Zhongheng Zhang1, Hongying Ni, Zhixian Qian. 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Jinhua Municipal Central Hospital, Jinhua Hospital of Zhejiang University, 351, Mingyue Road, Jinhua, 321000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China, zh_zhang1984@hotmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare treatment based on either PiCCO-derived physiological values or central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring, we performed a prospective randomized controlled trial with group sequential analysis. METHODS:Consecutive critically ill patients with septic shock and/or ARDS were included. The planned total sample size was 715. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality after randomization. Participants underwent stratified randomization according to the classification of ARDS and/or septic shock. Caregivers were not blinded to the intervention, but participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. RESULTS: The study was stopped early because of futility after enrollment of 350 patients including 168 in the PiCCO group and 182 in the control group. There was no loss to follow-up and data from all enrolled participants were analyzed. The result showed that treatment based on PiCCO-derived physiological values was not able to reduce the 28-day mortality risk (odds ratio 1.00, 95 % CI 0.66-1.52; p = 0.993). There was no difference between the two groups in secondary outcomes such as 14-day mortality (40.5 vs. 41.2 %; p = 0.889), ICU length of stay (median 9 vs. 7.5 days; p = 0.598), days free of vasopressors (median 14.5 vs. 19 days; p = 0.676), and days free of mechanical ventilation (median 3 vs. 6 days; p = 0.168). No severe adverse event was reported in both groups. CONCLUSION: On the basis of our study, PICCO-based fluid management does not improve outcome when compared to CVP-based fluid management.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare treatment based on either PiCCO-derived physiological values or central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring, we performed a prospective randomized controlled trial with group sequential analysis. METHODS: Consecutive critically illpatients with septic shock and/or ARDS were included. The planned total sample size was 715. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality after randomization. Participants underwent stratified randomization according to the classification of ARDS and/or septic shock. Caregivers were not blinded to the intervention, but participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. RESULTS: The study was stopped early because of futility after enrollment of 350 patients including 168 in the PiCCO group and 182 in the control group. There was no loss to follow-up and data from all enrolled participants were analyzed. The result showed that treatment based on PiCCO-derived physiological values was not able to reduce the 28-day mortality risk (odds ratio 1.00, 95 % CI 0.66-1.52; p = 0.993). There was no difference between the two groups in secondary outcomes such as 14-day mortality (40.5 vs. 41.2 %; p = 0.889), ICU length of stay (median 9 vs. 7.5 days; p = 0.598), days free of vasopressors (median 14.5 vs. 19 days; p = 0.676), and days free of mechanical ventilation (median 3 vs. 6 days; p = 0.168). No severe adverse event was reported in both groups. CONCLUSION: On the basis of our study, PICCO-based fluid management does not improve outcome when compared to CVP-based fluid management.
Authors: Herbert P Wiedemann; Arthur P Wheeler; Gordon R Bernard; B Taylor Thompson; Douglas Hayden; Ben deBoisblanc; Alfred F Connors; R Duncan Hite; Andrea L Harabin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-05-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Y Mahjoub; V Lejeune; L Muller; S Perbet; L Zieleskiewicz; F Bart; B Veber; C Paugam-Burtz; S Jaber; A Ayham; E Zogheib; S Lasocki; A Vieillard-Baron; H Quintard; O Joannes-Boyau; G Plantefève; P Montravers; S Duperret; M Lakhdari; N Ammenouche; E Lorne; M Slama; H Dupont Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2013-12-29 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Colin Cordemans; Inneke De Laet; Niels Van Regenmortel; Karen Schoonheydt; Hilde Dits; Wolfgang Huber; Manu Lng Malbrain Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2012-07-05 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; J Randall Curtis; Daniel De Backer; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Patricia Rocco; Jean-François Timsit; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: B H Siegler; M Bernhard; T Brenner; H Gerlach; M Henrich; S Hofer; S John; E Kilger; W A Krüger; C Lichtenstern; K Mayer; M Müller; B Niemann; M Oppert; S Rex; R Rossaint; S Weiterer; M A Weigand Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 1.041
Authors: Wolfgang Huber; Sebastian Mair; Simon Q Götz; Julia Tschirdewahn; Johanna Frank; Josef Höllthaler; Veit Phillip; Roland M Schmid; Bernd Saugel Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2016-02-01 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: S Treskatsch; F Balzer; F Knebel; M Habicher; J P Braun; M Kastrup; H Grubitzsch; K-D Wernecke; C Spies; M Sander Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-06-06 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Manuel Sánchez-Sánchez; Abelardo Garcia-de-Lorenzo; Maria Jose Asensio; Eva Herrero; Lucia Cachafeiro; Alexander Agrifoglio Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-04-11 Impact factor: 17.440