Abstract

BACKGROUND Based on the 2018 update of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, the Committee for Quality Improvement of the NHSs of England recommended the instigation of the elements of the 'Sepsis-6 bundle' within 1 hour to adult patients screened positive for sepsis. This bundle includes a bolus infusion of 30 mL/kg crystalloids in the ED. Besides the UK, both in the USA and Australia, compliance with similar 1-hour targets became an important quality indicator. However, the supporting evidence may neither be contemporaneous nor necessarily valid for emergency medicine settings. METHOD A systematic review was designed and registered at PROSPERO to assess available emergency medicine/prehospital evidence published between 2012 and 2020, investigating the clinical benefits associated with a bolus infusion of a minimum 30 mL/kg crystalloids within 1 hour to adult patients screened positive for sepsis. Due to the small number of papers that addressed this volume of fluids in 1 hour, we expanded the search to include studies looking at 1-6 hours. RESULTS Seven full-text articles were identified, which investigated various aspects of the fluid resuscitation in adult sepsis. However, none answered completely to the original research question aimed to determine either the effect of time-to-crystalloids or the optimal fluid volume of resuscitation. Our findings demonstrated that in the USA/UK/Australia/Canada, adult ED septic patients receive 23-43 mL/kg of crystalloids during the first 6 hours of resuscitation without significant differences either in mortality or in adverse effects. CONCLUSION This systematic review did not find high-quality evidence supporting the administration of 30 mL/kg crystalloid bolus to adult septic patients within 1 hour of presentation in the ED. Future research must investigate both the benefits and the potential harms of the recommended intervention.

Abstract

BACKGROUND The effect of early vasopressin initiation on clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock is uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of early start of vasopressin support within 6 h after the diagnosis on clinical outcomes in septic shock patients. METHODS We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies from inception to the 1st of February 2021. We included studies involving adult patients (> 16 years)with septic shock. All authors reported our primary outcome of short-term mortality and in the experimental group patients in the studies receiving vasopressin infusion within 6 h after diagnosis of septic shock and in the control group patients in the studies receiving no vasopressin infusion or vasopressin infusion 6 h after diagnosis of septic shock, clearly comparing with clinically relevant secondary outcomes(use of renal replacement therapy(RRT),new onset arrhythmias, ICU length of stay and length of hospitalization). Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS Five studies including 788 patients were included. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis showed that short-term mortality between the two groups was no difference (odds ratio [OR] = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.48; P = 0.6; χ2 = 0.83; I2 = 0%). Secondary outcomes demonstrated that the use of RRT was less in the experimental group than that of the control group (OR = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.88; P = 0.007; χ2 = 3.15; I2 = 36%).The new onset arrhythmias between the two groups was no statistically significant difference (OR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.1; P = 0.10; χ2 = 4.7; I2 = 36%). There was no statistically significant difference in the ICU length of stay(mean difference = 0.16; 95% CI, - 0.91 to 1.22; P = 0.77; χ2 = 6.08; I2 = 34%) and length of hospitalization (mean difference = -2.41; 95% CI, -6.61 to 1.78; P = 0.26; χ2 = 8.57; I2 = 53%) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Early initiation of vasopressin in patients within 6 h of septic shock onset was not associated with decreased short-term mortality, new onset arrhythmias, shorter ICU length of stay and length of hospitalization, but can reduce the use of RRT. Further large-scale RCTs are still needed to evaluate the benefit of starting vasopressin in the early phase of septic shock.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Early lactate-guided resuscitation was endorsed in the guidelines of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign as a key strategy to decrease the mortality of patients admitted to the ICU department with septic shock. However, its effectiveness in elderly Asian patients is uncertain. METHOD We conducted a single-center trial to test the effectiveness of the early lactate-guided resuscitation of older Asian patients at the Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University. Eligible septic shock patients who consented to participation in the study were randomly assigned to receive early lactate-guided treatment or regular treatment as controls. RESULT A total of 82 patients met the hyperlactatemia criteria and participated in the trial. Forty-two patients received early lactate-guided treatment (lactate group) and 40 received regular treatment (control group). The lactate group received more fluids at initial 6 hours (3.3 ± 1.4 vs 2.4 ± 1.7 L, P = 0.01), but similar proportions of patients in both groups required the use of vasopressors and vasodilators. Patients in the lactate group showed significantly reduced ICU needs compared to the control group, which were weaned from mechanical ventilation more quickly (median 7, IQR 4 to 14 vs median 9, IQR 4.3 to 17.8, P = 0.02) and transferred out of the ICU earlier (median 4.5, IQR 2.8 to 7.3 vs median 6, IQR 3.2 to 8, P = 0.01). However, the hospital mortality (35.7% vs 42.5%, P = 0.35) and ICU mortality (31.0% vs 37.5%, P = 0.38) for both groups were not reduced. CONCLUSION For critically ill patients (elderly Asian patients) admitted to the ICU department with hyperlactatemia, early lactate-guided treatment reduced ICU needs but did not reduce mortality.

