[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"leadSponsorName\":\"Hospital Ambroise Paré Paris\",\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:":181},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,6,0,[8,42,70,97,127,151],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":15,"eligibilityCriteria":16,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":19,"enrollmentInfo":20,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":24,"briefSummary":26,"conditions":27,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":29,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":30,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":31,"startDateStruct":34,"completionDateStruct":36,"leadSponsor":38,"locationsCount":41},"100641691","aitbs-and-rtms-in-neuropathic-pain-and-prediction-of-response-100641691",false,"NCT07650526","aiTBS and rTMS in Neuropathic Pain and Prediction of Response","A Double-blind, Randomized, Sham-controlled Crossover Trial Comparing the Analgesic Effects of Accelerated Intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation (aiTBS) and Classical High-frequency rTMS Targeting the Motor Cortex in Chronic Neuropathic Pain, and Prediction of Response.","TRIPP","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Age over 18 years and less than 80 years\n2. Average pain intensity ≥ 4\u002F10 on the numerical scale of the Brief Pain Inventory at screening and randomization\n3. Pain present for at least 4 days per week\n4. Persistent pain for at least 6 months\n5. Stable pharmacological treatment for pain for at least 1 month prior to the study.\n6. Peripheral or central neuropathic pain (postherpetic neuralgia, painful neuropathies, nerve lesions, radiculopathy, trigeminal neuralgia, stabilized multiple sclerosis, spinal cord lesion or stroke) fulfilling criteria for probable or definite neuropathic pain; and scoring ≥ 4 out of 10 on the DN4 questionnaire\n7. Informed consent\n8. Patients who can be followed for the whole duration of the study\n9. Patients affiliated to social security in France\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Ongoing litigation\n2. Contraindication to rTMS :\n\n   * implanted electronic devices and\u002For conductive objects near the coil: patients with an active implanted device activated or controlled by physiological signals (e.g. pacemakers, implanted cardioverter defibrillators \\[ICD\\], vagus nerve stimulators \\[VNS\\] and portable cardioverter defibrillators \\[WCD\\], ocular implants, deep 16 brain stimulation, drug chambers\u002Fpumps, intracardiac leads) even if the device has been removed.\n   * Non-removable metal objects near the coil: Patients with a conductive implant, ferromagnetic or made of any other metal sensitive to magnetic fields, in the head or at a distance of less than 30 cm from the coil (e.g. cochlear implant, implanted electrodes\u002Fpacemakers, aneurysm clips or coils, stents and bullet fragments).\n3. Current drug or psychoactive substance abuse (DSM V)\n4. Pregnancy or lactation\n5. Epilepsia or past epilepsia\n6. Progressive unsable pathology (eg cancer)\n7. Current psychosis according to DSM V criteria\n8. Presence of other pain more severe than that justifying inclusion\n9. Lack of correct completion of pain self-assessment diaries between inclusion and randomisation (at least 4 weekly pain scores over 7 days),\n10. Subject unable to understand informed consent, under guardianship or curatorship\n11. Patients participating in another research protocol within 30 days prior to inclusion.\n12. Patient who has already received a treatment with rTMS","ALL","18 Years","80 Years",{"count":21,"type":22},30,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[25],"NA","This study evaluates the analgesic benefit of two non-invasive brain stimulation techniques: high frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation (aiTBS) - compared to sham stimulation, in patients with chronic neuropathic pain lasting at least 6 months.\n\nTranscranial magnetic stimulation, which is delivered by a coil positioned on the scalp over the motor cortex, generates a low-intensity, submotor-threshold electromagnetic field that noninvasively activates targeted brain regions involved in pain perception. The procedure is painless and non-invasive. Sham stimulation uses the inactive face of the same coil and produces an identical sound, ensuring that neither patients nor investigators know which stimulation is being delivered.