AzTrials
AzTrials

Septic ShockNCT05578534

CO2 Gap Changes in Septic Shock in Relation to Cardiac Output

An observational study of Septic Shock, run by Cairo University at 1 site in Egypt.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Background The arteriovenous difference of partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PCO2) between mixed or central venous blood and arterial blood is the ∆PCO2 or CO2 gap. Previous data demonstrated a strong relationship between ∆PCO2 and cardiac index (CI) at the very early phase of resuscitation in septic shock. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Septic Shock
How many people
76 participants
Where
1 siteEgypt
Study dates
1 Dec 2020to 1 Oct 2022
How long will I take part?
28 Days
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: 76 consecutive adult patients admitted to critical care department of Cairo university hospitals with septic shock

Who may be able to join

  • adult patients admitted to critical care department of Cairo university hospitals with septic shock and elevated blood lactate level > 2 mmol/ L requiring fluid resuscitation and/ or vasopressor drugs infusion.

Who cannot join

  • Patients with advanced cardiac, pulmonary, hepatic, or renal diseases were excluded from enrolment.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Egypt1 site
  • Critical care department

    Cairo, 12358

Other trials in Egypt

About this study

Official title: CO2 Gap Changes Compared to Cardiac Output Changes in Response to Intravenous Volume Expansion and/or Vasopressor Therapy in Septic Shock

Background The arteriovenous difference of partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PCO2) between mixed or central venous blood and arterial blood is the ∆PCO2 or CO2 gap. Previous data demonstrated a strong relationship between ∆PCO2 and cardiac index (CI) at the very early phase of resuscitation in septic shock. Monitoring the ∆PCO2 from the beginning of the resuscitation may be a useful tool to assess the adequacy of cardiac output (CO) in tissue perfusion.

Aim of work: To examine behavior of ∆PCO2 during early management of septic shock.

Methodology: Seventy-six patients with diagnosis of septic shock admitted to critical care department, Cairo university hospitals. We classified the study population according to initial resuscitation response, initial CO2 gap, or 28-days mortality. The response vs non-response to initial resuscitation, ICU morbidity and recovery rate were the study primary outcomes while secondary outcomes included ICU length of stay (LOS) and 28-day ICU Mortality.

Read the detailed description

Introduction

Shock is defined as a life-threatening, generalized acute circulatory failure with inadequate cellular oxygen utilization [1]. One of the goals of acute circulatory failure treatment is to increase cardiac output [2].

The ∆PCO2 is defined by the difference in the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PCO2) between mixed or central venous blood and arterial blood [1]. The ∆PCO2 has been correlated to outcome and mortality [3].

The mixed ∆PCO2 difference has been shown to be inversely correlated with the cardiac index (CI). A central venous PCO2, which is easier to obtain, may provide similar information. Substitution of a central for a mixed ∆PCO2 provides an accepted alternative [4].

Measurements of central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) and ∆PCO2 were advised to assess adequacy of cardiac output as well as to guide therapy [5]. A normal CO2 gap indicates that CO is high enough to wash out CO2 from peripheral tissue. Either PCO2 gap or the PCO2 gap to arterio-venous O2 content difference ratio could be used to guide resuscitation therapy [6].

∆PCO2 value of >6 mmHg suggests an insufficient blood flow in the tissues even when the ScvO2 is >70 % [1].

Aim of work

Our aim of the study is to investigate the value of PCO2 gap changes in the early septic shock management compared to the cardiac output.

Patients and methods

The study was approved by the ethical committee of faculty of medicine, Cairo University (N-194-2019)

A written informed consent was obtained from patient's first degree relatives.

Sample size calculation Based on past review of literature and by using G power software (version 3.1.3, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf Germany) with a power of 0.90 and 0.05 alpha error, sample size was calculated to be 69 patients. With a withdrawal/non-evaluable subject rate of 10%, a total of 76 patients will be recruited.

Type of the study An observational prospective study was conducted on 76 consecutive adult patients admitted to critical care department of Cairo university hospitals with septic shock and elevated blood lactate level > 2 mmol/ L requiring fluid resuscitation and/ or vasopressor drugs infusion.

Duration : between December 2020 to March 2022

Definitions

Sepsis is identified by suspected or confirmed infection AND an organ dysfunction as defined by a sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) [7].

Organ dysfunction defined by an increase in SOFA score of 2 points or more (sepsis-related) from up to 48 hours before to up to 24 hours after the onset of suspected infection [8].

