, like age or medical condition. Researchers are Vanderbilt created a model using data from 24 patient characteristics that predicts which oxygen level will result in the best outcomes for each individual patient. Early tests suggest that using such a “personalized oxygen target” could save lives, but a trial is needed to confirm this. The EXPRESS trial will examine the use of a “personalized oxygen target”. If a “personalized oxygen target” is proven to improve patient outcomes, it could help millions of patients worldwide.

What We Are Doing

This research study is called Examination of PeRsonalizEd SpO2 TargetS (EXPRESS).  It is being conducted in the medical intensive care unit (ICU) at Vanderbilt. The goal of the study is to learn whether using a “personalized oxygen target” based on each patient’s unique characteristics can improve survival compared to the clinicians managing oxygen therapy as they would in care today outside of research.

Participating in this study will not impact the quality of care patients receive. For each patient:

  • When doctors determine a specific oxygen target is needed for a patient’s care, the patient will not take part in the study, and the doctors will use the oxygen target they believe is best.
  • When doctors determine that either a “personalized oxygen target” or clinicians managing oxygen therapy as they would in care today outside of research would be equally safe and effective, the patient will be enrolled in the EXPRESS study. The EXPRESS study will randomly choose if the patient is in the personalized oxygen target group or the group in which clinicians manage oxygen therapy as they would in care today outside of research.
  • If, at any time, the doctors decide that a different oxygen approach is needed for the patient’s care, they will adjust the oxygen therapy and document the reason for change.

For patients in the personalized oxygen target group, clinicians will receive information from a statistical model predicting the best range of oxygen values for each patient. Clinicians will use this information to choose an oxygen target for the patient. Nurses and respiratory therapists will adjust the oxygen given minute-by-minute to maintain the chosen oxygen target.  For patients in the other group, clinicians will manage oxygen therapy as they normally would, without receiving information from the statistical model.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is eligible for the EXPRESS study?

Patients who are receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in the Vanderbilt medical ICU whose doctor determines that a specific approach to oxygen therapy is not required for the optimal care of the patient. Patients can only participate if they are receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in the medical ICU at Vanderbilt. They cannot volunteer at any other time.

What is oxygen therapy?

Oxygen therapy is a treatment that gives you extra oxygen to help you breathe better. It is often used when your body isn’t getting enough oxygen on its own, such as when you are sick or have trouble breathing. The oxygen is delivered through tubes in your nose, a mask, or a machine that helps you breathe. It helps your body work properly by making sure your organs and tissues get the oxygen they need.

How does the statistical model predict what oxygen level is best for each patient?

The statistical model uses information about the patient, like their age, heart rate, blood pressure, and other health details, to figure out the best oxygen level for them. It looks at 24 different factors, which are all taken from the patient’s records when they start using a ventilator. The model combines all this information to predict whether a higher oxygen target (like 98%) or a lower oxygen target (like 90%) will help the patient the most. This helps doctors decide the best oxygen level for each patient.

We want to know what you think about the EXPRESS study

We welcome feedback and questions about research studies like this. If you have comments or questions please contact Dr. Matthew Semler at matthew.w.semler@vumc.org or (615) 933-6994.

This work is supported through a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) award (R61HL180352-01)

Press Releases

Posted on

Denver Health: Denver Health Participates in National Trial to Compare Sedatives Used for Intubation

May 2026

outlet: DH Press Release

Press Releases

Posted on

UCD

May 2026

outlet: UCD press release 

UCD press release National Trial_ Ketamine Raises Heart R…pdf

Press Releases

Posted on

Eurekalert: Sedative choice could improve outcomes for breathing tube patients

May 2026

Outlet: EurekAlert! 

Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute

Doctors treating seriously ill patients in an emergency setting may want to give the sedative etomidate, rather than ketamine, while placing a breathing tube, according to a randomized trial published Dec. 9 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The Randomized Trial of Sedative Choice for Intubation (RSI) is the first multicenter trial to demonstrate significant cardiovascular risks of high doses of ketamine (low blood pressure, arrhythmia), side effects that have not been well studied in the past.