\n\nConventional rTMS has demonstrated moderate analgesic efficacy in neuropathic pain, but its effect is delayed and requires at least 5 treatment sessions. iTBS delivers the same total stimulation dose in a much shorter time (approximately 8 minutes per session versus 30 minutes for conventional rTMS) and enables accelerated protocols with multiple sessions per day, which have shown promising results in depression.\n\nThis study compares aiTBS, rTMS and sham by a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a crossover design: participants are randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either active stimulation (both techniques in sequence) or sham stimulation (both techniques in sequence). Each treatment phase consists of either 5 consecutive daily rTMS sessions or 5 aiTBS sessions delivered on a single day (with a 45-min pause between sessions). The cross-over will take place after a 4 to 6-week washout period between the two active or sham treatments. The total study duration per participant is from 10 to 12 weeks, with 11-12 in-person visits.\n\nAssessments include self-reported pain diaries numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), validated pain, psychosocial, and quality-of-life questionnaires, resting-state Electroencephalography (EEG) recordings, and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) based measures of intracortical excitability and inhibition. The exploratory aim is to identify neurophysiological and clinical predictors of treatment response, to better personalize the treatment in chronic pain population.",[28],"Chronic Neuropathic Pain","RECRUITING","2026-06-30",{"date":32,"type":33},"2026-07-02","ACTUAL",{"date":35,"type":22},"2026-09",{"date":37,"type":22},"2028-09",{"name":39,"class":40},"Hospital Ambroise Paré Paris","OTHER",1,{"id":43,"slug":44,"hasResults":11,"nctId":45,"briefTitle":46,"officialTitle":47,"acronym":48,"eligibilityCriteria":49,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":19,"enrollmentInfo":50,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":52,"briefSummary":53,"conditions":54,"keywords":58,"overallStatus":29,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":63,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":64,"startDateStruct":66,"completionDateStruct":67,"leadSponsor":69,"locationsCount":41},"100642658","analgesic-efficacy-of-multisite-rtms-in-fibromyalgia-patients-100642658","NCT07642882","Analgesic Efficacy of Multisite rTMS in Fibromyalgia Patients","Analgesic Efficacy of Multisite rTMS in Depressed and Nondepressed Patients With Fibromyalgia and Prediction of the Response: a Double-Blind Randomized Sham-Controlled Study.","MultiStimFM","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Chronic pain lasting at least 6 months, with or without associated depressive symptoms;\n* Fibromyalgia (2016 revised ACR criteria and a FIRST questionnaire score of at least 5 out of 6);\n* Average pain intensity ≥ 4\u002F10 on a 0-10 numeric rating scale;\n* Pain present daily or almost daily (≥ 4 days per week);\n* Patients aged over 18 and under 80 years;\n* Patients who have provided written informed consent;\n* Patients whose analgesic treatment has been stable for at least 1 month prior to inclusion and will not need to be modified during the study;\n* Patients who can be followed for the duration of the study (10 weeks);\n* Patients covered by a health insurance plan or otherwise eligible.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Ongoing litigation;\n* Contraindication to rTMS:\n* Implanted electronic devices and\u002For conductive objects near the coil: Patients with an active implanted device that is activated or controlled by physiological signals (e.g., pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators \\[ICD\\], vagus nerve stimulators \\[VNS\\], wearable cardioverter defibrillators \\[WCD\\], ocular implants, deep brain stimulation systems, drug infusion pumps or ports, intracardiac leads), even if the device has been removed.