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.
Study facts
What this study's own registry entry says, in plain language.
- Participants
-
About 70 people
The number the study aims to enrol. It can still change while the study runs.
- Expected to start
-
Jan 2026
An estimate. Start dates often move.
- Expected to finish
-
Oct 2027
An estimate. End dates often move.
- Lead sponsor
-
Other sponsor
The registry's catch-all category, for sponsors it does not file as a company, a government agency, or a research network.
Who can take part
This study's own entry requirements. Only the study team can say for certain whether you qualify.
Who is studied
The study population will include adult patients aged (≥18 years old) yearpresenting with septic shock to the emergency department and requiring volume status assessment through both IVC ultrasound and central venous pressure monitoring
- Ages
-
18 years and older
- Sex
-
Anyone
Show the full entry requirements Hide the full entry requirements
Copied word for word from the study's registry entry, so the wording is the study team's rather than ours.
1. Inclusion criteria: * Adult patients (≥18 years old) both gender. with a clinical diagnosis of septic shock according to Sepsis-3 criteria (persistent hypotension require vasopressors to maintain MAP ≥65 mmHg and serum lactate \>2 mmol/L despite adequate fluid resuscitation).(2,3). * with a central venous catheter in place for CVP monitoring. .awho require fluid resuscitation. 2. Exclusion criteria: .pregnant patients. .Patients with significant right heart failure or severe tricuspid regurgitation (5).. .Patients with increased intra-abdominal pressure or conditions affecting IVC diameter (9). .Patients with arrhythmias (e.g., atrial fibrillation) that interfere with preload assessment (6). .Patients who refuse participation. * patients with contraindications to cvp (coagulopathy,distortion in anatomy of neck,....)
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.
Genom att skicka in godkänner du våra Användarvillkor
As listed by the trial registrant
The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.
How to take part
Only the study team decides who joins. These are the ways to reach them.
-
The official record
ClinicalTrials.gov lists the study team's own contact details, including names and phone numbers. We don't republish those.
-
A doctor treating you
A doctor who knows your case can contact a study site on your behalf, and can tell you whether this study is worth pursuing at all.