Active clinical trials for "Shock"

Shock is a major risk factor for mortality among patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Since various hemodynamic strategies uniformly delivered to patients with shock have failed to improve clinically relevant outcomes, individualized approaches for shock supported by robust evidence are required. This study will be a prospective, multicenter, parallel-group, single-blind, randomized controlled trial. The investigators will randomly assign 800 critically ill patients requiring norepinephrine infusion to the renin-guided or usual care groups. The investigators hypothesize that renin-guided hemodynamic management, compared to usual care, can reduce a composite of mortality and acute kidney injury (AKI) progression in patients requiring vasopressor support.

Septic shock patients with invasive mechanical ventilation who were randomly enrolled in ICU were divided into esketamine group (test group) and remifentanil group (control group) according to the ratio of 1:1. The dose of vasopressor, the time of mechanical ventilation, the incidence of intestinal dysfunction and the dose of propofol were compared between the two groups. Through statistical analysis, it was determined whether esketamine combined with propofol could improve the prognosis of septic shock patients with invasive mechanical ventilation and reduce the adverse reactions of analgesic and sedative drugs compared with remifentanil combined with propofol.

The goal of this pragmatic, multi-center, superiority, randomized clinical trial is to compare early treatment with peripheral (through a vein) infused noradrenaline (a natural hormone that increases blood pressure) with fluid only therapy in patients with hypotensive and shock in the Danish Emergency Departments (ED). The main questions it aims to answer are: If early initiated noradrenaline in non-bleeding hypotensive patients presenting in the ED can Improve time to shock control. Reduce the need for ICU admittance. Decrease mortality. Participants will be included by the clinical staff and treated urgently with either noradrenaline or usual treatment during their Emergency Department stay. After completion of the treatment in the Emergency Department, patient data will be extracted from the bed-side measurements, electronic health records and national registers. Patients will be contacted by the research staff 1 year after study inclusion to answer brief questions about their daily physical function and ability to care for themselves. Researchers will compare with patients receiving fluid therapy only, as this is the usual standard of care in Danish Emergency Departments.

The Abiomed Impella 5.5 is a surgically placed temporary mechanical support device used in patients in cardiogenic shock. The investigators propose using regional anesthesia (3 separate peripheral nerve blocks) to facilitate Impella 5.5 placement, a procedure which has traditionally been performed under a general anesthetic. Regional anesthesia is a proven and widely used technique to facilitate upper extremity vascular surgery cases (i.e. arteriovenous fistula creation). The investigators believe that employing these blocks in conjunction with intravenous sedation or monitored anesthesia care (MAC anesthesia) - a technique used in all types of cases, even in sick hearts during thranscatheter aortic valve replacements (TAVR) - will avoid the need increased doses of medications to support the blood pressure and cardiac output, avoid the need for post operative mechanical ventilation and intravenous sedation, and speed up the time to participating in physical therapy, time to heart transplant/durable mechanical support/recovery, and time to hospital discharge.

This study aims to compare the impact of hemodynamic monitoring using pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) on survival and inotropic agent reduction in patients with cardiogenic shock caused by heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Also, the investigators intend to investigate the difference in long-term survival rates in patients who have recovered from cardiogenic shock due to HFrEF and received early beta-blocker treatment based on PAC monitoring.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) mortality remains high (40%). Despite their frequent use, few clinical outcome data are available to guide the initial selection of vasoactive drug therapies in patients with CS. Based on experts' opinions, the combination of norepinephrine-dobutamine is generally recommended as a first line strategy. Inotropic agents increase myocardial contractility, thereby increasing cardiac output. Dobutamine is commonly recommended to be the inotropic agent of choice and levosimendan is generally used following dobutamine failure. It may represent an ideal agent in cardiogenic shock, since it improves myocardial contractility without increasing cAMP or calcium concentration. At present, there are no convincing data to support a specific inotropic agent in patients with cardiogenic shock. Our hypothesis is that the early use of levosimendan, by enabling the discontinuation of dobutamine, would accelerate the resolution of signs of low cardiac output and facilitate myocardial recovery.

The objective of the present research is a combination of a one-sided test of non-inferiority and a one-sided test of superiority. A stepped approach will be used to evaluate these hypotheses: a less invasive intervention (i.e., no indwelling arterial catheter insertion until felt absolutely needed, according to consensual and predefined safety criteria) is non inferior to usual care (i.e., systematic indwelling arterial catheter insertion in the early hours of shock) in terms of mortality at day 28 (non-inferiority margin of 5%). a less invasive intervention is not only non-inferior but also superior to usual care in terms of mortality. Multi-centre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled, open, two-parallel group, non-inferiority clinical trial.

This study aims to investigate the effect of angiotensin II on microcirculation and peripheral perfusion in patients with septic shock.

Sepsis and septic shock have mortality rates between 20-50%. When standard therapeutic measures fail to improve patients' condition, additional therapeutic alternatives are applied to reduce morbidity and mortality. One of the most recent alternatives is extracorporeal cytokine hemoadsorption. One of the most tested devices is CytoSorb, however, there are a lot of open questions, such timing, dosing and of course its overall efficacy. This study aims to compare the efficacy of standard medical therapy (Group A, SMT) and continuous extracorporeal cytokine removal with CytoSorb therapy in patients with early refractory septic shock. Furthermore, we compare the dosing of CytoSorb adsorber device - as the cartridge will be changed in every (12 Group B) or 24 hours (Group C).

The study will investigate the effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) in patients with septic shock. The objective of this study will be investigate the effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) in patients with septic shock.