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.
Age range
18 Years
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
Impact of a liberal intubation strategy compared to a restrictive strategy in regards to organ support duration, taking mortality into account
Timeframe: Day 28
Mathilde TAILLANTOU-CANDAU, Doctor