Septic ShockFLUID-IMPACTNCT06958809
Evolution of Tissue Perfusion and Venous Congestion Markers in Fluid-Responsive Septic Shock Patients
An observational study of Septic Shock and Fluid Resuscitation, run by Hospital Ambroise Paré Paris at 1 site in France.
Trial summary
Septic shock remains a leading cause of mortality in intensive care, and while fluid resuscitation (FR) is a cornerstone of early management, its benefit-risk balance is highly variable. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Septic Shock, Fluid Resuscitation, Congestion, Venous
- What is being tested?
- Echography
- How many people
- 200 participants
- Where
- 1 siteFrance
- Study dates
- 1 Feb 2026to 1 Aug 2027
- How long will I take part?
- 28 Days
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
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 Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: Patients in septic shock, defined according to the Sepsis-3 criteria (7), who are under mechanical ventilation, have a central venous catheter in the superior vena cava territory and an arterial catheter, present with hypotension requiring vasopressor support and hyperlactatemia, and demonstrate a response to fluid resuscitation as per standard definition (i.e., an increase in cardiac output >10% assessed by subaortic velocity time integral [VTI] using echocardiography).
Who may be able to join
- Septic shock (sepsis-3 criteria)
- Under mechanical ventilation
- Central venous catheter in the superior vena cava territory and arterial catheter in place
- Response to fluid resuscitation as per standard definition (i.e., an increase in cardiac output >10% assessed by subaortic velocity time integral [VTI] using echocardiography)
Who cannot join
- Patient under 18 years of age
- Lack of social security coverage / adult under legal protection
- Pregnant woman
- Inability to obtain non-opposition consent
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
France1 site
Hôpital Ambroise Paré, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris,
Boulogne-Billancourt, 92100
About this study
Official title: Evolution of Tissue Perfusion and Venous Congestion Markers in Fluid-Responsive Septic Shock Patients: Evaluating the Benefit-Risk Balance of Fluid Resuscitation
Septic shock remains a leading cause of mortality in intensive care, and while fluid resuscitation (FR) is a cornerstone of early management, its benefit-risk balance is highly variable. Excessive fluid administration can cause venous congestion and organ dysfunction, while insufficient resuscitation risks hypoperfusion. Current strategies often rely on fluid responsiveness (i.e., increased cardiac output after fluids), but this does not guarantee improved outcomes, particularly if congestion ensues.
This prospective, multicenter, observational study aims to assess the clinical impact of FR in septic shock patients who are fluid responsive. The primary objective is to evaluate changes in tissue perfusion and venous congestion markers following FR. Patients will be categorized into four response profiles based on the presence or absence of perfusion improvement and congestion worsening.
Read more
Secondary objectives include exploring the prognostic implications of each profile (organ dysfunction, mortality), identifying pre-FR predictors of adverse responses, evaluating changes in congestion markers after passive leg raising (PLR), and performing phenotypic clustering and mediation analyses.
Eligible patients are adults with septic shock requiring vasopressors and mechanical ventilation, with confirmed fluid responsiveness via echocardiography. Each patient will undergo standardized pre- and post-FR assessments, including cardiac ultrasound, Doppler of hepatic/portal veins (VeXUS), CVP, perfusion markers, and blood gases.
Data on SOFA scores, organ support duration, and 28-day mortality will be collected. Approximately 170 patients will be enrolled across five ICUs experienced in advanced hemodynamic monitoring. Statistical analyses will include multivariate modeling, clustering, ROC curves, and mediation analyses.
By identifying phenotypes of fluid-responsive but fluid-intolerant patients, the study aims to refine fluid management strategies and improve outcomes through more personalized care in septic shock.
Read the detailed description
Background and Rationale Sepsis and septic shock are among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in intensive care units worldwide. Septic shock is defined as a subset of sepsis characterized by profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities, associated with higher risk of death. One of the cornerstone interventions in the early management of septic shock is fluid resuscitation (FR), which aims to restore tissue perfusion and oxygen delivery through an increase in cardiac output.
