[Bone transplantations; clinical & experimental aspects].

M. Guilleminet,P. Stagnara,T. DUBOST-PERRET

1954-08-28

Swiss Medical Weekly

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Trial of early, goal-directed resuscitation for septic shock

Paul R Mouncey,Tiffany M Osborn,G Sarah Power,David A Harrison,M Zia Sadique,Richard D Grieve,Rahi Jahan,Sheila E Harvey,Derek Bell,Julian F Bion,Timothy J Coats,Mervyn Singer,J Duncan Young,Kathryn M Rowan,ProMISe Trial Investigators,Kathryn Rowan,Julian Bion,Timothy Coats,Richard Grieve,David Harrison,Timothy Hodgetts,Duncan Young,Steve Goodacre,Caroline Bowers,Phillip Crow,Rupert Pearse,David Yates,David Bennett,Jon Nicholl,Alasdair Gray,Timothy Walsh,Paul Mouncey,Sheila Harvey,Tiffany Osborn,Sarah Power,Jermaine Tan,Sarah Corlett,Hannah Muskett,Rachael Scott,Vazeer Ahmed,Adrian Boyle,Andy Scott-Donkin,Heather Black,Christopher Smalley,Reni Jacob,Andrea Wooten,Julian Humphrey,Sally Anne Pearson,James Griffiths,Devasena Subramanyam,David Niblett,Sunil Krishnanankutty,Fang Gao-Smith,Teresa Melody,Keith Couper,Raj Nichani,Emma Brennan,Simon Tucker,Jonathan Benger,Judith Edwards,Kathryn Pollock,Dilshan Arawwawala,Alex Hieatt,Fiona McNeela,Theresa Weldring,Jaime Carungcong,Peter MacNaughton,Helen McMillan,Kate Tantam,Tony Doyle,Sarah Moreton,Stephanie Jones,Jason Kendall,Ruth Worner,Anna Gilbertson,Colin Borland,Suzanne Boys,Shashank Ranjan,Ian Smith,Neil Smith,Victoria Mendham,Paul Smith,Roser Farras-Araya,David Vallance,Phil Watt,Parizade Raymode,Laszlo Hollos,Phil Hopkins,Paul Riozzi,Harriet Couper,Sinead Helyar,Jonathan Thompson,Dawn Hales,Zubeir Essat,Prem Andreou,Susan Gilby,Phil Chilton,Richard Miller,John Butler,Alison Jefferies,Richard Clark,Graeme Sanders,Nuno Pinto,Catherine Plowright,Richard Innes,Dawn Bayford,Pippa Richards,Shameer Gopal,Jagtar Singh Pooni,Hazel Spencer,James Napier,Ena Warrington,Liam Kevern,Jane Hunt,Colin Barrett,Eliot Sykes,Karen Connelly,Bryan Yates,Coralie Carle,Theresa Croft,Nick Jenkins,Henrik Reschreiter,Julie Camsooksai,Helena Barcraft-Barnes,Catherine Snelson,Colin Bergin,Frank Keats,Vanessa Linnett,Jenny Ritzema,Steve Christian,Daniel Harvey,Philip Miller,Claudia Woodford,Anna Bolland,Liza Keating,David Mossop,Carys Jones,David Martin,Emma Willett,Peter Swallow,Sam McBride,Asim Ijaz,Jay Datta,Jayne Craig,Thomas Owen,Alex Williams,Sean McMullan,Jackie Baldwin,Mehrun Zuleika,Peter Carvalho,Dan Agranoff,Fiona Ingoldby,Laura Ortiz-Ruiz De Gordoa,Carrie Ridley,Ian Clement,Charley Higham,Bruce Martin,Kate Clayton,Julie Chadwick,Christian Frey,Diane Miller,Philippa Laverick,Khurram Iftikhar,David Higgins,Victoria Katsande,Moses Chikungwa,Clare Jackson,Malcolm Watters,Paul Liddiard,Kate Gannon,Richard Howard-Griffin,Stephanie Bell,Heather Blaylock,Isabel Gonzalez,Emmanuel Cirstea,Stephen Bonner,Parvez Moondi,Kate Wong,Joseph Carter,Stephen Hartley,Iain Crossingham,Joanne Hinchcliffe,Leanne Phoenix,Tim Harris,Jason Pott,Geoffrey Bellhouse,Michael Mercer,Pauline Mercer,Hazel Robinson,David Brealey,Jung Ryu,Georgia Becardes,Anne-Marie Morris,Mark Poulson,Loretta Barnett,Ian Massey,Imogen Skene,Patrick Nee,Susan Dowling,Amanda McCairn,Roger Duckitt,Richard Venn,Jordi Margalef,Jonathan Redman,Helen Milner,Sara Ma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1500896

2015-04-02

Abstract: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.).
Early, Goal-Directed Therapy for Septic Shock - A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis

