Fluid Response Evaluation in Sepsis Hypotension and Shock: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Ivor S Douglas, Philip M Alapat, Keith A Corl, Matthew C Exline, Lui G Forni, Andre L Holder, David A Kaufman, Akram Khan, Mitchell M Levy, Gregory S Martin, Jennifer A Sahatjian, Eric Seeley, Wesley H Self, Jeremy A Weingarten, Mark Williams, Douglas M Hansell, Ivor S Douglas, Philip M Alapat, Keith A Corl, Matthew C Exline, Lui G Forni, Andre L Holder, David A Kaufman, Akram Khan, Mitchell M Levy, Gregory S Martin, Jennifer A Sahatjian, Eric Seeley, Wesley H Self, Jeremy A Weingarten, Mark Williams, Douglas M Hansell

Abstract

Background: Fluid and vasopressor management in septic shock remains controversial. In this randomized controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy of dynamic measures (stroke volume change during passive leg raise) to guide resuscitation and improve patient outcome.

Research question: Will resuscitation that is guided by dynamic assessments of fluid responsiveness in patients with septic shock improve patient outcomes?

Study design and methods: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial at 13 hospitals in the United States and United Kingdom. Patients presented to EDs with sepsis that was associated hypotension and anticipated ICU admission. Intervention arm patients were assessed for fluid responsiveness before clinically driven fluid bolus or increase in vasopressors occurred. The protocol included reassessment and therapy as indicated by the passive leg raise result. The control arm received usual care. The primary clinical outcome was positive fluid balance at 72 hours or ICU discharge, whichever occurred first.

Results: In modified intent-to-treat analysis that included 83 intervention and 41 usual care eligible patients, fluid balance at 72 hours or ICU discharge was significantly lower (-1.37 L favoring the intervention arm; 0.65 ± 2.85 L intervention arm vs 2.02 ± 3.44 L usual care arm; P = .021. Fewer patients required renal replacement therapy (5.1% vs 17.5%; P = .04) or mechanical ventilation (17.7% vs 34.1%; P = .04) in the intervention arm compared with usual care. In the all-randomized intent-to-treat population (102 intervention, 48 usual care), there were no significant differences in safety signals.

Interpretation: Physiologically informed fluid and vasopressor resuscitation with the use of the passive leg raise-induced stroke volume change to guide management of septic shock is safe and demonstrated lower net fluid balance and reductions in the risk of renal and respiratory failure. Dynamic assessments to guide fluid administration may improve outcomes for patients with septic shock compared with usual care.

Clinical trial registration: NCT02837731.

Keywords: dynamic fluid response measure; hemodynamics; resuscitation; sepsis; shock.

Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart model of the algorithm used to guide treatment in the Fluid Responsiveness Evaluation in Sepsis-associated Hypotension study. MAP = mean arterial pressure; NE = norepinephrine; PLR = passive leg raise; SBP = systolic BP; SV = stroke volume.
Figure 2
Figure 2
CONSORT patient flow chart diagram that tracks study participation and the number of patients whose condition was assessed for eligibility but could not be included in the study. DNR = do not resuscitate; ITT = intent to treat; mITT = modified intent to treat.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plots of study end points with clarification of 95% CI limits and mean difference. MACE = major adverse cardiac event; TEAE = treatment emergent adverse event.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Boxplots of continuous primary and secondary end points. RRT = renal replacement therapy.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Bar charts compare intervention to usual care for study end points. Bal = fluid balance; MACE = major adverse cardiac event.

