The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)

IMPORTANCE

Definitions of sepsis and septic shock were last revised in 2001. Considerable advances have since been made into the pathobiology (changes in organ function, morphology, cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, and circulation), management, and epidemiology of sepsis, suggesting the need for reexamination.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and, as needed, update definitions for sepsis and septic shock.

PROCESS

A task force (n = 19) with expertise in sepsis pathobiology, clinical trials, and epidemiology was convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Definitions and clinical criteria were generated through meetings, Delphi processes, analysis of electronic health record databases, and voting, followed by circulation to international professional societies, requesting peer review and endorsement (by 31 societies listed in the Acknowledgment).

KEY FINDINGS FROM EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Limitations of previous definitions included an excessive focus on inflammation, the misleading model that sepsis follows a continuum through severe sepsis to shock, and inadequate specificity and sensitivity of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. Multiple definitions and terminologies are currently in use for sepsis, septic shock, and organ dysfunction, leading to discrepancies in reported incidence and observed mortality. The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Sepsis should be defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. For clinical operationalization, organ dysfunction can be represented by an increase in the Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 2 points or more, which is associated with an in-hospital mortality greater than 10%. Septic shock should be defined as a subset of sepsis in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than with sepsis alone. Patients with septic shock can be clinically identified by a vasopressor requirement to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (>18 mg/dL) in the absence of hypovolemia. This combination is associated with hospital mortality rates greater than 40%. In out-of-hospital, emergency department, or general hospital ward settings, adult patients with suspected infection can be rapidly identified as being more likely to have poor outcomes typical of sepsis if they have at least 2 of the following clinical criteria that together constitute a new bedside clinical score termed quickSOFA (qSOFA): respiratory rate of 22/min or greater, altered mentation, or systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or less.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These updated definitions and clinical criteria should replace previous definitions, offer greater consistency for epidemiologic studies and clinical trials, and facilitate earlier recognition and more timely management of patients with sepsis or at risk of developing sepsis.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," published in 2004.

DESIGN

Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding.

METHODS

We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation (1) indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost) or clearly do not. Weak recommendations (2) indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations.

RESULTS

Key recommendations, listed by category, include early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure > or = 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for postoperative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B), targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization (2C); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); and a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B).

CONCLUSIONS

There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Effect of treatment with low doses of hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone on mortality in patients with septic shock

CONTEXT

Septic shock may be associated with relative adrenal insufficiency. Thus, a replacement therapy of low doses of corticosteroids has been proposed to treat septic shock.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether low doses of corticosteroids improve 28-day survival in patients with septic shock and relative adrenal insufficiency.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial performed in 19 intensive care units in France from October 9, 1995, to February 23, 1999.

PATIENTS

Three hundred adult patients who fulfilled usual criteria for septic shock were enrolled after undergoing a short corticotropin test.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either hydrocortisone (50-mg intravenous bolus every 6 hours) and fludrocortisone (50- micro g tablet once daily) (n = 151) or matching placebos (n = 149) for 7 days.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Twenty-eight-day survival distribution in patients with relative adrenal insufficiency (nonresponders to the corticotropin test).

RESULTS

One patient from the corticosteroid group was excluded from analyses because of consent withdrawal. There were 229 nonresponders to the corticotropin test (placebo, 115; corticosteroids, 114) and 70 responders to the corticotropin test (placebo, 34; corticosteroids, 36). In nonresponders, there were 73 deaths (63%) in the placebo group and 60 deaths (53%) in the corticosteroid group (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.95; P =.02). Vasopressor therapy was withdrawn within 28 days in 46 patients (40%) in the placebo group and in 65 patients (57%) in the corticosteroid group (hazard ratio, 1.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.84; P =.001). There was no significant difference between groups in responders. Adverse events rates were similar in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

In our trial, a 7-day treatment with low doses of hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone significantly reduced the risk of death in patients with septic shock and relative adrenal insufficiency without increasing adverse events.

