HypotensionSHoC-EDNCT01419106
Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department.
A study testing Ultrasound (A point of care ultrasound protocol) in people with Hypotension and Point of Care Ultrasound, run by Horizon Health Network at 6 sites in 2 countries.
Trial summary
This study is designed to determine if there is any relationship between performing an abdominal ultrasound on patients who present with hypotension and their clinical outcomes (as measured by 7, 30 day and discharge mortality). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 19 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Hypotension, Point of Care Ultrasound, Shock
- What is being tested?
- Ultrasound (A point of care ultrasound protocol)
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 273 participants
- Where
- 6 sitesin 2 countries
- Study dates
- Aug 2011to Jun 2018
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 19 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- 19 years of age or older
- Systolic Blood Pressure under 100 OR Systolic BP under pulse (up to 120)
Who cannot join
- Patients known to be pregnant at time of presentation
- Necessity of CPR or other advanced life support interventions before enrolment
- History of significant trauma in past 24 hours
- A 12 lead diagnostic of acute myocardial infarction
- Mechanism of shock is clear (i.e. not undifferentiated shock)
- Previously known diagnosis from other hospital
- Vagal episode (as cause of hypotension)
- Low blood pressure not actually being pathologic hypotension (Normal Variant or other)
Trial locations and contacts
6 sites in 2 countries.
6 sites in 2 countries
Canada3 sites
Saint John Regional Hospital
Saint John, New Brunswick, E2L 4L2
Saskatoon Health Region
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7K 0M7
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Manitoba
South Africa3 sites
Tygerberg Hospital
Cape Town, Western Cape
Khayelitsha Hospital
Cape Town
GF Jooste Hospital
Manenberg, Cape Town, 7764
About this study
Official title: SHoC-ED: Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department.
This study is designed to determine if there is any relationship between performing an abdominal ultrasound on patients who present with hypotension and their clinical outcomes (as measured by 7, 30 day and discharge mortality).
Read the detailed description
STRUCTURED RESEARCH ABSTRACT
Introduction
Patients who present to the ED (emergency department) with undifferentiated, non-trauma associated hypotension are often affected by conditions with a prognosis largely dependent on the time taken from presentation to correct diagnosis and intervention. The ACES protocol (Abdominal and Cardiothoracic Evaluation with Sonography in Shock) provides a rapid focused ultrasound protocol for making or refining diagnoses in patients who present to the ED with this type of hypotension. This will be the first study to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who are assessed with the ACES protocol as part of their initial workup to those of patients who are assessed without any intervention by ultrasound. The goal of this study is to determine if ACES enhances the patient's clinical outcomes, as measured by: 1) Time to restoration (or improvement) of CVS (cardiovascular system) parameters, 2) Rate of normalization of acid-base balance, as well as venous lactate 3) Significant change in diagnosis or recommended intervention 4) Frequency of unexpected diagnosis, and 5) Patient 7 and 30-day, and discharge mortality rate.
Methods
SHoC-ED 1 is a stratified randomized control trial that will run in multiple centers across Canada and internationally. The data will be stratified in that each center involved will recruit equal amounts of control and intervention patients. While different centers will recruit different numbers of participants, each individual center will recruit near-equal amounts for each arm of the study.
ED nurses will identify potential candidates for the SHoC-ED 1 study, and flag their charts to notify the attending physician. ED Physicians trained on the ACES protocol will then proceed to review the exclusion criteria (part of patient inclusion sheet/patient flag) and where appropriate, obtain consent. After these are completed, the physician will retrieve an envelope that contains the already randomized forms appropriate for whichever arm the patient has been randomized to. This randomization will place patients in either the ACES group (to be referred to as Group 1), or the control group (to be referred to as Group 2). Physicians following the group 1 protocol will perform their normal initial assessment and then do ACES, recording their data after each step. Physicians in group 2 will simply record their data after the initial assessment. Both groups of physicians will then record their impressions at 60 minutes as this will enable this project to determine how changes in diagnoses are affected by non-ultrasound factors in the first hour a patient is in the ED. These diagnoses will then be compared against the "final" diagnoses made during the patient's admission. Exclusion criteria for this study include the following: A) necessity of CPR or other advanced life support interventions before enrollment, B) History of significant trauma in past 24 hours, C) A 12 lead ECG diagnostic of STEMI, D) Mechanism of shock is clear (i.e. not undifferentiated shock), E) previously known diagnosis from other hospital, F) previously confirmed pregnancy, G) vagal episode H) Low blood pressure is not actually pathologic hypotension, but instead a normal variant or some other phenomenon.