PRISM Investigators,Kathryn M Rowan,Derek C Angus,Michael Bailey,Amber E Barnato,Rinaldo Bellomo,Ruth R Canter,Timothy J Coats,Anthony Delaney,Elizabeth Gimbel,Richard D Grieve,David A Harrison,Alisa M Higgins,Belinda Howe,David T Huang,John A Kellum,Paul R Mouncey,Edvin Music,Sandra L Peake,Francis Pike,Michael C Reade,M Zia Sadique,Mervyn Singer,Donald M Yealy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1701380

2017-06-08

Abstract:Background: After a single-center trial and observational studies suggesting that early, goal-directed therapy (EGDT) reduced mortality from septic shock, three multicenter trials (ProCESS, ARISE, and ProMISe) showed no benefit. This meta-analysis of individual patient data from the three recent trials was designed prospectively to improve statistical power and explore heterogeneity of treatment effect of EGDT. Methods: We harmonized entry criteria, intervention protocols, outcomes, resource-use measures, and data collection across the trials and specified all analyses before unblinding. After completion of the trials, we pooled data, excluding the protocol-based standard-therapy group from the ProCESS trial, and resolved residual differences. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 1-year survival, organ support, and hospitalization costs. We tested for treatment-by-subgroup interactions for 16 patient characteristics and 6 care-delivery characteristics. Results: We studied 3723 patients at 138 hospitals in seven countries. Mortality at 90 days was similar for EGDT (462 of 1852 patients [24.9%]) and usual care (475 of 1871 patients [25.4%]); the adjusted odds ratio was 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.14; P=0.68). EGDT was associated with greater mean (±SD) use of intensive care (5.3±7.1 vs. 4.9±7.0 days, P=0.04) and cardiovascular support (1.9±3.7 vs. 1.6±2.9 days, P=0.01) than was usual care; other outcomes did not differ significantly, although average costs were higher with EGDT. Subgroup analyses showed no benefit from EGDT for patients with worse shock (higher serum lactate level, combined hypotension and hyperlactatemia, or higher predicted risk of death) or for hospitals with a lower propensity to use vasopressors or fluids during usual resuscitation. Conclusions: In this meta-analysis of individual patient data, EGDT did not result in better outcomes than usual care and was associated with higher hospitalization costs across a broad range of patient and hospital characteristics. (Funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and others; PRISM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02030158 .).
Early Goal-Directed Resuscitation for Patients with Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: a Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

Li-bing Jiang,Mao Zhang,Shou-yin Jiang,Yue-feng MA

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-016-0214-7

2016-01-01

Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine

Abstract:The aim of this study was to explore whether early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) was associated with a lower mortality rate in comparison to usual care in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.
Early Management of Sepsis with Emphasis on Early Goal Directed Therapy: AME Evidence Series 002

Zhongheng Zhang,Yucai Hong,Nathan J. Smischney,Han-Pin Kuo,Panagiotis Tsirigotis,Jordi Rello,Win Sen Kuan,Christian Jung,Chiara Robba,Fabio Silvio Taccone,Marc Leone,Herbert Spapen,David Grimaldi,Sven Van Poucke,Steven Q. Simpson,Patrick M. Honore,Stefan Hofer,Pietro Caironi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2017.02.10

2021-01-01

Elements

Abstract:Severe sepsis and septic shock are major causes of morbidity and mortality in patients entering the emergency department (ED) or intensive care unit (ICU). Despite substantial efforts to improve patient outcome, treatment of sepsis remains challenging to clinicians. In this context, early goal directed therapy (EGDT) represents an important concept emphasizing both early recognition of sepsis and prompt initiation of a structured treatment algorithm. As part of the AME evidence series on sepsis, we conducted a systematic review of all randomized controlled EGDT trials. Focus was laid on the setting (emergency department versus ICU) where EGDT was carried out. Early recognition of sepsis, through clinical or automated systems for early alert, together with well-timed initiation of the recommended therapy bundles may improve patients’ outcome. However, the original “EGDT” protocol by Rivers and coworkers has been largely modified in subsequent trials. Currently, many investigators opt for an “expanded” EGDT (as suggested by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign). Evidence is also presented on the effectiveness of automated systems for early sepsis alert. Early recognition of sepsis and well-timed initiation of the SSC bundle may improve patient outcome.
The Efficacy and Safety of Different Anticoagulants on Patients with Severe Sepsis and Derangement of Coagulation: a Protocol for Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Libing Jiang,Shouyin Jiang,Xia Feng,Yuefeng Ma,Mao Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006770

