Cargando…
Efficacy and safety of early target-controlled plasma volume replacement with a balanced gelatine solution versus a balanced electrolyte solution in patients with severe sepsis/septic shock: study protocol, design, and rationale of a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicentric, international clinical trial: GENIUS—Gelatine use in ICU and sepsis
BACKGROUND: Sepsis is associated with capillary leakage and vasodilatation and leads to hypotension and tissue hypoperfusion. Early plasma volume replacement is required to achieve haemodynamic stability (HDS) and maintain adequate tissue oxygenation. The right choice of fluids to be used for plasma...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8170449/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34078421 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05311-8 |
_version_ | 1783702247768588288 |
---|---|
author | Marx, Gernot Zacharowski, Kai Ichai, Carole Asehnoune, Karim Černý, Vladimír Dembinski, Rolf Ferrer Roca, Ricard Fries, Dietmar Molnar, Zsolt Rosenberger, Peter Sanchez-Sanchez, Manuel Schürholz, Tobias Dehnhardt, Tamara Schmier, Sonja von Kleist, Elke Brauer, Ute Simon, Tim-Philipp |
author_facet | Marx, Gernot Zacharowski, Kai Ichai, Carole Asehnoune, Karim Černý, Vladimír Dembinski, Rolf Ferrer Roca, Ricard Fries, Dietmar Molnar, Zsolt Rosenberger, Peter Sanchez-Sanchez, Manuel Schürholz, Tobias Dehnhardt, Tamara Schmier, Sonja von Kleist, Elke Brauer, Ute Simon, Tim-Philipp |
author_sort | Marx, Gernot |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Sepsis is associated with capillary leakage and vasodilatation and leads to hypotension and tissue hypoperfusion. Early plasma volume replacement is required to achieve haemodynamic stability (HDS) and maintain adequate tissue oxygenation. The right choice of fluids to be used for plasma volume replacement (colloid or crystalloid solutions) is still a matter of debate, and large trials investigating the use of colloid solutions containing gelatine are missing. This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of plasma volume replacement using either a combined gelatine-crystalloid regime (1:1 ratio) or a pure crystalloid regime. METHODS: This is a prospective, controlled, randomized, double-blind, international, multicentric phase IV study with two parallel groups that is planned to be conducted at European intensive care units (ICUs) in a population of patients with hypovolaemia in severe sepsis/septic shock. A total of 608 eligible patients will be randomly assigned to receive either a gelatine-crystalloid regime (Gelaspan® 4% and Sterofundin® ISO, B. Braun Melsungen AG, in a 1:1 ratio) or a pure crystalloid regime (Sterofundin® ISO) for plasma volume replacement. The primary outcome is defined as the time needed to achieve HDS. Plasma volume replacement will be target-controlled, i.e. fluids will only be administered to volume-responsive patients. Volume responsiveness will be assessed through passive leg raising or fluid challenges. The safety and efficacy of both regimens will be assessed daily for 28 days or until ICU discharge (whichever occurs first) as the secondary outcomes of this study. Follow-up visits/calls will be scheduled on day 28 and day 90. DISCUSSION: This study aims to generate evidence regarding which regimen—a gelatine-crystalloid regimen or a pure crystalloid regimen—is more effective in achieving HDS in critically ill patients with hypovolaemia. Study participants in both groups will benefit from the increased safety of target-controlled plasma volume replacement, which prevents fluid administration to already haemodynamically stable patients and reduces the risk of harmful fluid overload. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The European clinical trial database EudraCT 2015-000057-20 and the ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02715466. Registered on 17 March 2016. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05311-8. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8170449 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81704492021-06-02 Efficacy and safety of early target-controlled plasma volume replacement with a balanced gelatine solution versus a balanced electrolyte solution in patients with severe sepsis/septic shock: study protocol, design, and rationale of a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicentric, international clinical trial: GENIUS—Gelatine use in ICU and sepsis Marx, Gernot Zacharowski, Kai Ichai, Carole Asehnoune, Karim Černý, Vladimír Dembinski, Rolf Ferrer Roca, Ricard Fries, Dietmar Molnar, Zsolt Rosenberger, Peter Sanchez-Sanchez, Manuel Schürholz, Tobias Dehnhardt, Tamara Schmier, Sonja von Kleist, Elke Brauer, Ute Simon, Tim-Philipp Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Sepsis is associated with capillary leakage and vasodilatation and leads to hypotension and tissue hypoperfusion. Early plasma volume replacement is required to achieve haemodynamic stability (HDS) and maintain adequate tissue oxygenation. The right choice of fluids