To ensure that scans are being performed properly and consistently at all sites included in this study local principal investigators will be responsible for ensuring appropriate training and monitoring of standards for the physicians at their center performing ACES.
The data collected from both Group 1 and Group 2 will then be compared against each other, and follow-up will be conducted to ascertain if the early intervention with ACES had any implications on long-term outcomes.
Results
Given that much of the data interpreted will be comparing numerical values from different strata (Example: Time taken to operating theatre compared between Group 1 and 2), ANOVA testing will be used. The results of the ANOVA test will be used to determine if there is a significant difference in outcome, as measured by 1) Time to restoration (or improvement) of CVS parameters, and 2) Rate of normalization of acid-base balance (using either venous or arterial blood gas), and blood lactate.
For categorical data (Example: Mortality rate between groups), chi-square analyses will be performed to determine statistically significant increase in clinical outcome. This will be done for:
- Significant changes in diagnosis/recommendations in intervention change, and
- Frequency of unexpected diagnosis.
Conclusion
This SRCT (stratified randomized control trial) will determine whether the ACES protocol leads to improved clinical outcomes in patients who present to the ED with undifferentiated, non-trauma associated shock. It will compare intervention with the ACES protocol to intervention with no ultrasound at all.
- Conditions
- Hypotension, Point of Care Ultrasound, Shock
- Being tested
- Ultrasound (A point of care ultrasound protocol)
- Keywords
- Hypotension, Emergency care, Point of care Ultrasound, Shock
- Medical subject headings
- Hypotension, Shock
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Ultrasound (A point of care ultrasound protocol)Device
Bedside ultrasound will be used to view any intraperitoneal bleeding, pleural fluid, cardiac abnormalities, or structural abnormalities of major blood vessels. The results of this test will then be used to determine the best course of treatment for the patient.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Control | No intervention | This arm of the study will NOT receive point of care ultrasound. They will receive all other standard care implemented during their visit to the ED (currently, ultrasound is NOT standard of care). The same blood tests will be done in both groups, as this will offer a means of comparing physiological changes between the two arms. |
| Ultrasound | Experimental | This group WILL receive point of care ultrasound. The protocol they will receive is the ACES protocol (described above). Receives: Device: Ultrasound (A point of care ultrasound protocol) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Patient Mortality Rates (7-day, 30 Day or Hospital Discharge)
Determine the proportion of patients living at 7-day, 30 Day or Hospital Discharge
Measured: 7-day, 30 Day or Hospital Discharge
Secondary outcomes (2)
Time taken to appropriate intervention
This is a measure that will be done to determine how long after initial diagnosis "appropriate" interventions are taken. This will be done by reviewing the patient's chart, identifying what the ultimate diagnosis for the patient was (resultant of testing that occurs as patient progresses through system), and seeing when propoer intervention was taken.
Measured: Within 8 hours
Unexpected change in diagnosis
If ED physician's expectations prior to performing ultrasound is AAA, but post ultrasound diagnosis is septic shock, this would be an example of an unexpected change in diagnosis. This measure will only be performed in the ultrasound group, as the purpose is to identify how often performing ultrasound will result in diagnosis changes.
Measured: First hour
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted17 Aug 2011 (estimated)
- Study startAug 2011
- Primary completionJun 2018
- Study completionJun 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for HypotensionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 273 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Horizon Health Network
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Cape Town, University of Stellenbosch, Dalhousie University, University of Manitoba, University of Saskatchewan, Harvard University, University of British Columbia, Royal College of Emergency Medicine, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, Saint Göran Hospital, University of Michigan
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Paul Atkinson, Horizon Health Network
- Investigators
- James D Milne, MD (Student), Principal investigator, Dalhousie Medical SchoolPaul Atkinson, MD, Principal investigator, Saint John Regional Hospital, Horizon Health NetworkJacqueline Fraser, BN, Study director, Saint John Regional Hospital, Horizon Health Network
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01419106
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2011-1590
- Acronym
- SHoC-ED
- Status last verified
- Aug 2018
- First submitted
- 15 Aug 2011
- Last updated
- 28 Aug 2018
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Atkinson PR, Milne J, Diegelmann L, Lamprecht H, Stander M, Lussier D, Pham C, Henneberry R, Fraser JM, Howlett MK, Mekwan J, Ramrattan B, Middleton J, van Hoving DJ, Peach M, Taylor L, Dahn T, Hurley S, MacSween K, Richardson LR, Stoica G, Hunter S, Olszynski PA, Lewis DA. Does Point-of-Care Ultrasonography Improve Clinical Outcomes in Emergency Department Patients With Undifferentiated Hypotension? An International Randomized Controlled Trial From the SHoC-ED Investigators. Ann Emerg Med. 2018 Oct;72(4):478-489. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.04.002. Epub 2018 Jun 2.