IF: 3.006

2014-01-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction Sepsis is the leading cause of mortality in non-cardiological critically ill patients. There are as many as 20 million cases of sepsis annually worldwide, with a mortality rate of around 35%. It has been reported that the dysregulation of haemostatic system due to the interaction between coagulation system and inflammatory response is a strong predictor of mortality in patients with severe sepsis. In this context, several anticoagulants have been evaluated in recent years. However, the results of these studies were inconsistent and even contradictory. In addition, there is insufficient evidence comparing the efficacy and safety of different anticoagulants. The purpose of our study is to carry out a systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of different anticoagulants for severe sepsis based on existing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and ranking these anticoagulants for practical consideration. Methods and analysis PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases will be systematically searched for eligible studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) on anticoagulant therapy for severe sepsis with multiple outcome measures will be included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool will be used to assess the quality of included studies. The primary outcomes are mortality and bleeding events. The secondary outcomes include the length of intensive care stay, the length of hospital stay and duration of mechanical ventilation. Direct pairwise meta-analysis (DMA), indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis (ITC) and network meta-analysis (NMA) will be conducted to compare different anticoagulants. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required given that this is a protocol for a systematic review. The protocol of this systematic review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant conference. Trial registration number This protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) under registration number CRD42014013886.
Effects of Goal Directed Therapy for Adult Patients in Sepsis: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Xiabing Lang,Yi Yang,Ping Zhang,Wenhua Lei,Jianghua Chen

2017-01-01

Abstract:Backgroud: The effectiveness of goal directed therapy (GDT) as a key strategy to decrease mortality is uncertain among patients with sepsis or septic shock. Objective and methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using the MEDLINE database (1996 through April 2015), EMBASE (1988 through April 2015). Randomized controlled trials comparing outcome with or without GDT to decrease mortality among adult patients with sepsis or septic shock were identified. Results: 15 studies (5356 participants) were included. GDT decreased the overall mortality for adult patients with sepsis compared to the control group (risk ratio [RR]=0.86; 95% CI=0.76 to 0.97; P=0.02; I2=56%) with marginal statistical significance. GDT also associated with shorter length of ICU stay (mean difference, -1.56; 95% CI=-3.06- -0.07; P<0.00001), more dobutamine use (RR=2.80; 95% CI=1.24-6.33; P=0.01; I-2=95%). But there was no difference in length of hospital stay, incidence of MODS, renal dysfunction and amount of intravenous fluid. The timing and pretreatment prior to randomization for resuscitation suggested that a mortality benefit was enhanced in the subgroup of EGDT without administration of fluids prior to randomization (6 trials; RR=0.73; 95% CI=0.65-0.82; P<0.00001; I-2=0%). No benefit of GDT was seen if there was a pretreatment with intravenous fluids prior to randomization (3 trials; RR=1.02; 95% CI=0.91-1.15; P=0.72; I-2=0%) or GDT more than 6 hours (6 trials; RR=0.90; 95% CI=0.66-1.23; P=0.53; I-2=59%). Conclusion: GDT might be beneficial for the adult patients undergoing sepsis. Early fluid resuscitation rather than the specific protocols for resuscitation have more benefit in sepsis management.
Early goal-directed therapy vs usual care in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Anna Maria Rusconi,Ilaria Bossi,James Geoffrey Lampard,Michael Szava-Kovats,Andrea Bellone,Eddy Lang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-015-1248-y

2015-05-16

Internal and Emergency Medicine

Abstract:Sepsis is a common and high-burden healthcare problem with a mortality exceeding 20 % in severe sepsis and nearly 50 % when septic shock is present. Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) is recommended by sepsis guidelines as the standard of care following a landmark study by Rivers et al. alongside other observational studies. Three recent randomized controlled trials have questioned the Rivers’ results. The objective of our systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of EGDT in reducing the mortality of severe sepsis or septic shock. Relevant primary studies were identified by searching the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials to identify randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of EGDT for sepsis. Data from all trials were combined and analyzed using a random effects model. Five studies, enrolling a total of 4033 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. In-hospital mortality did not differ between the two treatment groups (RR 0.93, 95 % CI 0.77–1.11, P = 0.42), although moderate heterogeneity between studies was noted (I2 = 48 %). A non-significant trend toward reduction in 60-day mortality in the EGDT group was noted (RR 0.93, 95 % CI 0.82–1.05, P = 0.22, I2 = 24 %). Heterogeneity between trials precludes a definitive conclusion on the utility of EGDT in severe sepsis. Until further evidence is available, it is reasonable to consider EGDT in the care of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.

medicine, general & internal
PROcalcitonin and NEWS2 evaluation for Timely identification of sepsis and Optimal use of antibiotics in the emergency department (PRONTO): protocol for a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Joanne Euden,Emma Thomas-Jones,Stephen Aston,Lucy Brookes-Howell,Julie Carman,Enitan Carrol,Stephanie Gilbert,Philip Howard,Kerenza Hood,Matthew Inada-Kim,Martin Llewelyn,Fiona McGill,Sarah Milosevic,Louis Wihelmus Niessen,Emmanuel Nsutebu,Philip Pallmann,Paul Schmidt,David Taylor-Robinson,Ingeborg Welters,Stacy Todd,Neil French