\n* Non-removable metallic objects near the coil:\\*\\* Patients with a conductive, ferromagnetic, or magnetically sensitive metal implant in the head or within 30 cm of the coil (e.g., cochlear implants, implanted electrodes\u002Fstimulators, aneurysm clips or coils, stents, or bullet fragments);\n* Current abuse of drugs or psychoactive substances, including alcohol (according to DSM-5 criteria);\n* Pregnancy or breastfeeding;\n* Epilepsy or a history of epilepsy;\n* Unstable or progressive medical conditions (e.g., cancer);\n* Psychosis according to DSM-5 criteria;\n* Presence of another pain condition more severe than the one qualifying for inclusion;\n* Failure to correctly complete pain self-assessment diaries between inclusion and randomization (fewer than 4 pain scores recorded over 7 days);\n* Inability to understand the informed consent form, or subjects under legal guardianship or curatorship;\n* Participation in another research protocol within 30 days prior to inclusion.",{"count":51,"type":22},36,[25],"Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) of the motor cortex is a recognized analgesic technique for the treatment of fibromyalgia pain, which represents a largely unmet medical need. However, the effectiveness of motor cortex rTMS is inconsistent, being observed in only about 40% of patients and not always long-lasting. It has been previously shown that predictive factors for a lack of response to motor cortex rTMS include the presence of depressive symptoms, and that prefrontal cortex rTMS is not effective for pain, even though this treatment has proven efficacy in major depressive disorder.\n\nThe hypothesis is that targeting both the motor and prefrontal cortices with rTMS will yield a particularly beneficial effect in fibromyalgia patients presenting with comorbid depressive symptoms.\n\nGiven the absence of established biomarkers for predicting rTMS response, an additional aim will be to develop reliable indicators of rTMS efficacy, based on clinical phenotype and measurements of oscillatory patterns assessed by electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings.",[55,56,57],"Fibromyalgia","Depression - Major Depressive Disorder","Chronic Pain",[55,57,59,60,61,62],"rTMS","Depression","Neuromodulation","EEG","2026-06-08",{"date":65,"type":33},"2026-06-11",{"date":35,"type":22},{"date":68,"type":22},"2028-11",{"name":39,"class":40},{"id":71,"slug":72,"hasResults":11,"nctId":73,"briefTitle":74,"officialTitle":75,"acronym":76,"eligibilityCriteria":77,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":78,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":80,"briefSummary":81,"conditions":82,"keywords":84,"overallStatus":29,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":89,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":90,"startDateStruct":92,"completionDateStruct":94,"leadSponsor":96,"locationsCount":41},"100640432","chemotherapy-induced-peripheral-neuropathy-by-taxanes-and-capsaicin-8-100640432","NCT07602387","Chemotherapy Induced Peripheral Neuropathy by Taxanes and Capsaicin 8%.","Chemotherapy Induced Peripheral Neuropathy by Taxanes: Pathophysiological Evolution and Somatosensory Response Profile to Capsaicin 8%.","capsaNeP","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* patients over 18 years of age with no age limit\n* having given their signed consent for participation in the study\n* affiliated with the social security system\n* able to be followed for the entire duration of the study\n* reading and understanding French\n* accepting the principle of the study and able to respect its conditions\n* presenting sensorimotor or sensory neuropathy induced by taxanes (paclitaxel or docetaxel) of the lower limbs for at least 3 months based on a complete clinical examination, the severity of which will be assessed by the NCI-CTCAE version 5 criteria (grade 2 to 4). An electromyogram (EMG) will be performed in the absence of a recent electromyogram (less than one year) to assess the function of large fibers, but its normality will not constitute an exclusion criterion (due to the possibility of chemotherapy-induced small fiber neuropathies).\n* presenting chronic neuropathic pain in the lower limbs for at least 3 months, with a DN4 questionnaire score ≥ 4\u002F10 and of at least moderate intensity on an 11-point numerical scale (≥ 4\u002F10)\n* whose pain is located in the lower limbs allowing the application of 8% capsaicin\n* without treatment or having stable analgesic treatment for at least 2 weeks before inclusion\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* litigation or compensation-seeking\n* metastatic cancer\n* Known cause of sensory neuropathy such as diabetes, systemic disease, hypothyroidism, alcohol, kidney failure, or genetic disease\n* Peripheral or central nervous system pathology with or without associated neuropathic pain\n* Uncontrolled chronic pathology such as morbid obesity, sleep apnea, uncontrolled hypertension, etc.