View clinical trials related to Shock.
Filter by:To assess the performance of the CytoSorb® 300 mL device for shock reversal in patients with vasoplegic septic shock.
The assessment of left ventricular systolic function is based on the measurement of left ventricular ejection function (LVEF) by the Simpson biplane method. More recently, left ventricular global longitudinal strain (GLS) has been developed to detect abnormalities of cardiac contractility in patients with preserved myocardial contractility. However, both tools are not always easy to collect in practice. This is why other ultrasound parameters have been proposed in the literature as a substitute for LVEF and GLS such as the Doppler tissue imaging (DTI)-derived mitral annular systolic peak S-wave velocity (S'), the mitral annular plane systolic excursion (MAPSE) and the longitudinal wall fractional shortening index (LWFS). The purpose of this project is to propose an algorithm using simple parameters (S' wave, lateral MAPSE, septal MAPSE, mean MAPSE and LWFS) to predict LVEF and GLS in order to diagnose patients with impaired systolic function and preserved ejection.
In recent years, many studies have pointed out that bacterial toxin storm and cytokine storm are the main causes of patients with septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction. Endotoxins are the main mediators of gram-negative bacteria causing systemic inflammation and sepsis. Endotoxins can interact with Toll- Like receptor 4 (TLR4) binding and trigger cytokine storms. The triple-effect blood purification filter has been proven to remove endotoxins, cytokines and urinary toxins, and it has the opportunity to improve shock in patients with sepsis. We hypothesize that blood purification using the three-effect filter can shorten the duration and severity of shock in patients with severe septic shock and reduce the organ damage by removing endotoxin, cytokine and urinary toxins. The primary aim of this study is to investigate the effect of blood purification using the three-effect filter on shortening the duration of septic shock. Other exploratory variables include the reduction of severity of organ damage and other clinical outcomes and prognosis.
Haemodynamic optimisation is a fundamental step and a daily issue in the management of intensive care patients with acute circulatory failure. Failure to optimise haemodynamics is recognised as a factor associated with morbidity and mortality. Although the first line of treatment is often vascular filling, many studies have found that excessive vascular filling alone is deleterious and leads to increased morbidity and mortality due to pulmonary and interstitial oedema. The use of catecholamines avoids this undue vascular filling. At present, the therapeutic strategy in acute circulatory failure is to perform a personalised "titrated" vascular filling after assessing the need for it. To do this, predictive criteria for the need to continue vascular filling in order to optimise cardiac output and tissue perfusion pressure, particularly by ultrasound, have been developed, notably by transesophageal approach. It also appeared to us that offering an alternative to the transesophageal approach would reduce invasiveness on the one hand, but would also offer an alternative when the transesophageal approach is contraindicated.
To date, the end-expiratory occlusion test in infants or children has never been evaluated as a marker of preload dependence. It therefore appears clinically relevant to evaluate this new indicator to predict fluid responsiveness in all infants hospitalized in pediatric and neonatal intensive care. The main objective of this study is to determine whether the hemodynamic effects of a 15-second end-expiratory occlusion were able to predict fluid responsiveness in the mechanically ventilated infant or newborn in pediatric intensive care.
Background: Recent studies have questioned the safety of current fluid resuscitation strategies in patients with septic shock as prospective and observational data suggesting that the resulting fluid overload is associated with mortality. Two strategies have evolved to prevent or minimize fluid overload: restrictive fluid administration or active removal of accumulated fluid. While several small trials show benefits with a restrictive fluid administration regimen, active protocolized de-resuscitation was scarcely evaluated. The combination of both strategies yet warrants systematic evaluation. Aim: This study aims to assess the efficacy and feasibility of an early active de-resuscitation protocol in patients with septic shock. We hypothesize that the application of a structured early de-resuscitation protocol versus standard of care will lead to less fluid overload at day three after ICU admission. Study Intervention: Patients admitted to the ICU with confirmed or suspected septic shock (Sepsis-3 definition) will be randomized (1:1) to either the intervention or standard of care. In the intervention arm, patients are managed according to the REDUCE fluid management protocol during resuscitation and de-resuscitation.
This clinical study adopts the design of cohort research, selects the sepsis shock patients admitted to our hospital ICU as the research object, takes the 28-day mortality rate as the outcome index, collects the baseline data of the patient, the severity of the disease, vital signs, the main infection site, the laboratory-related index, the treatment method and other data, screens out the risk factors affecting the sepsis shock 28-day mortality rate and constructs the prediction model accordingly, analyzes the prediction model with the subject's working characteristic curve (ROC). The recognition ability of the model is calculated by the area under the ROC curve (AUC) and the ability of the model to predict 28-day mortality with SOFA and APACHE II.
This is a single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study. A total of 40 patients who develop distributive shock, intra-operatively or post-operatively within 48 hours of heart transplant or left ventricular assist device placement will be enrolled. Participants will be randomized to Angiotensin II (Giapreza) vs. placebo plus standard of care, as a first line agent for vasoplegia. Two groups of patients will be enrolled: - Group A: Heart Transplant (10 control, 10 treatment) - Group B: LVAD implant (10 control, 10 treatment)
The purpose of this study is to assess the effect of norepinephrine and fluid expansion on capillary refill time during septic shock.
New-onset supraventricular arrhythmia (NOSVA) is reported in 40 % of patients with septic shock and is associated with hemodynamic alterations and mortality. The lack of consensus regarding best practices for the management of NOSVA in this setting has led to major variations in practice patterns. Observational studies reported three usual strategies: (i) heart rate control (hereafter rate control) with the use of antiarrhythmic drugs, essentially based on low dose of amiodarone, (ii) rhythm control with the use of antiarrhythmic drugs, essentially based on high dose of amiodarone, and electrical cardioversionand (iii) modifiable NOSVA risk factors control (hereafter risk control) without using antiarrhythmic drugs. Risk control would minimize adverse events of antiarrhythmic drugs. Rhythm control would rapidly improve haemodynamics via restoring diastole and decreasing cardiac metabolic demand, while minimizing exposure to anticoagulation. Rate control, would limit potential adverse events of high dose of amiodarone and of electrical cardioversion (only in patients intubated on mechanical ventilation), while controlling haemodynamics. Therefore, it seems important to compare these three strategies. Our hypothesis is dual: first, that rate control and rhythm control each improve hemodynamics with in fine a decreased mortality, as compared to a risk control; second, that rhythm control outperforms rate control in this setting. This is a multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, randomized controlled superiority trial to compare the effectiveness and safety of these three strategies (risk control, rate control and rhythm control) for NOSVA during septic shock.