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063424

IF: 3.006

2022-06-14

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction Sepsis is a common, potentially life-threatening complication of infection. The optimal treatment for sepsis includes prompt antibiotics and intravenous fluids, facilitated by its early and accurate recognition. Currently, clinicians identify and assess severity of suspected sepsis using validated clinical scoring systems. In England, the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) has been mandated across all National Health Service (NHS) trusts and ambulance organisations. Like many clinical scoring systems, NEWS2 should not be used without clinical judgement to determine either the level of acuity or a diagnosis. Despite this, there is a tendency to overemphasise the score in isolation in patients with suspected infection, leading to the overprescription of antibiotics and potentially treatment-related complications and rising antimicrobial resistance. The biomarker procalcitonin (PCT) has been shown to be useful in specific circumstances to support appropriate antibiotics prescribing by identifying bacterial infection. PCT is not routinely used in the care of undifferentiated patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs), and the evidence base of its optimal usage is poor. The PROcalcitonin and NEWS2 evaluation for Timely identification of sepsis and Optimal (PRONTO) study is a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in adults with suspected sepsis presenting to the ED to compare standard clinical management based on NEWS2 scoring plus PCT-guided risk assessment with standard clinical management based on NEWS2 scoring alone and compare if this approach reduces prescriptions of antibiotics without increasing mortality. Methods and analysis PRONTO is a parallel two-arm open-label individually RCT set in up to 20 NHS EDs in the UK with a target sample size of 7676 participants. Participants will be randomised in a ratio of 1:1 to standard clinical management based on NEWS2 scoring or standard clinical management based on NEWS2 scoring plus PCT-guided risk assessment. We will compare whether the addition of PCT measurement to NEWS2 scoring can lead to a reduction in intravenous antibiotic initiation in ED patients managed as suspected sepsis, with at least no increase in 28-day mortality compared with NEWS2 scoring alone (in conjunction with local standard care pathways). PRONTO has two coprimary endpoints: initiation of intravenous antibiotics at 3 hours (superiority comparison) and 28-day mortality (non-inferiority comparison). The study has an internal pilot phase and group-sequential stopping rules for effectiveness and futility/safety, as well as a qualitative substudy and a health economic evaluation. Ethics and dissemination The trial protocol was approved by the Health Research Authority (HRA) and NHS Research Ethics Committee (Wales REC 2, reference 20/WA/0058). In England and Wales, the law allows the use of deferred consent in approved research situations (including ED studies) where the time dependent nature of intervention would not allow true informed consent to be obtained. PRONTO has approval for a deferred consent process to be used. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences. Trial registration number ISRCTN54006056.

medicine, general & internal
A Multicentre Study on Early Goal-Directed Therapy of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Patients in the ICU: Collaborative Study Group on Early Goal-Directed Therapy in Zhejiang Province, China

J Yan,G Cai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/cc6638

IF: 15.1

2008-01-01

Critical Care

Abstract:The use of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) in severe sepsis and septic shock has been shown to decrease morbidity and mortality rates significantly when given to patients prior to ICU admission, especially in the emergency department (ED). The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of EGDT in severe sepsis and septic shock patients in the ICU.
Heterogeneity in the Effect of Early Goal-Directed Therapy for Septic Shock: A Secondary Analysis of Two Multicenter International Trials

Faraaz Ali Shah,Victor B Talisa,Chung-Chou H Chang,Sofia Triantafyllou,Lu Tang,Florian B Mayr,Alisa M Higgins,Sandra L Peake,Paul Mouncey,David A Harrison,Kimberley M DeMerle,Jason N Kennedy,Gregory F Cooper,Rinaldo Bellomo,Kathy Rowan,Donald M Yealy,Christopher W Seymour,Derek C Angus,Sachin P Yende

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006463

2024-10-23

Abstract:Objectives: The optimal approach for resuscitation in septic shock remains unclear despite multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our objective was to investigate whether previously uncharacterized variation across individuals in their response to resuscitation strategies may contribute to conflicting average treatment effects in prior RCTs. Design: We randomly split study sites from the Australian Resuscitation of Sepsis Evaluation (ARISE) and Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) trials into derivation and validation cohorts. We trained machine learning models to predict individual absolute risk differences (iARDs) in 90-day mortality in derivation cohorts and tested for heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) in validation cohorts and swapped these cohorts in sensitivity analyses. We fit the best-performing model in a combined dataset to explore roles of patient characteristics and individual components of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) to determine treatment responses. Setting: Eighty-one sites in Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Finland, Republic of Ireland, and the United States. Patients: Adult patients presenting to the emergency department with severe sepsis or septic shock. Interventions: EGDT vs. usual care. Measurements and main results: A local-linear random forest model performed best in predicting iARDs. In the validation cohort, HTE was confirmed, evidenced by an interaction between iARD prediction and treatment (p < 0.001). When patients were grouped based on predicted iARDs, treatment response increased from the lowest to the highest quintiles (absolute risk difference [95% CI], -8% [-19% to 4%] and relative risk reduction, 1.34 [0.89-2.01] in quintile 1 suggesting harm from EGDT, and 12% [1-23%] and 0.64 [0.42-0.96] in quintile 5 suggesting benefit). Sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. Pre-intervention albumin contributed the most to HTE. Analyses of individual EGDT components were inconclusive. Conclusions: Treatment response to EGDT varied across patients in two multicenter RCTs with large benefits for some patients while others were harmed. Patient characteristics, including albumin, were most important in identifying HTE.
Early outcome of early-goal directed therapy for patients with sepsis or septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Xiaofan Chen,Weifeng Zhu,Jing Tan,Heyun Nie,Liangming Liu,Dongmei Yan,Xu Zhou,Xin Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.15550

2017-02-20

Oncotarget

Abstract:Various trials and meta-analyses have reported conflicting results concerning the application of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) for sepsis and septic shock. The aim of this study was to update the evidence by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. Multiple databases were searched from initial through August, 2016 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which investigated the associations between the use of EGDT and mortality in patients with sepsis or septic shock. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects model and heterogeneity was examined through subgroup analyses. The primary outcome of interest was patient all-cause mortality including hospital or ICU mortality. Seventeen RCTs including 6207 participants with 3234 in the EGDT group and 2973 in the control group were eligible for this study. Meta-analysis showed that EGDT did not significantly reduce hospital or intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.02) compared with control group for patients with sepsis or septic shock. The findings of subgroup analyses stratified by study region, number of research center, year of enrollment, clinical setting, sample size, timing of EGDT almost remained constant with that of the primary analysis. Our findings provide evidence that EGDT offers neutral survival effects for patients with sepsis or septic shock. Further meta-analyses based on larger well-designed RCTs or individual patient data meta-analysis are required to explore the survival benefits of EDGT in patients with sepsis or septic shock.

English Else
Effectiveness and Safety of an Emergency Department Code Sepsis Protocol: A Pragmatic Clinical Trial

Ithan D Peltan,Joseph R Bledsoe,Jason R Jacobs,Danielle Groat,Carolyn Klippel,Michelle Adamson,Gabriel A Hooper,Nick J Tinker,Rachel A Foster,Edward A Stenehjem,Tamara D Moores Todd,Adam Balls,Jennifer Avery,Gary Brunson,Jon Jones,Jeremy Bair,Andrew Dorais,Matthew H Samore,Catherine L Hough,Samuel M Brown

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202403-286OC

2024-07-12

Abstract:Rationale: Sepsis care delivery - including initiation of prompt, appropriate antimicrobials - remains suboptimal. Objective: Determine direct and off-target effects of emergency department (ED) sepsis care reorganization. Methods: This pragmatic pilot trial enrolled adult patients presenting November 2019 to February 2021 to an ED in Utah before and after implementation of a multimodal, team-based "Code Sepsis" protocol. Patients presenting to two other EDs where usual care was continued served as contemporaneous controls. The primary outcome was door-to-antimicrobial time among patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria before ED departure. Secondary and safety outcomes included all-cause 30-day mortality, antimicrobial utilization and overtreatment, and antimicrobial-associated adverse events. Multivariable regression analyses employed difference-in-differences methods to account for trends in outcomes unrelated to the studied intervention. Results: Code Sepsis protocol activation (N=307) exhibited 8.5% sensitivity and 66% positive predictive value for patients meeting sepsis criteria before ED departure. Among 10,151 patients meeting sepsis criteria during the study, adjusted difference-in-differences analysis demonstrated a 13-minute (95% CI 7-19-minute) decrease in door-to-antimicrobial time associated with Code Sepsis implementation (p<0.001). Mortality and clinical safety outcomes were unchanged, but Code Sepsis implementation was associated with increased false-positive presumptive infection diagnosis among patients meeting sepsis criteria in the ED and increased antimicrobial utilization. Conclusions: Implementation of a team-based protocol for rapid sepsis evaluation and treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic's first year was associated with decreased ED door-to-antimicrobial time but also increased antimicrobial utilization. Measurement of both patient-centered and off-target effects of sepsis care improvement interventions is essential to comprehensive assessment of their value. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04148989) This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Recombinant Human Activated Protein C for the Treatment of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: a Study Protocol for Incorporating Observational Evidence Using a Bayesian Approach.

David Grimaldi,Vincent Caille,Antoine Vieillard-Baron,Philippe Bossi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005622

IF: 3.006

2014-01-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:INTRODUCTION:Activated protein C (aPC) plays a pivotal role in modulating a severe inflammatory response and is thought to be beneficial for patients with sepsis. However, several meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) show that aPC is not significantly associated with improved survival in critically ill patients with sepsis. One suggestion is that these analyses simply ignored observational evidence. The present study aims to quantitatively demonstrate how observational data can alter the findings derived from synthesised evidence from RCTs by using a Bayesian approach.METHODS AND ANALYSIS:RCTs and observational studies investigating the effect of aPC on mortality outcome in critically ill patients with sepsis will be included. The quality of included RCTs will be assessed by using the Delphi list. Publication bias will be quantitatively analysed by using the traditional Egger regression test and the Begg rank correlation test. Observational data will be used as the informative prior for the distribution of OR. A power transformation of the observational data likelihood will be considered. Observational evidence will be down-weighted by a power of α which takes values from 0 to 1. Trial sequential analysis will be performed to quantify the reliability of data in meta-analysis adjusting significance levels for sparse data and multiple testing on accumulating trials.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:PROSPERO (CRD42014009562).
Success of applying early goal-directed therapy for septic shock patients in the emergency department

