Ultrasound vs. catheter: which better guides septic shock care?
NCT ID NCT07279064
First seen Jun 27, 2026 · Last updated Jun 27, 2026
Summary
This study will enroll 70 adults with septic shock to compare two methods for deciding how much fluid to give: the standard central venous pressure (CVP) catheter and a non-invasive ultrasound that measures the inferior vena cava. Researchers want to see which method more accurately predicts whether a patient needs more fluids. The goal is to improve fluid management and possibly reduce the need for invasive monitoring.
What this could mean
Our plain-language read of the trial. This is informational only — not medical advice or a prediction.
- Active substance
- Ultrasound-guided inferior vena cava distensibility index measurement
- What this could lead to
- If successful, this could show that a simple bedside ultrasound is as good as or better than an invasive catheter for guiding fluid treatment in septic shock, potentially reducing complications.
- What could go wrong
- This is a small, early-stage study (70 participants) that only compares two measurement methods, not a treatment. Results may not apply to all patients or change outcomes.
This is an AI summary of the original study and may miss details. Read our disclaimer.
Get updates
Get notified about this study
Sign up to get updates when this study changes or when new studies for CENTRAL VENOUS PRESSURE AND INFERIOR VENA CAVA DISTENSIBILITY INDEX IN ASSESSING FLUID RESPONSIVENESS IN SEPTIC SHOCKED PATIENTS are added.
By submitting, you agree to our Terms of use
As listed by the trial registrant
The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.