“We know that patients receive treatments every day in hospitals around the world that have never been evaluated in a rigorous study and may be ineffective or even harmful,” said lead author Jonathan Casey, MD, associate professor of Medicine in the Division of Allergy, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Vanderbilt Health.

“Studies like RSI are critically important to understand the treatments that patients are already receiving and to ensure that patients receive the treatments that will result in the best outcomes,” he said.

Press Releases

Posted on

Mirage News: Sedative Choice May Boost Breathing Tube Outcomes

May 2026

Doctors treating seriously ill patients in an emergency setting may want to give the sedative etomidate, rather than ketamine, while placing a breathing tube, according to a randomized trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The Randomized Trial of Sedative Choice for Intubation (RSI) is the first multicenter trial to demonstrate significant cardiovascular risks of high doses of ketamine (low blood pressure, arrhythmia), side effects that have not been well studied in the past.

Outlet: Mirage news story 

links

Posted on

1500 IP addresses from 50 countries on day 2 of the meeting 

May 2026

Outlet: Critical Care Reviews presentation 

1500 IP addresses from 50 countries on day 2 of the meeting 

ECMO

Posted on

SAFE-ECMO

May 2026

SAFE-ECMO Pilot Trial (Low-Intensity vs Moderate-Intensity Anticoagulation)

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can be life-saving for severe respiratory failure, but it is also associated with major complications, especially bleeding. Anticoagulation is routinely used to prevent clotting in the ECMO circuit, but the safest intensity of anticoagulation is uncertain. The SAFE-ECMO pilot trial compared low-intensity versus moderate-intensity anticoagulation strategies to determine whether a large multicenter randomized trial is feasible and to estimate bleeding and clotting risks.

Importance

Bleeding is a common and sometimes fatal complication of venovenous ECMO. Before the SAFE-ECMO Pilot Trial, it was unclear whether lower-intensity anticoagulation could reduce bleeding without causing excess thromboembolic complications, and whether a large randomized trial was feasible.

Objective

To determine the feasibility of a multicenter randomized trial comparing low-intensity versus moderate-intensity anticoagulation during venovenous ECMO, and to estimate effects on major bleeding and thromboembolic events.

Interventions

In a multicenter, parallel-group randomized pilot trial at 3 centers across the United States, critically ill adults receiving venovenous ECMO were randomly assigned to low-intensity or moderate-intensity anticoagulation. Feasibility outcomes included enrollment rate and adherence to the assigned strategy. The primary efficacy outcome was major bleeding, and the primary safety outcome was thromboembolic events, assessed from enrollment through 24 hours after decannulation.

Results

A total of 26 patients were enrolled, and all received their assigned anticoagulation intensity. Major bleeding occurred in 1 of 12 (8.3%) patients in the low-intensity group and 4 of 14 (28.6%) in the moderate-intensity group (absolute risk difference, –20.2 percentage points; 95% CI, –48.6 to 8.1; P = .33). Thromboembolic events were uncommon, occurring in 1 patient (8.3%) assigned to low-intensity anticoagulation and 0 patients assigned to moderate-intensity anticoagulation. No patients died before discharge in the low-intensity group, compared with 2 patients (14.3%) in the moderate-intensity group, both of whom experienced major bleeding events.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this multicenter pilot trial, enrollment and adherence to assigned anticoagulation intensity were feasible for venovenous ECMO patients. Major bleeding events were numerically lower with low-intensity anticoagulation, and thromboembolic events were uncommon. These results support the feasibility of a larger randomized trial to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of lower-intensity anticoagulation strategies during venovenous ECMO.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04997265
Manuscript Title: Low-Intensity vs Moderate-Intensity Anticoagulation for Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: The Strategies for Anticoagulation During Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Pilot Trial
Journal: Chest
PMID: 40081660

The SAFE-ECMO pilot trial was a multicenter randomized pilot trial conducted at 3 U.S. centers comparing low-intensity vs moderate-intensity anticoagulation for critically ill adults receiving venovenous ECMO. The primary goal was to test feasibility for a larger trial, measured by enrollment and adherence to the assigned anticoagulation strategy, and all 26 enrolled patients received their assigned intensity of anticoagulation. Major bleeding occurred in 1/12 (8.3%) patients assigned to low-intensity anticoagulation versus 4/14 (28.6%) assigned to moderate-intensity anticoagulation, while thromboembolic events were uncommon (1 vs 0 patients). These results support the feasibility of a larger multicenter trial and suggest that lower-intensity anticoagulation may reduce bleeding risk without a clear increase in thromboembolic complications.

