Clinical trial

Using Electrical Impedance Tomography to Investigate the Relationship Between Airflow Rate During High-flow Oxygen Therapy and Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure Compared to Non-invasive Ventilation

NCT06107907

StatusRECRUITING

Study typeINTERVENTIONAL

Start date2023-11-15

PhaseNA

Study timeline

Study start (actual)2023-11-15Date precision: day

Registry last updated2024-10-18

Observed by CureCurrent2026-10-07

Recorded dates are source observations, not predictions. Missing milestones are not estimated.

What this registered study describes

Using Electrical Impedance Tomography to Investigate the Relationship Between Airflow Rate During High-flow Oxygen Therapy and Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure Compared to Non-invasive Ventilation is a interventional study listed under registry identifier NCT06107907. Its last published status is RECRUITING. Registry status does not establish that enrollment is currently open at every study site.

The published record lists 1 condition label(s), 1 intervention label(s), and 1 sponsor/collaborator entry or entries. The structured information below allows these links to be examined individually; intervention registration is not an efficacy claim.

Source: the original ClinicalTrials.gov study record. Always check the protocol, eligibility, dates, results (when posted), and contacts at the original source.

Conditions

to Assess the Corresponding PEEP Values in NIV With CPAP Under Different Airflow Rates During HFOT in Heart Failure Patientsunresolved

Interventions

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or high-flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) using electrical impedance tomography (EIT)DEVICE

Sponsors & collaborators

National Taiwan University Hospitallead sponsor

Mapped research locations

TaipeiTaiwan1

Registry source

Open the source record to verify current eligibility, contacts, locations and registry updates.

Open NCT06107907 on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

How to interpret this record

CureCurrent links normalized diseases, medicines, registry study labels, sponsors and research sites. A link is not the same as a finding of clinical effectiveness. Our research guides explain how to compare studies, decode RxNorm identities, and avoid over-interpreting site and trial counts. See the published database coverage for mapping completeness.

Registry-derived research relationships: ClinicalTrials.gov. Raw condition and intervention labels remain distinct from canonical MONDO/RxNorm entities unless separately normalized.