Septic shock is clinically identified by a vasopressor requirement to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (>18 mg/dL) in the absence of hypovolemia [7].

Inclusion criteria The study population were included immediately on admission to ICU after fulfilling inclusion criteria.

Exclusion criteria Patients with advanced cardiac, pulmonary, hepatic, or renal diseases were excluded from enrolment.

Our patients were resuscitated according to surviving sepsis campaign recommendations within 1 hr of recognition. The study cohort were included immediately on admission to ICU and after insertion of invasive lines (T0).

The resuscitation targets were MAP ≥ 65 mmHg, urine output ≥ 0.5 ml/kg/min, ScvO2 ≥ 70%, normalization or significant decrease of serum lactate concentration.

Infusion of vasopressors during or after fluid resuscitation if MAP cannot be maintained, and infusion of dobutamine if evidence of myocardial dysfunction or ongoing hypoperfusion despite optimizing intravascular volume.

The 1st set of measurements were taken after insertion of invasive lines (T0) \& 2nd set of measurements were taken (T1) after completion the initial resuscitation when stable MAP by a fluid boluses of up to 30 ml/kg iv and/or by vasopressor infusion or after 3 hours which is closer.

Patients' demographics, comorbidities, APACHE II score up on ICU admission, SOFA score (initial and after 48 hrs), arterial lactate, ∆PCO2, blood gases (ABG, cvVBG), vital signs, echocardiographic LVOT cardiac output and index data were collected.

The microbiological data, source of sepsis, relevant laboratory data, vasopressor/inotropic support, ventilatory support, continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) needs along with ICU-morbidities and readmissions were recorded.

Lactate clearance was calculated as a percentage ratio of (initial arterial lactate level at T0 - arterial lactate level at 6 hours after treatment)/ arterial lactate level at T0. The P/F ratio, ∆PCO2 (before and after resuscitation), PCO2 Gap at T1/PCO2 Gap at T0 (gap/gap ratio) and cardiac index responsiveness was calculated as well.

The patients were classified according to initial ∆PCO2, resuscitation response, and 28-days mortality into:

  1. High gap (Pcv-aCO2 > 6 mmHg) vs normal gap (Pcv-aCO2 ≤6 mmHg) [9] [10],
  2. Responsive (15% increase in CI or stable MAP was achieved) vs non-responsive (< 15% increase in CI or a stable MAP was not achieved) [11] [12]
  3. Survivors vs non-survivors

The gap/gap ratio is an expression of the trend of ∆PCO2 level during resuscitation and thus, it can be reflection of prognosis and outcome.

Response to resuscitation:

investigators defined the positive response to initial resuscitation as an increase in CI by 15% or a stable MAP was achieved within or after completion of the 1st 3 hrs post-enrolment. This cut-off value was chosen by the reference to previous studies.

Conditions
Septic Shock
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 groups in NCT05578534
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
High CO2 gap (Pcv-aCO2 > 6 mmHg)Patients had high PCO2 gaps before initial resuscitation
Normal CO2 gap (Pcv-aCO2 ≤6 mmHg)Patients had normal PCO2 gaps before initial resuscitation
Responsive (15% increase in CI or stable MAP was achieved)Patients who respond to initial resuscitation with 15% increase in CI
Non-responsive (< 15% increase in CI or a stable MAP was not achieved)Patients who do not respond to initial resuscitation with less than 15% increase in CI
SurvivorsPatients who survived after 28 days
Non survivorsPatients who do not survive within 28 days

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. The response to initial resuscitation

    response to intial resuscitation with IV fluids and vasopressors measured by PCO2 gap

    Measured: 6 hours

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. ICU length of stay (LOS) and 28-day mortality

    correlation of measuring PCO2 gap as a resuscitation measure with ICU stay and mortality

    Measured: 28 days

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted13 Oct 2022
  2. Study start1 Dec 2020
  3. Primary completion30 Sep 2022
  4. Study completion1 Oct 2022

Resources

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
76 participants (actual)
Target duration
28 Days
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT05578534
Sponsor's protocol ID
MD-194-2019
Status last verified
Oct 2022
First submitted
5 Oct 2022
Last updated
13 Oct 2022
Results posted
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Septic Shock, run by Cairo University at 1 site in Egypt.

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 1 inclusion and 1 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 13 Oct 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Egypt. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

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?

The response to initial resuscitation (time frame: 6 hours). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
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 13 Oct 2022.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in
Clinical Trial NCT05578534 | AzTrials