Gannon WD, Pratt EH, Vogelsong MA, Adkisson WH, Bacchetta M, Bloom SL, Ford DJ, Guenthart BA, Landsperger JS, Qian ET, Rackley CR, Rice TW, Fielding-Singh V, Stokes JW, Stollings JL, Semler MW, Casey JD; Pragmatic Critical Care Research Group. Low-Intensity vs Moderate-Intensity Anticoagulation for Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: The Strategies for Anticoagulation During Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Pilot Trial. Chest. 2025 Sep;168(3):639-649. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2025.02.032. Epub 2025 Mar 11. PMID: 40081660

Tools

Posted on

Airway Timer

May 2026

Local Efforts

Posted on

VUMC ED Digital Whiteboard in treatment areas  

May 2026

ED_digitalWhiteboard.pptx

Current Trials

Posted on

ECMO -FREE

May 2026

What we need to learn

When people become very sick and their lungs cannot give the body enough oxygen, they may need help from a machine that works like an external lung. This machine, called Veno‑Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (V-V ECMO), takes blood out of a patient’s vein, pushes oxygen into the blood and pulls carbon dioxide out of the blood, and returns the blood to the patient’s vein. While V-V ECMO saves lives, patients receiving V-V ECMO may also experience severe complications. Doctors try to take patients off V-V ECMO at the earliest time that it would be safe to do so. Hospitals use different methods to determine when to remove patients from VV-ECMO, but there is little research showing which approach works best.

A small study conducted at Vanderbilt Health suggested that checking every day to see if a patient is ready to come off V-V ECMO might help doctors stop the treatment sooner, without added risk. We need to test this idea in many hospitals to understand if daily protocolized check-ins can help patients stop V-V ECMO sooner, decrease complications, and improve recovery.

What we are doing

This research study is called ECMO-Free: A Multicenter Controlled Trial. The goal of the study is to learn whether a step-by-step daily protocol to check if patients are ready to stop V-V ECMO (called the ECMO-Free protocol) is better than usual care. Usual care varies from hospital to hospital and often depends on a doctor’s judgement, which can sometimes underestimate when a patient is ready to stop V-V ECMO. The daily ECMO-Free protocol uses a step-by-step approach to gradually decrease the support from V-V ECMO. Patients are monitored very closely during the entire process. If, at any time, their doctors determine that they should not continue to the next step, they will stay on V-V ECMO. This study will compare use of the daily ECMO-Free protocol to usual care to learn which approach helps patients come off V-V ECMO more quickly and safely.

This research is taking place in eight hospitals across the United States and Canada.  Patients on VV-ECMO may be eligible to participate if they or their decision-makers consent to take part.

Participating in this study will not impact the quality of care patients receive. For each patient:

  • If doctors think usual care is best for a patient, they will use those methods, and the patient will not take part in the study.
  • If doctors think that either the daily, step-by-step protocol (ECMO-Free protocol) or usual care would be equally safe and effective for the patient, the patient or a family member will be approached for consent to be enrolled in the ECMO-Free Trial. If the patient or family member agrees to participate in the trial, the strategy to stop VV-ECMO will be randomly chosen by the study.
  • If, at any time, doctors decide to not follow the daily, step-by-step ECMO-Free protocol and a different approach is needed for the patient’s care, they will treat them as they feel appropriate and document the reason for change.

Participating Sites

  • Vanderbilt Health
  • Baylor University Medical Center
  • Hennepin County Medical Center
  • Stanford University Medical Center
  • Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso
  • Toronto General Hospital
  • University of California, San Diego Health
  • University of Utah Hospital

FAQs

What is V-V ECMO?

V-V ECMO stands for Veno‑Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation. The V-V ECMO machine works like an external lung by adding oxygen to the blood and removing carbon dioxide, which you normally breathe out. This machine is used for patients when their lungs cannot work well enough on their own, allowing their lungs to have time to recover.