to be used for plasma volume replacement (colloid or crystalloid solutions) is still a matter of debate, and large trials investigating the use of colloid solutions containing gelatine are missing. This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of plasma volume replacement using either a combined gelatine-crystalloid regime (1:1 ratio) or a pure crystalloid regime. METHODS: This is a prospective, controlled, randomized, double-blind, international, multicentric phase IV study with two parallel groups that is planned to be conducted at European intensive care units (ICUs) in a population of patients with hypovolaemia in severe sepsis/septic shock. A total of 608 eligible patients will be randomly assigned to receive either a gelatine-crystalloid regime (Gelaspan® 4% and Sterofundin® ISO, B. Braun Melsungen AG, in a 1:1 ratio) or a pure crystalloid regime (Sterofundin® ISO) for plasma volume replacement. The primary outcome is defined as the time needed to achieve HDS. Plasma volume replacement will be target-controlled, i.e. fluids will only be administered to volume-responsive patients. Volume responsiveness will be assessed through passive leg raising or fluid challenges. The safety and efficacy of both regimens will be assessed daily for 28 days or until ICU discharge (whichever occurs first) as the secondary outcomes of this study. Follow-up visits/calls will be scheduled on day 28 and day 90. DISCUSSION: This study aims to generate evidence regarding which regimen—a gelatine-crystalloid regimen or a pure crystalloid regimen—is more effective in achieving HDS in critically ill patients with hypovolaemia. Study participants in both groups will benefit from the increased safety of target-controlled plasma volume replacement, which prevents fluid administration to already haemodynamically stable patients and reduces the risk of harmful fluid overload. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The European clinical trial database EudraCT 2015-000057-20 and the ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02715466. Registered on 17 March 2016. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05311-8. BioMed Central 2021-06-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8170449/ /pubmed/34078421 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05311-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Study Protocol Marx, Gernot Zacharowski, Kai Ichai, Carole Asehnoune, Karim Černý, Vladimír Dembinski, Rolf Ferrer Roca, Ricard Fries, Dietmar Molnar, Zsolt Rosenberger, Peter Sanchez-Sanchez, Manuel Schürholz, Tobias Dehnhardt, Tamara Schmier, Sonja von Kleist, Elke Brauer, Ute Simon, Tim-Philipp Efficacy and safety of early target-controlled plasma volume replacement with a balanced gelatine solution versus a balanced electrolyte solution in patients with severe sepsis/septic shock: study protocol, design, and rationale of a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicentric, international clinical trial: GENIUS—Gelatine use in ICU and sepsis |
title | Efficacy and safety of early target-controlled plasma volume replacement with a balanced gelatine solution versus a balanced electrolyte solution in patients with severe sepsis/septic shock: study protocol, design, and rationale of a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicentric, international clinical trial: GENIUS—Gelatine use in ICU and sepsis |
title_full | Efficacy and safety of early target-controlled plasma volume replacement with a balanced gelatine solution versus a balanced electrolyte solution in patients with severe sepsis/septic shock: study protocol, design, and rationale of a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicentric, international clinical trial: GENIUS—Gelatine use in ICU and sepsis |
title_fullStr | Efficacy and safety of early target-controlled plasma volume replacement with a balanced gelatine solution versus a balanced electrolyte solution in patients with severe sepsis/septic shock: study protocol, design, and rationale of a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicentric, international clinical trial: GENIUS—Gelatine use in ICU and sepsis |
title_full_unstemmed | Efficacy and safety of early target-controlled plasma volume replacement with a balanced gelatine solution versus a balanced electrolyte solution in patients with severe sepsis/septic shock: study protocol, design, and rationale of a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicentric, international clinical trial: GENIUS—Gelatine use in ICU and sepsis |
title_short | Efficacy and safety of early target-controlled plasma volume replacement with a balanced gelatine solution versus a balanced electrolyte solution in patients with severe sepsis/septic shock: study protocol, design, and rationale of a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicentric, international clinical trial: GENIUS—Gelatine use in ICU and sepsis |
