View clinical trials related to Shock, Septic.
Filter by:Antibiotic dosing in septic shock patients poses a challenge for clinicians due to the pharmacokinetic changes seen in this population. Piperacillin/tazobactam is often used for empirical treatment, and initial appropriate dosing is crucial for reducing mortality. We determined the pharmacokinetic profile of piperacillin 4g every 8 hour in 15 patients treated empirically for septic shock. A PK population model was established with the dual purpose to assess current standard treatment and to simulate alternative dosing regimens and modes of administration. Time above the minimal inhibitory concentration (T>MIC) predicted for each patient were evaluated against clinical breakpoint MIC for Pseudomonas aeruginosa (16 mg/L). Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) targets evaluated were 100% f T>MIC and 50% fT>4xMIC.
The aim of the study is to investigate the effect of CytoSorb® treatment within the first 48 hours of septic shock on organ dysfunction, microcirculation and on the cytokine storm as monitored by leukocyte activation and inflammatory mediators.
Dexmedetomidine was found might be beneficial to sepsis. Dexmedetomidine were found to improve microcirculation in sepsis animal studies and non-sepsis patients. However, the effect of dexmedetomidine on microcirculation in septic shock patients is unknown.
The purpose of this study is to find out whether stress doses of hydrocortisone attenuate coagulation dysfunction in patients with septic shock. And discuss the probable mechanism by which little doses of hydrocortisone influence coagulation system in sepsis.
The purpose of this study is to compare hyperglycemia and other effects, include 28-day mortality and time to reversal of shock between 100 milligrams and 200 milligrams of hydrocortisone as initial dosage in patients with septic shock.
The trial enrolls patients with early severe sepsis or septic shock displaying at least one newly developed organ dysfunction and showing clinical evidence of pulmonary or abdominal infection. The primary goal of the trial is to assess the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the new monoclonal antibody CaCP29 and to characterize safety and tolerability as well as evaluate parameters of efficacy.
Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes produce many virulence factors. Some of them are responsible for severe infections in humans. Superantigen toxins synthesized by S. aureus or by S. pyogenes, are responsible for toxic shock syndromes (TSS) which lethality can attain 25% in children with validated criteria of septic shock. Previous studies, performed in vitro and in vivo in animals, have shown that Intravenous immunoglobulins [IVIG] contain antibodies [Ab] against these toxins and, when used at high concentration, IVIG are able to neutralize their toxicity. However, in all these studies, IVIG administration has been preventive and there is no reliable data demonstrating their therapeutic efficacy in vitro or in vivo in humans or in animals, once the disease is present. The efficacy of IVIG is established in other pathologies for which the role of the superantigens [superAg] is suspected, like Kawasaki disease in children. The mechanism of action, although not perfectly known, involves at the same time a direct effect on superAg (Ag-Ab complex) and indirect effects like the neutralisation of superAg within the network of anti-idiotype Ab or the neutralisation of the T-cells receptors. Staphylococcal and streptococcal toxic shocks imply bacterial exotoxins that are superAg. It seems thus consistent to imagine a same type of treatment with IVIG. However, there is currently no evidence of the efficacy of IVIG in this indication. One of the explanations relies on the lack of statistical power of previous adult studies, which principal objective was to show a reduction of the mortality. Taking into account the low prevalence of TSS, it has been hard to recruit enough patients to have the required statistical power. Moreover, some works have been extracted from larger studies on septic shock and the definitions of the TSS were nor always very reliable. Lastly, if the investigators consider the definition of the TSS as mentioned by the " Centre for Disease Control " [CDC], for which any hypotension, even a simple orthostatic hypotension, serves the diagnosis of TSS as long as the other symptoms are present, it is obvious that many patients are likely to be recruited in a study although it is highly probable that their health will get better with a " standard " treatment. The definition of a " real " TSS can be refined, keeping the CDC criteria, but changing the hypotension criterion in a more accurate criterion as described in the " surviving sepsis campaign ", internationally accepted and based on norms adapted to the age for paediatric forms. IVIG therapy is very expensive and TSS is not recognized as indication of IVIG according to their marketing authorization. The feasibility of a randomized controlled study with this treatment needs to be assessed as it would be hazardous to conduct a large prospective RCT without having first assessed this feasibility in terms of recruitment rates, consent rates or compliance rates. Inclusion, randomisation and collect of inform consent in the context of severe shock are challenging and require evaluation of feasibility. The sample size calculation of the large study on mortality required estimations of the event in the specific population of children with criteria of septic shock. Surrogates markers of outcome need to be better defined. For example it would be useful to determine the evolution of organ dysfunctions with and without IVIG treatment in this population. Various organ failure scores, used upon admission and later on, have been validated in adults and in children. The absence of improvement of the Paediatric logistic organ dysfunction (Pelod) score over time is a good indicator of mortality in Paediatric intensive care unit (PICU). It could be used as surrogate marker to evaluate the efficacy of IVIG.
