[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"circulatory-failure\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:circulatory-failure":27},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,5,0,[8,56,92,123,150],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":15,"eligibilityCriteria":16,"healthyVolunteers":17,"sex":18,"minAge":19,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":20,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":4,"briefSummary":24,"conditions":25,"keywords":31,"overallStatus":43,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":44,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":45,"startDateStruct":48,"completionDateStruct":50,"leadSponsor":52,"locationsCount":55},"100602123","icu-background-early-awareness-for-critical-deterioration-100602123",false,"NCT07119411","ICU Background Early Awareness for Critical deterioratiON","ICU Background Early Awareness for Critical deterioratiON (BEACON)","BEACON","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* admission to intensive care unit\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* age \\\u003C 18 years\n* presence of documented refused general consent form (at database closure)\n* admission for the sole purpose of dying\u002Forgan donation or evaluation of such",true,"ALL","18 Years",{"count":21,"type":22},1962,"ESTIMATED","OBSERVATIONAL","The study will compare ICU sub-units, those with additional support of a clinician awareness system, ICU Beacon, and those receiving the standard of care. The win-ratio composite outcome will be assessed by comparing patients by study group and stratified by APACHE score at admission.",[26,27,28,29,30],"Respiratory Failure","Circulatory Failure","Mortality","Organ Dysfunction","Organ Failure, Multiple",[32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42],"icu","respiratory failure","circulatory failure","early warning system","prevention","prediction","risk prediction","organ failure","multi-organ failure","win-ratio","ICU Beacon","RECRUITING","2026-06-12",{"date":46,"type":47},"2026-06-15","ACTUAL",{"date":49,"type":47},"2025-12-01",{"date":51,"type":22},"2027-11-01",{"name":53,"class":54},"ETH Zurich","OTHER",1,{"id":57,"slug":58,"hasResults":11,"nctId":59,"briefTitle":60,"officialTitle":60,"acronym":61,"eligibilityCriteria":62,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":18,"minAge":63,"maxAge":64,"enrollmentInfo":65,"targetDuration":67,"studyType":23,"phases":4,"briefSummary":68,"conditions":69,"keywords":72,"overallStatus":43,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":82,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":83,"startDateStruct":85,"completionDateStruct":87,"leadSponsor":89,"locationsCount":91},"100633122","fluid-responsiveness-assessment-simplified-by-electric-cardiometry-in-children-100633122","NCT07522580","Fluid-responsiveness Assessment Simplified by Electric Cardiometry in Children","FAST","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age less than or equal to 8 years old\n* Hospitalization in a pediatric intensive care unit\n* Prescription by the attending physician of a fluid expansion of 10ml\u002Fkg\n* Use of a non-invasive cardiac output monitoring device (electrical cardiometry) as part of routine care\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patient less than 37 weeks' corrected gestational age\n* Hemodynamic instability making the delay necessary for any test dangerous\n* Supine position contraindicated or deleterious\n* Impairment of echocardiographic acoustic window or restless patient making ultrasonography impossible\n* Opposition to participate expressed by the patient or by a parent or legal guardian\n* Intra-abdominal hypertension, painful abdominal palpation or abdominal surgery in the last 15 days","0 Days","8 Years",{"count":66,"type":22},42,"28 Days","In this study of diagnostic accuracy, the investigators aim to validate a faster, simpler, and noninvasive test of fluid-responsiveness in critically ill children. This test is based on an assessment of the hemodynamic effects of a standardized abdominal compression, using electrical cardiometry. This would help physicians to identify more easily which patient could benefit from a volume expansion, thus avoiding a potentially useless or even dangerous fluid expansion that could lead to fluid overload. To this end, the diagnostic accuracy of electrical cardiometry-based stroke volume (SV) variation induced by a standardized abdominal compression to predict fluid responsiveness (define as a 15% increase in echocardiographically measured SV after volume expansion) will be measured.",[27,70,71],"Shock State","Fluid Therapy",[73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81],"Circulatory failure","Critical Care","Echocardiography","Electrical Cardiometry","Fluid therapy","Fluid responsiveness","Goal-directed fluid management","pediatrics","volume expansion","2026-04-03",{"date":84,"type":47},"2026-04-13",{"date":86,"type":47},"2025-07-22",{"date":88,"type":22},"2027-08-19",{"name":90,"class":54},"University