A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock
ProCESS Investigators, Donald M Yealy, John A Kellum, David T Huang, Amber E Barnato, Lisa A Weissfeld, Francis Pike, Thomas Terndrup, Henry E Wang, Peter C Hou, Frank LoVecchio, Michael R Filbin, Nathan I Shapiro, Derek C Angus, Derek C Angus, Amber E Barnato, Tammy L Eaton, Elizabeth Gimbel, David T Huang, Christopher Keener, John A Kellum, Kyle Landis, Francis Pike, Diana K Stapleton, Lisa A Weissfeld, Michael Willochell, Kourtney A Wofford, Donald M Yealy, Erik Kulstad, Hannah Watts, Arvind Venkat, Peter C Hou, Anthony Massaro, Siddharth Parmar, Alexander T Limkakeng Jr, Kori Brewer, Theodore R Delbridge, Allison Mainhart, Lakhmir S Chawla, James R Miner, Todd L Allen, Colin K Grissom, Stuart Swadron, Steven A Conrad, Richard Carlson, Frank LoVecchio, Ednan K Bajwa, Michael R Filbin, Blair A Parry, Timothy J Ellender, Andrew E Sama, Jonathan Fine, Soheil Nafeei, Thomas Terndrup, Margaret Wojnar, Ronald G Pearl, Scott T Wilber, Richard Sinert, David J Orban, Jason W Wilson, Jacob W Ufberg, Timothy Albertson, Edward A Panacek, Sohan Parekh, Scott R Gunn, Jon S Rittenberger, Richard J Wadas, Andrew R Edwards, Matthew Kelly, Henry E Wang, Talmage M Holmes, Michael T McCurdy, Craig Weinert, Estelle S Harris, Wesley H Self, Diane Dubinski, Carolyn A Phillips, Ronald M Migues, Gordon R Bernard, Donald A Berry, Daniel W Brock, Avital Cnaan, Norman C Fost, Roger J Lewis, Avery B Nathens, Gordon D Rubenfeld, ProCESS Investigators, Donald M Yealy, John A Kellum, David T Huang, Amber E Barnato, Lisa A Weissfeld, Francis Pike, Thomas Terndrup, Henry E Wang, Peter C Hou, Frank LoVecchio, Michael R Filbin, Nathan I Shapiro, Derek C Angus, Derek C Angus, Amber E Barnato, Tammy L Eaton, Elizabeth Gimbel, David T Huang, Christopher Keener, John A Kellum, Kyle Landis, Francis Pike, Diana K Stapleton, Lisa A Weissfeld, Michael Willochell, Kourtney A Wofford, Donald M Yealy, Erik Kulstad, Hannah Watts, Arvind Venkat, Peter C Hou, Anthony Massaro, Siddharth Parmar, Alexander T Limkakeng Jr, Kori Brewer, Theodore R Delbridge, Allison Mainhart, Lakhmir S Chawla, James R Miner, Todd L Allen, Colin K Grissom, Stuart Swadron, Steven A Conrad, Richard Carlson, Frank LoVecchio, Ednan K Bajwa, Michael R Filbin, Blair A Parry, Timothy J Ellender, Andrew E Sama, Jonathan Fine, Soheil Nafeei, Thomas Terndrup, Margaret Wojnar, Ronald G Pearl, Scott T Wilber, Richard Sinert, David J Orban, Jason W Wilson, Jacob W Ufberg, Timothy Albertson, Edward A Panacek, Sohan Parekh, Scott R Gunn, Jon S Rittenberger, Richard J Wadas, Andrew R Edwards, Matthew Kelly, Henry E Wang, Talmage M Holmes, Michael T McCurdy, Craig Weinert, Estelle S Harris, Wesley H Self, Diane Dubinski, Carolyn A Phillips, Ronald M Migues, Gordon R Bernard, Donald A Berry, Daniel W Brock, Avital Cnaan, Norman C Fost, Roger J Lewis, Avery B Nathens, Gordon D Rubenfeld
Abstract
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.).
Conflict of interest statement
No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Figures
Source: PubMed