Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this multicenter, open-label trial, patients with septic shock were treated to maintain a mean arterial pressure target of either 80 to 85 mm Hg or 65 to 70 mm Hg. There were no significant between-group differences in 28-day mortality or in 90-day mortality. Septic shock is characterized by arterial hypotension despite adequate fluid resuscitation. The guidelines of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign 1 recommended initial resuscitation with vasopressors to reverse hypotension, with a mean arterial pressure target of at least 65 mm Hg (grade 1C, indicating a strong recommendation with a low level of evidence). This recommendation is based on the findings of small studies, which showed no significant differences in lactate levels or regional blood flow when the mean arterial pressure was elevated to more than 65 mm Hg in patients with septic shock. 2 , 3 However, as emphasized by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, . . .

Purpose We assessed the effects of a protocol restricting resuscitation fluid vs. a standard care protocol after initial resuscitation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. Methods We randomised 151 adult patients with septic shock who had received initial fluid resuscitation in nine Scandinavian ICUs. In the fluid restriction group fluid boluses were permitted only if signs of severe hypoperfusion occurred, while in the standard care group fluid boluses were permitted as long as circulation continued to improve. Results The co-primary outcome measures, resuscitation fluid volumes at day 5 and during ICU stay, were lower in the fluid restriction group than in the standard care group [mean differences −1.2 L (95 % confidence interval −2.0 to −0.4); p  < 0.001 and −1.4 L (−2.4 to −0.4) respectively; p  < 0.001]. Neither total fluid inputs and balances nor serious adverse reactions differed statistically significantly between the groups. Major protocol violations occurred in 27/75 patients in the fluid restriction group. Ischaemic events occurred in 3/75 in the fluid restriction group vs. 9/76 in the standard care group (odds ratio 0.32; 0.08–1.27; p  = 0.11), worsening of acute kidney injury in 27/73 vs. 39/72 (0.46; 0.23–0.92; p  = 0.03), and death by 90 days in 25/75 vs. 31/76 (0.71; 0.36–1.40; p  = 0.32). Conclusions A protocol restricting resuscitation fluid successfully reduced volumes of resuscitation fluid compared with a standard care protocol in adult ICU patients with septic shock. The patient-centred outcomes all pointed towards benefit with fluid restriction, but our trial was not powered to show differences in these exploratory outcomes. Trial registration NCT02079402.

PurposeExcessive tachycardia in resuscitated septic shock patients can impair hemodynamics and worsen patient outcome. We investigated whether heart rate (HR) control can be achieved without increased vasopressor requirements using the titratable highly selective, ultra-short-acting β1-blocker landiolol.MethodsThis randomized, open-label, controlled trial was conducted at 20 sites in 7 European countries from 2018 to 2022 and investigated the efficacy and safety of landiolol in adult patients with septic shock and persistent tachycardia. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either landiolol along with standard treatment (n = 99) or standard treatment alone (n = 101). The combined primary endpoint was HR response (i.e., HR within the range of 80−94 beats per minute) and its maintenance without increasing vasopressor requirements during the first 24 h after treatment start. Key secondary endpoints were 28-day mortality and adverse events.ResultsOut of 196 included septic shock patients, 98 received standard treatment combined with landiolol and 98 standard treatment alone. A significantly larger proportion of patients met the combined primary endpoint in the landiolol group than in the control group (39.8% [39/98] vs. 23.5% [23/98]), with a between-group difference of 16.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.4–28.8%; p = 0.013). There were no statistically significant differences between study groups in tested secondary outcomes and adverse events.ConclusionThe ultra-short-acting beta-blocker landiolol was effective in reducing and maintaining HR without increasing vasopressor requirements after 24 h in patients with septic shock and persistent tachycardia. There were no differences in adverse events and clinical outcomes such as 28-day mortality vs. standard of care. The results of this study, in the context of previous trials, do not support a treatment strategy of stringent HR reduction (< 95 bpm) in an unselected septic shock population with persistent tachycardia. Further investigations are needed to identify septic shock patient phenotypes that benefit clinically from HR control.

