Efficacy and Safety of a Balanced Gelatine Solution for Fluid Resuscitation in Sepsis: A Prospective, Randomised, Controlled, Double-Blind Trial-GENIUS Trial

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11150%2F25%3A10501038" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11150/25:10501038 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=kVo-zKO.1Y" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=kVo-zKO.1Y</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm14155323" target="_blank" >10.3390/jcm14155323</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Efficacy and Safety of a Balanced Gelatine Solution for Fluid Resuscitation in Sepsis: A Prospective, Randomised, Controlled, Double-Blind Trial-GENIUS Trial

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Background/Objective: Sepsis is a leading cause of death in noncoronary intensive care units (ICUs). Fluids for intravascular resuscitation include crystalloids and colloids. There is extensive clinical evidence on colloid use, but large trials comparing gelatine with crystalloid regimens in ICU and septic patients are lacking. This study aimed to determine whether early, protocol-driven volume resuscitation using a gelatine-based regimen achieves hemodynamic stability (HDS) more rapidly than a crystalloid-based regimen in septic patients. Methods: This prospective, controlled, randomised, double-blind, multinational phase IV study compared two parallel groups of septic patients receiving a gelatine-based regimen (Gelaspan (R) 4% and Sterofundin (R) ISO, B. Braun Melsungen AG each, at a 1:1 ratio) or a crystalloid regimen (Sterofundin (R) ISO). Primary endpoint was time to first HDS within 48 h after randomisation. Secondary endpoints included fluid overload, fluid balance, and patient outcomes. Results: 167 patients were randomised. HDS was achieved after 4.7 h in the gelatine group and after 5.8 h in the crystalloid group (p = 0.3716). The gelatine group had a more favourable fluid balance at 24 h (medians: 3463.00 mL vs. 4164.00 mL; p = 0.0395) and less fluid overload (medians: 4296.05 vs. 5218.75%; p = 0.0217). No differences were observed in serious adverse events or mortality. Conclusions: The study provided clinical evidence of balanced gelatine solution for volume resuscitation in septic patients, although it was terminated prematurely. The early and protocol-based administration of gelatine was safe and effective in the enrolled patient population. Time to HDS was not different between groups but the gelatine-based regimen led to better fluid balance and less fluid overload.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Efficacy and Safety of a Balanced Gelatine Solution for Fluid Resuscitation in Sepsis: A Prospective, Randomised, Controlled, Double-Blind Trial-GENIUS Trial

Popis výsledku anglicky

Background/Objective: Sepsis is a leading cause of death in noncoronary intensive care units (ICUs). Fluids for intravascular resuscitation include crystalloids and colloids. There is extensive clinical evidence on colloid use, but large trials comparing gelatine with crystalloid regimens in ICU and septic patients are lacking. This study aimed to determine whether early, protocol-driven volume resuscitation using a gelatine-based regimen achieves hemodynamic stability (HDS) more rapidly than a crystalloid-based regimen in septic patients. Methods: This prospective, controlled, randomised, double-blind, multinational phase IV study compared two parallel groups of septic patients receiving a gelatine-based regimen (Gelaspan (R) 4% and Sterofundin (R) ISO, B. Braun Melsungen AG each, at a 1:1 ratio) or a crystalloid regimen (Sterofundin (R) ISO). Primary endpoint was time to first HDS within 48 h after randomisation. Secondary endpoints included fluid overload, fluid balance, and patient outcomes. Results: 167 patients were randomised. HDS was achieved after 4.7 h in the gelatine group and after 5.8 h in the crystalloid group (p = 0.3716). The gelatine group had a more favourable fluid balance at 24 h (medians: 3463.00 mL vs. 4164.00 mL; p = 0.0395) and less fluid overload (medians: 4296.05 vs. 5218.75%; p = 0.0217). No differences were observed in serious adverse events or mortality. Conclusions: The study provided clinical evidence of balanced gelatine solution for volume resuscitation in septic patients, although it was terminated prematurely. The early and protocol-based administration of gelatine was safe and effective in the enrolled patient population. Time to HDS was not different between groups but the gelatine-based regimen led to better fluid balance and less fluid overload.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30221 - Critical care medicine and Emergency medicine

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2025

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Journal of Clinical Medicine

ISSN

2077-0383

e-ISSN

2077-0383

Svazek periodika

14

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

15

Stát vydavatele periodika

CH - Švýcarská konfederace

Počet stran výsledku

15

Strana od-do

5323

Kód UT WoS článku

001551417100001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-105013339423