A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock

BACKGROUND

In a single-center study published more than a decade ago involving patients presenting to the emergency department with severe sepsis and septic shock, mortality was markedly lower among those who were treated according to a 6-hour protocol of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), in which intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions were adjusted to reach central hemodynamic targets, than among those receiving usual care. We conducted a trial to determine whether these findings were generalizable and whether all aspects of the protocol were necessary.

METHODS

In 31 emergency departments in the United States, we randomly assigned patients with septic shock to one of three groups for 6 hours of resuscitation: protocol-based EGDT; protocol-based standard therapy that did not require the placement of a central venous catheter, administration of inotropes, or blood transfusions; or usual care. The primary end point was 60-day in-hospital mortality. We tested sequentially whether protocol-based care (EGDT and standard-therapy groups combined) was superior to usual care and whether protocol-based EGDT was superior to protocol-based standard therapy. Secondary outcomes included longer-term mortality and the need for organ support.

RESULTS

We enrolled 1341 patients, of whom 439 were randomly assigned to protocol-based EGDT, 446 to protocol-based standard therapy, and 456 to usual care. Resuscitation strategies differed significantly with respect to the monitoring of central venous pressure and oxygen and the use of intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions. By 60 days, there were 92 deaths in the protocol-based EGDT group (21.0%), 81 in the protocol-based standard-therapy group (18.2%), and 86 in the usual-care group (18.9%) (relative risk with protocol-based therapy vs. usual care, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.31; P=0.83; relative risk with protocol-based EGDT vs. protocol-based standard therapy, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.51; P=0.31). There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality, 1-year mortality, or the need for organ support.

CONCLUSIONS

In a multicenter trial conducted in the tertiary care setting, protocol-based resuscitation of patients in whom septic shock was diagnosed in the emergency department did not improve outcomes. (Funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences; ProCESS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00510835.).

Developing a New Definition and Assessing New Clinical Criteria for Septic Shock: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)

IMPORTANCE

Septic shock currently refers to a state of acute circulatory failure associated with infection. Emerging biological insights and reported variation in epidemiology challenge the validity of this definition.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a new definition and clinical criteria for identifying septic shock in adults.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine convened a task force (19 participants) to revise current sepsis/septic shock definitions. Three sets of studies were conducted: (1) a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in adults published between January 1, 1992, and December 25, 2015, to determine clinical criteria currently reported to identify septic shock and inform the Delphi process; (2) a Delphi study among the task force comprising 3 surveys and discussions of results from the systematic review, surveys, and cohort studies to achieve consensus on a new septic shock definition and clinical criteria; and (3) cohort studies to test variables identified by the Delphi process using Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) (2005-2010; n = 28,150), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) (2010-2012; n = 1,309,025), and Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) (2009-2013; n = 1,847,165) electronic health record (EHR) data sets.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Evidence for and agreement on septic shock definitions and criteria.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 44 studies reporting septic shock outcomes (total of 166,479 patients) from a total of 92 sepsis epidemiology studies reporting different cutoffs and combinations for blood pressure (BP), fluid resuscitation, vasopressors, serum lactate level, and base deficit to identify septic shock. The septic shock-associated crude mortality was 46.5% (95% CI, 42.7%-50.3%), with significant between-study statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 99.5%; τ2 = 182.5; P < .001). The Delphi process identified hypotension, serum lactate level, and vasopressor therapy as variables to test using cohort studies. Based on these 3 variables alone or in combination, 6 patient groups were generated. Examination of the SSC database demonstrated that the patient group requiring vasopressors to maintain mean BP 65 mm Hg or greater and having a serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (18 mg/dL) after fluid resuscitation had a significantly higher mortality (42.3% [95% CI, 41.2%-43.3%]) in risk-adjusted comparisons with the other 5 groups derived using either serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L alone or combinations of hypotension, vasopressors, and serum lactate level 2 mmol/L or lower. These findings were validated in the UPMC and KPNC data sets.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Based on a consensus process using results from a systematic review, surveys, and cohort studies, septic shock is defined as a subset of sepsis in which underlying circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than sepsis alone. Adult patients with septic shock can be identified using the clinical criteria of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy to maintain mean BP 65 mm Hg or greater and having a serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L after adequate fluid resuscitation.