What are the risks of the ECMO-Free trial protocol compared to usual care?

V-V ECMO is a complex but life-saving treatment. Patients on V-V ECMO are at risk of bleeding, blood clots, infection, or other complications. All of these risks are present no matter the method used to decide when to safely stop V-V ECMO.

Who is eligible for the ECMO-Free study?

  • Adults who are receiving V-V ECMO in a participating hospital and are not receiving V-V ECMO as a bridge for transplant. People cannot volunteer to participate in the study at any other time

  • Patients are eligible only if their doctors and nurses think that using either the ECMO-Free daily, step-by-step protocol or usual care to determine when V-V ECMO should be stopped would be consistent with optimal care for them.

Patients are eligible only if their doctors and nurses think that using either the ECMO-Free daily, step-by-step protocol or usual care to determine when V-V ECMO should be stopped would be consistent with optimal care for them.

Current Trials

Posted on

MODEM

May 2026

What we need to learn

Seriously ill patients sometimes need a breathing machine to help them breathe.  Doctors or respiratory therapists select settings on the breathing machine that determine how the patient receives each breath – referred to as the “mode”.  Three modes are common: volume control, pressure control, and adaptive pressure control. All 3 are considered safe and effective, but it is not known if one breathing machine mode is better than the others.

What we are doing

This research study is called the “Mode of Ventilation During Critical Illness at Multiple Center” (MODEM) and is funded by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Our goal is to compare three different modes used on breathing machines to understand if one mode is better for helping patients recover. For all patients on a breathing machine in this ICU:

  • When the healthcare team feels they know which mode is best for a patient, they use that mode.
  • When the team does not know which mode would be best, doctors and respiratory therapists use the mode assigned to the ICU for that month – a computer has assigned the ICU to use a mode for each month randomly (which means each patient in the ICU has a fair and equal chance of receiving any of the three modes).
  • When you or your loved one is on the breathing machine, the study will collect data about the person on the breathing machine, their care and their condition. The study will continue to follow them until they are discharged to collect data about their recovery.

All three modes are commonly used to care for patients on a breathing machine. Current guidelines do not recommend using one more than the others.

Participating in this study will not impact the quality of care patients receive. For each patient:

  • All three ventilator modes were commonly used in the care of patients prior to the start of the trial.
  • During the trial, all patients admitted to the study ICU in a given month will receive the same ventilator mode, determined by the trial. The goals for the safe size and pressure of breaths from the breathing machine will be the same
  • If at any time clinicians feel that a different mode is optimal for their care, the doctors or respiratory therapists can change to use that mode.

The study team will

  • Check in with clinical teams during the study to ensure they feel comfortable using the mode assigned by the study for each of their patients.
  • Confidentially review the medical record of all eligible patients

Questions

If you have any questions or concerns about this study, you may contact the Principal Investigator, Dr. Kevin Seitz at kevin.seitz@vumc.org or (615) 936-9329. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or concerns or complaints about the research, you may also contact the Vanderbilt Human Research Protections Program at (615)- 322-2918.

Participating Sites

  • Johns Hopkins Hospital
  • Rush University Medical Center
  • Vanderbilt Health
  • Wake Forest Atrium Health

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a breathing machine?

Some seriously ill patients in the hospital need help breathing. 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 and carbon dioxide in the blood. To use a breathing machine, the doctors and nurses insert a tube through the mouth to reach the lungs.

What are the risks of each ventilator mode?

The three modes in this study (volume control, pressure control, and adaptive pressure control) are used every day across the world. As far as we know today, both all 3 modes are equally safe and effective. However, it is possible that using volume control could reduce the risk of large breaths that injure the lungs, while using pressure control could reduce the risk of high pressure that injure the lungs, and using adaptive pressure control could reduce the risk of both large breaths and high pressures. The goal of the MODEM trial is to determine if mode affects those risks and affects how patients recover from their illness to get off the breathing machine faster.

Who is eligible for the MODEM study?

Adults who are receiving treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU) who are receiving support from a breathing machine through a breathing tube. Patients can only participate if they are in an ICU at a hospital participating in the study. They cannot volunteer at any other time.

