Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
PHASE3
53 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2014-01-31
2016-06-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
SQUEEZE Trial: A Trial to Determine Whether Septic Shock Reversal is Quicker in Pediatric Patients Randomized to an Early Goal Directed Fluid Sparing Strategy vs. Usual Care
NCT03080038
Pragmatic Pediatric Trial of Balanced Versus Normal Saline Fluid in Sepsis
NCT04102371
Microcirculatory Guided Goal Directed Fluid Therapy in Septic Shock; a Feasibility Study
NCT03898674
Randomized Control Study in REsuscitation of SEpsis Trial
NCT07035509
Therapeutic Plasma Exchange in Septic Shock: A Pilot Study
NCT05093075
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Emerging publications in the ICU literature suggest that excessive compared to conservative fluid administration in adults with septic shock worsens outcomes such as duration of mechanical ventilation, complications related to the third-spacing of fluids, length of ICU stay, and mortality. A systematic review published in August 2012 reveals a paucity of randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence apart from the FEAST trial examining the impact of fluid resuscitation on mortality in children with septic shock. This raises the important question of whether children in developed countries would also benefit from a fluid sparing resuscitation strategy to achieve the ACCM goal-directed targets. Use of such a fluid sparing strategy would, by default, require earlier initiation and preferential escalation of vasoactive medications to meet ACCM hemodynamic goals. The optimal degree of fluid resuscitation and the timing of initiation of vasoactive support in order to achieve therapeutic targets in children with septic shock remains unanswered.
This Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial constitutes the first step in answering our research question of whether, in pediatric patients with septic shock, use of a fluid sparing strategy to achieve ACCM therapeutic goals, results in improved clinical outcomes without an increased risk of adverse events, compared to the usual care of aggressive fluid resuscitation as currently recommended by the ACCM guidelines. The purpose of the pilot study is to determine feasibility and inform the appropriate methodological design of the larger multi-centre RCT to fully answer our research question. The hypothesis of the pilot study is that the SQUEEZE Trial is feasible to conduct.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Usual Care Resuscitation Strategy
Decisions regarding the IV/IO administration of isotonic fluid boluses and/or the initiation and escalation of vasoactive medication infusions are left to the discretion of the treating physician and medical team. We ask that vasoactive medications not be initiated until at least 60 mL/kg (3 litres for children ≥ 50 kg) of isotonic fluid bolus therapy has been administered. The treating physician and medical team are advised to follow ACCM guidelines for the resuscitation of neonatal and pediatric septic shock and to target ACCM recommended therapeutic endpoints.
No interventions assigned to this group
Fluid Sparing Resuscitation Strategy
The treating physician and medical team are advised to follow the assigned Fluid Sparing Resuscitation Strategy to guide decisions regarding the IV/IO administration of further isotonic fluid boluses, and the timing of initiation and escalation of vasoactive medication infusions to target the therapeutic endpoints recommended in the ACCM guidelines for the resuscitation of neonatal and pediatric septic shock.
Fluid Sparing Resuscitation Strategy
Tier 1: Initiate IV/IO vasoactive medication infusion support immediately. Further IV/IO isotonic fluid bolus therapy \[crystalloid (0.9% Normal Saline or Ringers Lactate) or colloid (5% Albumin)\] should be avoided; small volume isotonic fluid boluses \[5-10 mL/kg (250-500 mL for participants ≥ 50 kg)\] may be provided if required due to A. Clinically unacceptable delay in ability to initiate vasoactive medication infusion(s) and/or 2. Documented intravascular hypovolemia.
Tier 2: Vasoactive medication(s) should be preferentially titrated/escalated to achieve recommended ACCM hemodynamic goals. Further IV/IO isotonic fluid bolus therapy \[crystalloid (0.9% Normal Saline or Ringers Lactate) or colloid (5% Albumin)\] should be avoided; small volume isotonic fluid boluses \[5-10 mL/kg (250-500 mL for participants ≥ 50 kg)\] may be provided if required due to A. Documented intravascular hypovolemia.
