Trial reportFrontiers in medicine2026
Closed-loop synchronization versus conventional synchronization in spontaneously breathing pediatric patients (CHESTSIPP) - a randomized controlled cross-over study.
Trial report in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05731024 (Protocol for Comparing Closed-loop syncHronization vErsuS convenTional Synchronization In sPontaneously Breathing Pediatric Patients), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Protocol for Comparing Closed-loop syncHronization vErsuS convenTional Synchronization In sPontaneously Breathing Pediatric Patients (CHESTSIPP) - a Randomized Cross-over Study
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA) is common during invasive mechanical ventilation in children and may increase respiratory workload and discomfort. The IntelliSync+ (IS+) algorithm provides closed-loop synchronization by continuously analyzing airway pressure and flow waveforms to optimize inspiratory and expiratory cycling in real time. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of IS+ compared with conventional physician-tailored synchronization in spontaneously breathing pediatric patients. Methods: Multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled, single-blind crossover trial conducted in four pediatric intensive care units between March 2024 and May 2025. Patients aged 1 month to 18 years undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation were randomized to begin with either IS+ or conventional synchronization. Each mode was applied for 90 min (30-min run-in and 60-min measurement), separated by a 30-min washout period. The primary outcome was the Asynchrony Index (AI). Secondary outcomes included major and minor asynchrony indices, Comfort-B scores, end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO Findings: Twenty-five patients completed both study phases. Compared with conventional synchronization, IS+ significantly reduced the overall AI (median 5.1% [IQR 4.2-6.4] vs. 12.4% [IQR 9.9-15.6]; Conclusion: Closed-loop synchronization with IS+ significantly improved patient-ventilator interaction without compromising comfort, oxygenation, or safety. These results support closed-loop synchronization as a feasible and physiologically sound strategy for improving ventilatory support quality in pediatric invasive mechanical ventilation. Clinical trial registration: [ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [NCT05731024].
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.