Active clinical trials for "Shock, Septic"

Septic shock is a common syndrome caused by the body's response to an infection. Septic shock is responsible for 10% of all ICU admissions and 30% of ICU deaths. Use of "beta blocker" medications may improve outcomes after septic shock. This pilot study evaluates protocols to infuse the beta blocker esmolol in patients with septic shock.

The sepsis and septic shock remain major causes of child morbidity and mortality, despite the use of modern antibiotics and resuscitation therapies. Recent interest has focused on biomarkers for early diagnosis, and evaluation the outcomes of sepsis; but there is a still lack of early diagnosis and timely intervention for sepsis in the emergency department (ED). The primary aim was to investigate the role of C-Reactive Protein(CRP), Procalcitonin(PCT), soluble-urokinase plasminogen activator receptor(suPAR) and Presepsin in the early stratification of patients with sepsis. The usefulness of pediatric Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (pSOFA) for predicting of the mortality and the rate of PICU admission in children with septik shock were also investigated. This prospective pilot study was conducted at academic pediatric ED between September 2017-June 2018. All children who met sepsis criteria admitted to ED were involved to study. They kept following up after ED management and their blood samples were taken upon admission on day 0, 1, 2, 4 and 7. The definition made as sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock. At the same period, 100 healthy children chosen as the control group. The patient characteristics, clinical features, diagnosis, co-morbidities, source of infection, laboratory results (CRP, PCT, lactate, suPAR and Presepsin) and treatments were recorded. The pSOFA score was calculated during first hour of admission. Length of stay in ED and hospital was noted. The main outcome measure was in 7 and 30-day mortality.

Sepsis is defined by the occurrence of a systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in the context of infection. Unfortunately, its incidence appears to be rising, and the mortality of septic shock remains extraordinary high (> 60%). Death in sepsis arises from shock and multi organ dysfunction that are - at least in part - triggered by an inadequate response of the host's immune system to the infection. Given the injurious role of 1) this overwhelming immune response and 2) the consumption of protective plasmatic factors (e.g. vWF cleaving proteases, hemostatic factors etc.) while the disease is progressing the investigators hypothesize that early therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) in the most severely ill individuals might improve hemodynamics, oxygenation and ultimately survival. This therapeutic strategy combines 2 major aspects in 1 procedure: 1. removal of harmful circulating molecules and 2. replacement of protective plasma proteins. The investigators designed the EXCHANGE trial to analyze in a randomized fashion the benefit of TPE as an add-on treatment to state of the art standard sepsis care. Only patients with early septic shock (< 12 hrs) and high catecholamine doses (noradrenaline > 0.4 ug/kg bodyweight/min) will be included. Those in the treatment group will receive 3 TPEs within three consecutive days. The primary outcome is 28-day all cause mortality. To show an assumed reduction from 60% to 45% in the experimental group, a sample size of 173 patients per group has been calculated. The overall sample size is therefore n=346. The recruitment period is 3 years (+3 months observation) and will be performed in 11 national centers in Germany. Secondary endpoints (including hemodynamics, oxygenation, coagulation, and microcirculation) will be assessed on day 1, 2, 3 before and after TPE and on day 4, 5, 7 and 14. Project management and data monitoring will be organized by the Hanover Clinical Trial Center and biostatistics including a web-based randomization will be performed by the Institute of biometrics (Prof. Koch) at Hannover Medical School. The investigators hope to demonstrate a potential benefit of an additive treatment approach to improve the outcome of patients suffering from an under-recognized but deadly disease.

The purpose of this study, in mechanically ventilated septic shock patients, is to determine whether a fluid loading strategy based on parameters derived from the transpulmonary thermodilution technique may lead to more ventilator free days compared to a fluid loading strategy based on the surviving sepsis guidelines.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the role of several enzymes of the gut mucosa in preventing invasion of gastrointestinal bacteria.

The purpose of this study is determine if High-Volume Hemofiltration in addition to 'contemporary' care will result in an improvement of select clinical outcomes when compared to 'contemporary' care alone in the treatment of critically ill patients with ARF secondary to septic shock.

Consecutive patients with cirrhosis and septic shock with AKI who give written informed consent will be included in this prospective trial. At baseline NT-Pro BNP, urine N-GAL will be done for all patients. A baseline serum blood sample (10 ml) and urine sample will be stored. Septic shock will be defined by the presence of two or more diagnostic criteria for the systemic inflammatory response syndrome, proven or suspected infection with hypotension non-responsive to adequate fluid resuscitation assessed by no evidence of stroke volume variation on flow track and need of a vasopressor to achieve a target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of ≥ 65 mm Hg. A record of CVP, IVC diameter and B-lines on ultrasound lung would also be done. Patients with age less than 18 years, severe known cardiopulmonary disease (structural or valvular heart disease, coronary artery disease, COPD) pregnancy, chronic kidney disease on hemodialysis, patients already meeting emergency criteria for immediate hemodialysis at the time of randomization as specified in the late group, patients transferred from other hospitals who have already been on hemodialysis before their arrival in the intensive care unit, extremely moribund patients with an expected life expectancy of less than 24 hours, failure to give informed consent from family members.

Severe sepsis or septic shock with acute kidney injury shows high mortality in intensive care unit. A few studies have shown CRRT relating the clinical improvement seems to be related to the early initiation of therapy. But there is no consensus for proper time of CRRT may improve the prognosis. The study is a prospective randomized one center trial comparing two treatments in patients suffering from septic shock complicated with acute renal failure admitted to ICU, treated either early by CRRT (35 ml/kg/h) or by conventional RRT.

Fluid resuscitation is an important treatment in septic shock patients, however whether crystalloid composition affects septic shock patients outcomes remains unclear. According to previous studies, low-chlorine crystalloids could significantly reduce the incidence of kidney injury and 30-day mortality compared with high-chlorine crystalloids in critically ill adults. Therefore, we hypothesized that the use of low-chlorine crystalloids would result in a lower incidence of major adverse kidney events within 30 days (MAKE 30: overall incidence of death, new renal-replacement therapy, and persistent renal dysfunction) than high-chlorine crystalloids in septic shock adults.

This clinical study aims to compare the recent septic shock management protocol from American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) to Ultrasound-guided Septic Shock Management (USSM) protocol. USSM protocol laid on Doppler ultrasonography to evaluate stroke volume, cardiac index, and systemic vascular resistance in each step of management to decide the proper fluid resuscitation and vasoactive therapy; differs from ACCM protocol which use clinical finding in its early step. ACCM protocol application elicits risk of improper therapy since clinical sign per se often could not describe the certain cardiac output. This can be prevented earlier by USSM protocol. The outcome compared of the two protocols is: mortality rate, clinical parameter, macrocirculation hemodynamic parameter, laboratory microcirculation parameter, and signs of fluid overload. The investigators hypothesized if the USSM protocol had a better outcome and less fluid overload complication.