Andre C Kalil1, Daniel W Johnson, Steven J Lisco, Junfeng Sun. 1. 1Infectious Disease Division, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE.2Critical Care Division, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE.3Critical Care Department, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Early goal-directed therapy has shown discordant survival outcomes in sepsis studies. We aim to find the reasons for this discordance. DESIGN: Random-effects and Bayesian hierarchical analyses. SETTING: Studies that evaluated early goal-directed therapy. SUBJECTS: Patients with severe sepsis and/or septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: Early goal-directed therapy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 19,998 patients were included in the main analysis: 31 observational (n = 15,656) and six randomized (n = 4,342) studies. The analysis from 37 studies showed that early goal-directed therapy was associated with a 23% reduction in the risk of death: relative risk = 0.77 (95% CI, 0.71-0.83); p value of less than 0.0001. Mortality reduction was seen with observational studies: relative risk = 0.73 (0.67-0.80); p value of less than 0.0001 but not with randomized studies: relative risk = 0.92 (0.78-1.07); p = 0.268. Meta-regression analysis showed lower risk of death in observational compared with randomized studies: relative risk = 0.81 (0.68-0.95); p = 0.01. Differences in age, country, hospital location, era, systolic pressure, mean arterial pressure, lactate, bundle compliance, amount of fluid administered, and hemodynamic goal achievements were not associated with survival differences between studies. Factors associated with mortality differences between early goal-directed therapy and control included Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (relative risk = 1.05 [1.02-1.09]; p = 0.003), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (relative risk = 1.09 [1.00-1.18]; p = 0.04), presence of shock (relative risk = 1.007 [1.002-1.013]; p = 0.006), time-to-first antibiotic (relative risk = 1.22 [1.09-1.36]; p = 0.0006), antibiotic administration within 6 hours (relative risk = 0.20 [0.09-0.45]; p = 0.0001), 4 hours (relative risk = 0.16 [0.06-0.39]; p = 0.0001), and 3 hours (relative risk = 0.09 [0.03-0.27]; p < 0.0001). The only factors that explained mortality differences between randomized and observational studies were time-to-first antibiotic (R = 87%), antibiotic administration within 6 hours (R = 94%), 4 hours (R = 99%), 3 hours (R = 99%), and appropriate antibiotic use (R = 96%). CONCLUSIONS: Survival discordance was not associated with differences in early goal-directed therapy bundle compliance or hemodynamic goal achievement. Our results suggest that it was associated with faster and more appropriate antibiotic co-intervention in the early goal-directed therapy arm compared with controls in the observational studies but not in the randomized trials. Early goal-directed therapy was associated with increased mortality in patients with high-disease severity.
OBJECTIVES: Early goal-directed therapy has shown discordant survival outcomes in sepsis studies. We aim to find the reasons for this discordance. DESIGN: Random-effects and Bayesian hierarchical analyses. SETTING: Studies that evaluated early goal-directed therapy. SUBJECTS:Patients with severe sepsis and/or septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: Early goal-directed therapy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 19,998 patients were included in the main analysis: 31 observational (n = 15,656) and six randomized (n = 4,342) studies. The analysis from 37 studies showed that early goal-directed therapy was associated with a 23% reduction in the risk of death: relative risk = 0.77 (95% CI, 0.71-0.83); p value of less than 0.0001. Mortality reduction was seen with observational studies: relative risk = 0.73 (0.67-0.80); p value of less than 0.0001 but not with randomized studies: relative risk = 0.92 (0.78-1.07); p = 0.268. Meta-regression analysis showed lower risk of death in observational compared with randomized studies: relative risk = 0.81 (0.68-0.95); p = 0.01. Differences in age, country, hospital location, era, systolic pressure, mean arterial pressure, lactate, bundle compliance, amount of fluid administered, and hemodynamic goal achievements were not associated with survival differences between studies. Factors associated with mortality differences between early goal-directed therapy and control included Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (relative risk = 1.05 [1.02-1.09]; p = 0.003), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (relative risk = 1.09 [1.00-1.18]; p = 0.04), presence of shock (relative risk = 1.007 [1.002-1.013]; p = 0.006), time-to-first antibiotic (relative risk = 1.22 [1.09-1.36]; p = 0.0006), antibiotic administration within 6 hours (relative risk = 0.20 [0.09-0.45]; p = 0.0001), 4 hours (relative risk = 0.16 [0.06-0.39]; p = 0.0001), and 3 hours (relative risk = 0.09 [0.03-0.27]; p < 0.0001). The only factors that explained mortality differences between randomized and observational studies were time-to-first antibiotic (R = 87%), antibiotic administration within 6 hours (R = 94%), 4 hours (R = 99%), 3 hours (R = 99%), and appropriate antibiotic use (R = 96%). CONCLUSIONS: Survival discordance was not associated with differences in early goal-directed therapy bundle compliance or hemodynamic goal achievement. Our results suggest that it was associated with faster and more appropriate antibiotic co-intervention in the early goal-directed therapy arm compared with controls in the observational studies but not in the randomized trials. Early goal-directed therapy was associated with increased mortality in patients with high-disease severity.