The aim of this proof of concept, prospective, randomized pilot trial was to investigate the effects of extracorporeal cytokine removal (CytoSorb®) applied as a standalone treatment in patients with septic shock. 20 patients with early (<24 h) onset of septic shock of medical origin, on mechanical ventilation, norepinephrine>10 μg/min, procalcitonin (PCT) > 3 ng/mL without the need for renal replacement therapy were randomized into CytoSorb (n = 10) and Control groups (n = 10). CytoSorb therapy lasted for 24 h. Clinical and laboratory data were recorded at baseline (T0), T12, T24, and T48 hours. Overall SOFA scores did not differ between the groups. In the CytoSorb-group norepinephrine requirements and PCT concentration decreased significantly (norepinephrine: CytoSorb: T0 = 0.54[IQR:0.20–1.22], T48 = 0.16[IQR:0.07–0.48], p = .016; Controls: T0 = 0.43[IQR:0.19–0.64], T48 = 0.25[IQR:0.08–0.65] μg/kg/min; PCT: CytoSorb: T0 median = 20.6[IQR: 6.5–144.5], T48 = 5.6[1.9–54.4], p = .004; Control: T0 = 13.2[7.6–47.8], T48 = 9.2[3.8–44.2]ng/mL). Big-endothelin-1 concentrations were also significantly lower in the CytoSorb group (CytoSorb: T0 = 1.3 ± 0.6, *T24 = 1.0 ± 0.4, T48 = 1.4 ± 0.8, *p = .003; Control: T0 = 1.1 ± 0.7, T24 = 1.1 ± 0.6, T48 = 1.2 ± 0.6 pmol/L, p = .115). There were no CytoSorb therapy-related adverse events. This is the first trial to investigate the effects of early extracorporeal cytokine adsorption treatment in septic shock applied without renal replacement therapy. It was found to be safe with significant effects on norepinephrine requirements, PCT and Big-endothelin-1 concentrations compared to controls. Trial registration: The study has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, under the registration number of NCT02288975, registered 13 November 2014. •First randomized trial on one single 24-hour period of standalone CytoSorb treatment•Medical patients with septic shock were randomized (CytoSorb treated or control)•Patients were treated for 24 h with CytoSorb in addition to standard treatment•Significant reduction (70%) in norepinephrine requirement, PCT and Big Endothelin-1

Background Sepsis remains a common condition with high mortality when multiple organ failure develops. The evidence for therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) in this setting is promising but inconclusive. Our study aims to evaluate the efficacy of adjunct TPE for septic shock with multiple organ failure compared to standard therapy alone. Methods A retrospective, observational chart review was performed, evaluating outcomes of patients with catecholamine-resistant septic shock and multiple organ failure in intensive care units at a tertiary care hospital in Winston-Salem, NC, from August 2015 to March 2019. Adult patients with catecholamine-resistant septic shock (≥ 2 vasopressors) and evidence of multiple organ failure were included. Patients who received adjunct TPE were identified and compared to patients who received standard care alone. A propensity score using age, gender, chronic co-morbidities (HTN, DM, CKD, COPD), APACHE II score, SOFA score, lactate level, and number of vasopressors was used to match patients, resulting in 40 patients in each arm. Results The mean baseline APACHE II and SOFA scores were 32.5 and 14.3 in TPE patients versus 32.7 and 13.8 in control patients, respectively. The 28-day mortality rate was 40% in the TPE group versus 65% in the standard care group ( p  = 0.043). Improvements in baseline SOFA scores at 48 h were greater in the TPE group compared to standard care alone ( p  = 0.001), and patients receiving adjunct TPE had a more favorable fluid balance at 48 h ( p  = 0.01). Patients receiving adjunct TPE had longer ICU and hospital lengths of stay ( p  = 0.003 and p  = 0.006, respectively). Conclusions Our retrospective, observational study in adult patients with septic shock and multiple organ failure demonstrated improved 28-day survival with adjunct TPE compared to standard care alone. Hemodynamics, organ dysfunction, and fluid balance all improved with adjunct TPE, while lengths of stay were increased in survivors. The study design does not allow for a generalized statement of support for TPE in all cases of sepsis with multiple organ failure but offers valuable information for a prospective, randomized clinical trial.