Panita Worapratya,Apisit Wanjaroenchaisuk,Jutharat Joraluck,Prasit Wuthisuthimethawee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S86129

2016-01-14

Abstract:Background: Since early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) became standard care in severe sepsis and septic shock patients in intensive care units many years ago, we suppose that the survival rate of severe sepsis and septic shock patients improves if the resuscitative procedure is quickly implemented and is initiated in the emergency room. Objective: We aimed at recording emergency department time to improve our patient care system as well as determine the rate at which EGDT goals can be achieved. The second analysis is to find out how much we can improve the survival rate. Methods: This was a prospective observational study in an emergency room setting at a tertiary care facility where EGDT was applied for resuscitation of severe sepsis and septic shock patients. The data recorded were the initial vital signs, APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) score, SAP II (Simplified Acute Physiology II) score, SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) score, time at which EGDT goals were achieved (central venous oxygen saturation [ScvO2] >70%), initial and final diagnosis, and outcome of treatment. The t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to compare between the achieved goal and nonachieved goal groups. Results: There were 63 cases of severe sepsis in the study period. Only 55 patients submitted a signed consent form and had central line insertion. Twenty-eight (50.9%) cases were male. Thirty-nine (70.9%) patients achieved the goal, and the mean SAP II score was 8. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups (P-value =0.097). Thirty of the 39 patients (70.9%) survived in the achieved goal group, which was a statistically significant improvement of the survival rate when compared with only one of 16 patients (6.3%) surviving in the nonachieved goal group (P<0.001).
Results Prevalence and Clinical Evaluation of KCNQ 1 Homozygotes / Compound Heterozygotes Referred to the Mayo Clinic

J. Giudicessi,M. Ackerman

Abstract:
Prehospital early warning scores for adults with suspected sepsis: the PHEWS observational cohort and decision-analytic modelling study

Steve Goodacre,Laura Sutton,Kate Ennis,Ben Thomas,Olivia Hawksworth,Khurram Iftikhar,Susan J Croft,Gordon Fuller,Simon Waterhouse,Daniel Hind,Matt Stevenson,Mike J Bradburn,Michael Smyth,Gavin D Perkins,Mark Millins,Andy Rosser,Jon Dickson,Matthew Wilson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/NDTY2403

Abstract:Background: Guidelines for sepsis recommend treating those at highest risk within 1 hour. The emergency care system can only achieve this if sepsis is recognised and prioritised. Ambulance services can use prehospital early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to prioritise patients for treatment or early assessment in the emergency department. Objectives: To determine the accuracy, impact and cost-effectiveness of using early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to identify sepsis requiring urgent treatment. Design: Retrospective diagnostic cohort study and decision-analytic modelling of operational consequences and cost-effectiveness. Setting: Two ambulance services and four acute hospitals in England. Participants: Adults transported to hospital by emergency ambulance, excluding episodes with injury, mental health problems, cardiac arrest, direct transfer to specialist services, or no vital signs recorded. Interventions: Twenty-one early warning scores used alongside paramedic diagnostic impression, categorised as sepsis, infection, non-specific presentation, or other specific presentation. Main outcome measures: Proportion of cases prioritised at the four hospitals; diagnostic accuracy for the sepsis-3 definition of sepsis and receiving urgent treatment (primary reference standard); daily number of cases with and without sepsis prioritised at a large and a small hospital; the minimum treatment effect associated with prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective, compared to no prioritisation, assuming willingness to pay £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Data from 95,022 episodes involving 71,204 patients across four hospitals showed that most early warning scores operating at their pre-specified thresholds would prioritise more than 10% of cases when applied to non-specific attendances or all attendances. Data from 12,870 episodes at one hospital identified 348 (2.7%) with the primary reference standard. The National Early Warning Score, version 2 (NEWS2), had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve when applied only to patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection (0.756, 95% confidence interval 0.729 to 0.783) or sepsis alone (0.655, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.68). None of the strategies provided high sensitivity (> 0.8) with acceptable positive predictive value (> 0.15). NEWS2 provided combinations of sensitivity and specificity that were similar or superior to all other early warning scores. Applying NEWS2 to paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection with thresholds of > 4, > 6 and > 8 respectively provided sensitivities and positive predictive values (95% confidence interval) of 0.522 (0.469 to 0.574) and 0.216 (0.189 to 0.245), 0.447 (0.395 to 0.499) and 0.274 (0.239 to 0.313), and 0.314 (0.268 to 0.365) and 0.333 (confidence interval 0.284 to 0.386). The mortality relative risk reduction from prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective exceeded 0.975 for all strategies analysed. Limitations: We estimated accuracy using a sample of older patients at one hospital. Reliable evidence was not available to estimate the effectiveness of prioritisation in the decision-analytic modelling. Conclusions: No strategy is ideal but using NEWS2, in patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of infection or sepsis could identify one-third to half of sepsis cases without prioritising unmanageable numbers. No other score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2. Research is needed to develop better definition, diagnosis and treatments for sepsis. Study registration: This study is registered as Research Registry (reference: researchregistry5268). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/136/10) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 16. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Optimization of sepsis therapy based on patient-specific digital precision diagnostics using next generation sequencing (DigiSep-Trial)-study protocol for a randomized, controlled, interventional, open-label, multicenter trial