This is a prospective, noncomparative study to assess the pharmacodynamics of meropenem during early phase of severe sepsis and septic shock in critically ill patients in an intensive care unit. Clinical and laboratory data such as age,sex, body weight, electrolyte, vital signs, APACHE II score, SOFA score, BUN, Cr and blood culture will be collected. Twelve patients will be enrolled in this study. Meropenem pharmacokinetic will be carried out during the first and second dose after 1g meropenem administration. Blood samples (approximately 3 ml) will be obtained by direct venepuncture at the following time: 0, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 8, 8.5, 9, 9.5, 10, 12, 14 and 16 h. Meropenem assays will be performed by modified method of Ozkan et al. (Biomed. Chromatogr., 2001). The pharmacokinetics of meropenem will be modelled from concentration-time profile using compartmental model. Monte Carlo simulation to assess PK/PD index as 40% and 100% T>MIC will be conducted and the results will be reported as % PTA (Probability Target Attainment) and %CFR (Cumulative Faction Response)
Objective Evaluating the safety and efficacy of iloprost and eptifibatide co-administration compared to placebo as an addition to standard care in septic shock patients. Trial rationale Iloprost and eptifibatide combination therapy in septic shock patients is expected to deactivate the endothelium and restore vascular integrity, reduce formation of microvascular thrombosis and dissolve existing clots in the microcirculation and maintain platelet counts, thereby improving platelet-mediated immune function and reducing the risk of bleeding. Together this is expected to translate into reduced organ failure and improved outcome in patients with septic shock. Trial population The trial population is patients >18 years admitted to the ICU with septic shock within the last 24h. Eighteen evaluable septic shock patients will be included. Trial design This is a single center, randomized (2:1, active:placebo), placebo controlled, double-blind investigator-initiated phase IIa trial in patients with septic shock, investigating the safety and efficacy of co-administration of Iloprost and Eptifibatide as a 48h continuous i.v infusion in totally 18 patients. All patients will receive standard ICU care including LMWH thrombosis prophylaxis. As all patients present at the trial site in an acute, critical condition, scientific guardians will co-sign the informed consent form before inclusion. Next-of-kin and the patients' general practitioner will co-sign as soon as possible and the patient will provide informed consent whenever possible. The active treatment is expected to improve the clinical condition of the individual patient and to provide information that may translate into improved therapy of future sepsis patients. During the study, blood samples will be taken at different time points. Patients will be observed and assessed continuously with regards to complications including bleeding. Patients will be actively assessed as long as the patient is in the ICU. During the extended follow up period at day 30 and 90, contact will be made with the patients to follow up on safety events and vital status. The trial is conducted in accordance with the protocol and the current regulatory requirements and legislation in Denmark. Investigational product The active treatment in the trial comprises co-administration of 1 ng/kg/min Ilomedin® and 0.5 µg/kg/min Integrilin® as 48h continuous i.v infusions. The drugs will be purchased and administered according to the product specifications. Placebo The placebo in the trial is 0.9% saline as 48h continuous i.v infusion, which will be used as placebo for both study drugs. The i.v volume of placebo saline to be administered is equal to the administered volume of diluted (in 0.9% saline) active drug. Data protection In compliance with the Danish data protection law, the trial will be approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency. Sponsor of study and financial support This research project is investigator-initiated by the trial sponsor and co-investigator Sisse R. Ostrowski and co-investigator Pär I. Johansson in collaboration with the principal investigator Morten Bestle. It has not received funding from any commercial sponsors. Time line Patient recruitment period runs from September 2014 to August 2015. Follow-up data on 30-day and 90-day outcome and adverse events will be collected. Initial data analyses will be done after completion of 30-day follow-up for all patients. Secondary data analyses will be done after completion of 90-day follow-up for all patients.
Clinical study suggests that beta-blockers by decreasing heart rate together with an increase in stroke volume do not negatively affect cardiac output allowing an economization of cardiac work and oxygen consumption in patients with septic shock. Whether this hemodynamic profile leads to an amelioration of myocardial performance is still unclear. The objective of the present study is therefore to elucidate whether a reduction in heart rate with esmolol is associated to an improvement of cardiac efficiency in patients with septic shock who remained tachycardic after hemodynamic optimization.