Abstract

Current evidences in resuscitation of adult sepsis have pointed to the importance of types of crystalloid fluid-related complications on resuscitation outcomes, but evidences are lacking in pediatric populations. In this study, the authors aimed to compare outcomes of pediatric sepsis resuscitation with different types of crystalloid. They randomly assigned pediatric sepsis patients requiring fluid bolus into three groups to receive either normal saline solution (NSS), Ringer lactate solution (RLS), or Sterofundin as fluid bolus therapy. Forty-two patients were included in the study. Median age was 29 mo and, weight 13 kg. After fluid bolus, the complications were not different among groups. However, in the RLS group, the patients who received large dose of the fluid showed significant reduction in urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (uNGAL) level. It is concluded that fluid bolus therapy with different types of crystalloid solution did not result in different outcomes but large dose of RLS was associated with greater reduction of uNGAL level, compared to other fluids.Trial Registration: Thai Clinical Trial Registry (TCTR) identification number TCTR20170605001 (retrospectively registered on 1st June 2017). https://www.clinicaltrials.in.th/index.php?tp=regtrials&menu=trialsearch&smenu=fulltext&task20=search&task2=view1&id=2576.

Abstract

Although antimicrobials are the cornerstone of neonatal sepsis management, adjunctive therapies are required to improve outcomes. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of exchange transfusion (ET) on mortality (primary outcome) in neonatal sepsis, as well as on immunoglobulin, complement and neutrophil levels and assess its complications (secondary outcomes). Databases searched include PubMed, NCBI, Google Scholar, CINHAL, Ovid and Scopus. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled observational studies (COSs) and uncontrolled observational studies (UOSs) reporting mortality data from using ET in neonatal sepsis were included. Studies with additional interventions, non-septic ET indications and populations aged > 28 days were excluded. Data extracted include demographics, features of study, sepsis and ET, as well as mortality rates, immunological and laboratory changes and complications. Data was meta-analysed and displayed using forest plots. The meta-analysis of 14 studies (3 RCTs, 11 COSs) revealed a mortality benefit in septic neonates who underwent ET-RR 0.72 (CI 0.61-0.86, p = 0.01) and a significant increase in pooled immunological parameters (immunoglobulin, complement levels) (SMD 1.13, [0.25, 2.02], p = 0.02) and neutrophil levels (SMD 1.07 [0.04, 2.11], p = 0.03) compared to controls. The descriptive analysis of 9 UOSs revealed thrombocytopenia as the most frequently reported complication (n = 48). Moderate-high risk of bias was largely due to inadequate sample sizes and follow-up durations.Conclusion: Currently, the use of ET in neonatal sepsis is not directly recommended due to low certainty of evidence, inadequate power and moderate-high risk of bias and heterogeneity.Trial registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020176629) ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=176629 ) What is Known: • Exchange transfusion is one of the adjunctive methods for treatment of neonatal sepsis. What is New: • The pooled analysis of all studies shows that exchange transfusion has a low certainty of evidence in the context of neonatal mortality. However, at this point, this intervention cannot be refuted or recommended due to heterogeneity of studies and inadequate power.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Whether to use limited fluid resuscitation (LFR) in patients with hemorrhagic shock or septic shock remains controversial. This research was aimed to assess the pros and cons of utilizing LFR in hemorrhagic shock or septic shock patients. METHODS PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of science, CNKI, VIP, and Wan Fang database searches included for articles published before December 15, 2020. Randomized controlled trials of LFR or adequate fluid resuscitation in hemorrhagic shock or septic shock patients were selected. RESULT This meta-analysis including 28 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and registered 3288 patients. The 7 of 27 RCTs were the patients with septic shock. Others were traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients. Comparing LFR or adequate fluid resuscitation in hemorrhagic shock or septic shock patients, the summary odds ratio (OR) was 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.60, P < .00001) for mortality, 0.46 (95% CI 0.31-0.70, P = .0002) for multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), 0.35 (95% CI 0.25-0.47) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and 0.33 (95% CI 0.20-0.56) for disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). CONCLUSION Limited fluid resuscitation is the benefit of both traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients and septic shock patients.