ArticleTrials2021
Efficacy and safety of early target-controlled plasma volume replacement with a balanced gelatine solution versus a balanced electrolyte solution in patients with severe sepsis/septic shock: study protocol, design, and rationale of a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicentric, international clinical trial : GENIUS-Gelatine use in ICU and sepsis.
Article in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02715466 (Prospective, Controlled, Double-Blind, Randomized Multicentric Study On The Efficacy And Safety Of An Early Target Controlled Plasma Volume Replacement Therapy With A Balanced Gelatine Solution vs A Balanced Electrolyte Solution In Patients With Severe Sepsis), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
Prospective, Controlled, Double-Blind, Randomized Multicentric Study On The Efficacy And Safety Of An Early Target Controlled Plasma Volume Replacement Therapy With A Balanced Gelatine Solution vs A Balanced Electrolyte Solution In Patients With Severe Sepsis
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms of Hemorrhagic Shock: Biological Rationale for Individualized Fluid Resuscitation Strategies and Multimodal Monitoring.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Efficacy and Safety of a Balanced Gelatine Solution for Fluid Resuscitation in Sepsis: A Prospective, Randomised, Controlled, Double-Blind Trial-GENIUS Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- [Volume therapy: which preparation for which situation?]Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2024Article
- Collagen-Based Medical Devices for Regenerative Medicine and Tissue Engineering.Applied biochemistry and biotechnology · 2024Review
- Alpha-Gal Syndrome: An Underrated Serious Disease and a Potential Future Challenge.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2024Review
- An Update on the Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Collagen Injectables for Aesthetic and Regenerative Medicine Applications.Polymers · 2023Review
- Moderator Effect of Hypoalbuminemia in Volume Resuscitation and Plasma Expansion with Intravenous Albumin Solution.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Effects of colloid-based (hydroxyethylstarch 6% 130/0.42, gelafundin 4%) and crystalloid-based volume regimes in cardiac surgery: a retrospective analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2022Article
- In Vivo Effects of Balanced Crystalloid or Gelatine Infusions on Functional Parameters of Coagulation and Fibrinolysis: A Prospective Randomized Crossover Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 13 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSepsis is associated with capillary leakage and vasodilatation and leads to hypotension and tissue hypoperfusion. Early plasma volume replacement is required to achieve haemodynamic stability (HDS) and maintain adequate tissue oxygenation. The right choice of fluids to be used for plasma volume replacement (colloid or crystalloid solutions) is still a matter of debate, and large trials investigating the use of colloid solutions containing gelatine are missing. This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of plasma volume replacement using either a combined gelatine-crystalloid regime (1:1 ratio) or a pure crystalloid regime.
methodsThis is a prospective, controlled, randomized, double-blind, international, multicentric phase IV study with two parallel groups that is planned to be conducted at European intensive care units (ICUs) in a population of patients with hypovolaemia in severe sepsis/septic shock. A total of 608 eligible patients will be randomly assigned to receive either a gelatine-crystalloid regime (Gelaspan® 4% and Sterofundin® ISO, B. Braun Melsungen AG, in a 1:1 ratio) or a pure crystalloid regime (Sterofundin® ISO) for plasma volume replacement. The primary outcome is defined as the time needed to achieve HDS. Plasma volume replacement will be target-controlled, i.e. fluids will only be administered to volume-responsive patients. Volume responsiveness will be assessed through passive leg raising or fluid challenges. The safety and efficacy of both regimens will be assessed daily for 28 days or until ICU discharge (whichever occurs first) as the secondary outcomes of this study. Follow-up visits/calls will be scheduled on day 28 and day 90. DISCUSSION: This study aims to generate evidence regarding which regimen-a gelatine-crystalloid regimen or a pure crystalloid regimen-is more effective in achieving HDS in critically ill patients with hypovolaemia. Study participants in both groups will benefit from the increased safety of target-controlled plasma volume replacement, which prevents fluid administration to already haemodynamically stable patients and reduces the risk of harmful fluid overload.
trial registrationThe European clinical trial database EudraCT 2015-000057-20 and the ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02715466 . Registered on 17 March 2016.
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.