Dataset Information

A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock.

ABSTRACT: In a single-center study published more than a decade ago involving patients presenting to the emergency department with severe sepsis and septic shock, mortality was markedly lower among those who were treated according to a 6-hour protocol of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), in which intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions were adjusted to reach central hemodynamic targets, than among those receiving usual care. We conducted a trial to determine whether these findings were generalizable and whether all aspects of the protocol were necessary.In 31 emergency departments in the United States, we randomly assigned patients with septic shock to one of three groups for 6 hours of resuscitation: protocol-based EGDT; protocol-based standard therapy that did not require the placement of a central venous catheter, administration of inotropes, or blood transfusions; or usual care. The primary end point was 60-day in-hospital mortality. We tested sequentially whether protocol-based care (EGDT and standard-therapy groups combined) was superior to usual care and whether protocol-based EGDT was superior to protocol-based standard therapy. Secondary outcomes included longer-term mortality and the need for organ support.We enrolled 1341 patients, of whom 439 were randomly assigned to protocol-based EGDT, 446 to protocol-based standard therapy, and 456 to usual care. Resuscitation strategies differed significantly with respect to the monitoring of central venous pressure and oxygen and the use of intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions. By 60 days, there were 92 deaths in the protocol-based EGDT group (21.0%), 81 in the protocol-based standard-therapy group (18.2%), and 86 in the usual-care group (18.9%) (relative risk with protocol-based therapy vs. usual care, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.31; P=0.83; relative risk with protocol-based EGDT vs. protocol-based standard therapy, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.51; P=0.31). There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality, 1-year mortality, or the need for organ support.In a multicenter trial conducted in the tertiary care setting, protocol-based resuscitation of patients in whom septic shock was diagnosed in the emergency department did not improve outcomes. (Funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences; ProCESS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00510835.).

SUBMITTER: ProCESS Investigators

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4101700 | biostudies-literature | 2014 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock.

Yealy Donald M DM Kellum John A JA Huang David T DT Barnato Amber E AE Weissfeld Lisa A LA Pike Francis F Terndrup Thomas T Wang Henry E HE Hou Peter C PC LoVecchio Frank F Filbin Michael R MR Shapiro Nathan I NI Angus Derek C DC

The New England journal of medicine 20140318 18

<h4>Background</h4>In a single-center study published more than a decade ago involving patients presenting to the emergency department with severe sepsis and septic shock, mortality was markedly lower among those who were treated according to a 6-hour protocol of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), in which intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions were adjusted to reach central hemodynamic targets, than among those receiving usual care. We conducted a trial to determin ...[more]

PMID: 24635773

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Protocol-based Care for Early Septic Shock trial found no differences across alternative resuscitation strategies in all-cause mortality. A separate aim was to determine whether differences in resuscitation strategies affected trajectories of biomarkers of key pathways associated with downstream clinical outcomes of sepsis and whether there were differences in survival across treatment arms for patients with different baseline biomarker profiles.Secondary analysis of a large randomized clinical trial.Thirty-one U.S. hospitals.Six hundred twenty-eight patients with septic shock.Two resuscitation protocols versus usual care.We measured a panel of biomarkers representing four pathophysiologic domains: "inflammation" (tumor necrosis factor, interleukin-6, and -10); "coagulation" (D-dimers, thrombin-antithrombin complex); "oxidative stress" (urine isoprostane); and "tissue hypoxia" (lactate) at 0, 6, 24, and 72 hours after treatment. We analyzed whether alternative resuscitation strategies affected biomarker trajectories over 72 hours and whether effects on 90-day hospital mortality varied by baseline (time 0) biomarker profiles-both using regression models with interaction terms for treatment arms. For all baseline biomarkers, higher concentrations were associated with increased risk of death by 90 days. However, there was no significant effect of treatment assignment on subsequent biomarker trajectories. We did find evidence for heterogeneity of treatment effect of protocol-based care on mortality for patients with different baseline [interleukin-6] and [interleukin-6] × [interleukin-10] profiles, whereas patients with the lowest quartiles fared better with protocol-based care (odds ratios, 0.32 [0.13-075]; p = 0.01 and 0.32 [0.14-0.73]; p = 0.01, respectively).In patients with septic shock, alterations in inflammation, coagulation, oxidative stress, and tissue hypoxia are common and associated with adverse outcomes but are not influenced by protocol-based resuscitation compared with usual care. However, contrary to expectation, protocol-based resuscitation appeared to be superior in patients with lower concentrations of inflammatory biomarkers. The mechanisms responsible for this effect are unclear.

