INTRODUCTION: We sought to compare the outcomes of patients with cryptic versus overt shock treated with an emergency department (ED) based early sepsis resuscitation protocol. METHODS: Pre-planned secondary analysis of a large, multicenter ED-based randomized controlled trial of early sepsis resuscitation. All subjects were treated with a quantitative resuscitation protocol in the ED targeting 3 physiological variables: central venous pressure, mean arterial pressure and either central venous oxygen saturation or lactate clearance. The study protocol was continued until all endpoints were achieved or a maximum of 6h. Outcomes data of patients who were enrolled with a lactate ≥ 4mmol/L and normotension (cryptic shock) were compared to those enrolled with sustained hypotension after fluid challenge (overt shock). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 300 subjects were enrolled, 53 in the cryptic shock group and 247 in the overt shock group. The demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. The primary endpoint of in-hospital mortality was observed in 11/53 (20%, 95% CI 11-34) in the cryptic shock group and 48/247 (19%, 95% CI 15-25) in the overt shock group, difference of 1% (95% CI -10 to 14; log rank test p=0.81). CONCLUSION: Severe sepsis with cryptic shock carries a mortality rate not significantly different from that of overt septic shock. These data suggest the need for early aggressive screening for and treatment of patients with an elevated serum lactate in the absence of hypotension.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: We sought to compare the outcomes of patients with cryptic versus overt shock treated with an emergency department (ED) based early sepsis resuscitation protocol. METHODS: Pre-planned secondary analysis of a large, multicenter ED-based randomized controlled trial of early sepsis resuscitation. All subjects were treated with a quantitative resuscitation protocol in the ED targeting 3 physiological variables: central venous pressure, mean arterial pressure and either central venous oxygen saturation or lactate clearance. The study protocol was continued until all endpoints were achieved or a maximum of 6h. Outcomes data of patients who were enrolled with a lactate ≥ 4mmol/L and normotension (cryptic shock) were compared to those enrolled with sustained hypotension after fluid challenge (overt shock). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 300 subjects were enrolled, 53 in the cryptic shock group and 247 in the overt shock group. The demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. The primary endpoint of in-hospital mortality was observed in 11/53 (20%, 95% CI 11-34) in the cryptic shock group and 48/247 (19%, 95% CI 15-25) in the overt shock group, difference of 1% (95% CI -10 to 14; log rank test p=0.81). CONCLUSION: Severe sepsis with cryptic shock carries a mortality rate not significantly different from that of overt septic shock. These data suggest the need for early aggressive screening for and treatment of patients with an elevated serum lactate in the absence of hypotension.
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: Nathan I Shapiro; Michael D Howell; Daniel Talmor; Larry A Nathanson; Alan Lisbon; Richard E Wolfe; J Woodrow Weiss Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Nathan I Shapiro; Michael D Howell; Daniel Talmor; Dermot Lahey; Long Ngo; Jon Buras; Richard E Wolfe; J Woodrow Weiss; Alan Lisbon Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Stephen Trzeciak; R Phillip Dellinger; Nicole L Abate; Robert M Cowan; Mary Stauss; J Hope Kilgannon; Sergio Zanotti; Joseph E Parrillo Journal: Chest Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Nici Markus Dreger; Stephan Degener; Parviz Ahmad-Nejad; Gabriele Wöbker; Stephan Roth Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2015-12-04 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Rémi Coudroy; Angéline Jamet; Jean-Pierre Frat; Anne Veinstein; Delphine Chatellier; Véronique Goudet; Severin Cabasson; Arnaud W Thille; René Robert Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Adnan Javed; Faheem W Guirgis; Sarah A Sterling; Michael A Puskarich; Jennifer Bowman; Taylor Robinson; Alan E Jones Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Thomas J Reese; Guilherme Del Fiol; Joseph E Tonna; Kensaku Kawamoto; Noa Segall; Charlene Weir; Brekk C Macpherson; Polina Kukhareva; Melanie C Wright Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Raymond J Langley; Ephraim L Tsalik; Jennifer C van Velkinburgh; Seth W Glickman; Brandon J Rice; Chunping Wang; Bo Chen; Lawrence Carin; Arturo Suarez; Robert P Mohney; Debra H Freeman; Mu Wang; Jinsam You; Jacob Wulff; J Will Thompson; M Arthur Moseley; Stephanie Reisinger; Brian T Edmonds; Brian Grinnell; David R Nelson; Darrell L Dinwiddie; Neil A Miller; Carol J Saunders; Sarah S Soden; Angela J Rogers; Lee Gazourian; Laura E Fredenburgh; Anthony F Massaro; Rebecca M Baron; Augustine M K Choi; G Ralph Corey; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Charles B Cairns; Ronny M Otero; Vance G Fowler; Emanuel P Rivers; Christopher W Woods; Stephen F Kingsmore Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2013-07-24 Impact factor: 17.956