Evaluating the use of ProVent-14 score by ICU clinicians for predicting patient mortality
Official title: Prognostic Estimates Among ICU Clinicians Caring for Patients Requiring Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation
Run by Rush University Medical Center · NCT06452797 · Data updated 2026-11-12
This study tests if using the ProVent-14 score helps ICU doctors better predict the chances of survival for patients on mechanical ventilation for 14 days.
Quick facts
| Study type | Interventional |
|---|---|
| Sex | All |
| Enrollment | 238 (estimated) |
| Sponsor | Rush University Medical Center Academic / other |
| Locations | 3 sites (Chicago, Illinois and 2 other locations) |
| Status | Recruiting |
| Started | June 18, 2024 |
| Main results expected | June 15, 2027 |
| Study ends | June 15, 2027 |
| Registry record updated | September 28, 2026 |
| Trial ID | NCT06452797 on ClinicalTrials.gov |
Is this trial a fit for you?
✓Likely a good fit
Ideal candidates for this study are ICU day-shift attending physicians, fellows, advanced practice providers, or nurses caring for patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for 14-16 days.
✕Probably not a fit
Patients with neuromuscular diseases or those transitioning to comfort-focused care may not benefit from this study.
A plain-English reading of the study's rules. Only the study team can confirm whether you qualify.
What this trial studies
This study investigates how ICU clinicians utilize the ProVent-14 score, which predicts one-year mortality risk for patients on mechanical ventilation for 14 days. By comparing predictions made by clinicians who have access to the ProVent-14 score against those who do not, the study aims to assess the score's impact on decision-making accuracy. The ProVent-14 score is based on clinical variables measured on the 14th day of mechanical ventilation and has been validated for its predictive capabilities. The goal is to enhance prognostic accuracy in critical care settings.
Why it matters
Potential benefit: If successful, this study could improve the accuracy of mortality predictions for patients on prolonged mechanical ventilation, leading to better-informed clinical decisions.
How similar studies have gone: While the ProVent-14 score has been validated, this specific approach to evaluating its use by clinicians is novel and has not been extensively tested in prior studies.
Who can join: the full rules
Show full inclusion / exclusion criteria
Inclusion Criteria: * ICU day-shift attending physician, fellow physician, advanced practice provider, or nurse * Caring directly for a patient who requires invasive mechanical ventilation, 14-16 days after initial intubation, not actively transitioning to comfort-focused care and not with a neuromuscular disease (i.e. ALS) as a cause of respiratory failure. Exclusion Criteria: * None
Where it's running
-
Rush University Medical Center
Chicago, Illinois, United States Recruiting -
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States Recruiting -
Rush Oak Park Hospital
Oak Park, Illinois, United States Active not recruiting
Study contacts
- Study coordinator: Jared Greenberg, MD
- Email: jared_greenberg@rush.edu
- Phone: 312-942-6744
Similar studies
Other studies for the same condition or treatment. Recruiting studies are listed first.
-
Pulse Wave vs Saline Bolus EIT to measure lung perfusion in ARDS
This study tests whether pulse wave EIT or saline bolus EIT can best show lung blood flow in ARDS patients on mechanical ventilation.
-
Computed inspiratory muscle pressure to monitor inspiratory effort during pressure-targeted assist/control ventilation
This study tests a noninvasive computed pressure method (cPmus) to see if it matches the traditional esophageal pressure method for measuring inspiratory effort in adults on pressure-targeted ventilation with spontaneous breathing.
-
Noninvasive estimate of inspiratory effort to monitor pressure support ventilation
This study tests whether a noninvasive computed inspiratory muscle pressure (cPmus) can match the traditional esophageal pressure method for adults on pressure support ventilation.
-
Driving pressure-guided individualized PEEP vs standard PEEP during upper abdominal surgery
In this randomized trial, adults at higher risk of breathing problems after upper abdominal surgery will try a personalized PEEP level based on the lowest driving pressure and compare it to a fixed PEEP of 5 cmH2O to see if it lowers postoperative lung complications.
-
Inspiratory Effort and Dyspnea During Assisted Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Adults
This study tests how different patient breathing efforts relate to breathlessness in adults on assisted mechanical ventilation.
-
FCV vs VC—Obese Adults Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgery
In obese adults having laparoscopic surgery, researchers will see if flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) works better than volume-controlled ventilation with autoflow (VC-AF) at keeping airway pressures and lung energy lower.
How to take part
- Review the eligibility criteria above with your treating physician.
- Check the official listing on ClinicalTrials.gov for the latest contact details and recruitment status.
- Contact the study coordinator or principal investigator to ask for pre-screening. Pre-screening is free and never obligates you to enroll.