\n* Psychosis, previous suicide attempt, or major depressive episode at the time of assessment\n* Drug or psychoactive substance abuse\n* Cognitive or psychological disorders incompatible with compliance with and\u002For understanding of the protocol\n* Patients participating in another biomedical research protocol\n* Contraindications to confocal corneal microscopy, including the wearing of long-term contact lenses or ocular procedures (eye surgery, laser for myopia, dry eye).\n* Pregnant or breastfeeding women\n* Persons under legal protection",{"count":79,"type":22},50,[25],"The goal of this study is to compare the evolution of the density of small nerve fibers assessed with skin biopsies at the foot between two groups of patients with taxane-induced chronic neuropathic pain matched for sex and age: one group treated with applications of capsaicin 8% and a control group who received a systemic treatment. The hypothesis for the capsaicin 8% arm is that in the chronic phase, in the absence in the nervous environment of the toxic agent (in this case taxanes) causing the neuropathy and the functional modifications at the origin of pain, the new small fibers could regenerate without these pathological alterations.\n\nOur analysis will be based on the demonstration of structural abnormalities of small nerve fibers by means of skin biopsy, but also of functional abnormalities using four validated tests commonly used in this field: quantitative sensory testing (QST), laser evoked potential recordings, Sudoscan and confocal corneal microscopy.",[83],"Patients With Taxane-induced Chronic Neuropathic Pain",[85,86,87,88],"chronic neuropathic pain","taxanes","moderate to severe pain","skin biopsy","2026-05-18",{"date":91,"type":33},"2026-05-22",{"date":93,"type":33},"2024-03-12",{"date":95,"type":22},"2028-03",{"name":39,"class":40},{"id":98,"slug":99,"hasResults":11,"nctId":100,"briefTitle":101,"officialTitle":102,"acronym":103,"eligibilityCriteria":104,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":19,"enrollmentInfo":105,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":107,"briefSummary":108,"conditions":109,"keywords":112,"overallStatus":29,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":119,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":120,"startDateStruct":122,"completionDateStruct":124,"leadSponsor":126,"locationsCount":41},"100609184","efficacy-of-home-delivered-transcranial-direct-electrical-stimulation-or-chronic-pain-100609184","NCT07211256","Efficacy of Home-delivered Transcranial Direct Electrical Stimulation or Chronic Pain","Efficacy of Home-delivered Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) of the Motor Cortex in Patients With Chronic Pain Transiently Relieved by Motor Cortex rTMS : a Pragmatic Randomized Double Blind Sham Controlled Trial","Homestim-DC","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nChronic pain for at least 6 months Pain intensity ≥ 4\u002F10 on 0-10 NRS Pain present every day or nearly every day Neuropathic pain (DN4 score ≥ 4\u002F10) or nociplastic pain (Kosek et al Pain 2021) Patients previously treated with rTMS of the motor cortex in routine in our pain center but with only transient efficacy (ie, efficacy for less than one month, defined as pain intensity improved by at least 30 %) Affilitated to social security\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\nContraindications to tDCS as stated in the manufacturer brochure (ie, implantable device , severe cognitive disorders, epilepsia, skin problems where will placed the electrodes, arterial or venous thrombosis, thrombophlebitis, metallic intracranial implant, cranioth-omy, incracranial aneuvrysm, cerebral tumor, severel sleep disorders such as narcolepsia) Conciomitant treatment which might increase the risk of epilepsia such as high doses opioids (≥ 140 mg morphine equivalent) or high. doses tricyclic antidepressants (≥ 150 mg per day) Pregnancy or lactation Age below 18 or \\> 80 years Pending litigation related to pain Pain more severe than neuropathic or nociplastic pain requiring treatment Severe disease such as cancer Severe psychiatric condition (psychosis) Impossible to be followed for up to 3 months Participation in a recent protocol (less than 3 months) Psychoactive drug abuse",{"count":106,"type":22},70,[25],"This clinical investigation aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a home-based device providing electrical stimulation of the brain named transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS ) , in patients with chronic pain who have been transiently relieved by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation delivered at hospital (less than one month benefit). The general objective is to show that these patients may best benefit from home based tDCS while rTMS performed in hospital has only limited and transient efficacy. Each participant will be randomized into one of two arms to receive during 3 months either active tDCS or sham tDCS. Neither the investigator nor the patient will be aware of the treatment. The efficacy will be assessed on pain intensity (primary outcome at 3 months) and several secondary outcomes (qualify of life, pain symptoms , global impression of change, pain relief, sleep, anxiety, depression) every month for up to 3 months. Safety will be assessed at each follow up visit for up to 3 months. The participants will be asked to self stimulate themselves with the device 5 days per week for about 20 minutes.",[110,111],"Neuropathic Pain","Nociplastic Pain",[113,114,115,116,117,118],"randomized","neuropathic pain","nociplastic pain","placebo controlled","tDCS","home-delivered","2025-09-29",{"date":121,"type":33},"2025-10-07",{"date":123,"type":33},"2025-01-09",{"date":125,"type":22},"2028-02",{"name":39,"class":40},{"id":128,"slug":129,"hasResults":11,"nctId":130,"briefTitle":131,"officialTitle":132,"acronym":133,"eligibilityCriteria":134,"healthyVolunteers":135,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":136,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":138,"phases":4,"briefSummary":139,"conditions":140,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":29,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":142,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":143,"startDateStruct":145,"completionDateStruct":147,"leadSponsor":149,"locationsCount":150},"100556598","fibromyalgia-and-small-fiber-neuropathy-100556598","NCT06527183","Fibromyalgia and Small Fiber Neuropathy","Fibromyalgia and Small Fiber Neuropathy : Which Prevalence and Which Relationship With Pain ?","FIBRO-NEP","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* patients over 18 years of age with no age limit -\n* having given their signed consent to take part in the study\n* affiliated to the French social security system\n* able to be followed for the entire duration of the study\n* reading and understanding French\n* accepting the principle of the study and able to comply with its conditions\n* suffering from chronic pain for at least six months of at least moderate intensity (≥ 4\u002F10)\n* fibromyalgia detected by the FiRST questionnare and defined by the revised diagnostic criteria of the WHO or chronic nociceptive or nociplastic pain without associated fibromyalgia.\n* chronic pain for at least 6 months of at least moderate intensity (≥ 4\u002F10)\n* untreated or with stable analgesic treatment for at least 2 weeks prior to inclusion- normal neurological examination at inclusion\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* litigation or compensation-seeking\n* cancer for less than 2 years\n* known cause of small-fiber neuropathy such as diabetes, systemic disease, hypothyroidism, alcohol, renal failure, genetic disease\n* clinical or EMG neuropathy\n* peripheral or central nervous system pathology with or without associated neuropathic pain\n* uncontrolled chronic pathology such as : morbid obesity, sleep apnea, uncontrolled hypertension, etc. - psychosis, previous suicide attempt\n* drug or psychoactive substance abuse\n* cognitive or psychological disorders incompatible with compliance with and\u002For understanding of the protocol\n* participation in another biomedical research protocol.",true,{"count":137,"type":22},150,"OBSERVATIONAL","The primary objective of this study will be to assess the proportion of fibromyalgia patients with diffuse small-fiber neuropathy (i.e. in the upper and lower limbs) and compare this proportion to patients with other chronic pains (nociplastic, nociceptive) and with healthy controls. Our analysis will be based on the demonstration of structural abnormalities of small nerve fibers by means of skin biopsy, but also of functional abnormalities using four validated tests commonly used in this field: quantitative sensory testing (QST), laser evoked potential