Septic ShockINTUBATICNCT02780466
Observational Study on Intubation in Septic Shock
An observational study of Septic Shock, run by University Hospital, Angers.
Trial summary
Septic shock is common in intensive care and its mortality remains high. While new treatments have not improved survival, optimization of known and widely used techniques has allowed reduction in mortality. Thus improving care given to patients starts with making better use of existing resuscitation techniques. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Septic Shock
- How many people
- 859 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- May 2016to Apr 2018
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Patients in the study are adults patients admitted to intensive care unit in France (about 30 centers) for shock, supposed or confirmed of septic origin.
Who may be able to join
- older than 18 years old
- Admitted in the ICU for septic shock
- Introduction of vasopressors ( norepinephrine or adrenaline ) in the ICU or within 24 hours of ICU admission
- Suspected or proven infection
Who cannot join
- Intubation before the introduction of vasopressors
- Decision of withdrawing or withholding care at admission
- Pregnant woman
- Patient not affiliated to the social security insurance
- Refusal of participation in the study
About this study
Septic shock is common in intensive care and its mortality remains high. While new treatments have not improved survival, optimization of known and widely used techniques has allowed reduction in mortality. Thus improving care given to patients starts with making better use of existing resuscitation techniques. Among these practices, mechanical ventilation is widespread in the management of patients with septic shock. In large studies published in recent years in Europe and North America, 40 to 85% of patients receive invasive mechanical ventilation. It therefore appears that a significant proportion of patients are never intubated during treatment and management of their septic shock. There is no specific recommendation from critical care societies concerning mechanical ventilation in the treatment of septic shock. Apart from indisputable situations such as impaired consciousness or acute respiratoire distress, the decision whether to ventilate mechanically or not is left to the discretion of the physician.
The aim of this study is to analyze intubation practice in septic shock patients and its impact on 28-day survival.
This multicentric and observational study will be conducted in 30 French ICUs.
- Conditions
- Septic Shock
- Keywords
- Septic shock, Endotracheal intubation, Outcome
- Medical subject headings
- Shock, Septic
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Patients with septic shock | Not described |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
death
Measured: 28 days after ICU admission
Secondary outcomes (2)
duration of organ support
mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, renal replacement therapy
Measured: 28 days
impact of intubation delay on outcome
Measured: 28 days
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted23 May 2016 (estimated)
- Study startMay 2016
- Primary completionOct 2017
- Study completionApr 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Septic ShockStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University Hospital, AngersThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 859 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, Angers
- Sponsor type
- Other government
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, DENISE JOLIVOT, University Hospital, Angers
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02780466
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2015-96
- Acronym
- INTUBATIC
- Status last verified
- Apr 2018
- First submitted
- 19 May 2016
- Last updated
- 18 Apr 2018
- Results posted
- No
Publications
Mellado-Artigas R, Ferrando C, Martino F, Delbove A, Ferreyro BL, Darreau C, Jacquier S, Brochard L, Lerolle N. Early intubation and patient-centered outcomes in septic shock: a secondary analysis of a prospective multicenter study. Crit Care. 2022 Jun 7;26(1):163. doi: 10.1186/s13054-022-04029-6.
PubMed 35672860Darreau C, Martino F, Saint-Martin M, Jacquier S, Hamel JF, Nay MA, Terzi N, Ledoux G, Roche-Campo F, Camous L, Pene F, Balzer T, Bagate F, Lorber J, Bouju P, Marois C, Robert R, Gaudry S, Commereuc M, Debarre M, Chudeau N, Labroca P, Merouani K, Egreteau PY, Peigne V, Bornstain C, Lebas E, Benezit F, Vally S, Lasocki S, Robert A, Delbove A, Lerolle N. Use, timing and factors associated with tracheal intubation in septic shock: a prospective multicentric observational study. Ann Intensive Care. 2020 May 24;10(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s13613-020-00668-6.