References

    1. Levy M.M., Evans L.E., Rhodes A. The surviving sepsis campaign bundle: 2018 update. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(6):997–1000.
    1. Singer M., Deutschman C.S., Seymour C.W., et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3) JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–810.
    1. Brotfain E., Koyfman L., Toledano R., et al. Positive fluid balance as a major predictor of clinical outcome of patients with sepsis/septic shock after ICU discharge. Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34(11):2122–2126.
    1. Mitchell K.H., Carlbom D., Caldwell E., et al. Volume overload: prevalence, risk factors, and functional outcome in survivors of septic shock. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015;12(12):1837–1844.
    1. Wiedemann H.P., Wheeler A.P., Bernard G.R., et al. Comparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(24):2564–2575.
    1. Tigabu B.M., Davari M., Kebriaeezadeh A., Mojtahedzadeh M. Fluid volume, fluid balance and patient outcome in severe sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review. J Crit Care. 2018;48:153–159.
    1. Macdonald S.P.J., Taylor D.M., Keijzers G., et al. REstricted Fluid REsuscitation in Sepsis-associated Hypotension (REFRESH): study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2017;18(1):399.
    1. Marik P.E., Linde-Zwirble W.T., Bittner E.A., Sahatjian J., Hansell D. Fluid administration in severe sepsis and septic shock, patterns and outcomes: an analysis of a large national database. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(5):625–632.
    1. Boyd J.H., Forbes J., Nakada T.A., Walley K.R., Russell J.A. Fluid resuscitation in septic shock: a positive fluid balance and elevated central venous pressure are associated with increased mortality. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(2):259–265.
    1. Vincent J.L., Sakr Y., Sprung C.L., et al. Sepsis in European intensive care units: results of the SOAP study. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(2):344–353.
    1. Rhodes A., Evans L.E., Alhazzani W., et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(3):304–377.
    1. Kelm D.J., Perrin J.T., Cartin-Ceba R., et al. Fluid overload in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock treated with early goal-directed therapy is associated with increased acute need for fluid-related medical interventions and hospital death. Shock. 2015;43(1):68–73.
    1. Sirvent J.M., Ferri C., Baro A., Murcia C., Lorencio C. Fluid balance in sepsis and septic shock as a determining factor of mortality. Am J Emerg Med. 2015;33(2):186–189.
    1. Rivers E., Nguyen B., Havstad S., et al. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(19):1368–1377.
    1. Rowan K.M., Angus D.C., Bailey M., et al. Early, goal-directed therapy for septic shock - a patient-level meta-analysis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(23):2223–2234.
    1. Marik P.E., Cavallazzi R. Does the central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? an updated meta-analysis and a plea for some common sense. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(7):1774–1781.
    1. Bentzer P., Griesdale D.E., Boyd J., et al. Will this hemodynamically unstable patient respond to a bolus of intravenous fluids? JAMA. 2016;316(12):1298–1309.
    1. Marik P.E., Levitov A., Young A., Andrews L. The use of bioreactance and carotid Doppler to determine volume responsiveness and blood flow redistribution following passive leg raising in hemodynamically unstable patients. Chest. 2013;143(2):364–370.
    1. Michard F., Teboul J.L. Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: a critical analysis of the evidence. Chest. 2002;121(6):2000–2008.
    1. Monnet X., Marik P., Teboul J.L. Passive leg raising for predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(12):1935–1947.
    1. Wo C.C., Shoemaker W.C., Appel P.L., et al. Unreliability of blood pressure and heart rate to evaluate cardiac output in emergency resuscitation and critical illness. Crit Care Med. 1993;21(2):218–223.
    1. Toppen W, Aquije Montoya E, Ong S, et al. Passive leg raise: feasibility and safety of the maneuver in patients with undifferentiated shock. J Intensive Care Med. 2018;885066618820492.
    1. Latham H.E., Bengtson C.D., Satterwhite L., et al. Stroke volume guided resuscitation in severe sepsis and septic shock improves outcomes. J Crit Care. 2017;42:42–46.
    1. Krige A., Bland M., Fanshawe T. Fluid responsiveness prediction using Vigileo FloTrac measured cardiac output changes during passive leg raise test. J Intensive Care. 2016;4:63.
    1. Calvo-Vecino J.M., Ripolles-Melchor J., Mythen M.G., et al. Effect of goal-directed haemodynamic therapy on postoperative complications in low-moderate risk surgical patients: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (FEDORA trial) Br J Anaesth. 2018;120(4):734–744.
    1. Keren H., Burkhoff D., Squara P. Evaluation of a noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring system based on thoracic bioreactance. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2007;293(1):H583–H589.
    1. Heerdt P.M., Wagner C.L., DeMais M., Savarese J.J. Noninvasive cardiac output monitoring with bioreactance as an alternative to invasive instrumentation for preclinical drug evaluation in beagles. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2011;64(2):111–118.
    1. Rich J.D., Archer S.L., Rich S. Noninvasive cardiac output measurements in patients with pulmonary hypertension. Eur Respir J. 2013;42(1):125–133.
    1. Raval N.Y., Squara P., Cleman M., et al. Multicenter evaluation of noninvasive cardiac output measurement by bioreactance technique. J Clin Monit Comput. 2008;22(2):113–119.
    1. Squara P., Denjean D., Estagnasie P., et al. Noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM): a clinical validation. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33(7):1191–1194.
    1. Mehta C.R., Pocock S.J. Adaptive increase in sample size when interim results are promising: a practical guide with examples. Stat Med. 2011;30(28):3267–3284.
    1. Acheampong A., Vincent J.L. A positive fluid balance is an independent prognostic factor in patients with sepsis. Crit Care. 2015;19:251.
    1. Monnet X., Rienzo M., Osman D., et al. Passive leg raising predicts fluid responsiveness in the critically ill. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(5):1402–1407.
    1. Waldron N.H., Miller T.E., Thacker J.K., et al. A prospective comparison of a noninvasive cardiac output monitor versus esophageal Doppler monitor for goal-directed fluid therapy in colorectal surgery patients. Anesth Analg. 2014;118(5):966–975.
    1. Prowle J.R., Echeverri J.E., Ligabo E.V., Ronco C., Bellomo R. Fluid balance and acute kidney injury. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2010;6(2):107–115.
    1. Phillips C.R., Chesnutt M.S., Smith S.M. Extravascular lung water in sepsis-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: indexing with predicted body weight improves correlation with severity of illness and survival. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(1):69–73.
    1. Pearse R.M., Harrison D.A., MacDonald N., et al. Effect of a perioperative, cardiac output-guided hemodynamic therapy algorithm on outcomes following major gastrointestinal surgery: a randomized clinical trial and systematic review. JAMA. 2014;311(21):2181–2190.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner