- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT06043505
Impact of an Echographic Algorithm on Hemodynamic Optimization in the First 4 Days of Septic Shock Management (STOPFLUID)
Impact of an Echographic Algorithm on Hemodynamic Optimization in the First 4 Days of Septic Shock Management: a Multicentric, Randomized, Controlled, Open Label Pilot-study
Study Overview
Status
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Study Type
Enrollment (Estimated)
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Contact
- Name: Claire Roger, MD
- Phone Number: 04.66.68.30.50
- Email: Claire.roger@chu-nimes.fr
Study Locations
-
-
-
Nîmes, France, 30029
- Recruiting
- CHU de Nîmes
-
Contact:
- Anissa Megzari
- Email: drc@chu-nimes.fr
-
Principal Investigator:
- Claire Pr ROGER, MD, PhD
-
Sub-Investigator:
- Laurent Pr MULLER, MD, PhD
-
Sub-Investigator:
- Dorian Dr DIDIER LECENE, MD
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
- Adult
- Older Adult
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
All eligible patients will have a cardiac echocardiogram prior to inclusion for the sole purpose of eliminating special situations that are part of the non-inclusion criteria listed below.
Inclusion Criteria
- Patient in an intensive care unit who develops septic shock on admission or during hospitalization, as defined by SEPSIS-3 criteria.
- Patient or trusted person / legal representative / family member / curator / guardian who has given free and informed consent and has signed the consent form or patient included in an emergency situation.
- Patient affiliated or beneficiary of a health insurance plan.
- Patient at least (≥) 18 years of age.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Refusal of consent.
- Patient under court protection or guardianship.
- Moribund patient with a life expectancy of less than 48 hours.
- Non-echogenic patient.
- Cardiac tamponade.
- Infective endocarditis.
- Intracavitary thrombus.
- Dilated cardiomyopathy with LVEF (Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction<40%.
- Parturient or nursing patient.
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Other
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Interventional Strategy: STOPFLUID Algorithm
Fluid management is optimised using the specific echographic hemodynamic algorithm ('STOPFLUID') of this study described during the first 4 days of septic shock.
Fluid bolus will not be administered in case of increased left ventricle filling pressures; fluid challenge will be performed based on dynamic indices and fluid depletion will be considered on the basis of Lung UltraSound (LUS) assessment.
|
Ultrasound Hemodynamic Algorithm (UHA):
|
|
No Intervention: Standard Strategy
Fluid management will be handled according to standard care, without using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) during the first 4 days of septic shock management.
Haemodynamic monitoring including pulmonary artery catheter, transpulmonary thermodilution, or any other device will be left at the physician's discretion.
TTE will be allowed in the standard group only for excluding cardiac tamponade in case of clinical suspicion (one or more of the following signs: jugular distension, pulsus paradoxus)
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Volume of vascular filling during the first 4 days
Time Frame: Day 4
|
This takes into account the cumulative volume of vascular filling administered to improve cardiac output during the 4 first days, measured in Liter (L)
|
Day 4
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
.Analysis of the primary endpoint related to ARDS ([acute respiratory distress syndrome, according to Berlin criteria)
Time Frame: Day 4
|
Analysis of the primary endpoint in relation with presence or absence of ARDS at inclusion
|
Day 4
|
|
Analysis of the primary endpoint related to severe renal dysfunction
Time Frame: Day 4
|
Analysis of the primary endpoint in relation with severe renal dysfunction defined as a KDIGO (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes) score ≥3 vs <3.
|
Day 4
|
|
Analysis of the primary endpoint in relation with patient severity
Time Frame: Day 4
|
Analysis of the primary endpoint in relation withpatient severity according to SAPS 2 (Simplified Acute Physiology Score) score: <15, 15-30, >30
|
Day 4
|
|
Mortality
Time Frame: Day 28
|
Patient deceased: yes or no
|
Day 28
|
|
Number of days alive without failure at Day 28
Time Frame: Day 28
|
Number of days without failure
|
Day 28
|
|
Time to normalization of lactatemia (<2 mmol/l)
Time Frame: Day 4
|
Represents time from randomization to first lactatemia <2 mmol/l in hours
|
Day 4
|
|
Fluid balance in L
Time Frame: Day 4
|
The fluid balance will be deduced from the daily weight changes in kilograms, the density of water being equal to 1
|
Day 4
|
|
Therapeutic adjustments including bolus vascular filling, changes in vasopressor flow, and administration of diuretics
Time Frame: Day 4
|
Number of therapeutic adjustments
|
Day 4
|
|
Length of stay in ICU (ready for discharge)
Time Frame: Day 28
|
Length of stay in ICU from randomization to discharge in days
|
Day 28
|
|
Length of stay in hospital
Time Frame: Day 28
|
Number
|
Day 28
|
|
Adverse effects
Time Frame: Day 28
|
Number and type of adverse events
|
Day 28
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Claire Roger, CHU Nîmes
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Nagueh SF, Smiseth OA, Appleton CP, Byrd BF 3rd, Dokainish H, Edvardsen T, Flachskampf FA, Gillebert TC, Klein AL, Lancellotti P, Marino P, Oh JK, Popescu BA, Waggoner AD. Recommendations for the Evaluation of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function by Echocardiography: An Update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2016 Apr;29(4):277-314. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2016.01.011. No abstract available.
