The SQUEEZE pilot trial: a trial to determine whether septic shock reversal is quicker in pediatric patients randomized to an early goal directed fluid-sparing strategy vs. usual care.
Pilot and Feasibility Studies · 2025-11-28 · Randomised trial
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The overall objective of our research is to determine in children with septic shock whether the use of a fluid-sparing strategy results in improved clinical outcomes without an increased risk of adverse events compared to usual care. The specific objective of this pilot randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the feasibility of a definitive multicenter trial to answer our research question. DESIGN: Pragmatic, 2-arm, parallel group, open-label, prospective pilot randomized controlled trial including a nested biosample-based translational study. SETTING: Pediatric tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Children aged 29 days to <18 years of age presenting to the emergency department or admitted to an inpatient ward (including the PICU) with suspected or confirmed septic shock and a need for ongoing resuscitation. INTERVENTIONS: Fluid-sparing vs. usual care resuscitation strategy continued until shock reversal. The fluid-sparing intervention comprised instructions to restrict fluid bolus therapy in conjunction with early initiation and/or preferential use of vasoactive medication support as a strategy to spare fluid while targeting the hemodynamic goals specified in the American College of Critical Care Medicine Surviving Sepsis Guidelines. The usual care strategy did not limit the use of fluid bolus therapy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-three were randomized to usual care (n = 27) or fluid-sparing (n = 26). Fifty-one participants were available for primary outcome analysis. Primary feasibility outcomes related to participant enrollment and protocol adherence. Enrollment rate was 1.8 (51/29); 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3-2.3 participants/month. Study procedures were implemented in 49/51 (96.1%), 95% CI: 86.5-99.5% participants within 1 h of randomization in a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 8 (5, 15) minutes. The protocol required the use of an exception to consent process and consent for ongoing participation was 48/51 (94.1%), 95% CI: 83.8-98.8%. There were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded the large multicenter SQUEEZE trial feasible to conduct. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT01973907]. Registered October 27, 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01973907 .
Abstract © the authors or publisher, via PubMed. Reuse and removal
Tags
Cardiovascular drugs · Children · Vasopressors
Related articles
- Epinephrine vs Norepinephrine as the Initial Vasoactive Agent in Pediatric Septic Shock: A Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial for Recruitment Rates and Protocol Adherence, the Epinephrine vs Norepinephrine in Pediatric Septic Shock Trial. (Indian J Crit Care Med, 2025)
- Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Dopamine and Epinephrine in Pediatric Fluid-Refractory Hypotensive Septic Shock. (Pediatr Crit Care Med, 2016)
- OUTCOMES OF PEDIATRIC FLUID-REFRACTORY SEPTIC SHOCK ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT VASOACTIVE STRATEGIES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS. (Shock, 2024)
- Updated American College of Critical Care Medicine--pediatric advanced life support guidelines for management of pediatric and neonatal septic shock: relevance to the emergency care clinician. (Pediatr Emerg Care, 2010)
- A prospective randomized controlled study of two fluid regimens in the initial management of septic shock in the emergency department. (Pediatr Emerg Care, 2008)
- [Treatment of septic shock in children with low dose pituitrin: report of 24 cases]. (Zhonghua Er Ke Za Zhi, 2011)