Randomized Controlled Trial of Ultrasound-guided Fluid Resuscitation of Sepsis-Induced Hypoperfusion and Septic Shock
The western journal of emergency medicine. 2021;22(2):369-378
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.
The effects of a limited infusion rate of fluid in the early resuscitation of sepsis on glycocalyx shedding measured by plasma syndecan-1: a randomized controlled trial
Journal of intensive care. 2021;9(1):1
BACKGROUND Aggressive fluid administration is recommended in the resuscitation of septic patients. However, the delivery of a rapid fluid bolus might cause harm by inducing degradation of the endothelial glycocalyx. This research aimed to examine the effects of the limited infusion rate of fluid on glycocalyx shedding as measured by syndecan-1 in patients with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion. METHODS A prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label trial was conducted between November 2018 and February 2020 in an urban academic emergency department. Patients with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion, defined as hypotension or hyperlactatemia, were randomized to receive either the standard rate (30 ml/kg/h) or limited rate (10 ml/kg/h) of fluid for the first 30 ml/kg fluid resuscitation. Subsequently, the fluid rate was adjusted according to the physician's discretion but not more than that of the designated fluid rate for the total of 6 h. The primary outcome was differences in change of syndecan-1 levels at 6 h compared to baseline between standard and limited rate groups. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, organ failure, and 90-day mortality. RESULTS We included 96 patients in the intention-to-treat analysis, with 48 assigned to the standard-rate strategy and 48 to the limited-rate strategy. The median fluid volume in 6 h in the limited-rate group was 39 ml/kg (interquartile range [IQR] 35-52 ml/kg) vs. 53 ml/kg (IQR 46-64 ml/kg) in the standard-rate group (p < 0.001). Patients in the limited-rate group were less likely to received vasopressors (17% vs 42%; p = 0.007) and mechanical ventilation (20% vs 41%; p = 0.049) during the first 6 h. There were no significantly different changes in syndecan-1 levels at 6 h between the two groups (geometric mean ratio [GMR] in the limited-rate group, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-1.02; p = 0.07). There were no significant differences in adverse events, organ failure outcomes, or mortality between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS In sepsis resuscitation, the limited rate of fluid resuscitation compared to the standard rate did not significantly reduce changes in syndecan-1 at 6 h. TRIAL REGISTRATION Thai Clinical Trials Registry number: TCTR20181010001. Registered 8 October 2018, http://www.clinicaltrials.in.th/index.php?tp=regtrials&menu=trialsearch&smenu=fulltext&task=search&task2=view1&id=4064.
Is restrictive fluid resuscitation beneficial not only for hemorrhagic shock but also for septic shock?: A meta-analysis
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.
Balanced Salt Solution Versus Normal Saline in Resuscitation of Pediatric Sepsis: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
Indian journal of pediatrics. 2021;:1-4
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.
[Randomized controlled multicenter study of albumin replacement therapy in septic shock (ARISS)]
Der Anaesthesist. 2021
Impact of red blood cell transfusion on oxygen transport and metabolism in patients with sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva. 2021;33(1):154-166
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.
The effect of early vasopressin use on patients with septic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis
The American journal of emergency medicine. 2021;48:203-208
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.
Terlipressin for the treatment of septic shock in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BMC anesthesiology. 2020;20(1):58
BACKGROUND Catecholamines are the first-line vasopressors used in patients with septic shock. However, the search for novel drug candidates is still of great importance due to the development of adrenergic hyposensitivity accompanied by a decrease in catecholamine activity. Terlipressin (TP) is a synthetic vasopressin analogue used in the management of patients with septic shock. In the current study, we aimed to compare the effects of TP and catecholamine infusion in treating septic shock patients. METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by searching articles published in PUBMED, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials between inception and July 2018. We only selected randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of TP and catecholamine in adult patients with septic shock. The primary outcome was overall mortality. The secondary outcomes were the ICU length of stay, haemodynamic changes, tissue perfusion, renal function, and adverse events. RESULTS A total of 9 studies with 850 participants were included in the analysis. Overall, no significant difference in mortality was observed between the TP and catecholamine groups (risk ratio(RR), 0.85 (0.70 to 1.03); P = 0.09). In patients < 60 years old, the mortality rate was lower in the TP group than in the catecholamine group (RR, 0.66 (0.50 to 0.86); P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the ICU length of stay (mean difference, MD), - 0.28 days; 95% confidence interval (CI), - 1.25 to 0.69; P = 0.58). Additionally, TP improved renal function. The creatinine level was decreased in patients who received TP therapy compared to catecholamine-treated participants (standard mean difference, SMD), - 0.65; 95% CI, - 1.09 to - 0.22; P = 0.003). No significant difference was found regarding the total adverse events (Odds Ratio(OR), 1.48(0.51 to 4.24); P = 0.47), whereas peripheral ischaemia was more common in the TP group (OR, 8.65(1.48 to 50.59); P = 0.02). CONCLUSION The use of TP was associated with reduced mortality in septic shock patients less than 60 years old. TP may also improve renal function and cause more peripheral ischaemia. PROSPERO registry: CRD42016035872.
Systematic assessment of fluid responsiveness during early septic shock resuscitation: secondary analysis of the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial
Critical care (London, England). 2020;24(1):23
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.
Clinical Efficiency of Vasopressin or Its Analogs in Comparison With Catecholamines Alone on Patients With Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:563
Background: Vasopressin is an efficient remedy for septic shock patients as its great capacity in promoting hemodynamic stabilization. The aim of current systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the clinical efficiency of vasopressin or its analogs with sole catecholamines on patients with septic shock. Methods: A systematic search of Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed online databases was performed up to 30 Oct 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing use of vasopressin or its analogs (e.g., terlipressin, selepressin) with administration of catecholamines alone. Results: We included 23 RCTs with 4,225 patients in the current study. Compared with solely use of catecholamines, administration of vasopressin or its analogs was not associated with reduced 28-day or 30-day mortality among patients with septic shock [RR=0.94 (95% CI, 0.87-1.01), P=0.08, I(2) = 0%]. The result of primary endpoint remained unchanged after conducting sensitivity analysis. Despite a significantly higher risk of digital ischemia in patients receiving vasopressin or its analogs [RR=2.65 (95% CI, 1.26-5.56), P < 0.01, I(2) = 48%], there was no statistical significance in the pooled estimate for other secondary outcomes, including total adverse events, arrhythmia, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiac arrest, acute mesenteric ischemia, ICU/hospital length of stay, and mechanical ventilation (MV) duration. Conclusions: The administration of vasopressin or its analogs was not associated with reduced 28-day or 30-day mortality among patients with septic shock, while an increased incidence of digital ischemia should be noted in patients receiving agonists for vasopressin receptors.