Goal-directed resuscitation for patients with early septic shock

BACKGROUND

Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) has been endorsed in the guidelines of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign as a key strategy to decrease mortality among patients presenting to the emergency department with septic shock. However, its effectiveness is uncertain.

METHODS

In this trial conducted at 51 centers (mostly in Australia or New Zealand), we randomly assigned patients presenting to the emergency department with early septic shock to receive either EGDT or usual care. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 90 days after randomization.

RESULTS

Of the 1600 enrolled patients, 796 were assigned to the EGDT group and 804 to the usual-care group. Primary outcome data were available for more than 99% of the patients. Patients in the EGDT group received a larger mean (±SD) volume of intravenous fluids in the first 6 hours after randomization than did those in the usual-care group (1964±1415 ml vs. 1713±1401 ml) and were more likely to receive vasopressor infusions (66.6% vs. 57.8%), red-cell transfusions (13.6% vs. 7.0%), and dobutamine (15.4% vs. 2.6%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). At 90 days after randomization, 147 deaths had occurred in the EGDT group and 150 had occurred in the usual-care group, for rates of death of 18.6% and 18.8%, respectively (absolute risk difference with EGDT vs. usual care, -0.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -4.1 to 3.6; P=0.90). There was no significant difference in survival time, in-hospital mortality, duration of organ support, or length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients presenting to the emergency department with early septic shock, EGDT did not reduce all-cause mortality at 90 days. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Alfred Foundation; ARISE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00975793.).

Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock

BACKGROUND

Both dopamine and norepinephrine are recommended as first-line vasopressor agents in the treatment of shock. There is a continuing controversy about whether one agent is superior to the other.

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned patients with shock to receive either dopamine or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor therapy to restore and maintain blood pressure. When blood pressure could not be maintained with a dose of 20 microg per kilogram of body weight per minute for dopamine or a dose of 0.19 microg per kilogram per minute for norepinephrine, open-label norepinephrine, epinephrine, or vasopressin could be added. The primary outcome was the rate of death at 28 days after randomization; secondary end points included the number of days without need for organ support and the occurrence of adverse events.

RESULTS

The trial included 1679 patients, of whom 858 were assigned to dopamine and 821 to norepinephrine. The baseline characteristics of the groups were similar. There was no significant between-group difference in the rate of death at 28 days (52.5% in the dopamine group and 48.5% in the norepinephrine group; odds ratio with dopamine, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.42; P=0.10). However, there were more arrhythmic events among the patients treated with dopamine than among those treated with norepinephrine (207 events [24.1%] vs. 102 events [12.4%], P<0.001). A subgroup analysis showed that dopamine, as compared with norepinephrine, was associated with an increased rate of death at 28 days among the 280 patients with cardiogenic shock but not among the 1044 patients with septic shock or the 263 with hypovolemic shock (P=0.03 for cardiogenic shock, P=0.19 for septic shock, and P=0.84 for hypovolemic shock, in Kaplan-Meier analyses).

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was no significant difference in the rate of death between patients with shock who were treated with dopamine as the first-line vasopressor agent and those who were treated with norepinephrine, the use of dopamine was associated with a greater number of adverse events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00314704.)

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.).

Brain stem activation in spontaneous human migraine attacks

Evidence from animal experiments shows that the brain stem is involved in the pathophysiology of migraine. To investigate human migraine, we used positron emission tomography to examine the changes in regional cerebral blood flow as an index of neuronal activity in the human brain during spontaneous migraine attacks. During the attacks, increased blood flow was found in the cerebral hemispheres in cingulate, auditory and visual association cortices and in the brain stem. However, only the brain stem activation persisted after the injection of sumatriptan had induced complete relief from headache and phono- and photophobia. These findings support the idea that the pathogenesis of migraine is related to an imbalance in activity between brain stem nuclei regulating antinociception and vascular control.