recordings, Sudoscan and confocal corneal microscopy. It will thus be possible to verify whether or not patients with small fiber neuropathy have a particular clinical profile in terms of pain, physical activity, comorbidities or pain impact.",[141],"Chronic Pain Syndrome","2025-09-03",{"date":144,"type":33},"2025-09-10",{"date":146,"type":33},"2022-01-04",{"date":148,"type":22},"2026-05",{"name":39,"class":40},2,{"id":152,"slug":153,"hasResults":11,"nctId":154,"briefTitle":155,"officialTitle":156,"acronym":157,"eligibilityCriteria":158,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":4,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":159,"targetDuration":161,"studyType":138,"phases":4,"briefSummary":162,"conditions":163,"keywords":167,"overallStatus":172,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":173,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":174,"startDateStruct":176,"completionDateStruct":178,"leadSponsor":180,"locationsCount":41},"100589776","evolution-of-tissue-perfusion-and-venous-congestion-markers-in-fluid-responsive-septic-shock-patients-100589776","NCT06958809","Evolution of Tissue Perfusion and Venous Congestion Markers in Fluid-Responsive Septic Shock Patients","Evolution of Tissue Perfusion and Venous Congestion Markers in Fluid-Responsive Septic Shock Patients: Evaluating the Benefit-Risk Balance of Fluid Resuscitation","FLUID-IMPACT","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Septic shock (sepsis-3 criteria)\n* Under mechanical ventilation\n* Central venous catheter in the superior vena cava territory and arterial catheter in place\n* Response to fluid resuscitation as per standard definition (i.e., an increase in cardiac output \\>10% assessed by subaortic velocity time integral \\[VTI\\] using echocardiography)\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patient under 18 years of age\n* Lack of social security coverage \u002F adult under legal protection\n* Pregnant woman\n* Inability to obtain non-opposition consent",{"count":160,"type":22},200,"28 Days","Septic shock remains a leading cause of mortality in intensive care, and while fluid resuscitation (FR) is a cornerstone of early management, its benefit-risk balance is highly variable. Excessive fluid administration can cause venous congestion and organ dysfunction, while insufficient resuscitation risks hypoperfusion. Current strategies often rely on fluid responsiveness (i.e., increased cardiac output after fluids), but this does not guarantee improved outcomes, particularly if congestion ensues.\n\nThis prospective, multicenter, observational study aims to assess the clinical impact of FR in septic shock patients who are fluid responsive. The primary objective is to evaluate changes in tissue perfusion and venous congestion markers following FR. Patients will be categorized into four response profiles based on the presence or absence of perfusion improvement and congestion worsening.\n\nSecondary objectives include exploring the prognostic implications of each profile (organ dysfunction, mortality), identifying pre-FR predictors of adverse responses, evaluating changes in congestion markers after passive leg raising (PLR), and performing phenotypic clustering and mediation analyses.\n\nEligible patients are adults with septic shock requiring vasopressors and mechanical ventilation, with confirmed fluid responsiveness via echocardiography. Each patient will undergo standardized pre- and post-FR assessments, including cardiac ultrasound, Doppler of hepatic\u002Fportal veins (VeXUS), CVP, perfusion markers, and blood gases.\n\nData on SOFA scores, organ support duration, and 28-day mortality will be collected. Approximately 170 patients will be enrolled across five ICUs experienced in advanced hemodynamic monitoring. Statistical analyses will include multivariate modeling, clustering, ROC curves, and mediation analyses.\n\nBy identifying phenotypes of fluid-responsive but fluid-intolerant patients, the study aims to refine fluid management strategies and improve outcomes through more personalized care in septic shock.",[164,165,166],"Septic Shock","Fluid Resuscitation","Congestion, Venous",[168,169,170,171],"septic shock","fluid resuscitation","venous congestion","tissue perfusion","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2025-04-25",{"date":175,"type":33},"2025-05-06",{"date":177,"type":22},"2026-02-01",{"date":179,"type":22},"2027-08-01",{"name":39,"class":40},""]