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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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