OBJECTIVE: Quantitative resuscitation consists of structured cardiovascular intervention targeting predefined hemodynamic end points. We sought to measure the treatment effect of quantitative resuscitation on mortality from sepsis. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, conference proceedings, clinical practice guidelines, and other sources using a comprehensive strategy. STUDY SELECTION: We identified randomized control trials comparing quantitative resuscitation with standard resuscitation in adult patients who were diagnosed with sepsis using standard criteria. The primary outcome variable was mortality. DATA ABSTRACTION: Three authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality using standardized instruments; consensus was reached by conference. Preplanned subgroup analysis required studies to be categorized based on early (at the time of diagnosis) vs. late resuscitation implementation. We used the chi-square test and I to assess for statistical heterogeneity (p < 0.10, I > 25%). The primary analysis was based on the random effects model to produce pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: The search yielded 29 potential publications; nine studies were included in the final analysis, providing a sample of 1001 patients. The combined results demonstrate a decrease in mortality (odds ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.43-0.96); however, there was statistically significant heterogeneity (p = 0.07, I = 45%). Among the early quantitative resuscitation studies (n = 6) there was minimal heterogeneity (p = 0.40, I = 2.4%) and a significant decrease in mortality (odds ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.69). The late quantitative resuscitation studies (n = 3) demonstrated no significant effect on mortality (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 0.60-2.22). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis found that applying an early quantitative resuscitation strategy to patients with sepsis imparts a significant reduction in mortality.
OBJECTIVE: Quantitative resuscitation consists of structured cardiovascular intervention targeting predefined hemodynamic end points. We sought to measure the treatment effect of quantitative resuscitation on mortality from sepsis. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, conference proceedings, clinical practice guidelines, and other sources using a comprehensive strategy. STUDY SELECTION: We identified randomized control trials comparing quantitative resuscitation with standard resuscitation in adult patients who were diagnosed with sepsis using standard criteria. The primary outcome variable was mortality. DATA ABSTRACTION: Three authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality using standardized instruments; consensus was reached by conference. Preplanned subgroup analysis required studies to be categorized based on early (at the time of diagnosis) vs. late resuscitation implementation. We used the chi-square test and I to assess for statistical heterogeneity (p < 0.10, I > 25%). The primary analysis was based on the random effects model to produce pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: The search yielded 29 potential publications; nine studies were included in the final analysis, providing a sample of 1001 patients. The combined results demonstrate a decrease in mortality (odds ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.43-0.96); however, there was statistically significant heterogeneity (p = 0.07, I = 45%). Among the early quantitative resuscitation studies (n = 6) there was minimal heterogeneity (p = 0.40, I = 2.4%) and a significant decrease in mortality (odds ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.69). The late quantitative resuscitation studies (n = 3) demonstrated no significant effect on mortality (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 0.60-2.22). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis found that applying an early quantitative resuscitation strategy to patients with sepsis imparts a significant reduction in mortality.
Authors: E Rivers; B Nguyen; S Havstad; J Ressler; A Muzzin; B Knoblich; E Peterson; M Tomlanovich Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-11-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: G R Bernard; J L Vincent; P F Laterre; S P LaRosa; J F Dhainaut; A Lopez-Rodriguez; J S Steingrub; G E Garber; J D Helterbrand; E W Ely; C J Fisher Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-03-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jonathan E Sevransky; Seema Nour; Gregory M Susla; Dale M Needham; Steven Hollenberg; Peter Pronovost Journal: Crit Care Date: 2007 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Octav Chipara; Christopher Brooks; Sangeeta Bhattacharya; Chenyang Lu; Roger D Chamberlain; Gruia-Catalin Roman; Thomas C Bailey Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2009-11-14
Authors: Christoph Fiehn; Regina Max; Norbert Blank; Andreas Schneider; Reinhard Schneider; Sebastian K G Maier; Jan Becher; Peter Nordbeck; Alexander H Jakob Journal: Med Klin (Munich) Date: 2010-01
Authors: Michael A Puskarich; Michael R Marchick; Jeffrey A Kline; Michael T Steuerwald; Alan E Jones Journal: Crit Care Date: 2009-10-21 Impact factor: 9.097