PubMed 29866583
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 28 Aug 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- SHoC-ED: Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01419106
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SHoC-ED / 2011-1590
- Conditions
- Hypotension, Point of Care Ultrasound, Shock
- Keywords
- Hypotension, Emergency care, Point of care Ultrasound, Shock
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 273 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Horizon Health NetworkUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Cape Town, University of Stellenbosch, Dalhousie University, University of Manitoba, University of Saskatchewan, Harvard University, University of British Columbia, Royal College of Emergency Medicine, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, Saint Göran Hospital, University of Michigan
- Study start
- Aug 2011 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Jun 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jun 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 17 Aug 2011 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study is designed to determine if there is any relationship between performing an abdominal ultrasound on patients who present with hypotension and their clinical outcomes (as measured by 7, 30 day and discharge mortality).
Detailed description
STRUCTURED RESEARCH ABSTRACT
Introduction
Patients who present to the ED (emergency department) with undifferentiated, non-trauma associated hypotension are often affected by conditions with a prognosis largely dependent on the time taken from presentation to correct diagnosis and intervention. The ACES protocol (Abdominal and Cardiothoracic Evaluation with Sonography in Shock) provides a rapid focused ultrasound protocol for making or refining diagnoses in patients who present to the ED with this type of hypotension. This will be the first study to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who are assessed with the ACES protocol as part of their initial workup to those of patients who are assessed without any intervention by ultrasound. The goal of this study is to determine if ACES enhances the patient's clinical outcomes, as measured by: 1) Time to restoration (or improvement) of CVS (cardiovascular system) parameters, 2) Rate of normalization of acid-base balance, as well as venous lactate 3) Significant change in diagnosis or recommended intervention 4) Frequency of unexpected diagnosis, and 5) Patient 7 and 30-day, and discharge mortality rate.
Methods
SHoC-ED 1 is a stratified randomized control trial that will run in multiple centers across Canada and internationally. The data will be stratified in that each center involved will recruit equal amounts of control and intervention patients. While different centers will recruit different numbers of participants, each individual center will recruit near-equal amounts for each arm of the study.
ED nurses will identify potential candidates for the SHoC-ED 1 study, and flag their charts to notify the attending physician. ED Physicians trained on the ACES protocol will then proceed to review the exclusion criteria (part of patient inclusion sheet/patient flag) and where appropriate, obtain consent. After these are completed, the physician will retrieve an envelope that contains the already randomized forms appropriate for whichever arm the patient has been randomized to. This randomization will place patients in either the ACES group (to be referred to as Group 1), or the control group (to be referred to as Group 2). Physicians following the group 1 protocol will perform their normal initial assessment and then do ACES, recording their data after each step. Physicians in group 2 will simply record their data after the initial assessment. Both groups of physicians will then record their impressions at 60 minutes as this will enable this project to determine how changes in diagnoses are affected by non-ultrasound factors in the first hour a patient is in the ED. These diagnoses will then be compared against the "final" diagnoses made during the patient's admission. Exclusion criteria for this study include the following: A) necessity of CPR or other advanced life support interventions before enrollment, B) History of significant trauma in past 24 hours, C) A 12 lead ECG diagnostic of STEMI, D) Mechanism of shock is clear (i.e. not undifferentiated shock), E) previously known diagnosis from other hospital, F) previously confirmed pregnancy, G) vagal episode H) Low blood pressure is not actually pathologic hypotension, but instead a normal variant or some other phenomenon.
To ensure that scans are being performed properly and consistently at all sites included in this study local principal investigators will be responsible for ensuring appropriate training and monitoring of standards for the physicians at their center performing ACES.
The data collected from both Group 1 and Group 2 will then be compared against each other, and follow-up will be conducted to ascertain if the early intervention with ACES had any implications on long-term outcomes.
Results
Given that much of the data interpreted will be comparing numerical values from different strata (Example: Time taken to operating theatre compared between Group 1 and 2), ANOVA testing will be used. The results of the ANOVA test will be used to determine if there is a significant difference in outcome, as measured by 1) Time to restoration (or improvement) of CVS parameters, and 2) Rate of normalization of acid-base balance (using either venous or arterial blood gas), and blood lactate.