A trial of goal-oriented hemodynamic therapy in critically ill patients. SvO2 Collaborative Group

BACKGROUND

Hemodynamic therapy to raise the cardiac index and oxygen delivery to supranormal may improve outcomes in critically ill patients. We studied whether increasing the cardiac index to a supranormal level (cardiac-index group) or increasing mixed venous oxygen saturation to a normal level (oxygen-saturation group) would decrease morbidity and mortality among critically ill patients, as compared with a control group in which the target was a normal cardiac index.

METHODS

A total of 10,726 patients in 56 intensive care units were screened, among whom 762 patients belonging to predefined diagnostic categories with acute physiology scores of 11 or higher were randomly assigned to the three groups (252 to the control group, 253 to the cardiac-index group, and 257 to the oxygen-saturation group).

RESULTS

The hemodynamic targets were reached by 94.3 percent of the control group, 44.9 percent of the cardiac-index group, and 66.7 percent of the oxygen-saturation group (P < 0.001). Mortality was 48.4, 48.6, and 52.1 percent, respectively (P = 0.638), up to the time of discharge from the intensive care unit and 62.3, 61.7, and 63.8 percent (P = 0.875) at six months. Among patients who survived, the number of dysfunctional organs and the length of the stay in the intensive care unit were similar in the three groups. No differences in mortality among the three groups were found for any diagnostic category. A subgroup analysis of the patients in whom hemodynamic targets were reached revealed similar mortality rates: 44.8, 40.4, and 39.0 percent, respectively (P = 0.478).

CONCLUSIONS

Hemodynamic therapy aimed at achieving supranormal values for the cardiac index or normal values for mixed venous oxygen saturation does not reduce morbidity or mortality among critically ill patients.

Early use of TIPS in patients with cirrhosis and variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Patients with cirrhosis in Child-Pugh class C or those in class B who have persistent bleeding at endoscopy are at high risk for treatment failure and a poor prognosis, even if they have undergone rescue treatment with a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). This study evaluated the earlier use of TIPS in such patients.

METHODS

We randomly assigned, within 24 hours after admission, a total of 63 patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding who had been treated with vasoactive drugs plus endoscopic therapy to treatment with a polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent within 72 hours after randomization (early-TIPS group, 32 patients) or continuation of vasoactive-drug therapy, followed after 3 to 5 days by treatment with propranolol or nadolol and long-term endoscopic band ligation (EBL), with insertion of a TIPS if needed as rescue therapy (pharmacotherapy-EBL group, 31 patients).

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 16 months, rebleeding or failure to control bleeding occurred in 14 patients in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group as compared with 1 patient in the early-TIPS group (P=0.001). The 1-year actuarial probability of remaining free of this composite end point was 50% in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group versus 97% in the early-TIPS group (P<0.001). Sixteen patients died (12 in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group and 4 in the early-TIPS group, P=0.01). The 1-year actuarial survival was 61% in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group versus 86% in the early-TIPS group (P<0.001). Seven patients in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group received TIPS as rescue therapy, but four died. The number of days in the intensive care unit and the percentage of time in the hospital during follow-up were significantly higher in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group than in the early-TIPS group. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups with respect to serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

In these patients with cirrhosis who were hospitalized for acute variceal bleeding and at high risk for treatment failure, the early use of TIPS was associated with significant reductions in treatment failure and in mortality. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN58150114.)

High versus low blood-pressure target in patients with septic shock

BACKGROUND

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommends targeting a mean arterial pressure of at least 65 mm Hg during initial resuscitation of patients with septic shock. However, whether this blood-pressure target is more or less effective than a higher target is unknown.