- Perner A, Haase N, Guttormsen AB, Tenhunen J, Klemenzson G, Aneman A, Madsen KR, Moller MH, Elkjaer JM, Poulsen LM, Bendtsen A, Winding R, Steensen M, Berezowicz P, Soe-Jensen P, Bestle M, Strand K, Wiis J, White JO, Thornberg KJ, Quist L, Nielsen J, Andersen LH, Holst LB, Thormar K, Kjaeldgaard AL, Fabritius ML, Mondrup F, Pott FC, Moller TP, Winkel P, Wetterslev J; 6S Trial Group; Scandinavian Critical Care Trials Group. Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer's acetate in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2012 Jul 12;367(2):124-34. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1204242. Epub 2012 Jun 27. Erratum In: N Engl J Med. 2012 Aug 2;367(5):481.
- Muller L, Toumi M, Bousquet PJ, Riu-Poulenc B, Louart G, Candela D, Zoric L, Suehs C, de La Coussaye JE, Molinari N, Lefrant JY; AzuRea Group. An increase in aortic blood flow after an infusion of 100 ml colloid over 1 minute can predict fluid responsiveness: the mini-fluid challenge study. Anesthesiology. 2011 Sep;115(3):541-7. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318229a500.
- Volpicelli G, Mussa A, Garofalo G, Cardinale L, Casoli G, Perotto F, Fava C, Frascisco M. Bedside lung ultrasound in the assessment of alveolar-interstitial syndrome. Am J Emerg Med. 2006 Oct;24(6):689-96. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2006.02.013.
- Biais M, de Courson H, Lanchon R, Pereira B, Bardonneau G, Griton M, Sesay M, Nouette-Gaulain K. Mini-fluid Challenge of 100 ml of Crystalloid Predicts Fluid Responsiveness in the Operating Room. Anesthesiology. 2017 Sep;127(3):450-456. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001753.
- Douglas IS, Alapat PM, Corl KA, Exline MC, Forni LG, Holder AL, Kaufman DA, Khan A, Levy MM, Martin GS, Sahatjian JA, Seeley E, Self WH, Weingarten JA, Williams M, Hansell DM. Fluid Response Evaluation in Sepsis Hypotension and Shock: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Chest. 2020 Oct;158(4):1431-1445. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.025. Epub 2020 Apr 27.
- Lichtenstein DA, Meziere GA, Lagoueyte JF, Biderman P, Goldstein I, Gepner A. A-lines and B-lines: lung ultrasound as a bedside tool for predicting pulmonary artery occlusion pressure in the critically ill. Chest. 2009 Oct;136(4):1014-1020. doi: 10.1378/chest.09-0001.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Primary Completion (Estimated)
Study Completion (Estimated)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
- 2023-A00111-44
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on Shock, Septic
-
German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE)University Hospital, BonnUnknownSevere Sepsis With Septic Shock | Severe Sepsis Without Septic ShockGermany
-
Laiba QamarRecruitingSeptic Shock | Fluid Refractory Septic ShockPakistan
-
University Medicine GreifswaldUnknownSepsis Septic ShockGermany
-
National Taiwan University HospitalBaxter Healthcare CorporationRecruiting
-
Charite University, Berlin, GermanyCompleted
-
Indonesia UniversityCompletedSevere Sepsis With Septic Shock | Severe Sepsis Without Septic ShockIndonesia
-
Artcline GmbHRecruitingSepsis | Septic Shock | Immunoparalysis in Septic ShockGermany
-
Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisCompletedSeptic Shock HyperdynamicFrance
-
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire DijonCompleted
-
Mansoura UniversityCompleted