Tobias M Merz1, Luca Cioccari2, Pascal M Frey3, Andreas Bloch2, David Berger2, Bjoern Zante2, Stephan M Jakob2, Jukka Takala2. 1. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland. TobiasM@adhb.govt.nz. 2. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland. 3. Department of General Internal Medicine, University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE:Mortality in circulatory shock is high. Enhanced resolution of shock may improve outcomes. We aim to determine whether adding hemodynamic monitoring with continual transesophageal echocardiography (hTEE) to usual care accelerates resolution of hemodynamic instability. METHODS:550 patients with circulatory shock were randomly assigned to four groups stratified using hTEE (hTEE vs usual care) and assessment frequency (minimum every 4 h vs 8 h). Primary outcome was time to resolution of hemodynamic instability, analyzed as intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis at day 6 and in a predefined secondary analysis at days 3 and 28. RESULTS: Of 550 randomized patients, 271 with hTEE and 274 patients with usual care were eligible and included in the ITT analysis. Time to resolution of hemodynamic instability did not differ within the first 6 days [hTEE vs usual care adjusted sub-hazard ratio (SHR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-1.46, p = 0.067]. Time to resolution of hemodynamic instability during the 72 h of hTEE monitoring was shorter in patients with TEE (hTEE vs usual care SHR 1.26, 95% CI 1.02-1.55, p = 0.034). Assessment frequency had no influence. Time to resolution of clinical signs of hypoperfusion, duration of organ support, length of stay and mortality in the intensive care unit and hospital, and mortality at 28 days did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with shock, hTEE monitoring or hemodynamic assessment frequency did not influence resolution of hemodynamic instability or mortality within the first 6 days. TRIAL REGISTRATION AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PLAN: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02048566.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:Mortality in circulatory shock is high. Enhanced resolution of shock may improve outcomes. We aim to determine whether adding hemodynamic monitoring with continual transesophageal echocardiography (hTEE) to usual care accelerates resolution of hemodynamic instability. METHODS: 550 patients with circulatory shock were randomly assigned to four groups stratified using hTEE (hTEE vs usual care) and assessment frequency (minimum every 4 h vs 8 h). Primary outcome was time to resolution of hemodynamic instability, analyzed as intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis at day 6 and in a predefined secondary analysis at days 3 and 28. RESULTS: Of 550 randomized patients, 271 with hTEE and 274 patients with usual care were eligible and included in the ITT analysis. Time to resolution of hemodynamic instability did not differ within the first 6 days [hTEE vs usual care adjusted sub-hazard ratio (SHR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-1.46, p = 0.067]. Time to resolution of hemodynamic instability during the 72 h of hTEE monitoring was shorter in patients with TEE (hTEE vs usual care SHR 1.26, 95% CI 1.02-1.55, p = 0.034). Assessment frequency had no influence. Time to resolution of clinical signs of hypoperfusion, duration of organ support, length of stay and mortality in the intensive care unit and hospital, and mortality at 28 days did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In critically illpatients with shock, hTEE monitoring or hemodynamic assessment frequency did not influence resolution of hemodynamic instability or mortality within the first 6 days. TRIAL REGISTRATION AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PLAN: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02048566.
Authors: Arthur P Wheeler; Gordon R Bernard; B Taylor Thompson; David Schoenfeld; Herbert P Wiedemann; 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: Elina Varis; Ville Pettilä; Meri Poukkanen; Stephan M Jakob; Sari Karlsson; Anders Perner; Jukka Takala; Erika Wilkman Journal: Shock Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Luca Cioccari; Bjoern Zante; Andreas Bloch; David Berger; Andreas Limacher; Stephan M Jakob; Jukka Takala; Tobias M Merz Journal: Trials Date: 2018-07-06 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Luca Cioccari; Bjoern Zante; Andreas Bloch; David Berger; Andreas Limacher; Stephan M Jakob; Jukka Takala; Tobias M Merz Journal: Trials Date: 2018-10-29 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Luca Cioccari; Hans-Rudolf Baur; David Berger; Jan Wiegand; Jukka Takala; Tobias M Merz Journal: Crit Care Date: 2013-03-27 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Paul H Mayo; Michelle Chew; Ghislaine Douflé; Armand Mekontso-Dessap; Mangala Narasimhan; Antoine Vieillard-Baron Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 41.787