However, the benefit-risk balance of fluid administration remains a major challenge. While inadequate fluid resuscitation can perpetuate hypoperfusion, organ ischemia, and multi-organ failure, excessive fluid administration has been consistently associated with increased morbidity and mortality. This paradox stems largely from venous congestion and tissue edema caused by fluid overload, which may impair oxygen diffusion and organ function.
Several large randomized trials have failed to show a survival benefit of one fluid strategy over another, potentially due to heterogeneous patient profiles and a lack of individualized approaches. These studies typically did not consider patients' baseline volume status, nor did they incorporate markers of venous congestion when guiding fluid administration.
An emerging concept in critical care is that of fluid tolerance, which reflects a patient's ability to receive intravenous fluids without developing the harmful effects of fluid overload, such as venous congestion or capillary leakage. However, assessing fluid tolerance remains difficult due to the absence of standardized tools, thresholds, or clinical guidelines.
Traditionally, fluid responsiveness-defined as a significant increase in cardiac output following fluid administration-has been the main criterion used to determine the appropriateness of FR. Yet, growing evidence suggests that being fluid responsive does not guarantee clinical benefit, especially if venous congestion worsens post-resuscitation.
Ultrasound-based venous congestion assessment tools, particularly the VeXUS (Venous Excess Ultrasound Score) protocol, have gained attention for their potential to identify fluid-intolerant patients. These include analysis of hepatic and portal vein Doppler waveforms, along with central venous pressure (CVP). Despite promising associations with renal injury and mortality, these tools have not yet been evaluated prospectively in the context of fluid challenge in septic shock patients.
The primary objective of the study will be to evaluate the evolution of tissue perfusion markers and venous congestion indices after fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock who are deemed fluid responsive (i.e., with increased cardiac output after FR).
Patients will be classified into a four-category classification: Improvement in tissue perfusion markers without worsening of congestion markers / Improvement in tissue perfusion markers with worsening of congestion markers / No improvement in tissue perfusion markers without worsening of congestion markers / No improvement in tissue perfusion markers with worsening of congestion markers.
Tissue perfusion improvement will be defined as an improvement in at least one of the following criteria: decrease in mottling score by ≥1 point / Reduction in lactate level by >10% if initial value >2 mmol/L / Increase in central venous oxygen saturation (≥ 4%) / Improvement in the arteriovenous pCO₂ gradient (≥ 2 mmHg) / improvement in capillary refill time (≥ 1 second if > 3 seconds).
Venous congestion worsening will be defined by the presence of at least two of the following criteria: worsening of portal or hepatic vein pulsatility index (VeXUS grading) / CVP > 8 mmHg Increase in CVP (ΔCVP) > 2 mmHg
This classification will enable the identification of patients who, despite being fluid responsive, do not improve perfusion and show increased congestion-a group that may derive no net benefit or even harm from fluid administration.
Secondary Objectives:
To evaluate the prognostic implications (organ dysfunction and mortality) of these four response profiles.
To assess predictive factors, available before fluid administration, associated with adverse profiles.
To explore the evolution of congestion markers after a passive leg raising (PLR) test.
To investigate the relationship between venous congestion and organ support duration, SOFA scores, and 28-day mortality.
To perform phenotypic clustering analyses independent of the predefined classification.
To assess the mediating role of venous congestion in the relationship between fluid volume and organ failure.
Study Design and Methodology This is a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study conducted in five intensive care units (ICUs) with prior experience in advanced hemodynamic monitoring and echocardiographic research.
Adults patients admitted to the ICU for septic shock (SEPSIS-3 definition), under mechanical ventilation and equipped with a central venous catheter (superior vena cava territory) and an arterial catheter and demonstrating fluid responsiveness (≥10% increase in stroke volume or cardiac output measured via echocardiography after fluid challenge) will be included.