PubMed 32449053
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 18 Apr 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Observational Study on Intubation in Septic Shock
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02780466
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- INTUBATIC / 2015-96
- Conditions
- Septic Shock
- Keywords
- Septic shock, Endotracheal intubation, Outcome
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 859 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, AngersOther government
- Study start
- May 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Oct 2017 (actual)
- Study completion
- Apr 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 23 May 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Septic shock is common in intensive care and its mortality remains high. While new treatments have not improved survival, optimization of known and widely used techniques has allowed reduction in mortality. Thus improving care given to patients starts with making better use of existing resuscitation techniques. Among these practices, mechanical ventilation is widespread in the management of patients with septic shock. In large studies published in recent years in Europe and North America, 40 to 85% of patients receive invasive mechanical ventilation. It therefore appears that a significant proportion of patients are never intubated during treatment and management of their septic shock. There is no specific recommendation from critical care societies concerning mechanical ventilation in the treatment of septic shock. Apart from indisputable situations such as impaired consciousness or acute respiratoire distress, the decision whether to ventilate mechanically or not is left to the discretion of the physician.
The aim of this study is to analyze intubation practice in septic shock patients and its impact on 28-day survival.
This multicentric and observational study will be conducted in 30 French ICUs.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Patients with septic shock | – | – |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Patients in the study are adults patients admitted to intensive care unit in France (about 30 centers) for shock, supposed or confirmed of septic origin.
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- older than 18 years old
- Admitted in the ICU for septic shock
- Introduction of vasopressors ( norepinephrine or adrenaline ) in the ICU or within 24 hours of ICU admission
- Suspected or proven infection
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Intubation before the introduction of vasopressors
- Decision of withdrawing or withholding care at admission
- Pregnant woman
- Patient not affiliated to the social security insurance
- Refusal of participation in the study
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
death
Time frame: 28 days after ICU admission
2 secondary outcomes
duration of organ support
Time frame: 28 days
impact of intubation delay on outcome
Time frame: 28 days
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 18 Apr 2018.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 35672860Mellado-Artigas R, Ferrando C, Martino F, Delbove A, Ferreyro BL, Darreau C, Jacquier S, Brochard L, Lerolle N. Early intubation and patient-centered outcomes in septic shock: a secondary analysis of a prospective multicenter study. Crit Care. 2022 Jun 7;26(1):163. doi: 10.1186/s13054-022-04029-6.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 32449053Darreau C, Martino F, Saint-Martin M, Jacquier S, Hamel JF, Nay MA, Terzi N, Ledoux G, Roche-Campo F, Camous L, Pene F, Balzer T, Bagate F, Lorber J, Bouju P, Marois C, Robert R, Gaudry S, Commereuc M, Debarre M, Chudeau N, Labroca P, Merouani K, Egreteau PY, Peigne V, Bornstain C, Lebas E, Benezit F, Vally S, Lasocki S, Robert A, Delbove A, Lerolle N. Use, timing and factors associated with tracheal intubation in septic shock: a prospective multicentric observational study. Ann Intensive Care. 2020 May 24;10(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s13613-020-00668-6.
Related trials for Septic Shock
RecruitingObservational study
Immunothrombosis With Septic Shock Undergoing Renal Replacement Therapy With the OXIRIS Membrane
Sepsis
RecruitingPhase 3
A Trial of Adjunctive Fludrocortisone (50mcg, 100mcg or Placebo) in Critically Ill Patients With Septic Shock Receiving Hydrocortisone, Evaluating Survival and Functional Recovery and the Influence of Transcriptomic Response
Septic Shock
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Serum GDF-15 and LGALS3BP as Prognostic Biomarkers in Sepsis
Sepsis, Septic Shock
Not yet recruiting
Hemodynamic Resuscitation Guided by Non-Invasive Mean Systemic Filling Pressure to Prevent Acute Kidney Injury in Septic Shock
Acute Kidney Injury Due to Sepsis
Recruiting
Veno-arterial Carbon Dioxide Partial Pressure Difference (CO2gap) for Early Resuscitation of Septic Shock
Sepsis - to Reduce Mortality in the Intensive Care Unit, Septic Shock
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Septic Shock, run by University Hospital, Angers.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 18 Apr 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
death (time frame: 28 days after ICU admission). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02780466, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 18 Apr 2018.