NCT00484133

Microcirculation Guided Therapy Versus "Standard Treatment" of Severe Sepsis

• Status: Unknown
• Phase: Phase 4
• Study type: Interventional
• Enrollment: 80 (estimated)
• Sponsor: Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis · Academic / Other
• Sex: All
• Age: 18 Years
• Healthy volunteers: Not accepted

Summary

The purpose of this study is to asses the recovery of organ failure between two resuscitation protocols in severe sepsis: standard, pressure guided therapy versus a microcirculation guided therapy

Detailed description

Despite continued improvements in medical therapy, mortality from septic shock has remained between 30% and 70% for the past three decades with only a slight decrease in mortality rate. Standard treatment of septic shock is fluid resuscitation, followed by agents with vasopressor activity to correct hypotension in septic shock. The question rises whether vasopressors should be the first line of action in septic shock Opening and recruiting the microcirculation are expected to improve regional organ function and tissue distress in severe sepsis. Beside fluid resuscitation, vasodilatation, in this respect, enhances microcirculatory flow while vasoconstriction causes a reduction in microcirculatory flow. On the other hand, a minimal perfusion pressure should be present. Our aim is to asses the effects of two resuscitation protocols in severe sepsis: the "standard treatment" using predefined pressure goals versus a microcirculation guided therapy.

Conditions

• Severe Sepsis
• Microcirculation

Interventions

Type	Name	Description
DRUG	Dopamine
DRUG	dobutamine
DRUG	enoximone
DRUG	nitroglycerine
DRUG	noradrenaline

Timeline

• Start date: 2007-06-01
• Primary completion: 2008-12-01
• First posted: 2007-06-08
• Last updated: 2008-01-22

Locations

1 site across 1 country: Netherlands