Study Protocol:
Each patient will undergo two standardized evaluations: before and 30-60 minutes after fluid resuscitation. These will include:
Echocardiography (to assess cardiac output)
Doppler ultrasound of portal and hepatic veins (to evaluate venous congestion)
Central venous pressure (CVP)
Clinical perfusion markers: capillary refill time, mottling score
Gasometric markers: lactate, ScvO₂, pCO₂ gap
Additional data:
SOFA score and fluid balance at 24h
Organ support duration (mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, renal replacement therapy)
Mortality at Day 28
Patient Classification:
Based on post-FR changes, patients will be grouped into:
Improved perfusion / No worsening congestion
Improved perfusion / Worsening congestion
No improvement / No worsening congestion
No improvement / Worsening congestion
Outcome Measures:
Changes in SOFA score (renal, respiratory, cardiovascular) at 24h and Day 28
Duration of organ support
28-day mortality
Identification of predictive factors for high-risk profiles using multivariate logistic regression
Clustering and PCA to detect fluid response phenotypes
Mediation analysis to determine if venous congestion mediates the effect of fluid resuscitation on organ dysfunction
Sample Size and Statistical Analysis Based on preliminary data suggesting that ~40% of fluid responders exhibit venous congestion post-resuscitation, a total of 170 patients will be enrolled. This will ensure a minimum of 25 patients in the smallest of the four classification groups, sufficient for comparative analysis.
Analysis Plan:
Descriptive statistics of clinical and hemodynamic variables
Intergroup comparisons using:
Student's t-test or Wilcoxon test (continuous variables)
Chi² or Fisher's exact test (categorical variables)
Multivariable models:
Logistic regression for binary outcomes (e.g., mortality)
Generalized linear models for continuous outcomes (e.g., SOFA scores)
Cox proportional hazards models for survival analysis
Use of LASSO or stepwise selection for predictive modeling
ROC analysis to evaluate model discrimination (AUC with 95% CI)
Clustering or PCA for exploratory identification of phenotypes
Mediation analysis to explore causality between fluid volume, congestion, and organ dysfunction
All analyses will be performed using R statistical software, with significance set at p < 0.05.
Operational Feasibility and Ethics All participating ICUs are experienced in advanced hemodynamic and echocardiographic research (e.g., HEMOPRED, PRODIASYS).
Study classified as low-risk interventional research (RIPH 3).
Echocardiography and congestion assessment via ultrasound are already routine practices in these centers.
Non-opposition consent will be obtained from patients' next of kin.
Follow-Up:
Patients will be followed until ICU discharge or Day 28, whichever occurs later.
Clinical Relevance and Innovation This study addresses an unmet need in precision fluid therapy for septic shock. By combining hemodynamic, ultrasound, and clinical perfusion data, it moves beyond the traditional binary model of fluid responsiveness and seeks to establish a risk-benefit stratification for fluid administration.
The identification of high-risk phenotypes-fluid responsive but intolerant patients-will inform future individualized treatment strategies and potentially guide therapeutic trials using phenotypically driven protocols. The ultimate goal is to improve clinical outcomes by avoiding unnecessary or harmful fluid administration in vulnerable patients.
- Conditions
- Septic Shock, Fluid Resuscitation, Congestion, Venous
- Being tested
- Echography
- Keywords
- septic shock, fluid resuscitation, venous congestion, tissue perfusion
- Medical subject headings
- Shock, Septic, Hyperemia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
EchographyDiagnostic test
An exhaustive echography will be performed to determine fluid responsiveness (using a passive leg raising test and cardiac output measurement by left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral)
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Comparison of septic shock patients based on a four-category classification based on 30 minutes to 1 hour after fluid resuscitation
Comparison of septic shock patients based on a four-category classification
Measured: 30 minutes to 1 hour after fluid resuscitation
Secondary outcomes (1)
Evolution of the cardiovascular, respiratory, and renal SOFA scores at 24 hours after fluid resuscitation and on Day 28.