title_sort | efficacy and safety of early target-controlled plasma volume replacement with a balanced gelatine solution versus a balanced electrolyte solution in patients with severe sepsis/septic shock: study protocol, design, and rationale of a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicentric, international clinical trial: genius—gelatine use in icu and sepsis |
topic | Study Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8170449/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34078421 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05311-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT marxgernot efficacyandsafetyofearlytargetcontrolledplasmavolumereplacementwithabalancedgelatinesolutionversusabalancedelectrolytesolutioninpatientswithseveresepsissepticshockstudyprotocoldesignandrationaleofaprospectiverandomizedcontrolleddoubleblindmulticentricinte AT zacharowskikai efficacyandsafetyofearlytargetcontrolledplasmavolumereplacementwithabalancedgelatinesolutionversusabalancedelectrolytesolutioninpatientswithseveresepsissepticshockstudyprotocoldesignandrationaleofaprospectiverandomizedcontrolleddoubleblindmulticentricinte AT ichaicarole efficacyandsafetyofearlytargetcontrolledplasmavolumereplacementwithabalancedgelatinesolutionversusabalancedelectrolytesolutioninpatientswithseveresepsissepticshockstudyprotocoldesignandrationaleofaprospectiverandomizedcontrolleddoubleblindmulticentricinte AT asehnounekarim efficacyandsafetyofearlytargetcontrolledplasmavolumereplacementwithabalancedgelatinesolutionversusabalancedelectrolytesolutioninpatientswithseveresepsissepticshockstudyprotocoldesignandrationaleofaprospectiverandomizedcontrolleddoubleblindmulticentricinte AT cernyvladimir efficacyandsafetyofearlytargetcontrolledplasmavolumereplacementwithabalancedgelatinesolutionversusabalancedelectrolytesolutioninpatientswithseveresepsissepticshockstudyprotocoldesignandrationaleofaprospectiverandomizedcontrolleddoubleblindmulticentricinte AT dembinskirolf efficacyandsafetyofearlytargetcontrolledplasmavolumereplacementwithabalancedgelatinesolutionversusabalancedelectrolytesolutioninpatientswithseveresepsissepticshockstudyprotocoldesignandrationaleofaprospectiverandomizedcontrolleddoubleblindmulticentricinte AT ferrerrocaricard efficacyandsafetyofearlytargetcontrolledplasmavolumereplacementwithabalancedgelatinesolutionversusabalancedelectrolytesolutioninpatientswithseveresepsissepticshockstudyprotocoldesignandrationaleofaprospectiverandomizedcontrolleddoubleblindmulticentricinte AT friesdietmar efficacyandsafetyofearlytargetcontrolledplasmavolumereplacementwithabalancedgelatinesolutionversusabalancedelectrolytesolutioninpatientswithseveresepsissepticshockstudyprotocoldesignandrationaleofaprospectiverandomizedcontrolleddoubleblindmulticentricinte AT molnarzsolt efficacyandsafetyofearlytargetcontrolledplasmavolumereplacementwithabalancedgelatinesolutionversusabalancedelectrolytesolutioninpatientswithseveresepsissepticshockstudyprotocoldesignandrationaleofaprospectiverandomizedcontrolleddoubleblindmulticentricinte AT rosenbergerpeter efficacyandsafetyofearlytargetcontrolledplasmavolumereplacementwithabalancedgelatinesolutionversusabalancedelectrolytesolutioninpatientswithseveresepsissepticshockstudyprotocoldesignandrationaleofaprospectiverandomizedcontrolleddoubleblindmulticentricinte AT sanchezsanchezmanuel efficacyandsafetyofearlytargetcontrolledplasmavolumereplacementwithabalancedgelatinesolutionversusabalancedelectrolytesolutioninpatientswithseveresepsissepticshockstudyprotocoldesignandrationaleofaprospectiverandomizedcontrolleddoubleblindmulticentricinte AT schurholztobias efficacyandsafetyofearlytargetcontrolledplasmavolumereplacementwithabalancedgelatinesolutionversusabalancedelectrolytesolutioninpatientswithseveresepsissepticshockstudyprotocoldesignandrationaleofaprospectiverandomizedcontrolleddoubleblindmulticentricinte AT dehnhardttamara efficacyandsafetyofearlytargetcontrolledplasmavolumereplacementwithabalancedgelatinesolutionversusabalancedelectrolytesolutioninpatientswithseveresepsissepticshockstudyprotocoldesignandrationaleofaprospectiverandomizedcontrolleddoubleblindmulticentricinte AT schmiersonja efficacyandsafetyofearlytargetcontrolledplasmavolumereplacementwithabalancedgelatinesolutionversusabalancedelectrolytesolutioninpatientswithseveresepsissepticshockstudyprotocoldesignandrationaleofaprospectiverandomizedcontrolleddoubleblindmulticentricinte AT vonkleistelke efficacyandsafetyofearlytargetcontrolledplasmavolumereplacementwithabalancedgelatinesolutionversusabalancedelectrolytesolutioninpatientswithseveresepsissepticshockstudyprotocoldesignandrationaleofaprospectiverandomizedcontrolleddoubleblindmulticentricinte AT brauerute efficacyandsafetyofearlytargetcontrolledplasmavolumereplacementwithabalancedgelatinesolutionversusabalancedelectrolytesolutioninpatientswithseveresepsissepticshockstudyprotocoldesignandrationaleofaprospectiverandomizedcontrolleddoubleblindmulticentricinte AT simontimphilipp efficacyandsafetyofearlytargetcontrolledplasmavolumereplacementwithabalancedgelatinesolutionversusabalancedelectrolytesolutioninpatientswithseveresepsissepticshockstudyprotocoldesignandrationaleofaprospectiverandomizedcontrolleddoubleblindmulticentricinte |