Intervention end: Patient is free from vasoactive medication support and shock is reversed.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Fluid Sparing Resuscitation Strategy
Tier 1: Initiate IV/IO vasoactive medication infusion support immediately. Further IV/IO isotonic fluid bolus therapy \[crystalloid (0.9% Normal Saline or Ringers Lactate) or colloid (5% Albumin)\] should be avoided; small volume isotonic fluid boluses \[5-10 mL/kg (250-500 mL for participants ≥ 50 kg)\] may be provided if required due to A. Clinically unacceptable delay in ability to initiate vasoactive medication infusion(s) and/or 2. Documented intravascular hypovolemia.
Tier 2: Vasoactive medication(s) should be preferentially titrated/escalated to achieve recommended ACCM hemodynamic goals. Further IV/IO isotonic fluid bolus therapy \[crystalloid (0.9% Normal Saline or Ringers Lactate) or colloid (5% Albumin)\] should be avoided; small volume isotonic fluid boluses \[5-10 mL/kg (250-500 mL for participants ≥ 50 kg)\] may be provided if required due to A. Documented intravascular hypovolemia.
Intervention end: Patient is free from vasoactive medication support and shock is reversed.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
2a) Patient has Persistent Signs of Shock including one or more of the following: i) Vasoactive Medication Dependence ii) Hypotension (Systolic Blood Pressure and/or Mean Blood Pressure less than the 5th percentile for age) iii) Abnormal Perfusion (2 or more of: abnormal capillary refill, tachycardia, decreased level of consciousness, decreased urine output)
2b) Suspected or Confirmed Septic Shock (Shock due to Suspected or Confirmed Infectious Cause)
2c) Patient has received initial fluid resuscitation of: Minimum of 40 mL/kg of isotonic crystalloid (0.9% Normal Saline and/or Ringer's Lactate) and/or colloid (5% albumin) as fluid boluses within the previous 6 hours for patients weighing less than 50 kg, OR Minimum of 2 litres (2000 mL) of isotonic crystalloid (0.9% Normal Saline and/or Ringer's Lactate) and/or colloid (5% albumin) as fluid boluses within the previous 6 hours for patients weighing 50 kg or more
3\. Patient has Fluid Refractory Septic Shock as defined by the Presence of all of 2a, 2b, and 2c.
Exclusion Criteria
* Patient requiring resuscitation in the Operating Room (OR) or Post-Anesthetic Care Unit (PACU)
* Full active resuscitative treatment not within the goals of care
* Shock Secondary to Cause other than Sepsis (i.e. obvious signs of cardiogenic shock, anaphylactic shock, hemorrhagic shock, spinal shock)
* Previous enrolment in this trial, where known by the research team
29 Days
17 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation
OTHER
McMaster University
OTHER
Canadian Critical Care Trials Group
OTHER
McMaster Children's Hospital
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Melissa J Parker, MD, MSc
Associate Professor of Pediatrics, McMaster University; Staff Physician, McMaster Children's Hospital
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Melissa J Parker, MD, MSc
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
McMaster University and McMaster Children's Hospital
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
McMaster Children's Hospital
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Parker MJ, Foster G, Fox-Robichaud A, Choong K, Mbuagbaw L, Thabane L; With the SQUEEZE Trial Steering Committee and on behalf of the SQUEEZE Trial Investigators, the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group, Pediatric Emergency Research Canada, and the Canadian Critical Care Translational Biology Group. Statistical analysis plan for the SQUEEZE trial: A trial to determine whether septic shock reversal is quicker in pediatric patients randomized to an early goal-directed fluid-sparing strategy vs. usual care (SQUEEZE). Crit Care Resusc. 2024 Jun 22;26(2):123-134. doi: 10.1016/j.ccrj.2024.02.002. eCollection 2024 Jun.
Parker MJ, Thabane L, Fox-Robichaud A, Liaw P, Choong K; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group and the Canadian Critical Care Translational Biology Group. A trial to determine whether septic shock-reversal is quicker in pediatric patients randomized to an early goal-directed fluid-sparing strategy versus usual care (SQUEEZE): study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2016 Nov 22;17(1):556. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1689-2.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
13-295
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.