METHODS

In a multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned 776 patients with septic shock to undergo resuscitation with a mean arterial pressure target of either 80 to 85 mm Hg (high-target group) or 65 to 70 mm Hg (low-target group). The primary end point was mortality at day 28.

RESULTS

At 28 days, there was no significant between-group difference in mortality, with deaths reported in 142 of 388 patients in the high-target group (36.6%) and 132 of 388 patients in the low-target group (34.0%) (hazard ratio in the high-target group, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.38; P=0.57). There was also no significant difference in mortality at 90 days, with 170 deaths (43.8%) and 164 deaths (42.3%), respectively (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.30; P=0.74). The occurrence of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups (74 events [19.1%] and 69 events [17.8%], respectively; P=0.64). However, the incidence of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation was higher in the high-target group than in the low-target group. Among patients with chronic hypertension, those in the high-target group required less renal-replacement therapy than did those in the low-target group, but such therapy was not associated with a difference in mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeting a mean arterial pressure of 80 to 85 mm Hg, as compared with 65 to 70 mm Hg, in patients with septic shock undergoing resuscitation did not result in significant differences in mortality at either 28 or 90 days. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; SEPSISPAM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01149278.).

Hydrocortisone, Vitamin C, and Thiamine for the Treatment of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Retrospective Before-After Study

BACKGROUND

The global burden of sepsis is estimated as 15 to 19 million cases annually, with a mortality rate approaching 60% in low-income countries.

METHODS

In this retrospective before-after clinical study, we compared the outcome and clinical course of consecutive septic patients treated with intravenous vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine during a 7-month period (treatment group) with a control group treated in our ICU during the preceding 7 months. The primary outcome was hospital survival. A propensity score was generated to adjust the primary outcome.

RESULTS

There were 47 patients in both treatment and control groups, with no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The hospital mortality was 8.5% (4 of 47) in the treatment group compared with 40.4% (19 of 47) in the control group (P < .001). The propensity adjusted odds of mortality in the patients treated with the vitamin C protocol was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.04-0.48; P = .002). The Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment score decreased in all patients in the treatment group, with none developing progressive organ failure. All patients in the treatment group were weaned off vasopressors, a mean of 18.3 ± 9.8 h after starting treatment with the vitamin C protocol. The mean duration of vasopressor use was 54.9 ± 28.4 h in the control group (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the early use of intravenous vitamin C, together with corticosteroids and thiamine, are effective in preventing progressive organ dysfunction, including acute kidney injury, and in reducing the mortality of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Additional studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings.

Angiotensin II for the Treatment of Vasodilatory Shock

BACKGROUND

Vasodilatory shock that does not respond to high-dose vasopressors is associated with high mortality. We investigated the effectiveness of angiotensin II for the treatment of patients with this condition.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with vasodilatory shock who were receiving more than 0.2 μg of norepinephrine per kilogram of body weight per minute or the equivalent dose of another vasopressor to receive infusions of either angiotensin II or placebo. The primary end point was a response with respect to mean arterial pressure at hour 3 after the start of infusion, with response defined as an increase from baseline of at least 10 mm Hg or an increase to at least 75 mm Hg, without an increase in the dose of background vasopressors.

RESULTS

A total of 344 patients were assigned to one of the two regimens; 321 received a study intervention (163 received angiotensin II, and 158 received placebo) and were included in the analysis. The primary end point was reached by more patients in the angiotensin II group (114 of 163 patients, 69.9%) than in the placebo group (37 of 158 patients, 23.4%) (odds ratio, 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.76 to 13.3; P<0.001). At 48 hours, the mean improvement in the cardiovascular Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe dysfunction) was greater in the angiotensin II group than in the placebo group (-1.75 vs. -1.28, P=0.01). Serious adverse events were reported in 60.7% of the patients in the angiotensin II group and in 67.1% in the placebo group. Death by day 28 occurred in 75 of 163 patients (46%) in the angiotensin II group and in 85 of 158 patients (54%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.07; P=0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Angiotensin II effectively increased blood pressure in patients with vasodilatory shock that did not respond to high doses of conventional vasopressors. (Funded by La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company; ATHOS-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02338843 .).

