John A Kellum1, Francis Pike, Donald M Yealy, David T Huang, Nathan I Shapiro, Derek C Angus. 1. 1Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. 2Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. 3Department of Emergency Medicine, The Beth Israel Hospital, Harvard University, Boston, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Protocol-based Care for Early Septic Shock trial found no differences across alternative resuscitation strategies in all-cause mortality. A separate aim was to determine whether differences in resuscitation strategies affected trajectories of biomarkers of key pathways associated with downstream clinical outcomes of sepsis and whether there were differences in survival across treatment arms for patients with different baseline biomarker profiles. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a large randomized clinical trial. SETTING:Thirty-one U.S. hospitals. PATIENTS: Six hundred twenty-eight patients with septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: Two resuscitation protocols versus usual care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We measured a panel of biomarkers representing four pathophysiologic domains: "inflammation" (tumor necrosis factor, interleukin-6, and -10); "coagulation" (D-dimers, thrombin-antithrombin complex); "oxidative stress" (urine isoprostane); and "tissue hypoxia" (lactate) at 0, 6, 24, and 72 hours after treatment. We analyzed whether alternative resuscitation strategies affected biomarker trajectories over 72 hours and whether effects on 90-day hospital mortality varied by baseline (time 0) biomarker profiles-both using regression models with interaction terms for treatment arms. For all baseline biomarkers, higher concentrations were associated with increased risk of death by 90 days. However, there was no significant effect of treatment assignment on subsequent biomarker trajectories. We did find evidence for heterogeneity of treatment effect of protocol-based care on mortality for patients with different baseline [interleukin-6] and [interleukin-6] × [interleukin-10] profiles, whereas patients with the lowest quartiles fared better with protocol-based care (odds ratios, 0.32 [0.13-075]; p = 0.01 and 0.32 [0.14-0.73]; p = 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with septic shock, alterations in inflammation, coagulation, oxidative stress, and tissue hypoxia are common and associated with adverse outcomes but are not influenced by protocol-based resuscitation compared with usual care. However, contrary to expectation, protocol-based resuscitation appeared to be superior in patients with lower concentrations of inflammatory biomarkers. The mechanisms responsible for this effect are unclear.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The Protocol-based Care for Early Septic Shock trial found no differences across alternative resuscitation strategies in all-cause mortality. A separate aim was to determine whether differences in resuscitation strategies affected trajectories of biomarkers of key pathways associated with downstream clinical outcomes of sepsis and whether there were differences in survival across treatment arms for patients with different baseline biomarker profiles. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a large randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Thirty-one U.S. hospitals. PATIENTS: Six hundred twenty-eight patients with septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: Two resuscitation protocols versus usual care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We measured a panel of biomarkers representing four pathophysiologic domains: "inflammation" (tumor necrosis factor, interleukin-6, and -10); "coagulation" (D-dimers, thrombin-antithrombin complex); "oxidative stress" (urine isoprostane); and "tissue hypoxia" (lactate) at 0, 6, 24, and 72 hours after treatment. We analyzed whether alternative resuscitation strategies affected biomarker trajectories over 72 hours and whether effects on 90-day hospital mortality varied by baseline (time 0) biomarker profiles-both using regression models with interaction terms for treatment arms. For all baseline biomarkers, higher concentrations were associated with increased risk of death by 90 days. However, there was no significant effect of treatment assignment on subsequent biomarker trajectories. We did find evidence for heterogeneity of treatment effect of protocol-based care on mortality for patients with different baseline [interleukin-6] and [interleukin-6] × [interleukin-10] profiles, whereas patients with the lowest quartiles fared better with protocol-based care (odds ratios, 0.32 [0.13-075]; p = 0.01 and 0.32 [0.14-0.73]; p = 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with septic shock, alterations in inflammation, coagulation, oxidative stress, and tissue hypoxia are common and associated with adverse outcomes but are not influenced by protocol-based resuscitation compared with usual care. However, contrary to expectation, protocol-based resuscitation appeared to be superior in patients with lower concentrations of inflammatory biomarkers. The mechanisms responsible for this effect are unclear.
Authors: Mirrin J Dorresteijn; Lucas T van Eijk; Mihai G Netea; Paul Smits; Johannes G van der Hoeven; Peter Pickkers Journal: J Endotoxin Res Date: 2005
Authors: Donald M Yealy; John A Kellum; David T Huang; Amber E Barnato; Lisa A Weissfeld; Francis Pike; Thomas Terndrup; Henry E Wang; Peter C Hou; Frank LoVecchio; Michael R Filbin; Nathan I Shapiro; Derek C Angus Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sandra L Peake; Anthony Delaney; Michael Bailey; Rinaldo Bellomo; Peter A Cameron; D James Cooper; Alisa M Higgins; Anna Holdgate; Belinda D Howe; Steven A R Webb; Patricia Williams Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jean-François Dhainaut; S Betty Yan; Benjamin D Margolis; José A Lorente; James A Russell; Ross C Freebairn; Herbert D Spapen; Hanno Riess; Bruce Basson; Gerald Johnson; Gary T Kinasewitz Journal: Thromb Haemost Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 5.249
Authors: Emanuel P Rivers; James A Kruse; Gordon Jacobsen; Kant Shah; Manisha Loomba; Ronny Otero; Ed W Childs Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Paul R Mouncey; Tiffany M Osborn; G Sarah Power; David A Harrison; M Zia Sadique; Richard D Grieve; Rahi Jahan; Sheila E Harvey; Derek Bell; Julian F Bion; Timothy J Coats; Mervyn Singer; J Duncan Young; Kathryn M Rowan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sadudee Peerapornratana; Carlos L Manrique-Caballero; Hernando Gómez; John A Kellum Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Anthony J Lewis; John E Griepentrog; Xianghong Zhang; Derek C Angus; Christopher W Seymour; Matthew R Rosengart Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Xiaoyan Wen; Liyan Cui; Seth Morrisroe; Donald Maberry; David Emlet; Simon Watkins; Neil A Hukriede; John A Kellum Journal: Am J Physiol Renal Physiol Date: 2018-03-14
Authors: Peter C Hou; Michael R Filbin; Henry Wang; Long Ngo; David T Huang; William C Aird; Donald M Yealy; Derek C Angus; John A Kellum; Nathan I Shapiro Journal: Chest Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 9.410
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: Nuala J Meyer; John P Reilly; Brian J Anderson; Jessica A Palakshappa; Tiffanie K Jones; Thomas G Dunn; Michael G S Shashaty; Rui Feng; Jason D Christie; Steven M Opal Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 7.598