Randomized Controlled Trial of Ultrasound-guided Fluid Resuscitation of Sepsis-Induced Hypoperfusion and Septic Shock
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
The ultrasound measurement of inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter change during respiratory phase to guide fluid resuscitation in shock patients is widely performed, but the benefit on reducing the mortality of sepsis patients is questionable. The study objective was to evaluate the 30-day mortality rate of patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion (SITH) and septic shock (SS) treated with ultrasound-guided fluid management (UGFM) using ultrasonographic change of the IVC diameter during respiration compared with those treated with the usual-care strategy. Methods
This was a randomized controlled trial conducted in an urban, university-affiliated tertiary-care hospital. Adult patients with SITH/SS were randomized to receive treatment with UGFM using respiratory change of the IVC (UGFM strategy) or with the usual-care strategy during the first six hours after emergency department (ED) arrival. We compared the 30-day mortality rate and other clinical outcomes between the two groups. Results
A total of 202 patients were enrolled, 101 in each group (UGFM vs usual-care strategy) for intention-to-treat analysis. There was no significant difference in 30-day overall mortality between the two groups (18.8% and 19.8% in the usual-care and UGFM strategy, respectively; p > 0.05 by log rank test). Neither was there a difference in six-hour lactate clearance, a change in the sequential organ failure assessment score, or length of hospital stay. However, the cumulative fluid amount given in 24 hours was significantly lower in the UGFM arm. Conclusion
In our ED setting, the use of respiratory change of IVC diameter determined by point-of-care ultrasound to guide initial fluid resuscitation in SITH/SS ED patients did not improve the 30-day survival probability or other clinical parameters compared to the usual-care strategy. However, the IVC ultrasound-guided resuscitation was associated with less amount of fluid used.
SUBMITTER: Musikatavorn K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7972359 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesRapid fluid resuscitation has become standard in sepsis care, despite "low-quality" evidence and absence of guidelines for populations "at risk" for volume overload. Our objectives include as follows: 1) identify predictors of reaching a 30 mL/kg crystalloid bolus within 3 hours of sepsis onset (30by3); 2) assess the impact of 30by3 and fluid dosing on clinical outcomes; 3) examine differences in perceived "at-risk" volume-sensitive populations, including end-stage renal disease, heart failure, obesity, advanced age, or with documentation of volume "overload" by bedside examination.DesignRetrospective cohort study. All outcome analyses controlled for sex, end-stage renal disease, heart failure, sepsis severity (severe sepsis vs septic shock), obesity, Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis score, and time to antibiotics.SettingUrban, tertiary care center between January 1, 2014, and May 31, 2017.PatientsEmergency Department treated adults (age ≥18 yr; n = 1,032) with severe sepsis or septic shock.InterventionsAdministration of IV fluids by bolus.Measurements and main resultsIn total, 509 patients received 30by3 (49.3%). Overall mortality was 17.1% (n = 176), with 20.4% mortality in the shock group. Patients who were elderly (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.83), male (odds ratio, 0.66; CI, 0.49-0.87), obese (odds ratio, 0.18; CI, 0.13-0.25), or with end-stage renal disease (odds ratio, 0.23; CI, 0.13-0.40), heart failure (odds ratio, 0.42; CI, 0.29-0.60), or documented volume "overload" (odds ratio, 0.30; CI, 0.20-0.45) were less likely to achieve 30by3. Failure to meet 30by3 had increased odds of mortality (odds ratio, 1.52; CI, 1.03-2.24), delayed hypotension (odds ratio, 1.42; CI, 1.02-1.99), and increased ICU stay (~2 d) (β = 2.0; CI, 0.5-3.6), without differential effects for "at-risk" groups. Higher fluid volumes administered by 3 hours correlated with decreased mortality, with a plateau effect between 35 and 45 mL/kg (p < 0.05).ConclusionsFailure to reach 30by3 was associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality, irrespective of comorbidities. Predictors of inadequate resuscitation can be identified, potentially leading to interventions to improve survival. These findings are retrospective and require future validation.
