View clinical trials related to Shock.
Filter by:A Clinical Events Committee (CEC) will include Cardiac Surgery Professor and chief of cardiac surgery Rose Kelly MD, Professor of Medicine Ganesh Raveendran MD at the University of Minnesota who is the direction of Interventional Cardiology and Professor of Medicine at the University of Minnesota David Benditt. They will review and adjudicate serious and unexpected adverse events independently from the PI and co investigators.
In the case of cardiogenic shock, the early mortality rate is the highest compared to other types of shock, but it is characterized by a good prognosis and quality of life after recovery, so monitoring the treatment progress is very important to identify the patient's prognosis. However, there are few studies specifically reported on hemodynamic monitoring and prognosis of cardiogenic shock. In addition, as mechanical circulatory support devices are in the spotlight, studies on their effects and safety are starting, but studies on cardiogenic shock are often limited to patients with myocardial infarction. This study is a prospective and retrospective cohort observational study, we aim to identify factors that can improve prognosis, including various drug treatments, diagnostic techniques, and mechanical circulatory support device by investigating the treatment status and clinical outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock hospitalized in cardiovascular critical care unit. In addition, the purpose of this study is to investigate the association between the prognosis of patients with cardiogenic shock and the presence of a specialist resident during regular work hours to clarify the role and necessity of a resident specialist in the cardiovascular intensive care unit. Furthermore, by predicting and treating the clinical course of patients with cardiogenic shock at an early stage, the aim is to reduce the mortality rate and improve the patients' ability to perform daily activities.
In Atlantic Canada, acute myocardial infarction occurs at a rate of 2.9 % of the population and is the most common cause of cardiogenic shock (CS). In many studies, acute myocardial infarction accounts for up to 80% of the patients with CS. While there are different methods of treating patients with CS, the rate of mortality has not significantly improved over the years and remains as high as 50%. Recent studies have shown that a multi-modal, team-based approach can help improve patient outcomes; however, such a standardized approach is yet to be implemented in the New Brunswick Heart Centre (NBHC). The study aims to understand the difference in outcomes between two groups of patients treated for CS: SHOCK TEAM versus non-SHOCK TEAM. This is a retrospective study of 168 patients using the data from NBHC registry and patient charts. The study duration is 1 year. The primary outcome is hospital survival. Secondary outcomes include time from diagnosis to invasive monitoring and intervention. All data will be analyzed statistically between the two groups. The end goal of the study is to establish standard guidelines to treat CS patients and improve patient survival.
Investigators will conduct a pragmatic randomized trial to investigate the non-inferiority of restricted use of invasive arterial lines compared to standard arterial line use.
To investigate the correlation between self-assessment by patients and an assessment by a health professional of the skills needed for self administration of adrenaline by auto-injectors. These skills include the identification of situations requiring the administration of adrenaline and the technical abilities to achieve it. Hypothesis: A self-assessment correlated with an external assessment would make it easier to adjust the frequency of therapeutic education sessions based on the patient's self-assessment alone.
Sepsis is a systemic inflammatory response that has deleterious effects and considered the leading cause of death in critically ill patients 1 . One of the hallmarks of severe sepsis is the progressive, injurious inflammatory response to infection, mediated by the excessive release of inflammatory mediators and consequently, associated with multiple organs damage 2 . Various studies have demonstrated that adverse outcomes in sepsis patients are closely related to the development of myocardial dysfunction 3 . The mortality of sepsis combined with cardiac functional insufficiency has increased significantly to 70%-90% 4 . Therefore, targeting cardiac insufficiency and heart injury may represent a novel treatment strategy. Several reports documented critical involvement of serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine in the pathogenesis of sepsis. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the efficacy of ondansetron adjuvant use in patients with sepsis and septic shock.
Sepsis is a major healthcare problem and leading cause of death in the pediatric population. Despite advances in supportive care of critically ill patients, sepsis remains an important cause of death worldwide in children. Overall, sepsis incidence peaked in early childhood. There were an estimated 20.3 million incident sepsis cases worldwide among children younger than 5 years. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC), which standardized the evidence-base approach to management of septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction in children, was recently updated. Nevertheless, mortality and costs are still high. Sepsis is characterized by a complex systemic inflammatory response to a microbial pathogen. A dysregulated host response to infection may result in life-threatening multi-organ dysfunction. Endotoxin, which is found in the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria, plays an important role in the pathogenesis of septic shock by producing proinflammatory cytokines. High levels of endotoxin and proinflammatory cytokines are associated with a high mortality rate. Treatment strategies in sepsis and septic shock include early and adequate fluid resuscitation, vasopressors and inotropic support when indicated, early use of broad-spectrum antibiotics with source control, with close monitoring and organ support, if indicated. Other therapies such as immune-modulation and blood purification have been tried to improve outcomes in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Immunomodulation and blood purification techniques aim at restoring the balance of the immune response to infection, by removing the triggers for the response and the cytokines produced and thereby achieve immune homeostasis. Removing endotoxin and inflammatory cytokines would be an effective adjunctive approach in the management of severe sepsis. Direct hemoadsorption (HA) is an extracorporeal technique utilized for blood purification. It involves the passage of blood through an adsorption cartridge, where solutes are removed by direct binding to the sorbent material. Over the years, new adsorption cartridge, with improved characteristics have been developed. Resin-directed hemoadsorption is associated with improved oxygenation, hemodynamic status and cardiac function. However, most studies include only adults, and little information is available regarding the clinical experience and efficacy of blood purification for pediatric septic shock. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the overall clinical outcomes among children who received direct hemoadsorption as an adjunctive treatment for refractory septic shock with high severity scores, compared with outcomes among children admitted to the PICU who received standard treatment.
A sigle-center, randomized controlled trial will be do to investigate the effects of esomol on heart rate, clinical parameters, mortality, and safety in septic shock patients with tachycardia at different stages, compared with patients who received conventional therapy.
Retrospective observational study to develop a Machine Learning Algorithm to evaluate parameters collected from routine data for the diagnosis of sepsis and septic shock and their influence on time to diagnosis and patient outcome.
The ULYSS study is a randomized, multicenter, interventional and prospective open-label clinical trial. It aims to evaluate the efficacy of the addition of an early IMPELLA CP support on top of optimal medical therapy and culprit lesion PCI compared to optimal medical care and culprit PCI in patients with an ACS complicated by a CS. A transthoracic echography is required to exclude some non-inclusion criteria as soon as possible and before randomization. Randomization will be performed after an informed consent is signed by the patient, a family member if he is unable to consent or thanks to the emergent consent procedure if all inclusion criteria are met and there are no non-inclusion criteria. A computer-generated randomization list will be drawn-up using a permuted block design (stratified on center). Each center will have a specific list. Randomization 1:1 to one of the 2 groups In all patients, emergent PCI of the culprit lesion will be performed. - Control group: patients will receive IV inotropes associated or not with vasopressors according to the attached protocol and based on the current guidelines (annex 1) (2, 4) in addition to emergent culprit lesion PCI - Experimental group: patients will receive IMPELLA CP before PCI on top of conventional therapy based on the same protocol as the control group and emergent culprit PCI