Personalisation of Mean Arterial Pressure in Adult Patients With Cardiogenic Shock
NCT ID: NCT07345559
Last Updated: 2026-01-21
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.
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
406 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2026-03-15
2029-07-15
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.
Hemodynamic Assessment in Cardiogenic Shock Regarding the Etiology
NCT03283995
French Observatory on the Management of Cardiogenic Shock in 2016
NCT02703038
Multi Point Pacing vs. Conventional STUDY PROTOCOL
NCT04334018
Preload Dependency Evaluation With Stroke Volume Variation During Alveolar Recruitment Manoeuvres
NCT02678559
Evaluation of Predictive Factors for Right Ventriculaire Dysfunction
NCT04596982
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
During cardiogenic shock, the mean arterial pressure (MAP) level is associated with survival. A post hoc analysis of a recent randomized trial found increased mortality among patients in cardiogenic shock whose average MAP was \<70 mmHg during the first 36 hours after randomization, compared to patients with MAP ≥70 mmHg (58% vs. 29%, p\<0.01). Another observational study found higher mortality among patients with a mean MAP \<65 mmHg during the first 24 hours of shock compared to those with MAP ≥65 mmHg (57% vs. 28%, p\<0.001). In this study, the incidence of renal failure was also inversely associated with MAP level. The optimal MAP target remains unknown during cardiogenic shock.
Due to the characteristic venous congestion, the effective perfusion pressure may be very low during cardiogenic shock despite MAP being within the usual target (65 mmHg). Furthermore, increased central venous pressure (CVP) is associated with higher mortality during cardiogenic shock. Considering venous congestion by measuring or estimating CVP is necessary to assess the effective perfusion pressure (MAP minus CVP) in order to protect against organ dysfunction. In this perspective, the MAP target should be increased by the value of the CVP.
The investigators hypothesize that personalizing the MAP target (to achieve an effective perfusion pressure of 65 mmHg) improves organ perfusion and survival during cardiogenic shock compared to the usual MAP target of 65 mmHg.
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
OTHER
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Personalized MAP
Personalized MAP
Patients receive blood pressure management targeting a personalized MAP ranging from 65 mmHg + CVP to 75 mmHg + CVP, without exceeding 90 mmHg.CVP is measured via a central venous catheter positioned in the superior vena cava. After 48 hours, if tissue perfusion is restored, the MAP target may be reduced to 65-70 mmHg.
Standard MAP
Standard MAP
Patients receive blood pressure management aiming for a standard MAP target of 65-70 mmHg, according to international guidelines for cardiogenic shock management.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Personalized MAP
Patients receive blood pressure management targeting a personalized MAP ranging from 65 mmHg + CVP to 75 mmHg + CVP, without exceeding 90 mmHg.CVP is measured via a central venous catheter positioned in the superior vena cava. After 48 hours, if tissue perfusion is restored, the MAP target may be reduced to 65-70 mmHg.
Standard MAP
Patients receive blood pressure management aiming for a standard MAP target of 65-70 mmHg, according to international guidelines for cardiogenic shock management.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Cardiogenic shock state, according to the consensus definition,
* SCAI (Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions) classification ≥ C
* Consent from the patient or close relative / trusted person or emergency inclusion procedure
* Benefiting fromciary of a social security scheme
Exclusion Criteria
* CVP \< 5 mm Hg at inclusion;
* MAP \> 70 mmHg at inclusion;
* Chronic kidney disease stage G4 (defined by an eGFR between 15-29 ml/min/1.73 m²) or G5 (defined by an eGFR less than 15 ml/min/1.73 m²) according to the KDIGO CKD classification at inclusion;
* Chronic dialysis or presence of renal replacement therapy criteria at inclusion ;
* Recovered cardiopulmonary arrest within 7 days prior to inclusion;
* Patient already on mechanical circulatory support at inclusion before enrollment (patients who receive support after inclusion will not be excluded);
* Primary diagnosis of tamponade, pulmonary embolism, or septic shock;
* Hypersensitivity to norepinephrine tartrate or to any of the following excipients: sodium chloride, hydrochloric acid or sodium hydroxide water for injectable preparations;
* Absence of central venous access;
* Known pregnancy or current breastfeeding;
* Under legal guardianship, curatorship, or judicial protection.
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
CMC Ambroise Paré
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
CHU d'Amiens-Picardie
Amiens, , France
Hôpital Henri Mondor
Créteil, , France
Hôpital Privé Jacques Cartier
Massy, , France
CMC Ambroise Paré - Hartmann
Neuilly-sur-Seine, , France
CHU d'Orléans
Orléans, , France
Hôpital Lariboisière
Paris, , France
Hôpital Cochin
Paris, , France
Clinique NCT + /Saint-Gatien
Saint-Cyr-sur-Loire, , France
Centre Cardiologique du Nord
Saint-Denis, , France
CHRU de Strasbourg
Strasbourg, , France
CHU de Toulouse
Toulouse, , France
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Christophe BEYLS, MD
Role: primary
Armand MEKONTSO DESSAP, MD
Role: primary
Wulfran BOUGOUIN, MD
Role: primary
Guillaume GERI, MD
Role: primary
Marc GORALSKI, MD
Role: primary
Bruno MÉGARBANE, MD
Role: primary
Alain CARIOU, MD
Role: primary
Aurélien SEEMANN, MD
Role: primary
Tristan MORICHAUBEAUCHANT, MD
Role: primary
Hamid MERDJI, MD
Role: primary
Clément DELMAS, MD
Role: primary
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
2024-A00253-44
Identifier Type: REGISTRY
Identifier Source: secondary_id
2024/01
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.