Comparison of different blood flow monitoring systems in critically ill patients

Comparison of global end-diastolic volume index derived from jugular and femoral indicator injection in patients equipped with both a PiCCO-2 and an EV-1000-device

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Observational

Source

ISRCTN

Registry ID

ISRCTN82629192

Enrollment

Registered

2019-12-15

Start date

2017-01-25

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2023-01-30

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Critically ill patients with the need for extended hemodynamic monitoring Circulatory System Critically ill patients with the need for extended hemodynamic monitoring

Interventions

First, only patients already equipped with a central venous catheter/dialysis catheter and PiCCO or EV-1000 monitoring system will be enrolled in this study. Second, the treating phys

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Patients treated on the intensive care unit 2. Critically ill patients 3. Patients with the need of a change of CVC and arterial line in patients with pre-existing and continuing need for TPTD-monitoring 4. Hemodynamic stable patients without vasopressors or with a constant vasopressor-dosage

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. Pregnant 2. Younger than 18 years old

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
Global end-diastolic volume (index) measured using PiCCO and EV1000	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Measured using PiCCO and EV1000 1. Cardiac output/index 2. Cardiac function index 3. Global ejection fraction 4. Extravascular lung water index 5. Pulmonary vascular permeability index 6. Central venous pressure 7. Systolic volume variation 8. Pulse pressure variation	—

Countries

Germany

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026