Measured: 24 hours after fluid resuscitation and on Day 28.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted6 May 2025
- Study start1 Feb 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion1 Jul 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Aug 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Septic ShockStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- 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
- 200 participants (estimated)
- Target duration
- 28 Days
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Hospital Ambroise Paré Paris
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Prof Antoine Vieillard-Baron, Hospital Ambroise Paré Paris
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06958809
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 01
- Acronym
- FLUID-IMPACT
- Status last verified
- Apr 2025
- First submitted
- 9 Apr 2025
- Last updated
- 6 May 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 6 May 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Evolution of Tissue Perfusion and Venous Congestion Markers in Fluid-Responsive Septic Shock Patients: Evaluating the Benefit-Risk Balance of Fluid Resuscitation
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06958809
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- FLUID-IMPACT / 01
- Conditions
- Septic Shock, Fluid Resuscitation, Congestion, Venous
- Keywords
- septic shock, fluid resuscitation, venous congestion, tissue perfusion
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 200 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Hospital Ambroise Paré ParisUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Feb 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 1 Jul 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Aug 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 6 May 2025 (actual)
- 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 remains a leading cause of mortality in intensive care, and while fluid resuscitation (FR) is a cornerstone of early management, its benefit-risk balance is highly variable. Excessive fluid administration can cause venous congestion and organ dysfunction, while insufficient resuscitation risks hypoperfusion. Current strategies often rely on fluid responsiveness (i.e., increased cardiac output after fluids), but this does not guarantee improved outcomes, particularly if congestion ensues.
This prospective, multicenter, observational study aims to assess the clinical impact of FR in septic shock patients who are fluid responsive. The primary objective is to evaluate changes in tissue perfusion and venous congestion markers following FR. Patients will be categorized into four response profiles based on the presence or absence of perfusion improvement and congestion worsening.
Secondary objectives include exploring the prognostic implications of each profile (organ dysfunction, mortality), identifying pre-FR predictors of adverse responses, evaluating changes in congestion markers after passive leg raising (PLR), and performing phenotypic clustering and mediation analyses.
Eligible patients are adults with septic shock requiring vasopressors and mechanical ventilation, with confirmed fluid responsiveness via echocardiography. Each patient will undergo standardized pre- and post-FR assessments, including cardiac ultrasound, Doppler of hepatic/portal veins (VeXUS), CVP, perfusion markers, and blood gases.
Data on SOFA scores, organ support duration, and 28-day mortality will be collected. Approximately 170 patients will be enrolled across five ICUs experienced in advanced hemodynamic monitoring. Statistical analyses will include multivariate modeling, clustering, ROC curves, and mediation analyses.
By identifying phenotypes of fluid-responsive but fluid-intolerant patients, the study aims to refine fluid management strategies and improve outcomes through more personalized care in septic shock.
Detailed description
Background and Rationale Sepsis and septic shock are among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in intensive care units worldwide. Septic shock is defined as a subset of sepsis characterized by profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities, associated with higher risk of death. One of the cornerstone interventions in the early management of septic shock is fluid resuscitation (FR), which aims to restore tissue perfusion and oxygen delivery through an increase in cardiac output.
However, the benefit-risk balance of fluid administration remains a major challenge. While inadequate fluid resuscitation can perpetuate hypoperfusion, organ ischemia, and multi-organ failure, excessive fluid administration has been consistently associated with increased morbidity and mortality. This paradox stems largely from venous congestion and tissue edema caused by fluid overload, which may impair oxygen diffusion and organ function.
Several large randomized trials have failed to show a survival benefit of one fluid strategy over another, potentially due to heterogeneous patient profiles and a lack of individualized approaches. These studies typically did not consider patients' baseline volume status, nor did they incorporate markers of venous congestion when guiding fluid administration.
An emerging concept in critical care is that of fluid tolerance, which reflects a patient's ability to receive intravenous fluids without developing the harmful effects of fluid overload, such as venous congestion or capillary leakage. However, assessing fluid tolerance remains difficult due to the absence of standardized tools, thresholds, or clinical guidelines.
Traditionally, fluid responsiveness-defined as a significant increase in cardiac output following fluid administration-has been the main criterion used to determine the appropriateness of FR. Yet, growing evidence suggests that being fluid responsive does not guarantee clinical benefit, especially if venous congestion worsens post-resuscitation.
Ultrasound-based venous congestion assessment tools, particularly the VeXUS (Venous Excess Ultrasound Score) protocol, have gained attention for their potential to identify fluid-intolerant patients. These include analysis of hepatic and portal vein Doppler waveforms, along with central venous pressure (CVP). Despite promising associations with renal injury and mortality, these tools have not yet been evaluated prospectively in the context of fluid challenge in septic shock patients.