This work is supported through a National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Project Number (K23HL175246).

Current Trials

Posted on

ANGLE

May 2026

What we need to learn

To safely connect a patient to a breathing machine, doctors place a breathing tube through the mouth, past the vocal cords, and into the windpipe. To do this, they use a tool called a “video laryngoscope” to see the vocal cords and guide the breathing tube into place.

There are two common types of “video laryngoscopes”:

  • Hyperangulated: a more curved design that makes it easy to see the vocal cords but creates a less direct path for placement of the breathing tube.
  • Standard geometry: a less curved design that requires more manipulation (movement of the jaw) to see the vocal cords but creates a more direct path for placement of the breathing tube.

What we are doing

This research study is called the “Hyperangulated versus Standard Geometry Laryngoscope Blade Trial” (ANGLE). The goal of the study is to learn whether a hyperangulated or standard video device is better, and for which types of patients, for placing the breathing tube safely on the first try. Placing the breathing tube on the first try is good because the quicker the breathing tube is placed, the lower the chances that the patient experiences low oxygen levels, low blood pressure levels, or other complications.

This research will take place in emergency departments (EDs) and intensive care units (ICUs), which care for all different types of patients.

Participating in this study will not impact the quality of care patients receive. For each patient:

  • If doctors think the hyperangulated device is best for a patient, they will use that device, and the patient will not take part in the study.
  • If doctors think the standard device is best for a patient, they will use that device, and the patient will not take part in the study.
  • If the doctors think both devices are equally safe and effective for the patient, the patient will be enrolled in the ANGLE study and which type of video laryngoscope is used to place the breathing tube will be randomly chosen by the ANGLE study.

The study team will confidentially review the patient’s medical record as part of the research.

Questions?

If you have any questions or concerns about this study, you may contact the Principal Investigator, Dr. Stephanie DeMasi at stephanie.demasi@vumc.org or (615)-208-6139. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or concerns or complaints about the research, you may also contact the Vanderbilt Human Research Protections Program at (615)- 322-2918.

FAQs

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”. 

What are the risks of each video device type? 

During intubation in the ED or ICU patients are at risk for problems like low oxygen levels, low blood pressure, heart rhythm problems, or even death. All of these risks are present no matter which type of video laryngoscope is used.

Both hyperangulated and standard video laryngoscopes are used to place breathing tubes every day across the world. As far as we know today, both are equally safe and effective. It is possible that this study could find that the curved (hyperangulated) device or the less curved (standard) device makes it easier to place the breathing tube and improves outcomes. The goal of the ANGLE study is to determine if video device type affects these risks.

Who is eligible for the ANGLE study? 

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.

  • Adults who are receiving treatment in a participating 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 either a hyperangulated or standard video laryngoscope to place a breathing tube would be consistent with optimal care for them.
  • 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.

Podcasts

Posted on

EM-RAP : Abstract 1: Ketamine or Etomidate for Intubation of Critically Ill Adults

Feb 2026

Outlet: EM-RAP 

Ketamine or etomidate for tracheal intubation of critically ill adults Casey JD, Seitz KP, Driver BE, et al. N Engl J Med. Published online December 9, 2025. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2511420

SUMMARY:

  • Many articles have compared etomidate vs ketamine as induction agents for rapid sequence intubation (RSI), and the retrospective and prospective trial data have shown mixed results. A major concern is etomidate’s effects on the adrenal glands. Laboratory testing has indicated that etomidate affects markers of adrenal function, even when administered as a single dose; however, real effects on clinical outcomes have been much more difficult to demonstrate. We have recently covered a massive retrospective study on the topic, which reported a 3% absolute increase in mortality with etomidate use in a 40,000-patient outcome cohort, but this finding was almost certainly influenced by unmeasured but highly relevant confounders.

Current Trials

Posted on

INSPIRE

Feb 2026

Why the INSPIRE Study is Needed:

Each year millions of seriously ill adults need life-saving treatment with a breathing machine. To place someone on a breathing machine, doctors must place a breathing tube through the patient’s mouth and into the windpipe (a procedure known as “intubation”).  When sick patients are placed on a breathing machine in an emergency department or intensive care unit (ICU), doctors commonly give patients a medicine to make them sleepy and comfortable (a “sedative”) while the breathing tube is being placed.  Many doctors also give a second medication to temporarily immobilize the patient’s muscles to make it easier to place the breathing tube (a “neuromuscular blocker”).  Which approach is best is uncertain.

