Why is early goal-directed therapy successful - is it the technology?

Sepsis and Septic Shock Strategies

Three therapeutic principles most substantially improve organ dysfunction and survival in sepsis: early, appropriate antimicrobial therapy; restoration of adequate cellular perfusion; timely source control. The new definitions of sepsis and septic shock reflect the inadequate sensitivity, specify, and lack of prognostication of systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria. Sequential (sepsis-related) organ failure assessment more effectively prognosticates in sepsis and critical illness. Inadequate cellular perfusion accelerates injury and reestablishing perfusion limits injury. Multiple organ systems are affected by sepsis and septic shock and an evidence-based multipronged approach to systems-based therapy in critical illness results in improve outcomes.

Protocolised Management In Sepsis (ProMISe): a multicentre randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early, goal-directed, protocolised resuscitation for emerging septic shock

BACKGROUND

Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) is recommended in international guidance for the resuscitation of patients presenting with early septic shock. However, adoption has been limited and uncertainty remains over its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to estimate the effect of EGDT compared with usual resuscitation on mortality at 90 days following randomisation and on incremental cost-effectiveness at 1 year. The secondary objectives were to compare EGDT with usual resuscitation for requirement for, and duration of, critical care unit organ support; length of stay in the emergency department (ED), critical care unit and acute hospital; health-related quality of life, resource use and costs at 90 days and at 1 year; all-cause mortality at 28 days, at acute hospital discharge and at 1 year; and estimated lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, open, multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with an integrated economic evaluation.

SETTING

Fifty-six NHS hospitals in England.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1260 patients who presented at EDs with septic shock.

INTERVENTIONS

EGDT (n = 630) or usual resuscitation (n = 630). Patients were randomly allocated 1 : 1.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

All-cause mortality at 90 days after randomisation and incremental net benefit (at £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year) at 1 year.

RESULTS

Following withdrawals, data on 1243 (EGDT, n = 623; usual resuscitation, n = 620) patients were included in the analysis. By 90 days, 184 (29.5%) in the EGDT and 181 (29.2%) patients in the usual-resuscitation group had died [p = 0.90; absolute risk reduction -0.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.4 to 4.7; relative risk 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20]. Treatment intensity was greater for the EGDT group, indicated by the increased use of intravenous fluids, vasoactive drugs and red blood cell transfusions. Increased treatment intensity was reflected by significantly higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and more advanced cardiovascular support days in critical care for the EGDT group. At 1 year, the incremental net benefit for EGDT versus usual resuscitation was negative at -£725 (95% CI -£3000 to £1550). The probability that EGDT was more cost-effective than usual resuscitation was below 30%. There were no significant differences in any other secondary outcomes, including health-related quality of life, or adverse events.

LIMITATIONS

Recruitment was lower at weekends and out of hours. The intervention could not be blinded.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 90 days for EGDT compared with usual resuscitation among adults identified with early septic shock presenting to EDs in England. On average, costs were higher in the EGDT group than in the usual-resuscitation group while quality-adjusted life-years were similar in both groups; the probability that it is cost-effective is < 30%.

FUTURE WORK

The ProMISe (Protocolised Management In Sepsis) trial completes the planned trio of evaluations of EGDT across the USA, Australasia and England; all have indicated that EGDT is not superior to usual resuscitation. Recognising that each of the three individual, large trials has limited power for evaluating potentially important subgroups, the harmonised approach adopted provides the opportunity to conduct an individual patient data meta-analysis, enhancing both knowledge and generalisability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36307479.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 97. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effect of early goal-directed therapy on mortality in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether patients with severe sepsis or septic shock could benefit from a strict and early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) protocol recommended by Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) Guidelines.

METHODS

MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE/OVID and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched between March 1983 and March 2015. Eligible studies evaluated the outcomes of EGDT versus usual care or standard therapy in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. The primary outcomes were mortality within 28 days, 60 days and 90 days. Included studies must report at least one metric of mortality.

RESULTS

5 studies that enrolled 4303 patients with 2144 in the EGDT group and 2159 in the control group were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, there were slight decreases of mortality within 28 days, 60 days and 90 days in the random-effect model in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock receiving EGDT resuscitation. However, none of the differences reached statistical significance (RR=0.86; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06; p=0.16; p for heterogeneity=0.008, I(2)=71%; RR=0.94; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.10; p=0.46; p for heterogeneity=0.16, I(2)=43%; RR=0.98; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.10; p=0.75; p for heterogeneity=0.87, I(2)=0%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The current meta-analysis pooled data from five RCTs and found no survival benefit of EGDT in patients with sepsis. However, the included trials are not sufficiently homogeneous and potential confounding factors in the negative trials (ProCESS, ARISE and ProMISe) might bias the results and diminish the treatment effect of EGDT. Further well-designed studies should eliminate all potential source of bias to determine if EGDT has a mortality benefit.

Trial of early, goal-directed resuscitation for septic shock

BACKGROUND

Early, goal-directed therapy (EGDT) is recommended in international guidelines for the resuscitation of patients presenting with early septic shock. However, adoption has been limited, and uncertainty about its effectiveness remains.

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic randomized trial with an integrated cost-effectiveness analysis in 56 hospitals in England. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either EGDT (a 6-hour resuscitation protocol) or usual care. The primary clinical outcome was all-cause mortality at 90 days.

RESULTS

We enrolled 1260 patients, with 630 assigned to EGDT and 630 to usual care. By 90 days, 184 of 623 patients (29.5%) in the EGDT group and 181 of 620 patients (29.2%) in the usual-care group had died (relative risk in the EGDT group, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.20; P=0.90), for an absolute risk reduction in the EGDT group of -0.3 percentage points (95% CI, -5.4 to 4.7). Increased treatment intensity in the EGDT group was indicated by increased use of intravenous fluids, vasoactive drugs, and red-cell transfusions and reflected by significantly worse organ-failure scores, more days receiving advanced cardiovascular support, and longer stays in the intensive care unit. There were no significant differences in any other secondary outcomes, including health-related quality of life, or in rates of serious adverse events. On average, EGDT increased costs, and the probability that it was cost-effective was below 20%.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with septic shock who were identified early and received intravenous antibiotics and adequate fluid resuscitation, hemodynamic management according to a strict EGDT protocol did not lead to an improvement in outcome. (Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme; ProMISe Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN36307479.).

Harmonizing international trials of early goal-directed resuscitation for severe sepsis and septic shock: methodology of ProCESS, ARISE, and ProMISe

PURPOSE

To describe and compare the design of three independent but collaborating multicenter trials of early goal-directed resuscitation for severe sepsis and septic shock.

METHODS

We reviewed the three current trials, one each in the USA (ProCESS: protocolized care for early septic shock), Australasia (ARISE: Australasian resuscitation in sepsis evaluation), and the UK (ProMISe: protocolised management in sepsis). We used the 2010 CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials) statement and the 2008 CONSORT extension for trials assessing non-pharmacologic treatments to describe and compare the underlying rationale, commonalities, and differences.

RESULTS

All three trials conform to CONSORT guidelines, address the same fundamental questions, and share key design elements. Each trial is a patient-level, equal-randomized, parallel-group superiority trial that seeks to enroll emergency department patients with inclusion criteria that are consistent with the original early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) trial (suspected or confirmed infection, two or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, and refractory hypotension or elevated lactate), is powered to detect a 6–8 % absolute mortality reduction (hospital or 90-day), and uses trained teams to deliver EGDT. Design differences appear to primarily be driven by between-country variation in health care context. The main difference between the trials is the inclusion of a third, alternative resuscitation strategy arm in ProCESS.

CONCLUSIONS

Harmonization of study design and methods between severe sepsis trials is feasible and may facilitate pooling of data on completion of the trials.

Implementing a collaborative protocol in a sepsis intervention program: lessons learned

The objective of this prospective cohort study was to see the effect of the implementation of a Sepsis Intervention Program on the standard processes of patient care using a collaborative approach between the Emergency Department (ED) and Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU). This was performed in a large urban tertiary-care hospital, with no previous experience utilizing a specific intervention program as routine care for septic shock and which has services and resources commonly available in most hospitals. The study included 106 patients who presented to the ED with severe sepsis or septic shock. Eighty-seven of those patients met the inclusion criteria for complete data analysis. The ED and MICU staff underwent a 3-month training period followed by implementation of a protocol for sepsis intervention program over 6 months. In the first 6 months of the program's implementation, 106 patients were admitted to the ED with severe sepsis and septic shock. During this time, the ED attempted to initiate the sepsis intervention protocol in 76% of the 87 septic patients who met the inclusion criteria. This was assessed by documentation of a central venous catheter insertion for continuous SvO(2) monitoring in a patient with sepsis or septic shock. However, only 48% of the eligible patients completed the early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) protocol. Our data showed that the in-hospital mortality rate was 30.5% for the 87 septic shock patients with a mean APACHE II score of 29. This was very similar to a landmark study of EGDT (30.5% mortality with mean APACHE II of 21.5). Data collected on processes of care showed improvements in time to fluid administration, central venous access insertion, antibiotic administration, vasopressor administration, and time to MICU transfer from ED arrival in our patients enrolled in the protocol versus those who were not. Further review of our performance data showed that processes of care improved steadily the longer the protocol was in effect, although this was not statistically significant. There was no improvement in secondary outcomes, including total length of hospital stay, MICU days, and mortality. Implementation of a sepsis intervention program as a standard of care in a typical hospital protocol leads to improvements in processes of care. However, despite a collaborative approach, the sepsis intervention program was underutilized with only 48% of the patients completing the sepsis intervention protocol.

Toward an integrated research agenda for critical illness in aging

Aging brings an increased predisposition to critical illness. Patients older than 65 years of age account for approximately half of all intensive care unit (ICU) admissions in the United States, a proportion that is expected to increase considerably with the aging of the population. Emerging research suggests that elderly survivors of intensive care suffer significant long-term sequelae, including accelerated age-related functional decline. Existing evidence-based interventions are frequently underused and their efficacy untested in older subjects. Improving ICU outcomes in the elderly will require not only better methods for translating sound science into improved ICU practice but also an enhanced understanding of the underlying molecular, physiological, and pathophysiological interactions of critical illness with the aging process itself. Yet, significant barriers to research for critical illness in aging exist. We review the state of knowledge and identify gaps in knowledge, research opportunities, and barriers to research, with the goal of promoting an integrated research agenda for critical illness in aging.

Review article: inotrope and vasopressor use in the emergency department

Shock is a common presentation to the ED, with the incidence of septic shock increasing in Australasia over the last decade. The choice of inotropic agent is likely dependent on previous experience and local practices of the emergency and other critical care departments. The relatively short duration of stay in the ED before transfer leaves little room for evaluating the appropriateness of and response to the agent chosen. Delays in transfer to inpatient facilities means that patients receive advanced critical care within the ED for longer, requiring initiation and titration of vasoactive agents in the ED. This article discusses the general concepts of shock and the indicators for inotrope and vasopressor use, revises the various agents available and reviews the current evidence for their use.

A survey of Canadian intensivists' resuscitation practices in early septic shock

Introduction

Recent 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.

Methods

A 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.

Results

The 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.

Conclusion

Our 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.