ArticleAcute medicine & surgery
Can the global end-diastolic volume index guide fluid management in septic patients? A multicenter randomized controlled trial.
Article in Acute medicine & surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimAn index that accurately measures intravascular volume is paramount for the optimal resuscitation of sepsis. Selecting an adequate indicator to substitute for central venous pressure (CVP) has remained an issue. The objective of our study was to compare the usefulness of standard early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) with CVP (EGDT-CVP) and modified EGDT with global end-diastolic volume index (GEDI; EGDT-GEDI) for sepsis.
methodsThis was a multicenter prospective randomized controlled study. All patients with sepsis who were expected to require mechanical ventilator support for a minimum of 48 h were included. The patients were classified into an EGDT-CVP group and an EGDT-GEDI group. All participants underwent the extubation protocol. The primary outcome was the ventilator-free days over a 28-day period.
resultsThe ventilator-free days was not significantly different between the two groups (
conclusionAlthough there was no significant efficacy, EGDT guided by GEDI showed a trend of shorter length of stay in the intensive care unit and lower 3-day infusion balance than the EGDT-CVP group in sepsis. The GEDI monitoring did not appear to improve the ventilator-free days over a 28-day period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.