Thorsten Brenner,Annabell Skarabis,Philip Stevens,Jennifer Axnick,Peter Haug,Silke Grumaz,Thomas Bruckner,Steffen Luntz,Oliver Witzke,Mathias W Pletz,Thomas M Ruprecht,Ursula Marschall,Sibel Altin,Wolfgang Greiner,Marc Moritz Berger,TIFOnet Critical Care Trials Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05667-x

IF: 2.728

2021-10-18

Trials

Abstract:Background: Sepsis is triggered by an infection and represents one of the greatest challenges of modern intensive care medicine. With regard to a targeted antimicrobial treatment strategy, the earliest possible pathogen detection is of crucial importance. Until now, culture-based detection methods represent the diagnostic gold standard, although they are characterized by numerous limitations. Culture-independent molecular diagnostic procedures represent a promising alternative. In particular, the plasmatic detection of circulating, cell-free DNA by next-generation sequencing (NGS) has shown to be suitable for identifying disease-causing pathogens in patients with bloodstream infections. Methods: The DigiSep-Trial is a randomized, controlled, interventional, open-label, multicenter trial characterizing the effect of the combination of NGS-based digital precision diagnostics with standard-of-care microbiological analyses compared to solely standard-of-care microbiological analyses in the clinical picture of sepsis/septic shock. Additional anti-infective expert consultations are provided for both study groups. In 410 patients (n = 205 per arm) with sepsis/septic shock, the study examines whether the so-called DOOR-RADAR (Desirability of Outcome Ranking/Response Adjusted for Duration of Antibiotic Risk) score (representing a combined endpoint including the criteria (1) intensive/intermediate care unit length of stay, (2) consumption of antibiotics, (3) mortality, and (4) acute kidney injury (AKI)) can be improved by an additional NGS-based diagnostic concept. We also aim to investigate the cost-effectiveness of this new diagnostic procedure. It is postulated that intensive/intermediate care unit length of stay, mortality rate, incidence of AKI, the duration of antimicrobial therapy as well as the costs caused by complications and outpatient aftercare can be reduced. Moreover, a significant improvement in patient's quality of life is expected. Discussion: The authors´ previous work suggests that NGS-based diagnostics have a higher specificity and sensitivity compared to standard-of-care microbiological analyses for detecting bloodstream infections. In combination with the here presented DigiSep-Trial, this work provides the optimal basis to establish a new NGS-driven concept as part of the national standard based on the best possible evidence. Trial registrations: DRKS-ID DRKS00022782 . Registered on August 25, 2020 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04571801 . Registered October 1, 2020.
Evaluating the implementation and outcomes of a sepsis pathway in the emergency department

Pourya Pouryahya,Natalie Guiney,Alastair Meyer,Neil Goldie

2020-08-21

Abstract:Aim: Early recognition and timely management, including prompt administration of antibiotics, has been fundamental in improving the mortality related to sepsis. We aimed to study the effect of the Sepsis Pathway Programme, a set of guidelines for sepsis, on the recognition, early investigation and management of septic patients in the emergency department. Methods: We conducted a comparative prospective cohort study of patients who presented with suspected sepsis pre- and post-implementation of the Sepsis Pathway. Patients where the Sepsis Pathway was used were identified and followed prospectively to analyse outcomes. This group was compared to a pre-intervention control group who were identified retrospectively before the Sepsis Pathway was implemented to determine if there was any difference in outcomes. Results: A total of 109 patients were identified to be septic in the emergency department following the implementation of the Sepsis Pathway. Of these, 52 cases involved the initiation and completion of the Sepsis Pathway. One hundred and fifty-seven cases were identified in the pre-intervention group of which 18 cases were excluded. The time to antibiotic administration decreased from 182 to 75 minutes (p<0.00001). The proportion of cases where antibiotics were given within the hour was higher in the pathway group (36.5% vs 8.6%, OR 6.09, 95% CI 2.69-13.81, p<0.0001). Similarly, the time to lactate measurement decreased from 64 minutes to 54.5 minutes (p=0.0117) and the proportion of cases where lactate was measured improved from 64% to 92.3% (p=0.0005). Blood culture rates improved from 79.1% to 100%. Conclusion: The implementation of the Sepsis Pathway improved time taken to perform investigations and manage patients with sepsis. Although it had improved, there was still a delay in recognition of sepsis and initiation of investigations and management, demonstrating that further strategies need to be employed to reduce poor outcomes associated with sepsis. However, it did not affect ICU admissions, length of stay or mortality.
The GENESIS Project (GENeralized Early Sepsis Intervention Strategies)