For categorical data (Example: Mortality rate between groups), chi-square analyses will be performed to determine statistically significant increase in clinical outcome. This will be done for:
- Significant changes in diagnosis/recommendations in intervention change, and
- Frequency of unexpected diagnosis.
Conclusion
This SRCT (stratified randomized control trial) will determine whether the ACES protocol leads to improved clinical outcomes in patients who present to the ED with undifferentiated, non-trauma associated shock. It will compare intervention with the ACES protocol to intervention with no ultrasound at all.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Control | No intervention | –This arm of the study will NOT receive point of care ultrasound. They will receive all other standard care implemented during their visit to the ED (currently, ultrasound is NOT standard of care). The same blood tests will be done in both groups, as this will offer a means of comparing physiological changes between the two arms. |
| Ultrasound | Experimental | Device: Ultrasound (A point of care ultrasound protocol)This group WILL receive point of care ultrasound. The protocol they will receive is the ACES protocol (described above). |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 19 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- 19 years of age or older
- Systolic Blood Pressure under 100 OR Systolic BP under pulse (up to 120)
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Patients known to be pregnant at time of presentation
- Necessity of CPR or other advanced life support interventions before enrolment
- History of significant trauma in past 24 hours
- A 12 lead diagnostic of acute myocardial infarction
- Mechanism of shock is clear (i.e. not undifferentiated shock)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Ultrasound (A point of care ultrasound protocol)Bedside ultrasound will be used to view any intraperitoneal bleeding, pleural fluid, cardiac abnormalities, or structural abnormalities of major blood vessels. The results of this test will then be used to determine the best course of treatment for the patient. | Device | Ultrasound |
Primary outcome
Patient Mortality Rates (7-day, 30 Day or Hospital Discharge)
Time frame: 7-day, 30 Day or Hospital Discharge
Determine the proportion of patients living at 7-day, 30 Day or Hospital Discharge
2 secondary outcomes
Time taken to appropriate intervention
Time frame: Within 8 hours
Unexpected change in diagnosis
Time frame: First hour
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 28 Aug 2018.
- Results publication: PubMed 29866583Atkinson PR, Milne J, Diegelmann L, Lamprecht H, Stander M, Lussier D, Pham C, Henneberry R, Fraser JM, Howlett MK, Mekwan J, Ramrattan B, Middleton J, van Hoving DJ, Peach M, Taylor L, Dahn T, Hurley S, MacSween K, Richardson LR, Stoica G, Hunter S, Olszynski PA, Lewis DA. Does Point-of-Care Ultrasonography Improve Clinical Outcomes in Emergency Department Patients With Undifferentiated Hypotension? An International Randomized Controlled Trial From the SHoC-ED Investigators. Ann Emerg Med. 2018 Oct;72(4):478-489. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.04.002. Epub 2018 Jun 2.
Related trials for Hypotension
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Diastolic Shock Index for Predicting Hemodynamic Instability During Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy
Acute Kidney Injury, Hypotension (MeSH: D007022)
RecruitingObservational study
Norepinephrine in the Management of General Anesthesia-Induced Arterial Hypotension in Chronic Heart Failure Patients
Hypotension
RecruitingPhase 4
Remimazolam Versus Propofol for Maintenance of Anaesthesia During Major Hepatectomy Under Low Central Venous Pressure
Intraoperative Hypotension, Hepatectomy
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Effect of Ondansetron on the Incidence of Spinal Anaesthesia-Induced Hypotension in Elderly Patients Undergoing Fracture Hip Surgery
Spinal Anaesthesia Induced Hypotension
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Postprandial Hypotension, Frailty and Post-Induction Hypotension in Older Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery
Post-induction Hypotension (PIH), Postprandial Hypotension
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
James D Milne, MD (Student) principal investigator
Dalhousie Medical School
Paul Atkinson, MD principal investigator
Saint John Regional Hospital, Horizon Health Network
Jacqueline Fraser, BN study director
Saint John Regional Hospital, Horizon Health Network
6 sites in 2 countries: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Ultrasound (A point of care ultrasound protocol) in people with Hypotension and Point of Care Ultrasound, run by Horizon Health Network at 6 sites in 2 countries.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 8 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 28 Aug 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 6 sites in Canada, South Africa. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Patient Mortality Rates (7-day, 30 Day or Hospital Discharge) (time frame: 7-day, 30 Day or Hospital Discharge). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01419106, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 28 Aug 2018.