Effect of a Resuscitation Strategy Targeting Peripheral Perfusion Status vs Serum Lactate Levels on 28-Day Mortality Among Patients With Septic Shock: The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK Randomized Clinical Trial.
Aged
Capillaries
/ physiopathology
Cause of Death
Female
Fluid Therapy
/ methods
Hemodynamics
Humans
Intensive Care Units
Kaplan-Meier Estimate
Lactic Acid
/ blood
Male
Middle Aged
Organ Dysfunction Scores
Proportional Hazards Models
Renal Replacement Therapy
Respiration, Artificial
Resuscitation
/ methods
Shock, Septic
/ blood
Vasoconstrictor Agents
/ therapeutic use
Journal
JAMA
ISSN: 1538-3598
Titre abrégé: JAMA
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7501160
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 02 2019
19 02 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
18
2
2019
medline:
13
3
2019
entrez:
18
2
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Abnormal peripheral perfusion after septic shock resuscitation has been associated with organ dysfunction and mortality. The potential role of the clinical assessment of peripheral perfusion as a target during resuscitation in early septic shock has not been established. To determine if a peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation during early septic shock in adults is more effective than a lactate level-targeted resuscitation for reducing mortality. Multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 28 intensive care units in 5 countries. Four-hundred twenty-four patients with septic shock were included between March 2017 and March 2018. The last date of follow-up was June 12, 2018. Patients were randomized to a step-by-step resuscitation protocol aimed at either normalizing capillary refill time (n = 212) or normalizing or decreasing lactate levels at rates greater than 20% per 2 hours (n = 212), during an 8-hour intervention period. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days. Secondary outcomes were organ dysfunction at 72 hours after randomization, as assessed by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (range, 0 [best] to 24 [worst]); death within 90 days; mechanical ventilation-, renal replacement therapy-, and vasopressor-free days within 28 days; intensive care unit and hospital length of stay. Among 424 patients randomized (mean age, 63 years; 226 [53%] women), 416 (98%) completed the trial. By day 28, 74 patients (34.9%) in the peripheral perfusion group and 92 patients (43.4%) in the lactate group had died (hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.55 to 1.02]; P = .06; risk difference, -8.5% [95% CI, -18.2% to 1.2%]). Peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation was associated with less organ dysfunction at 72 hours (mean SOFA score, 5.6 [SD, 4.3] vs 6.6 [SD, 4.7]; mean difference, -1.00 [95% CI, -1.97 to -0.02]; P = .045). There were no significant differences in the other 6 secondary outcomes. No protocol-related serious adverse reactions were confirmed. Among patients with septic shock, a resuscitation strategy targeting normalization of capillary refill time, compared with a strategy targeting serum lactate levels, did not reduce all-cause 28-day mortality. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03078712.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30772908
pii: 2724361
doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.0071
pmc: PMC6439620
doi:
Substances chimiques
Vasoconstrictor Agents
0
Lactic Acid
33X04XA5AT
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03078712']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
654-664Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
Crit Care. 2016 Aug 13;20(1):257
pubmed: 27520452
Chest. 2017 May;151(5):1106-1113
pubmed: 27940191
Crit Care. 2014 Jun 19;18(3):R126
pubmed: 24946777
Intensive Care Med. 2016 Sep;42(9):1350-9
pubmed: 27155605
Am J Emerg Med. 2008 Jan;26(1):62-5
pubmed: 18082783
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):775-87
pubmed: 26903336
Crit Care. 2014 Sep 09;18(5):503
pubmed: 25394679
J Crit Care. 2012 Jun;27(3):283-8
pubmed: 21798706
Intensive Care Med. 2014 Jul;40(7):958-64
pubmed: 24811942
JAMA. 2001 Oct 10;286(14):1754-8
pubmed: 11594901
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 Sep 15;182(6):752-61
pubmed: 20463176
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Feb 15;191(4):477-80
pubmed: 25679107
N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 24;370(17):1583-93
pubmed: 24635770
Ann Intensive Care. 2016 Dec;6(1):111
pubmed: 27858374
Ann Intensive Care. 2014 Oct 11;4:30
pubmed: 25593746
PLoS One. 2017 Nov 27;12(11):e0188548
pubmed: 29176794
Crit Care. 2014 Jun 03;18(3):R114
pubmed: 24894892
Crit Care Med. 2018 Jun;46(6):997-1000
pubmed: 29767636
Crit Care Resusc. 2014 Dec;16(4):245-6
pubmed: 25437216
Crit Care Med. 2018 Aug;46(8):1334-1356
pubmed: 29957716
Intensive Care Med. 2015 Sep;41(9):1529-37
pubmed: 26162676
Ann Emerg Med. 1991 Jun;20(6):601-5
pubmed: 2039096
Crit Care Med. 1985 Oct;13(10):818-29
pubmed: 3928249
Intensive Care Med. 2014 Dec;40(12):1795-815
pubmed: 25392034
Crit Care Med. 2012 Aug;40(8):2287-94
pubmed: 22809904
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2018 Jul-Sept;30(3):253-263
pubmed: 30066731
Am J Dis Child. 1991 Mar;145(3):296-8
pubmed: 2003478
Ann Intensive Care. 2018 Apr 23;8(1):52
pubmed: 29687277
Am J Emerg Med. 1994 Jan;12(1):46-7
pubmed: 8285971
Intensive Care Med. 1996 Jul;22(7):707-10
pubmed: 8844239
Crit Care Med. 2009 Mar;37(3):934-8
pubmed: 19237899
Crit Care Med. 2017 Mar;45(3):486-552
pubmed: 28098591
Anesth Analg. 2011 Jul;113(1):120-3
pubmed: 21519051