Hospital, Bordeaux",4,{"id":93,"slug":94,"hasResults":11,"nctId":95,"briefTitle":96,"officialTitle":97,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":98,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":18,"minAge":19,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":99,"targetDuration":101,"studyType":23,"phases":4,"briefSummary":102,"conditions":103,"keywords":106,"overallStatus":113,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":114,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":115,"startDateStruct":117,"completionDateStruct":119,"leadSponsor":121,"locationsCount":55},"100616364","role-of-end-tidal-co2-during-passive-leg-raising-to-predict-fluid-responsiveness-in-icu-100616364","NCT07304648","Role of End-Tidal CO2 During Passive Leg Raising to Predict Fluid Responsiveness in ICU","The Role of End-Tidal Carbon Dioxide Changes During Passive Leg Raising in Predicting Fluid Responsiveness for Mechanically Ventilated Patients in the Intensive Care Unit: A Prospective Observational Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients aged 18 years or older.\n* Patients who have been followed in the intensive care unit (ICU) with mechanical ventilation support for at least 24 hours.\n* Patients for whom a mini fluid challenge (MFC) is clinically planned by the intensive care team.\n* Patients for whom informed consent has been obtained from first-degree relatives or a legal representative.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients younger than 18 years of age.\n* Pregnant patients.\n* Patients without consent from first-degree relatives or a legal representative.\n* Patients with known deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in the leg veins (risk of embolism during leg raising).\n* Patients with pathologies that may cause increased intracranial pressure (e.g., intracranial mass, hemorrhage).\n* Patients with uncontrolled hypertension.\n* Patients with severe cardiac disease (e.g., right heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, advanced valvular pathology).\n* Patients with carbon dioxide (CO2) retention.\n* Patients who have undergone hip surgery or hip replacement surgery where Passive Leg Raising (PLR) cannot be performed.\n* Patients with spontaneous breathing.\n* Patients with a probability of high intra-abdominal pressure.\n* Patients who cannot lie in a supine position.\n* Patients with current peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) \\\u003C 88%.\n* Patients on mechanical ventilation requiring pressure support \\> 16 mmHg or PEEP \\> 10 mmHg.",{"count":100,"type":22},68,"1 Day","This prospective observational study evaluates whether monitoring changes in exhaled carbon dioxide (End-Tidal CO2 or EtCO2) during a \"Passive Leg Raising\" (PLR) test can reliably predict fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients.\n\nIn the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), fluid management is a critical balance; while fluid is necessary for tissue perfusion, overload can lead to severe complications. Traditional static measurements (like central venous pressure) are often unreliable for guiding therapy. Dynamic tests like PLR are preferred as they simulate a fluid bolus reversibly by shifting blood from the legs to the heart.\n\nResearchers will observe mechanically ventilated patients planned for fluid resuscitation. The study compares the accuracy of non-invasive EtCO2 changes during PLR against a reference standard \"Mini Fluid Challenge\" (100 mL fluid administration). Fluid responsiveness will be confirmed using echocardiographic measurements (LVOT-VTI) or arterial pressure changes. The goal is to validate EtCO2 as a practical, real-time tool for safe fluid management.",[27,104,105],"Critical Illness","Hypovolemia",[107,108,109,110,111,112],"Fluid Responsiveness","Passive Leg Raising","End-Tidal CO2","Mini Fluid Challenge","Mechanical Ventilation","Intensive Care","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2025-12-13",{"date":116,"type":47},"2025-12-26",{"date":118,"type":22},"2026-01-01",{"date":120,"type":22},"2027-07-01",{"name":122,"class":54},"Izmir Katip Celebi University",{"id":124,"slug":125,"hasResults":11,"nctId":126,"briefTitle":127,"officialTitle":128,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":129,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":18,"minAge":19,"maxAge":130,"enrollmentInfo":131,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":4,"briefSummary":133,"conditions":134,"keywords":136,"overallStatus":113,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":141,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":142,"startDateStruct":144,"completionDateStruct":146,"leadSponsor":148,"locationsCount":55},"100608836","ivc-ultrasound-versus-central-venous-pressure-for-early-detection-of-hypovolemia-in-shock-patients-100608836","NCT07206732","IVC Ultrasound Versus Central Venous Pressure for Early Detection of Hypovolemia in Shock Patients","Ultrasound-Guided Inferior Vena Cava Assessment Versus Central Venous Pressure Monitoring in Early and Post-Resuscitation Detection of Hypovolemia Among Shocked Patients in the Emergency Department","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1- Adult patients aged ≥18 years. 2.Both male and female patients will be included in the study. 3. Presentation to the Emergency Department with clinical evidence of shock, defined by: Hypotension (systolic blood pressure \\\u003C90 mmHg or mean arterial pressure \\\u003C65 mmHg).