| S-EPMC8096207 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe hypothesized that the cardiovascular responses to Surviving Sepsis Guidelines (SSG)-defined resuscitation are predictable based on the cardiovascular state.MethodsFifty-five septic patients treated by SSG were studied before and after volume expansion (VE), and if needed norepinephrine (NE) and dobutamine. We measured mean arterial pressure (MAP), cardiac index (CI), and right atrial pressure (Pra) and calculated pulse pressure and stroke volume variation (PPV and SVV), dynamic arterial elastance (Eadyn), arterial elastance (Ea) and left ventricular (LV) end-systolic elastance (Ees), Ees/Ea (VAC), LV ejection efficiency (LVeff), mean systemic pressure analogue (Pmsa), venous return pressure gradient (Pvr), and cardiac performance (Eh), using standard formulae.ResultsAll patients were hypotensive (MAP 56.8 ± 3.1 mmHg) and tachycardic (113.1 ± 7.5 beat min-1), with increased lactate levels (lactate = 5.0 ± 4.2 mmol L-1) with a worsened VAC. CI was variable but > 2 L min-1 M-2 in 74%. Twenty-eight-day mortality was 48% and associated with admission lactate, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), and creatinine levels but not cardiovascular state. In all patients, both MAP and CI improved following VE, as well as cardiac contractility (Ees). Fluid administration improved Pra, Pmsa, and Pvr in all patients, whereas both HR and Ea decreased after VE, thus normalizing VAC. CI increases were proportional to baseline PPV and SVV. CI increases proportionally decreased PPV and SVV. VE increased MAP > 65 mmHg in 35/55 patients. MAP responders had higher PPV, SVV, and Eadyn than non-responders. NE was given to 20/55 patients in septic shock, but increased MAP > 65 mmHg in only 12. NE increased Ea, Eadyn, Pra, Pmsa, and VAC while decreasing HR, PPV, SVV, and LVeff. MAP responders had higher pre-NE Ees and lower VAC. Dobutamine was given to 6/8 patients who remained hypotensive following NE. It increased Ees, MAP, CI, and LVeff, while decreasing HR, Pra, and VAC. At all times and all steps of the protocol, CI changes were proportional to Pvr changes independent of treatment.ConclusionsThe cardiovascular response to SSG-based resuscitation is highly heterogeneous but predictable from pre-treatment measures of cardiovascular state.
| S-EPMC6466803 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveEchocardiography 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).MethodsWe 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.ResultsThirty 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).ConclusionsNo 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 registrationThis 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.
| S-EPMC6090604 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus in congestive heart failure (CHF) patients presenting with severe sepsis or septic shock remained controversial due to the paucity of data.MethodsThe retrospective case-control study included 671 adult patients who presented to the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital from January 01, 2017 to December 31, 2019 with severe sepsis or septic shock. Patients were categorized into the CHF group and the non-CHF group. The primary outcome was to evaluate the compliance with ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus within 6 hours of presentation. The comparison of baseline characteristics and secondary outcomes were done between the groups who received ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus. For the subgroup analysis of the CHF group, it was divided based on if they received ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus or not, and comparison was done for baseline characteristics and secondary outcomes. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to explore the differences between the groups for in-hospital mortality and mechanical ventilation.ResultsThe use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus was low in both the CHF and non-CHF groups [39% vs. 66% (p<0.05)]. Mortality was higher in the CHF group [33% vs 18% (p<0.05)]. Multivariable analysis revealed that the use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus decreased the chances of mortality by 12% [OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82-0.95 (p<0.05)]. The use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus did not increase the odds of mechanical ventilation [OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93-1.05 (p = 0.78)]. In subgroup analysis, the use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus decreased the chances of mortality by 5% [OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90-0.99, (p<0.05)] and did not increase the odds of mechanical ventilation. The presence of the low ejection fraction did not influence the chance of getting fluid bolus.ConclusionThe use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus seems to confer protection against in-hospital mortality and is not associated with increased chances of mechanical ventilation in heart failure patients presenting with severe sepsis or septic shock.
| S-EPMC8376054 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesIt is unclear if a low- or high-volume IV fluid resuscitation strategy is better for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.DesignProspective randomized controlled trial.SettingTwo adult acute care hospitals within a single academic system.PatientsPatients with severe sepsis and septic shock admitted from the emergency department to the ICU from November 2016 to February 2018.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to a restrictive IV fluid resuscitation strategy (≤ 60 mL/kg of IV fluid) or usual care for the first 72 hours of care.Measurements and main resultsWe enrolled 109 patients, of whom 55 were assigned to the restrictive resuscitation group and 54 to the usual care group. The restrictive group received significantly less resuscitative IV fluid than the usual care group (47.1 vs 61.1 mL/kg; p = 0.01) over 72 hours. By 30 days, there were 12 deaths (21.8%) in the restrictive group and 12 deaths (22.2%) in the usual care group (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.41-2.53). There were no differences between groups in the rate of new organ failure, hospital or ICU length of stay, or serious adverse events.ConclusionsThis pilot study demonstrates that a restrictive resuscitation strategy can successfully reduce the amount of IV fluid administered to patients with severe sepsis and septic shock compared with usual care. Although limited by the sample size, we observed no increase in mortality, organ failure, or adverse events. These findings further support that a restrictive IV fluid strategy should be explored in a larger multicenter trial.
| S-EPMC6579683 | biostudies-literature
Project description:For more than two decades, sepsis was defined as a microbial infection that produces fever (or hypothermia), tachycardia, tachypnoea and blood leukocyte changes. Sepsis is now increasingly being considered a dysregulated systemic inflammatory and immune response to microbial invasion that produces organ injury for which mortality rates are declining to 15-25%. Septic shock remains defined as sepsis with hyperlactataemia and concurrent hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy, with in-hospital mortality rates approaching 30-50%. With earlier recognition and more compliance to best practices, sepsis has become less of an immediate life-threatening disorder and more of a long-term chronic critical illness, often associated with prolonged inflammation, immune suppression, organ injury and lean tissue wasting. Furthermore, patients who survive sepsis have continuing risk of mortality after discharge, as well as long-term cognitive and functional deficits. Earlier recognition and improved implementation of best practices have reduced in-hospital mortality, but results from the use of immunomodulatory agents to date have been disappointing. Similarly, no biomarker can definitely diagnose sepsis or predict its clinical outcome. Because of its complexity, improvements in sepsis outcomes are likely to continue to be slow and incremental.