Each approach has potential benefits and risks. Giving only a sedative may prevent low oxygen levels by allowing patients to continue breathing on their own during the procedure, but it might make it harder for doctors to place the breathing tube.  Giving both a sedative and a neuromuscular blocker might make it easier for doctors to place the breathing tube, but it might lead some patients to feel awake but unable to move during or shortly after the procedure.

Patients who need a breathing machine are often seriously ill.  Understanding which of these two approaches results in the best outcomes for patients is important.

What we are doing

We are doing a research study called “INtubation with Sedation Only to Preserve Independent Respiratory Effort” (INSPIRE).  The goal of the study is to learn whether, for patients being placed on a breathing machine in an emergency room or ICU, using only a sedative or using both a sedative and a neuromuscular blocker is best for patients.

During the study, if doctors and nurses feel that using only a sedative would be best for a patient, they use only a sedative. If they feel that using both a sedative and a neuromuscular blocker would be best for a patient, they use both a sedative and neuromuscular blocker. If doctors and nurses do not have a feeling about which approach would be best for a patient, the patient is enrolled in the INSPIRE trial. For patients in the INSPIRE trial, a computer randomly assigns the patient either to receive only a sedative or to receive both a sedative and a neuromuscular blocker.  This means every patient has a fair and equal chance of receiving either approach.

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 or the risk and benefits of the medications that will be used. 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, it may not be possible to get patients’ consent for a study comparing use of only a sedative to use of both a sedative and a neuromuscular blocker. But important research to improve care for life-threatening conditions can sometimes be done without getting patients’ consent ahead of time. This is through a process called “Exception from Informed Consent Requirements for Emergency Research (EFIC).” Studies done with EFIC are designed with input from patients, families, and community members and overseen by an independent ethics committee.

​If you were to be seriously ill and receiving a breathing tube in an emergency department or intensive care unit taking part in the INSPIRE study and your doctors determined that it would be safe to perform the procedure with either a sedative alone or both a sedative and neuromuscular blocker, you could be enrolled in the INSPIRE trial. You would receive whichever approach the computer randomly assigned to you. There might not be time to ask if you would like to take part in the study beforehand. But an INSPIRE study team member would come to you (or your family) after the procedure. They would tell you about the study, ask for your consent to continue participating in the study going forward, and provide information about how to stop taking part at any time, if you so choose. 

Participating Sites

  • Vanderbilt Health

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is eligible?

Adults who are receiving treatment in an emergency room or ICU whose doctors have determined that they need a breathing tube may be eligible for this study. Patients are only eligible if their doctors and nurses think that either strategy would be safe and effective.  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 are the risks of intubation with only a sedative?

Giving only a sedative may prevent low oxygen levels by allowing patients to continue breathing on their own during the procedure, but it might make it harder for doctors to place the breathing tub

What are the risks of intubation with a sedative and a neuromuscular blocker?

Giving both a sedative and a neuromuscular blocker might make it easier for doctors to place the breathing tube, but it might lead some patients to feel awake but unable to move during or shortly after the procedure.

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

The goal of the INSPIRE trial is to produce information that helps patients, families, doctors, and nurses choose the approach that results in the best outcomes for patients receiving a breathing tube in the emergency room or ICU. Making sure that patients, families, and community members know about the study and its findings is important to achieving this goal. For that reason, patients, family members, and community members helped design the study, are helping to lead it, and will help us share the results of the study when it is completed.  The results will be shared with the patients who participated in the study and with the community. We want people to be aware of the study, have an opportunity to ask questions, and have their voices heard.

How can I provide more feedback about the study?