\n\nEvidence of tissue hypoperfusion (e.g., altered mental status, cold extremities, or oliguria).\n\nElevated serum lactate (\\>2 mmol\u002FL). 4. Shock attributed to hypovolemic, septic, or hemorrhagic etiologies. 5. Patients requiring fluid resuscitation and hemodynamic monitoring.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1 - Patients younger than 18 years. 2. Pregnancy. 3.Cardiogenic or obstructive shock (e.g., cardiac tamponade, massive pulmonary embolism, or tension pneumothorax).\n\n4.Known inferior vena cava (IVC) anomalies (e.g., congenital absence, thrombosis).\n\n5\\. Increased intra-abdominal pressure or severe ascites. 6. Morbid obesity (BMI ≥40 kg\u002Fm²) or any condition interfering with adequate IVC ultrasound visualization.\n\n7\\. Prior central venous catheterization performed before Emergency Department arrival.\n\n8\\. Congestive heart failure (CHF) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF \\\u003C40%) or pulmonary hypertension.\n\n9\\. Refusal of the patient or legal guardian to participate in the study.","65 Years",{"count":132,"type":22},80,"This study aims to compare ultrasound-guided inferior vena cava (IVC) assessment with central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring for the detection of hypovolemia in shock patients in the emergency department. The primary objective is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of IVC collapsibility index compared to CVP values in both early and post-resuscitation phases. The study will prospectively enroll shock patients, collect demographic and clinical data, and analyze the correlation between IVC and CVP measurements to determine their role in guiding fluid resuscitation and hemodynamic management.",[135,105,27],"Shock",[135,105,137,138,139,140],"Emergency department","Central venous pressure","Fliud resuscitation","Ultrasound guided IVC","2025-11-16",{"date":143,"type":47},"2025-11-19",{"date":145,"type":22},"2025-12-15",{"date":147,"type":22},"2026-12-15",{"name":149,"class":54},"Assiut University",{"id":151,"slug":152,"hasResults":11,"nctId":153,"briefTitle":154,"officialTitle":155,"acronym":156,"eligibilityCriteria":157,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":18,"minAge":19,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":158,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":160,"phases":161,"briefSummary":163,"conditions":164,"keywords":168,"overallStatus":43,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":175,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":176,"startDateStruct":178,"completionDateStruct":180,"leadSponsor":182,"locationsCount":55},"100550069","phase-4-comparing-anticoagulation-strategies-using-ufh-argatroban-and-lmwh-for-ecmo-support-100550069","NCT06442267","Comparing Anticoagulation Strategies Using UFH, Argatroban and LMWH for ECMO Support","A Three-arm Randomized Controlled Non-inferiority Pilot Study Comparing Anticoagulation Strategies Using Unfractionated Heparin, Argatroban and Low-molecular-weight Heparin for Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support","CASUAL-ECMO","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* either\n\n  * require ECMO support or\n  * have been started on ECMO therapy within the last 12 hours\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients exhibiting contraindications to anticoagulation in general or any of the three investigated substances\n* Patients who are pregnant\n* Patients suffering from a clinically relevant pre-existing coagulopathy\n* Patients, for whom screening, randomization and implementation of study protocol cannot be initiated within 12 hours after cannulation\n* Patients receiving ongoing therapeutic systemic anticoagulation prior to ECMO implantation, or exhibiting an indication for therapeutic anticoagulation (e.g., pulmonary embolism)\n* Patients whose total duration of ECMO support lasts less than 24 hours\n* Patients with start of ECMO support during CPR (eCPR)\n* Patients with passive decarboxylation, without an active pumping system\n* Patients, who have been weaned off ECMO support within the last 30 days\n* Patients with central ECMO cannulation and\u002For after cardiopulmonary bypass",{"count":159,"type":22},90,"INTERVENTIONAL",[162],"PHASE4","A three-arm randomized controlled non-inferiority pilot study comparing anticoagulation strategies using unfractionated heparin, argatroban and enoxaparin for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support conducted as an investigator-initiated, prospective, parallel group, open-label, active comparator controlled, single center, phase IV study to evaluate the non-inferiority of enoxaparin or argatroban for anticoagulation during ECMO therapy in comparison to the current standard, unfractionated heparin, as measured by the incidence of thromboembolic events during the duration of ECMO therapy",[165,27,166,167],"Respiratory Insufficiency","Thromboembolism","Bleeding",[169,170,171,167,172,173,174],"ECMO","Anticoagulation","Thromboembolic Event","extracorporeal life support","anticoagulant","heparin","2024-10-26",{"date":177,"type":47},"2024-10-29",{"date":179,"type":47},"2024-07-30",{"date":181,"type":22},"2027-07-30",{"name":183,"class":54},"Medical University of Vienna"]