Background Fluid boluses are administered to septic shock patients with the purpose of increasing cardiac output as a means to restore tissue perfusion. Unfortunately, fluid therapy has a narrow therapeutic index, and therefore, several approaches to increase safety have been proposed. Fluid responsiveness (FR) assessment might predict which patients will effectively increase cardiac output after a fluid bolus (FR+), thus preventing potentially harmful fluid administration in non-fluid responsive (FR−) patients. However, there are scarce data on the impact of assessing FR on major outcomes. The recent ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial included systematic per-protocol assessment of FR. We performed a post hoc analysis of the study dataset with the aim of exploring the relationship between FR status at baseline, attainment of specific targets, and clinically relevant outcomes. Methods ANDROMEDA-SHOCK compared the effect of peripheral perfusion- vs. lactate-targeted resuscitation on 28-day mortality. FR was assessed before each fluid bolus and periodically thereafter. FR+ and FR− subgroups, independent of the original randomization, were compared for fluid administration, achievement of resuscitation targets, vasoactive agents use, and major outcomes such as organ dysfunction and support, length of stay, and 28-day mortality. Results FR could be determined in 348 patients at baseline. Two hundred and forty-two patients (70%) were categorized as fluid responders. Both groups achieved comparable successful resuscitation targets, although non-fluid responders received less resuscitation fluids (0 [0–500] vs. 1500 [1000–2500] mL; p 0.0001), exhibited less positive fluid balances, but received more vasopressor testing. No difference in clinically relevant outcomes between FR+ and FR− patients was found, including 24-h SOFA score (9 [5–12] vs. 8 [5–11], p  = 0.4), need for MV (78% vs. 72%, p  = 0.16), need for RRT (18% vs. 21%, p  = 0.7), ICU-LOS (6 [3–11] vs. 6 [3–16] days, p  = 0.2), and 28-day mortality (40% vs. 36%, p  = 0.5). Only thirteen patients remained fluid responsive along the intervention period. Conclusions Systematic assessment allowed determination of fluid responsiveness status in more than 80% of patients with early septic shock. Fluid boluses could be stopped in non-fluid responsive patients without any negative impact on clinical relevant outcomes. Our results suggest that fluid resuscitation might be safely guided by FR assessment in septic shock patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03078712 . Registered retrospectively on March 13, 2017.

Background Septic shock is associated with decreased vasopressor responsiveness. Experimental data suggest that central alpha2-agonists like dexmedetomidine (DEX) increase vasopressor responsiveness and reduce catecholamine requirements in septic shock. However, DEX may also cause hypotension and bradycardia. Thus, it remains unclear whether DEX is hemodynamically safe or helpful in this setting. Methods In this post hoc subgroup analysis of the Sedation Practice in Intensive Care Evaluation (SPICE III) trial, an international randomized trial comparing early sedation with dexmedetomidine to usual care in critically patients receiving mechanical ventilation, we studied patients with septic shock admitted to two tertiary ICUs in Australia and Switzerland. The primary outcome was vasopressor requirements in the first 48 h after randomization, expressed as noradrenaline equivalent dose (NEq [μg/kg/min] = noradrenaline + adrenaline + vasopressin/0.4). Results Between November 2013 and February 2018, 417 patients were recruited into the SPICE III trial at both sites. Eighty-three patients with septic shock were included in this subgroup analysis. Of these, 44 (53%) received DEX and 39 (47%) usual care. Vasopressor requirements in the first 48 h were similar between the two groups. Median NEq dose was 0.03 [0.01, 0.07] μg/kg/min in the DEX group and 0.04 [0.01, 0.16] μg/kg/min in the usual care group ( p  = 0.17). However, patients in the DEX group had a lower NEq/MAP ratio, indicating lower vasopressor requirements to maintain the target MAP. Moreover, on adjusted multivariable analysis, higher dexmedetomidine dose was associated with a lower NEq/MAP ratio. Conclusions In critically ill patients with septic shock, patients in the DEX group received similar vasopressor doses in the first 48 h compared to the usual care group. On multivariable adjusted analysis, dexmedetomidine appeared to be associated with lower vasopressor requirements to maintain the target MAP. Trial registration The SPICE III trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01728558 ).