We are interested in the community’s feedback about the study. Below is a link to a survey that asks specific questions related to the study: https://redcap.vumc.org/surveys/?s=J9KA7333PDW3RMKW

Websites & Blogs

Posted on

Medscape Perspective Commentary  : Sedative Choice for Intubation: Etomidate vs Ketamine

Jan 2026

outlet: Medscape Perspective Commentary  

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Hi, and welcome. I’m Dr Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Today, I’ll be speaking with Dr Ken Milne, an emergency physician at Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital in Ontario, Canada, and the founder of the well-known podcast, The Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine, about the results of the Randomized Trial of Sedative Choice for Intubation (RSI), published on December 9, 2025, in The New England Journal of Medicine. RSI compared the safety and efficacy of two common induction agents, etomidate and ketamine, in various clinical settings and under different physiologic conditions.

Podcasts

Posted on

American College of Clinical Pharmacy Emergency Medicine PRN Podcast  

Jan 2026

Local Efforts

Posted on

NE Seattle Airway Experts on 1/22/26 

Jan 2026

Podcasts

Posted on

Pharmacy to Dose: RSI Trial Deep Dive

Jan 2026

Outlet: Pharmacy to Dose: The Critical Care Podcast  

Youtube: https://youtu.be/uWx3tYZ_mfs    
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pharmacy-to-dose-the-critical-care-podcast/id1479298456?i=1000746033779   
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5R9a9Es0lggximB2iC6Gw0?si=ca7eca2d4edf455f   

Local Efforts

Posted on

Critical Care Cardiology Journal Club

Jan 2026

links

Posted on

Chest Critical Care Protocol Manuscript Metrics.pdf 

Jan 2026

Outlet: Chest Critical Care 

Podcasts

Posted on

The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine : Podcast SGEM#500: Don’t You Want Me – Etomidate or Ketamine for Induction of Critically Ill Patients

Jan 2026

Outlet: The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine Podcast 

Reference:  Casey et al. RSI Investigators and the Pragmatic Critical Care Research Group. Ketamine or Etomidate for Tracheal Intubation of Critically Ill Adults. NEJM. 2025 Dec

Guest Skeptic: Dr. Scott Weingart is an ED Intensivist from New York. He did fellowships in Trauma, Surgical Critical Care, and ECMO. Scott is best known for talking to himself about Resuscitation and Critical Care on the podcast EMCrit, which has been downloaded more than 50 million times.

Websites & Blogs

Posted on

Emergency Medicine Education blog : Ketamine or Etomidate for Induction for Intubation on critically ill Patients

Jan 2026

outlet: Emergency Medicine Education blog 

There remains significant controversy regarding the optimal induction agent for rapid sequence intubation (RSI), particularly when comparing etomidate and ketamine. Concerns surrounding etomidate center on its potential to cause transient adrenal suppression, which has raised questions about possible harm in critically ill patients. However, it is unclear whether this theoretical risk translates into meaningful clinical outcomes, especially given that these patients often present with existing or impending multi-organ dysfunction. In this context, attributing adverse outcomes to a single induction dose, without robust control or randomization, may overstate its clinical impact.

Despite these ongoing debates, recent evidence has helped clarify this issue. By the end of 2025, two notable studies were published comparing etomidate and ketamine for RSI in critically ill patients.

Websites & Blogs

Posted on

St. Emlyn’s Emergency Medicine blog : Ketamine vs Etomidate for Intubating Critically Ill Adults: What Does the RSI Trial Tell Us?

Jan 2026

outlet: St. Emlyn’s Emergency Medicine blog 

For as long as I can remember, emergency and critical care clinicians have debated the optimal induction agent for tracheal intubation in the critically ill. When I started my anaesthetic placements, I used only two drugs for an RSI, Thiopentone and Suxamethonium. Anything else was considered ‘fancy’ amongst the older anaesthetists. The cool kids were using Etomidate/Sux as an alternative, and as I wanted to move with the times, that became my go-to regimen for many years. That changed when Ketamine became the standard here in Virchester, and these days it’s rare that I use anything else, to be honest. I even still occasionally use Etomidate in selected cases (mostly cardioversions), but the logic behind that is not clear (even to me).

Podcasts

Posted on

ECC Podcast : Ketamina versus Etomidato para Intubación Endotraqueal – ¿Estamos viendo el cuadro completo?

Jan 2026

Outlet: ECC Podcast