The primary objective of the study will be to evaluate the evolution of tissue perfusion markers and venous congestion indices after fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock who are deemed fluid responsive (i.e., with increased cardiac output after FR).
Patients will be classified into a four-category classification: Improvement in tissue perfusion markers without worsening of congestion markers / Improvement in tissue perfusion markers with worsening of congestion markers / No improvement in tissue perfusion markers without worsening of congestion markers / No improvement in tissue perfusion markers with worsening of congestion markers.
Tissue perfusion improvement will be defined as an improvement in at least one of the following criteria: decrease in mottling score by ≥1 point / Reduction in lactate level by >10% if initial value >2 mmol/L / Increase in central venous oxygen saturation (≥ 4%) / Improvement in the arteriovenous pCO₂ gradient (≥ 2 mmHg) / improvement in capillary refill time (≥ 1 second if > 3 seconds).
Venous congestion worsening will be defined by the presence of at least two of the following criteria: worsening of portal or hepatic vein pulsatility index (VeXUS grading) / CVP > 8 mmHg Increase in CVP (ΔCVP) > 2 mmHg
This classification will enable the identification of patients who, despite being fluid responsive, do not improve perfusion and show increased congestion-a group that may derive no net benefit or even harm from fluid administration.
Secondary Objectives:
To evaluate the prognostic implications (organ dysfunction and mortality) of these four response profiles.
To assess predictive factors, available before fluid administration, associated with adverse profiles.
To explore the evolution of congestion markers after a passive leg raising (PLR) test.
To investigate the relationship between venous congestion and organ support duration, SOFA scores, and 28-day mortality.
To perform phenotypic clustering analyses independent of the predefined classification.
To assess the mediating role of venous congestion in the relationship between fluid volume and organ failure.
Study Design and Methodology This is a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study conducted in five intensive care units (ICUs) with prior experience in advanced hemodynamic monitoring and echocardiographic research.
Adults patients admitted to the ICU for septic shock (SEPSIS-3 definition), under mechanical ventilation and equipped with a central venous catheter (superior vena cava territory) and an arterial catheter and demonstrating fluid responsiveness (≥10% increase in stroke volume or cardiac output measured via echocardiography after fluid challenge) will be included.
Study Protocol:
Each patient will undergo two standardized evaluations: before and 30-60 minutes after fluid resuscitation. These will include:
Echocardiography (to assess cardiac output)
Doppler ultrasound of portal and hepatic veins (to evaluate venous congestion)
Central venous pressure (CVP)
Clinical perfusion markers: capillary refill time, mottling score
Gasometric markers: lactate, ScvO₂, pCO₂ gap
Additional data:
SOFA score and fluid balance at 24h
Organ support duration (mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, renal replacement therapy)
Mortality at Day 28
Patient Classification:
Based on post-FR changes, patients will be grouped into:
Improved perfusion / No worsening congestion
Improved perfusion / Worsening congestion
No improvement / No worsening congestion
No improvement / Worsening congestion
Outcome Measures:
Changes in SOFA score (renal, respiratory, cardiovascular) at 24h and Day 28
Duration of organ support
28-day mortality
Identification of predictive factors for high-risk profiles using multivariate logistic regression
Clustering and PCA to detect fluid response phenotypes
Mediation analysis to determine if venous congestion mediates the effect of fluid resuscitation on organ dysfunction
Sample Size and Statistical Analysis Based on preliminary data suggesting that ~40% of fluid responders exhibit venous congestion post-resuscitation, a total of 170 patients will be enrolled. This will ensure a minimum of 25 patients in the smallest of the four classification groups, sufficient for comparative analysis.
Analysis Plan:
Descriptive statistics of clinical and hemodynamic variables
Intergroup comparisons using:
Student's t-test or Wilcoxon test (continuous variables)
Chi² or Fisher's exact test (categorical variables)
Multivariable models:
Logistic regression for binary outcomes (e.g., mortality)
Generalized linear models for continuous outcomes (e.g., SOFA scores)
Cox proportional hazards models for survival analysis
Use of LASSO or stepwise selection for predictive modeling
ROC analysis to evaluate model discrimination (AUC with 95% CI)
Clustering or PCA for exploratory identification of phenotypes
Mediation analysis to explore causality between fluid volume, congestion, and organ dysfunction
All analyses will be performed using R statistical software, with significance set at p < 0.05.
