Initial resuscitation guided by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendations and early echocardiographic assessment of hemodynamics in intensive care unit septic patients: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare therapeutic interventions during initial resuscitation derived from echocardiographic assessment of hemodynamics and from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines in intensive care unit septic patients. DESIGN AND
SETTING: Prospective, descriptive study in two intensive care units of teaching hospitals.
METHODS: The number of ventilated patients with septic shock who were studied was 46. Transesophageal echocardiography was first performed (T1<3 hrs after intensive care unit admission) to adapt therapy according to the following predefined hemodynamic profiles: fluid loading (index of collapsibility of the superior vena cava≥36%), inotropic support (left ventricular fractional area change<45% without relevant index of collapsibility of the superior vena cava), or increased vasopressor support (right ventricular systolic dysfunction, unremarkable transesophageal echocardiography study consistent with sustained vasoplegia). Agreement for treatment decision between transesophageal echocardiography and Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines was evaluated. A second transesophageal echocardiography assessment (T2) was performed to validate therapeutic interventions.
RESULTS: Although transesophageal echocardiography and Surviving Sepsis Campaign approaches were concordant to manage fluid loading in 32 of 46 patients (70%), echocardiography led to the absence of blood volume expansion in the remaining 14 patients who all had a central venous pressure<12 mm Hg. Accordingly, the agreement was weak between transesophageal echocardiography and Surviving Sepsis Campaign for the decision of fluid loading (κ: 0.37 [0.16;0.59]). With a cut-off value<8 mm Hg for central venous pressure, κ was 0.33 [-0.03;0.69]. Inotropes were prescribed based on transesophageal echocardiography assessment in 14 patients but would have been decided in only four patients according to Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. As a result, the agreement between the two approaches for the decision of inotropic support was weak (κ: 0.23 [-0.04;0.50]). No right ventricular dysfunction was observed. No patient had anemia and only three patients with transesophageal echocardiography documented left ventricular systolic dysfunction had a central venous oxygen saturation<70%.
CONCLUSIONS: A weak agreement was found in the prescription of fluid loading and inotropic support derived from early transesophageal echocardiography assessment of hemodynamics and Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines in patients presenting with septic shock.