Cerebral perfusion pressure: management protocol and clinical results

Early results using cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) management techniques in persons with traumatic brain injury indicate that treatment directed at CPP is superior to traditional techniques focused on intracranial pressure (ICP) management. The authors have continued to refine management techniques directed at CPP maintenance. One hundred fifty-eight patients with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores of 7 or lower were managed using vascular volume expansion, cerebrospinal fluid drainage via ventriculostomy, systemic vasopressors (phenylephrine or norepinephrine), and mannitol to maintain a minimum CPP of at least 70 mm Hg. Detailed outcomes and follow-up data bases were maintained. Barbiturates, hyperventilation, and hypothermia were not used. Cerebral perfusion pressure averaged 83 +/- 14 mm Hg; ICP averaged 27 +/- 12 mm Hg; and mean systemic arterial blood pressure averaged 109 +/- 14 mm Hg. Cerebrospinal fluid drainage averaged 100 +/- 98 cc per day. Intake (6040 +/- 4150 cc per day) was carefully titrated to output (5460 +/- 4000 cc per day); mannitol averaged 188 +/- 247 g per day. Approximately 40% of these patients required vasopressor support. Patients requiring vasopressor support had lower GCS scores than those not requiring vasopressors (4.7 +/- 1.3 vs. 5.4 +/- 1.2, respectively). Patients with vasopressor support required larger amounts of mannitol, and their admission ICP was 28.7 +/- 20.7 versus 17.5 +/- 8.6 mm Hg for the nonvasopressor group. Although the death rate in the former group was higher, the outcome quality of the survivors was the same (Glasgow Outcome Scale scores 4.3 +/- 0.9 vs. 4.5 +/- 0.7). Surgical mass lesion patients had outcomes equal to those of the closed head-injury group. Mortality ranged from 52% of patients with a GCS score of 3 to 12% of those with a GCS score of 7; overall mortality was 29% across GCS categories. Favorable outcomes ranged from 35% of patients with a GCS score of 3 to 75% of those with a GCS score of 7. Only 2% of the patients in the series remained vegatative and if patients survived, the likelihood of their having a favorable recovery was approximately 80%. These results are significantly better than other reported series across GCS categories in comparisons of death rates, survival versus dead or vegetative, or favorable versus nonfavorable outcome classifications (Mantel-Haenszel chi 2, p < 0.001). Better management could have improved outcome in as many as 35% to 50% of the deaths.

Effect of Tocilizumab vs Usual Care in Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 and Moderate or Severe Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Severe pneumonia with hyperinflammation and elevated interleukin-6 is a common presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Objective

To determine whether tocilizumab (TCZ) improves outcomes of patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Design, Setting, and Particpants

This cohort-embedded, investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, bayesian randomized clinical trial investigating patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe pneumonia requiring at least 3 L/min of oxygen but without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit was conducted between March 31, 2020, to April 18, 2020, with follow-up through 28 days. Patients were recruited from 9 university hospitals in France. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis with no correction for multiplicity for secondary outcomes.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned to receive TCZ, 8 mg/kg, intravenously plus usual care on day 1 and on day 3 if clinically indicated (TCZ group) or to receive usual care alone (UC group). Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were scores higher than 5 on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) on day 4 and survival without need of ventilation (including noninvasive ventilation) at day 14. Secondary outcomes were clinical status assessed with the WHO-CPS scores at day 7 and day 14, overall survival, time to discharge, time to oxygen supply independency, biological factors such as C-reactive protein level, and adverse events.