Operational Feasibility and Ethics All participating ICUs are experienced in advanced hemodynamic and echocardiographic research (e.g., HEMOPRED, PRODIASYS).
Study classified as low-risk interventional research (RIPH 3).
Echocardiography and congestion assessment via ultrasound are already routine practices in these centers.
Non-opposition consent will be obtained from patients' next of kin.
Follow-Up:
Patients will be followed until ICU discharge or Day 28, whichever occurs later.
Clinical Relevance and Innovation This study addresses an unmet need in precision fluid therapy for septic shock. By combining hemodynamic, ultrasound, and clinical perfusion data, it moves beyond the traditional binary model of fluid responsiveness and seeks to establish a risk-benefit stratification for fluid administration.
The identification of high-risk phenotypes-fluid responsive but intolerant patients-will inform future individualized treatment strategies and potentially guide therapeutic trials using phenotypically driven protocols. The ultimate goal is to improve clinical outcomes by avoiding unnecessary or harmful fluid administration in vulnerable patients.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Target follow-up
- 28 Days
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Patients in septic shock, defined according to the Sepsis-3 criteria (7), who are under mechanical ventilation, have a central venous catheter in the superior vena cava territory and an arterial catheter, present with hypotension requiring vasopressor support and hyperlactatemia, and demonstrate a response to fluid resuscitation as per standard definition (i.e., an increase in cardiac output >10% assessed by subaortic velocity time integral [VTI] using echocardiography).
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Septic shock (sepsis-3 criteria)
- Under mechanical ventilation
- Central venous catheter in the superior vena cava territory and arterial catheter in place
- Response to fluid resuscitation as per standard definition (i.e., an increase in cardiac output >10% assessed by subaortic velocity time integral [VTI] using echocardiography)
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Patient under 18 years of age
- Lack of social security coverage / adult under legal protection
- Pregnant woman
- Inability to obtain non-opposition consent
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| EchographyAn exhaustive echography will be performed to determine fluid responsiveness (using a passive leg raising test and cardiac output measurement by left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral) | Diagnostic test | – |
Primary outcome
Comparison of septic shock patients based on a four-category classification based on 30 minutes to 1 hour after fluid resuscitation
Time frame: 30 minutes to 1 hour after fluid resuscitation
Comparison of septic shock patients based on a four-category classification
1 secondary outcome
Evolution of the cardiovascular, respiratory, and renal SOFA scores at 24 hours after fluid resuscitation and on Day 28.
Time frame: 24 hours after fluid resuscitation and on Day 28.
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 6 May 2025.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Septic Shock
Active, not recruitingPhase 4
Thymosin Alpha 1 and IgM Levels in Sepsis
Sepsis, Septic Shock
Not yet recruiting
Vitamin C for Acute Kidney Injury in ACLF With Septic Shock: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure (ACLF)
Not yet recruiting
ICU-SUCCEED for Survivors of Acute Respiratory Failure and Their Caregivers
Acute Respiratory Failure, Critical Illness
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Longitudinal Trajectories of Myocardial Work in Patients With Sepsis
Sepsis, Septic Shock Hyperdynamic
RecruitingObservational study
Immunothrombosis With Septic Shock Undergoing Renal Replacement Therapy With the OXIRIS Membrane
Sepsis
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.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Septic Shock and Fluid Resuscitation, run by Hospital Ambroise Paré Paris at 1 site in France.
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 4 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: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 6 May 2025. 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 France. 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?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Adrien JOSEPH, MD, PhD (+33149094409, adrien.joseph@aphp.fr), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Comparison of septic shock patients based on a four-category classification based on 30 minutes to 1 hour after fluid resuscitation (time frame: 30 minutes to 1 hour after fluid resuscitation). 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 6 May 2025.