| S-EPMC5538252 | biostudies-other
Project description:This study aimed to assess the effects of early fluid resuscitation (EFR) combined with high volume hemofiltration (HVHF) on the cardiopulmonary function and removal of inflammatory mediators in a septic shock swine model. Eighteen swine were randomized into three groups: control (n = 6) (extracorporeal circulating blood only), continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) (n = 6; ultrafiltration volume = 25 mL/Kg/h), and HVHF (n = 6; ultrafiltration volume = 85 mL/Kg/h). The septic shock model was established by intravenous infusion of lipopolysaccharides (50 µg/kg/h). Hemodynamic parameters (arterial pressure, heart rate, cardiac output, stroke volume variability, left ventricular contractility, systemic vascular resistance, and central venous pressure), vasoactive drug parameters (dose and time of norepinephrine and hourly fluid intake), pulmonary function (partial oxygen pressure and vascular permeability), and cytokines (interleukin-6 and interleukin-10) were observed. Treatment resulted in significant changes at 4-6 h. HVHF was beneficial, as shown by the dose of vasoactive drugs, fluid intake volume, left ventricular contractility index, and partial oxygen pressure. Both CRRT and HVHF groups showed improved removal of inflammatory mediators compared with controls. In conclusion, EFR combined with HVHF improved septic shock in this swine model. The combination decreased shock progression, reduced the need for vasoactive drugs, and alleviated the damage to cardiopulmonary functions.
| S-EPMC4620416 | biostudies-other
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.
| S-EPMC6979284 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeptic shock is a major public health problem that is associated with up to 50% mortality. Unfavorable outcomes are mainly attributed to multiple organ failure (MOF) resulting from an uncontrolled inflammatory response and ischemia-reperfusion processes. REmote ischemic COnditioning (RECO) is a promising intervention to prevent ischemia-reperfusion injury. We hypothesize that RECO would reduce the severity of septic shock-induced MOF.Methods/designRECO in septic shock patients (RECO-Sepsis study) is an ongoing, prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial, testing whether RECO, as an adjuvant therapy to conventional treatment in septic shock, decreases the severity of MOF as assessed by the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. Adult patients admitted to an intensive care unit with documented or suspected infection, lactatemia > 2 mmol/l, and treated with norepinephrine for less than 12 h are potentially eligible for the study. Non-inclusion criteria are: having expressed the wish not to be resuscitated, contraindication for the use of a brachial cuff on both arms, intercurrent disease with an expected life expectancy of less than 24 h, cardiac arrest, and pregnant or breastfeeding women. After enrollment, patients are randomized (n = 180) 1:1 to receive RECO or no adjunctive intervention. RECO consists of four cycles of cuff inflation to 200 mmHg for 5 min and then deflation to 0 mmHg for another 5 min. RECO is performed at inclusion and repeated 12 and 24 h later. The primary endpoint is the mean daily SOFA score up to day 4 after inclusion. Secondary outcomes include the need for organ support, hospital length of stay, and 90-day mortality.DiscussionResults of this proof-of-concept trial should provide information on the efficacy of RECO in patients with septic shock.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, ID: identifier: NCT03201575 . Registered on 28 June 2017.
| S-EPMC6532140 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe ProCESS, ARISE, and ProMISe trials have failed to show that early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) reduces mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Although lactate-guided therapy (LGT) has been shown to result in significantly lower mortality, its use remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate EGDT vs. LGT or usual care (UC) in adult patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.MethodsRelevant randomized controlled trials published from January 1, 2001 to March 30, 2017 were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was mortality; secondary outcomes included red cell transfusions, dobutamine use, vasopressor infusion, and mechanical ventilation support within the first 6 h and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score.ResultsSixteen studies enrolling 5968 patients with 2956 in EGDT, 2547 in UC, and 465 in LGT were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with UC, EGDT was associated with a lower mortality (10 trials; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97, P = 0.01), and this difference was more pronounced in the subgroup of UC patients with mortality > 30%. In addition, EGDT patients received more red cell transfusions, dobutamine, and vasopressor infusions within the first 6 h. Compared with LGT, EGDT was associated with higher mortality (6 trials; RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.19-1.70, P = 0.0001) with no heterogeneity (P = 0.727, I2 = 0%).ConclusionEGDT seems to reduce mortality in adult patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, and the benefit may primarily be attributed to red cell transfusions, dobutamine administration, and vasopressor infusions within the first 6 h. However, LGT may result in a greater mortality benefit than EGDT.
| S-EPMC6264603 | biostudies-literature