Results

Of 131 patients, 64 patients were randomly assigned to the TCZ group and 67 to UC group; 1 patient in the TCZ group withdrew consent and was not included in the analysis. Of the 130 patients, 42 were women (32%), and median (interquartile range) age was 64 (57.1-74.3) years. In the TCZ group, 12 patients had a WHO-CPS score greater than 5 at day 4 vs 19 in the UC group (median posterior absolute risk difference [ARD] -9.0%; 90% credible interval [CrI], -21.0 to 3.1), with a posterior probability of negative ARD of 89.0% not achieving the 95% predefined efficacy threshold. At day 14, 12% (95% CI -28% to 4%) fewer patients needed noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or mechanical ventilation (MV) or died in the TCZ group than in the UC group (24% vs 36%, median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 90% CrI, 0.33-1.00), with a posterior probability of HR less than 1 of 95.0%, achieving the predefined efficacy threshold. The HR for MV or death was 0.58 (90% CrI, 0.30 to 1.09). At day 28, 7 patients had died in the TCZ group and 8 in the UC group (adjusted HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.33-2.53). Serious adverse events occurred in 20 (32%) patients in the TCZ group and 29 (43%) in the UC group (P = .21).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of patients with COVID-19 and pneumonia requiring oxygen support but not admitted to the intensive care unit, TCZ did not reduce WHO-CPS scores lower than 5 at day 4 but might have reduced the risk of NIV, MV, or death by day 14. No difference on day 28 mortality was found. Further studies are necessary for confirming these preliminary results.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04331808.

Stress doses of hydrocortisone reverse hyperdynamic septic shock: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, single-center study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of stress doses of hydrocortisone on the duration of vasopressor therapy in human septic shock.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, single-center study.

SETTING

Twenty-bed multidisciplinary intensive care unit in a 1400-bed university hospital.

PATIENTS

Forty consecutive patients who met the ACCP/SCCM criteria for septic shock. An additional criterion for inclusion in the study was vasopressor support and high-output circulatory failure with a cardiac index of >4 L/min/m2 after fluid resuscitation (pulmonary capillary wedge pressure: 12-15 mm Hg) and without the use of positive inotropes such as dobutamine or dopexamine. The primary study end point was the time to cessation of vasopressor support (norepinephrine or epinephrine in any dose, dopamine > or = 6 microg/kg/min). Secondary study end points were the evolution of hemodynamics and the multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS). The severity of illness at recruitment was graded using the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II scoring systems. MODS was described by the Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment score.

INTERVENTIONS

All eligible patients were prospectively randomized to receive either stress doses of hydrocortisone or placebo. Hydrocortisone was started with a loading dose of 100 mg given within 30 mins and followed by a continuous infusion of 0.18 mg/ kg/hr. When septic shock had been reversed, the dose of hydrocortisone was reduced to 0.08 mg/kg/hr. This dose was kept constant for 6 days. As soon as the underlying infection had been treated successfully or sodium serum concentrations had increased to >155 mmol/L, the hydrocortisone infusion was tapered in steps of 24 mg/day. Physiologic saline solution was the placebo.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Hemodynamic and oxygen-derived variables were measured at previously defined time points over a study period of 5 days. Relevant clinical and laboratory measurements were registered for a study period of 14 days to assess the evolution of organ dysfunction. Baseline data at recruitment did not differ between the two groups. Shock reversal was achieved in 18 of the 20 patients treated with hydrocortisone vs. 16 of the 20 patients treated with placebo. Hydrocortisone significantly reduced the time to cessation of vasopressor support. The median time of vasopressor support was 2 days (1st and 3rd Quartiles, 1 and 6 days) in the hydrocortisone-treated group and 7 days (1st and 3rd Quartiles, 3 and 19 days) in the placebo group (p = .005 Breslow test). There was a trend to earlier resolution of the organ dysfunction syndrome in the hydrocortisone group.

CONCLUSIONS

Infusion of stress doses of hydrocortisone reduced the time to cessation of vasopressor therapy in human septic shock. This was associated with a trend to earlier resolution of sepsis-induced organ dysfunctions. Overall shock reversal and mortality were not significantly different between the groups in this low-sized single-center study.

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

IMPORTANCE

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.

OBJECTIVE

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.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

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.

INTERVENTIONS

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.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

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.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03078712.