Project description:Current pediatric septic shock resuscitation guidelines from the American College of Critical Care Medicine focus on the early and goal-directed administration of intravascular fluid followed by vasoactive medication infusions for persistent and fluid-refractory shock. However, accumulating adult and pediatric data suggest that excessive fluid administration is associated with worse patient outcomes and even increased risk of death. The optimal amount of intravascular fluid required in early pediatric septic shock resuscitation prior to the initiation of vasoactive support remains unanswered.The SQUEEZE Pilot Trial is a pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, open-label, prospective pilot randomized controlled trial. Participants are children aged 29 days to under 18 years with suspected or confirmed septic shock and a need for ongoing resuscitation. Eligible participants are enrolled under an exception to consent process and randomly assigned via concealed allocation to either the Usual Care (control) or Fluid Sparing (intervention) resuscitation strategy. The primary objective of this pilot trial is to determine feasibility, based on the ability to enroll participants and to adhere to the study protocol. The primary outcome measure by which success will be determined is participant enrollment rate ("pass" defined as at least two participants/site/month, recognizing that enrollment may be slower during the run-in phase). Secondary objectives include assessing (1) appropriateness of eligibility criteria, and (2) completeness of clinical outcomes to inform the endpoints for the planned multisite trial. To support the nested translational study, SQUEEZE-D, we will also evaluate the feasibility of describing cell-free DNA (a procoagulant molecule with prognostic utility) in blood samples obtained from children enrolled into the SQUEEZE Pilot Trial at baseline and at 24 h.The optimal degree of fluid resuscitation and the timing of initiation of vasoactive support in order to achieve recommended therapeutic targets in children with septic shock remains unanswered. No prospective study to date has examined this important question for children in developed countries including Canada. Recruitment for the SQUEEZE Pilot Trial opened on 6 January 2014. Findings will inform the feasibility of the planned multicenter trial to answer our overall research question.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01973907 , registered on 23 October 2013.

Project description:BackgroundAlbumin is a key regulator of fluid distribution within the extracellular space and has several properties beyond its oncotic activity. The accumulating evidence suggests that supplementation of albumin may provide survival advantages only when the insult is severe as in patients with septic shock.Methods/designThe randomized controlled multicentre study of albumin replacement therapy in septic shock (ARISS) investigates whether the replacement with albumin and the maintenance of its serum levels of at least 30 g/l for 28 days improve survival in patients with septic shock compared to resuscitation and volume maintenance without albumin. Adult patients (≥ 18 years) with septic shock are randomly assigned within a maximum of 24 h after the onset of septic shock after obtaining informed consents to treatment or control groups. Patients assigned to the treatment group receive a 60-g loading dose of human albumin 20% over 2-3 h. Serum albumin levels are maintained at least at 30 g/l in the ICU for a maximum of 28 days following randomization using 40-80 g human albumin 20% infusion. The control group is treated according to the usual practice with crystalloids as the first choice for the resuscitation and maintenance phase of septic shock. The primary endpoint is 90 days mortality and secondary endpoints include 28-day, 60-day, ICU, and in-hospital mortality, organ dysfunction/failure, total amount of fluid administration and total fluid balance in the ICU, and lengths of ICU and hospital stay. In total, 1412 patients need to be analysed, 706 per group. For the sample size estimation, a 15% reduction in 90-day mortality is assumed, i.e. an absolute reduction of 7.5% points to 42.5% (relative risk 1.18). Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 1662 patients need to be allocated.DiscussionThe results of the clinical trial may influence the treatment of patients with septic shock. The expected improvement in patient survival may result in a reduction in the resources currently used in the treatment of these patients and in the socioeconomic burden of this disease.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03869385 . Registration on 18 July 2019. Protocol version: Final 3.0.

Project description:ObjectivesAs the catabolic state induced by septic shock together with the physical inactivity of patients lead to the rapid loss of muscle mass and impaired function, the purpose of this study was to test whether an early physical therapy during the onset of septic shock regulates catabolic signals and preserves skeletal muscle mass.DesignRandomized controlled trial.SettingTertiary mixed ICU.PatientsAdult patients admitted for septic shock within the first 72 hours.InterventionsPatients were assigned randomly into two groups. The control group benefited from manual mobilization once a day. The intervention group had twice daily sessions of both manual mobilization and 30-minute passive/active cycling therapy.Measurements and main resultsSkeletal muscle biopsies and electrophysiology testing were performed at day 1 and day 7. Muscle biopsies were analyzed for histology and molecular components of signaling pathways regulating protein synthesis and degradation as well as inflammation markers. Hemodynamic values and patient perception were collected during each session. Twenty-one patients were included. Three died before the second muscle biopsy. Ten patients in the control and eight in the intervention group were analyzed. Markers of the catabolic ubiquitin-proteasome pathway, muscle atrophy F-box and muscle ring finger-1 messenger RNA, were reduced at day 7 only in the intervention group, but without difference between groups (muscle atrophy F-box: -7.3% ± 138.4% in control vs -56.4% ± 37.4% in intervention group; p = 0.23 and muscle ring finger-1: -30.8% ± 66.9% in control vs -62.7% ± 45.5% in intervention group; p = 0.15). Muscle fiber cross-sectional area (µm) was preserved by exercise (-25.8% ± 21.6% in control vs 12.4% ± 22.5% in intervention group; p = 0.005). Molecular regulations suggest that the excessive activation of autophagy due to septic shock was lower in the intervention group, without being suppressed. Markers of anabolism and inflammation were not modified by the intervention, which was well tolerated by the patients.ConclusionsEarly physical therapy during the first week of septic shock is safe and preserves muscle fiber cross-sectional area.

Dataset Information

A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock.

Publications

A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets