Trial reportCritical care explorations2025
Electrocardiometry for the Management of Pediatric Septic Shock: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Critical care explorations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Septic Cardiomyopathy: Age-Dependent Physiology and Hemodynamic Aspects-A Narrative Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Correlation Between Hemodynamic Parameters Measured by Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitor and Serum Troponin I Levels in Pediatric Septic Shock Patients: A Prospective Observational Study.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the difference in the resuscitation fluid volume in the initial 6 hours in pediatric septic shock between those undergoing noninvasive continuous hemodynamic monitoring with electrocardiometry in addition to clinical monitoring vs. clinical monitoring alone.
designRandomized control trial.
settingPICU in a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Children from 2 months to 18 years with sepsis and unresolved shock after the initial fluid bolus (FB).
interventionsChildren were randomized to one of the two groups, that is, electrocardiometry with clinical monitoring group (group B) and clinical monitoring alone group (group A). In group B, electrocardiometry variables (cardiac index and systemic vascular resistance index) along with clinical monitoring were used to guide FB, as well as selection and titration of vasoactive agents. Clinical parameters were used to initiate and titrate fluid resuscitation and vasoactive therapy in group A as per standard guidelines. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsOne hundred nineteen children were enrolled in the study: 60 in group A and 59 in group B. There was a significantly higher requirement for resuscitation fluid volume (mean ± sd) within the initial 6 hours in the group A (30 ± 8.2 mL/kg) as compared with group B (22 ± 9.2 mL/kg). Similarly, maintenance along with resuscitation fluid volume (mean ± sd) administration (56 ±13 vs. 46 ±10.7, p < 0.001) was higher in group A in the first 24 hours of enrollment. Vasoactive therapy initiation was earlier in group B as compared with group A (37 ± 10.14 vs. 47.33 ± 12.41 min) with lower fluid overload percentage (2.98% vs. 1.7%) in this group. However, there was no difference in time to shock resolution, 28-day ICU-free days, hospital-free days, and mortality.
conclusionsAdvanced hemodynamic monitoring with electrocardiometry along with clinical assessment led to a restrictive fluid strategy in addition to minimizing the risk of fluid overload.
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.