This clinical study aims to compare the recent septic shock management protocol from American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) to Ultrasound-guided Septic Shock Management (USSM) protocol. USSM protocol laid on Doppler ultrasonography to evaluate stroke volume, cardiac index, and systemic vascular resistance in each step of management to decide the proper fluid resuscitation and vasoactive therapy; differs from ACCM protocol which use clinical finding in its early step. ACCM protocol application elicits risk of improper therapy since clinical sign per se often could not describe the certain cardiac output. This can be prevented earlier by USSM protocol. The outcome compared of the two protocols is: mortality rate, clinical parameter, macrocirculation hemodynamic parameter, laboratory microcirculation parameter, and signs of fluid overload. The investigators hypothesized if the USSM protocol had a better outcome and less fluid overload complication.
Age range
1 Month – 18 Years
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
Mortality rate
Timeframe: 72 hours of the initial fluid resuscitation
Number of mortality
Timeframe: 72 hours of the initial fluid resuscitation