Dataset Information

Echocardiogram-guided resuscitation versus early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of septic shock: a randomized, controlled, feasibility trial.

ABSTRACT: Objective:Echocardiography is often used to guide septic shock resuscitation, but without evidence for efficacy. We conducted an intensive care unit (ICU)-based randomized controlled feasibility trial comparing echocardiography-guided septic shock resuscitation (ECHO) with early goal-directed therapy (EGDT). Methods:We conducted a single center, randomized controlled feasibility trial at a 468-bed academic tertiary care center in Utah, USA. Adult patients with early septic shock were assessed and treated at defined intervals over 6 h using an echocardiogram-guided resuscitation protocol or a slightly modified EGDT protocol. Feasibility outcomes were fluid balance, dobutamine administration, and time to lactate clearance. The primary clinical outcome was changed in sequential organ failure assessment score at 48 h (delta SOFA). Secondary outcomes included inpatient mortality, ICU-free days, and ventilator-free days at 28 days. Results:Thirty participants, 15 per group, were randomized and completed the study. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Patients were randomized within a median of 3.5 h of meeting inclusion criteria but had received a median of 3 L crystalloid by then. Fluid administration during the study protocol was similar in both groups (median ECHO 0 vs EGDT 1 L, p?=?0.61). Eleven (73%) subjects in each arm received ??1 L fluid. Dobutamine administration was also similar (20% vs 13%, p?>?0.99). Twenty-one patients (70%) had lactate clearance prior to the first study assessment. No difference was observed in delta SOFA (median -?4 for ECHO vs -?6 for EGDT, p?=?0.10) nor mortality (33% ECHO vs 20% EGDT, p?=?0.68). Conclusions:No experimental separation was observed in this randomized, controlled feasibility trial. Early lactate clearance, coupled with substantial fluid administration before randomization, suggests that patients were already resuscitated before arrival in the ICU. Future trials of echocardiogram-guided sepsis resuscitation will likely need to enroll in the emergency department. Trial registration:This study was retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT02354742, title Echo vs EGDT in severe sepsis and septic shock) on February 3, 2015. Registration was completed before review or analysis of any data.

SUBMITTER: Lanspa MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6090604 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Echocardiogram-guided resuscitation versus early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of septic shock: a randomized, controlled, feasibility trial.

Lanspa Michael J MJ Burk Rebecca E RE Wilson Emily L EL Hirshberg Eliotte L EL Grissom Colin K CK Brown Samuel M SM

Journal of intensive care 20180813

<h4>Objective</h4>Echocardiography is often used to guide septic shock resuscitation, but without evidence for efficacy. We conducted an intensive care unit (ICU)-based randomized controlled feasibility trial comparing echocardiography-guided septic shock resuscitation (ECHO) with early goal-directed therapy (EGDT).<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a single center, randomized controlled feasibility trial at a 468-bed academic tertiary care center in Utah, USA. Adult patients with early septic shock w ...[more]

PMID: 30123511

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionRecent evidence suggests that early, aggressive resuscitation in patients with septic shock reduces mortality. The objective of this survey was to characterize reported resuscitation practices of Canadian physicians caring for adult critically ill patients with early septic shock.MethodsA scenario-based self-administered national survey was sent out to Canadian critical care physicians. One hypothetical scenario was developed to obtain information on several aspects of resuscitation in early septic shock, including monitoring and resuscitation end-points, fluid administration, red blood cell transfusion triggers, and use of inotropes. The sampling frame was physician members of Canadian national and provincial critical care societies.ResultsThe survey response rate was 232 out of 355 (65.3%). Medicine was the most common primary specialty (60.0%), most respondents had practiced for 6 to 10 years (30.0%), and 82.0% were male. The following monitoring devices/parameters were reported as used/measured 'often' or 'always' by at least 89% of respondents: oxygen saturation (100%), Foley catheters (100%), arterial blood pressure lines (96.6%), telemetry (94.3%), and central venous pressure (89.2%). Continuous monitoring of central venous oxygen saturation was employed 'often' or 'always' by 9.8% of respondents. The two most commonly cited resuscitation end-points were urine output (96.5%) and blood pressure (91.8%). Over half of respondents used normal saline (84.5%), Ringers lactate (52.2%), and pentastarch (51.3%) 'often' or 'always' for early fluid resuscitation. In contrast, 5% and 25% albumin solutions were cited as used 'often' or 'always' by 3.9% and 1.3% of respondents, respectively. Compared with internists, surgeons and anesthesiologists (odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 9.8 (2.9 to 32.7) and 3.8 (1.7 to 8.7), respectively) reported greater use of Ringers lactate. In the setting of a low central venous oxygen saturation, 52.5% of respondents reported use of inotropic support 'often' or 'always'. Only 7.6% of physicians stated they would use a red blood cell transfusion trigger of 100 g/l to optimize oxygen delivery further.ConclusionOur survey results suggest that there is substantial practice variation in the resuscitation of adult patients with early septic shock. More randomized trials are needed to determine the optimal approach.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Fluid boluses are administered to septic shock patients with the purpose of increasing cardiac output as a means to restore tissue perfusion. Unfortunately, fluid therapy has a narrow therapeutic index, and therefore, several approaches to increase safety have been proposed. Fluid responsiveness (FR) assessment might predict which patients will effectively increase cardiac output after a fluid bolus (FR+), thus preventing potentially harmful fluid administration in non-fluid responsive (FR-) patients. However, there are scarce data on the impact of assessing FR on major outcomes. The recent ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial included systematic per-protocol assessment of FR. We performed a post hoc analysis of the study dataset with the aim of exploring the relationship between FR status at baseline, attainment of specific targets, and clinically relevant outcomes. METHODS:ANDROMEDA-SHOCK compared the effect of peripheral perfusion- vs. lactate-targeted resuscitation on 28-day mortality. FR was assessed before each fluid bolus and periodically thereafter. FR+ and FR- subgroups, independent of the original randomization, were compared for fluid administration, achievement of resuscitation targets, vasoactive agents use, and major outcomes such as organ dysfunction and support, length of stay, and 28-day mortality. RESULTS:FR could be determined in 348 patients at baseline. Two hundred and forty-two patients (70%) were categorized as fluid responders. Both groups achieved comparable successful resuscitation targets, although non-fluid responders received less resuscitation fluids (0 [0-500] vs. 1500 [1000-2500] mL; p 0.0001), exhibited less positive fluid balances, but received more vasopressor testing. No difference in clinically relevant outcomes between FR+ and FR- patients was found, including 24-h SOFA score (9 [5-12] vs. 8 [5-11], p = 0.4), need for MV (78% vs. 72%, p = 0.16), need for RRT (18% vs. 21%, p = 0.7), ICU-LOS (6 [3-11] vs. 6 [3-16] days, p = 0.2), and 28-day mortality (40% vs. 36%, p = 0.5). Only thirteen patients remained fluid responsive along the intervention period. CONCLUSIONS:Systematic assessment allowed determination of fluid responsiveness status in more than 80% of patients with early septic shock. Fluid boluses could be stopped in non-fluid responsive patients without any negative impact on clinical relevant outcomes. Our results suggest that fluid resuscitation might be safely guided by FR assessment in septic shock patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03078712. Registered retrospectively on March 13, 2017.

Dataset Information

Echocardiogram-guided resuscitation versus early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of septic shock: a randomized, controlled, feasibility trial.

Publications

Echocardiogram-guided resuscitation versus early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of septic shock: a randomized, controlled, feasibility trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets