Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Feb 13;23(1):136.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06065-7.

ICONIC study-conservative versus conventional oxygenation targets in intensive care patients: study protocol for a randomized clinical trial

Collaborators, Affiliations

ICONIC study-conservative versus conventional oxygenation targets in intensive care patients: study protocol for a randomized clinical trial

C C A Grim et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Background: Oxygen therapy is a widely used intervention in acutely ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). It is established that not only hypoxia, but also prolonged hyperoxia is associated with poor patient-centered outcomes. Nevertheless, a fundamental knowledge gap remains regarding optimal oxygenation for critically ill patients. In this randomized clinical trial, we aim to compare ventilation that uses conservative oxygenation targets with ventilation that uses conventional oxygen targets with respect to mortality in ICU patients.

Methods: The "ConservatIve versus CONventional oxygenation targets in Intensive Care patients" trial (ICONIC) is an investigator-initiated, international, multicenter, randomized clinical two-arm trial in ventilated adult ICU patients. The ICONIC trial will run in multiple ICUs in The Netherlands and Italy to enroll 1512 ventilated patients. ICU patients with an expected mechanical ventilation time of more than 24 h are randomized to a ventilation strategy that uses conservative (PaO2 55-80 mmHg (7.3-10.7 kPa)) or conventional (PaO2 110-150 mmHg (14.7-20 kPa)) oxygenation targets. The primary endpoint is 28-day mortality. Secondary endpoints are ventilator-free days at day 28, ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, 90-day mortality, ICU- and hospital length of stay, ischemic events, quality of life, and patient opinion of research and consent in the emergency setting.

Discussion: The ICONIC trial is expected to provide evidence on the effects of conservative versus conventional oxygenation targets in the ICU population. This study may guide targeted oxygen therapy in the future.

Trial registration: Trialregister.nl NTR7376 . Registered on 20 July, 2018.

Keywords: Clinical trial; Intensive care; Mechanical ventilation; Oxygen; Oxygen inhalation therapy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart high FiO2 and/or high PEEP
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Schedule of enrollment, intervention, and assessments

References

    1. Altemeier WA, Sinclair SE. Hyperoxia in the intensive care unit: why more is not always better. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2007;13(1):73–78. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e32801162cb. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sinclair SE, Altemeier WA, Matute-Bello G, Chi EY. Augmented lung injury due to interaction between hyperoxia and mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(12):2496–2501. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000148231.04642.8D. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Helmerhorst HJ, Schultz MJ, van der Voort PH, de Jonge E, van Westerloo DJ. Bench-to-bedside review: the effects of hyperoxia during critical illness. Crit Care. 2015;19:284. doi: 10.1186/s13054-015-0996-4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Helmerhorst HJ, Schultz MJ, van der Voort PH, Bosman RJ, Juffermans NP, de Jonge E, et al. Self-reported attitudes versus actual practice of oxygen therapy by ICU physicians and nurses. Ann Intensive Care. 2014;4:23. doi: 10.1186/s13613-014-0023-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Helmerhorst HJ, Roos-Blom MJ, van Westerloo DJ, de Jonge E. Association between arterial hyperoxia and outcome in subsets of critical illness: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of cohort studies. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(7):1508–1519. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000998. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types