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Refractory septic shock in neonates is still associated with high mortality, necessitating an alternative therapy, despite all currently available treatments. This study aims to assess the vasopressor effect of methylene blue (MB) in comparison to terlipressin (TP) as adjuvant therapy for refractory septic shock in the preterm neonate. METHODS A double-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Neonatal Intensive Care Units at Ain Shams University, Egypt. Thirty preterm neonates with refractory septic shock were randomized to receive either MB or TP as an adjuvant to conventional therapy. Both MB and TP were administered as an intravenous loading dose followed by continuous intravenous infusion. The hemodynamic variables, functional echocardiographic variables, and oxidant stress marker were assessed over a 24 h period together with the side effects of MB. RESULTS MB causes significant improvement in mean arterial blood pressure with a significant decrease of the norepinephrine requirements (1.15±0.21μm/kg/min at baseline vs. 0.55±0.15μm/kg/min at 24 h). MB infusion causes an increase of the pulmonary pressure (44.73±8.53 mmHg at baseline vs. 47.27±7.91 mmHg after 24 h) without affecting the cardiac output. Serum malonaldehyde decreased from 5.45±1.30 nmol/mL at baseline to 4.40±0.90 nmol/mL at 24 h in the MB group. CONCLUSION Administration of MB to preterm infants with refractory septic shock showed rapid increases in systemic vascular resistance and arterial blood pressure with minimal side effects.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Fluid therapy plays a major role in the management of critically ill patients. Yet assessment of intravascular volume in these patients is challenging. Different invasive and non-invasive methods have been used with variable results. The passive leg raise (PLR) maneuver has been recommended by international guidelines as a means to determine appropriate fluid resuscitation. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine if using this method of volume assessment has an impact on mortality outcome in patients with septic shock. METHODS This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched available data in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception until October 2020 for prospective, randomized, controlled trials that compared PLR-guided fluid resuscitation to standard care in adult patients with septic shock. Our primary outcome was mortality at the longest duration of follow-up. RESULTS We screened 1,425 article titles and abstracts. Of the 23 full-text articles reviewed, 5 studies with 462 patients met our eligibility criteria. Odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for mortality at the longest reported time interval were calculated for each study. Using random effects modeling, the pooled OR (95% CI) for mortality with a PLR-guided resuscitation strategy was 0.82 (0.52 -1.30). The included studies were not blinded and they ranged from having low to high risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. CONCLUSION Our analysis showed there was no statistically significant difference in mortality among septic shock patients treated with PLR-guided resuscitation vs. those with standard care.

Abstract

Red blood cell transfusion is thought to improve cell respiration during septic shock. Nevertheless, its acute impact on oxygen transport and metabolism in this condition remains highly debatable. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of red blood cell transfusion on microcirculation and oxygen metabolism in patients with sepsis and septic shock. We conducted a search in the MEDLINE®, Elsevier and Scopus databases. We included studies conducted in adult humans with sepsis and septic shock. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. A p value < 0.05 was considered significant. Nineteen manuscripts with 428 patients were included in the analysis. Red blood cell transfusions were associated with an increase in the pooled mean venous oxygen saturation of 3.7% (p < 0.001), a decrease in oxygen extraction ratio of -6.98 (p < 0.001) and had no significant effect on the cardiac index (0.02L/minute; p = 0,96). Similar results were obtained in studies including simultaneous measurements of venous oxygen saturation, oxygen extraction ratio, and cardiac index. Red blood cell transfusions led to a significant increase in the proportion of perfused small vessels (2.85%; p = 0.553), while tissue oxygenation parameters revealed a significant increase in the tissue hemoglobin index (1.66; p = 0.018). Individual studies reported significant improvements in tissue oxygenation and sublingual microcirculatory parameters in patients with deranged microcirculation at baseline. Red blood cell transfusions seemed to improve systemic oxygen metabolism with apparent independence from cardiac index variations. Some beneficial effects have been observed for tissue oxygenation and microcirculation parameters, particularly in patients with more severe alterations at baseline. More studies are necessary to evaluate their clinical impact and to individualize transfusion decisions.