In a multicenter trial, 778 patients with septic shock who were being treated with catecholamine vasopressors were randomly assigned to either norepinephrine or vasopressin in addition to open-label vasopressors. There was no significant difference between the two groups in mortality at either 28 or 90 days, nor was there any significant difference in the rate of adverse events. Patients with septic shock were randomly assigned to either norepinephrine or vasopressin in addition to open-label vasopressors. There was no significant difference between the two groups in mortality at either 28 or 90 days. Septic shock is the most common cause of death in intensive care units (ICUs) 1 , 2 and has a mortality rate of 40 to 60%. 2 , 3 Resuscitation strategies include the administration of intravenous fluids and the use of catecholamines such as norepinephrine, epinephrine, dopamine, and dobutamine. 4 , 5 Although largely effective in reestablishing minimally acceptable mean arterial pressures to maintain organ perfusion, catecholamines have important adverse effects and may even increase mortality rates. 6 For example, norepinephrine, a potent and commonly used α-adrenergic agent in cases of septic shock, may decrease cardiac output, oxygen delivery, and blood flow to vulnerable organs despite adequate . . .

Purpose Ventricular–arterial (V–A) decoupling decreases myocardial efficiency and is exacerbated by tachycardia that increases static arterial elastance (Ea). We thus investigated the effects of heart rate (HR) reduction on Ea in septic shock patients using the beta-blocker esmolol. We hypothesized that esmolol improves Ea by positively affecting the tone of arterial vessels and their responsiveness to HR-related changes in stroke volume (SV). Methods After at least 24 h of hemodynamic optimization, 45 septic shock patients, with an HR ≥95 bpm and requiring norepinephrine to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥65 mmHg, received a titrated esmolol infusion to maintain HR between 80 and 94 bpm. Ea was calculated as MAP/SV. All measurements, including data from right heart catheterization, echocardiography, arterial waveform analysis, and norepinephrine requirements, were obtained at baseline and at 4 h after commencing esmolol. Results Esmolol reduced HR in all patients and this was associated with a decrease in Ea (2.19 ± 0.77 vs. 1.72 ± 0.52 mmHg l −1 ), arterial d P /d t max (1.08 ± 0.32 vs. 0.89 ± 0.29 mmHg ms −1 ), and a parallel increase in SV (48 ± 14 vs. 59 ± 18 ml), all p  < 0.05. Cardiac output and ejection fraction remained unchanged, whereas norepinephrine requirements were reduced (0.7 ± 0.7 to 0.58 ± 0.5 µg kg −1  min −1 , p  < 0.05). Conclusions HR reduction with esmolol effectively improved Ea while allowing adequate systemic perfusion in patients with severe septic shock who remained tachycardic despite standard volume resuscitation. As Ea is a major determinant of V–A coupling, its reduction may contribute to improving cardiovascular efficiency in septic shock.

Introduction The ACCM/PALS guidelines address early correction of paediatric septic shock using conventional measures. In the evolution of these recommendations, indirect measures of the balance between systemic oxygen delivery and demands using central venous or superior vena cava oxygen saturation (ScvO 2  ≥ 70%) in a goal-directed approach have been added. However, while these additional goal-directed endpoints are based on evidence-based adult studies, the extrapolation to the paediatric patient remains unvalidated. Objective The purpose of this study was to compare treatment according to ACCM/PALS guidelines, performed with and without ScvO 2 goal-directed therapy, on the morbidity and mortality rate of children with severe sepsis and septic shock. Design, participants and interventions Children and adolescents with severe sepsis or fluid-refractory septic shock were randomly assigned to ACCM/PALS with or without ScvO 2 goal-directed resuscitation. Measurements Twenty-eight-day mortality was the primary endpoint. Results Of the 102 enrolled patients, 51 received ACCM/PALS with ScvO 2 goal-directed therapy and 51 received ACCM/PALS without ScvO 2 goal-directed therapy. ScvO 2 goal-directed therapy resulted in less mortality (28-day mortality 11.8% vs. 39.2%, p  = 0.002), and fewer new organ dysfunctions ( p  = 0.03). ScvO 2 goal-directed therapy resulted in more crystalloid (28 (20–40) vs. 5 (0–20) ml/kg, p  < 0.0001), blood transfusion (45.1% vs. 15.7%, p  = 0.002) and inotropic (29.4% vs. 7.8%, p  = 0.01) support in the first 6 h. Conclusions This study supports the current ACCM/PALS guidelines. Goal-directed therapy using the endpoint of a ScvO 2  ≥ 70% has a significant and additive impact on the outcome of children and adolescents with septic shock.