Authors: Daniel E Leisman; Catalina Angel; Sandra M Schneider; Jason A D'Amore; John K D'Angelo; Martin E Doerfler Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Laura Evans; Andrew Rhodes; Waleed Alhazzani; Massimo Antonelli; Craig M Coopersmith; Craig French; Flávia R Machado; Lauralyn Mcintyre; Marlies Ostermann; Hallie C Prescott; Christa Schorr; Steven Simpson; W Joost Wiersinga; Fayez Alshamsi; Derek C Angus; Yaseen Arabi; Luciano Azevedo; Richard Beale; Gregory Beilman; Emilie Belley-Cote; Lisa Burry; Maurizio Cecconi; John Centofanti; Angel Coz Yataco; Jan De Waele; R Phillip Dellinger; Kent Doi; Bin Du; Elisa Estenssoro; Ricard Ferrer; Charles Gomersall; Carol Hodgson; Morten Hylander Møller; Theodore Iwashyna; Shevin Jacob; Ruth Kleinpell; Michael Klompas; Younsuck Koh; Anand Kumar; Arthur Kwizera; Suzana Lobo; Henry Masur; Steven McGloughlin; Sangeeta Mehta; Yatin Mehta; Mervyn Mer; Mark Nunnally; Simon Oczkowski; Tiffany Osborn; Elizabeth Papathanassoglou; Anders Perner; Michael Puskarich; Jason Roberts; William Schweickert; Maureen Seckel; Jonathan Sevransky; Charles L Sprung; Tobias Welte; Janice Zimmerman; Mitchell Levy Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2021-10-02 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Wesley H Self; Matthew W Semler; Rinaldo Bellomo; Samuel M Brown; Bennett P deBoisblanc; Matthew C Exline; Adit A Ginde; Colin K Grissom; David R Janz; Alan E Jones; Kathleen D Liu; Stephen P J Macdonald; Chadwick D Miller; Pauline K Park; Lora A Reineck; Todd W Rice; Jay S Steingrub; Daniel Talmor; Donald M Yealy; Ivor S Douglas; Nathan I Shapiro Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Chanu Rhee; Michael R Filbin; Anthony F Massaro; Amy L Bulger; Donna McEachern; Kathleen A Tobin; Barrett T Kitch; Bert Thurlo-Walsh; Aran Kadar; Alexandra Koffman; Anupam Pande; Yasir Hamad; David K Warren; Travis M Jones; Cara O'Brien; Deverick J Anderson; Rui Wang; Michael Klompas Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Hollis R O'Neal; Roya Sheybani; Terrell S Caffery; Mandi W Musso; Diana Hamer; Shannon M Alwood; Matthew S Berlinger; Tonya Jagneaux; Katherine W LaVie; Catherine S O'Neal; Michael A Sanchez; Morgan K Walker; Ajay M Shah; Henry T K Tse; Christopher B Thomas Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2021-06-15