Chad M. Cannon,Christopher V. Holthaus,Marc T. Zubrow,Pat Posa,Satheesh Gunaga,Vipul Kella,Ron Elkin,Scott Davis,Bonnie Turman,Jordan Weingarten,Truman J. Milling,Nathan Lidsky,Victor Coba,Arturo Suarez,James J. Yang,Emanuel P. Rivers,Truman J. Milling,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0885066612453025

2012-08-17

Journal of Intensive Care Medicine

Abstract:Background: Improved outcomes for severe sepsis and septic shock have been consistently observed with implementation of early best practice intervention strategies or the 6-hour resuscitation bundle (RB) in single-center studies. This multicenter study examines the in-hospital mortality effect of GENeralized Early Sepsis Intervention Strategies (GENESIS) when utilized in community and tertiary care settings. Methods: This study was comprised of 2 strategies to assess treatment. The first was a prospective before-and-after observational comparison of historical controls to patients receiving the RB after implementation of GENESIS in 4 community and 4 tertiary hospitals. The second was a concurrent examination comparing patients not achieving all components of the RB to those achieving all components of the RB in 1 community and 2 tertiary care hospitals after implementation of GENESIS. These 4 subgroups merged to comprise a control (historical controls treated before GENESIS and RB not achieved after GENESIS) group and treatment (patients treated after GENESIS and RB achieved after GENESIS) group for comparison. Results: The control group comprised 1554 patients not receiving the RB (952 before GENESIS and 602 RB not achieved after GENESIS). The treatment group comprised 4801 patients receiving the RB (4109 after GENESIS and 692 RB achieved after GENESIS). Patients receiving the RB (treatment group) experienced an in-hospital mortality reduction of 14% (42.8%-28.8%, P < .001) and a 5.1 day decrease in hospital length of stay (20.7 vs 15.6, P < .001) compared to those not receiving the RB (control group). Similar mortality reductions were seen in the before-and-after (43% vs 29%, P < .001) or concurrent RB not achieved versus achieved (42.5% vs 27.2%, P < .001) subgroup comparisons. Conclusions: Patients with severe sepsis and septic shock receiving the RB in community and tertiary hospitals experience similar and significant reductions in mortality and hospital length of stay. These findings remained consistent when examined in both before-and-after and concurrent analyses. Early sepsis intervention strategies are associated with 1 life being saved for every 7 treated.

critical care medicine
Early Goal-Directed and Lactate-Guided Therapy in Adult Patients with Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Xian-Fei Ding,Zi-Yue Yang,Zhen-Tao Xu,Li-Feng Li,Bo Yuan,Li-Na Guo,Le-Xin Wang,Xi Zhu,Tong-Wen Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-018-1700-7

IF: 8.44

2018-01-01

Journal of Translational Medicine

Abstract:The ProCESS, ARISE, and ProMISe trials have failed to show that early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) reduces mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Although lactate-guided therapy (LGT) has been shown to result in significantly lower mortality, its use remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate EGDT vs. LGT or usual care (UC) in adult patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.

[Bone transplantations; clinical & experimental aspects].

Trial of early, goal-directed resuscitation for septic shock

Early, Goal-Directed Therapy for Septic Shock - A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis

Early Goal-Directed Resuscitation for Patients with Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: a Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

Early Management of Sepsis with Emphasis on Early Goal Directed Therapy: AME Evidence Series 002

The Efficacy and Safety of Different Anticoagulants on Patients with Severe Sepsis and Derangement of Coagulation: a Protocol for Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Effects of Goal Directed Therapy for Adult Patients in Sepsis: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Early goal-directed therapy vs usual care in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PROcalcitonin and NEWS2 evaluation for Timely identification of sepsis and Optimal use of antibiotics in the emergency department (PRONTO): protocol for a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

A Multicentre Study on Early Goal-Directed Therapy of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Patients in the ICU: Collaborative Study Group on Early Goal-Directed Therapy in Zhejiang Province, China

Heterogeneity in the Effect of Early Goal-Directed Therapy for Septic Shock: A Secondary Analysis of Two Multicenter International Trials

Early outcome of early-goal directed therapy for patients with sepsis or septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Effectiveness and Safety of an Emergency Department Code Sepsis Protocol: A Pragmatic Clinical Trial

Recombinant Human Activated Protein C for the Treatment of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: a Study Protocol for Incorporating Observational Evidence Using a Bayesian Approach.

Success of applying early goal-directed therapy for septic shock patients in the emergency department

Results Prevalence and Clinical Evaluation of KCNQ 1 Homozygotes / Compound Heterozygotes Referred to the Mayo Clinic

Prehospital early warning scores for adults with suspected sepsis: the PHEWS observational cohort and decision-analytic modelling study

Optimization of sepsis therapy based on patient-specific digital precision diagnostics using next generation sequencing (DigiSep-Trial)-study protocol for a randomized, controlled, interventional, open-label, multicenter trial

Evaluating the implementation and outcomes of a sepsis pathway in the emergency department

The GENESIS Project (GENeralized Early Sepsis Intervention Strategies)

Early Goal-Directed and Lactate-Guided Therapy in Adult Patients with Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials