JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Trial of early, goal-directed resuscitation for septic shock

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
New England Journal of Medicine 2015 April 2, 372 (14): 1301-11
25776532

BACKGROUND: Early, goal-directed therapy (EGDT) is recommended in international guidelines for the resuscitation of patients presenting with early septic shock. However, adoption has been limited, and uncertainty about its effectiveness remains.

METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic randomized trial with an integrated cost-effectiveness analysis in 56 hospitals in England. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either EGDT (a 6-hour resuscitation protocol) or usual care. The primary clinical outcome was all-cause mortality at 90 days.

RESULTS: We enrolled 1260 patients, with 630 assigned to EGDT and 630 to usual care. By 90 days, 184 of 623 patients (29.5%) in the EGDT group and 181 of 620 patients (29.2%) in the usual-care group had died (relative risk in the EGDT group, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.20; P=0.90), for an absolute risk reduction in the EGDT group of -0.3 percentage points (95% CI, -5.4 to 4.7). Increased treatment intensity in the EGDT group was indicated by increased use of intravenous fluids, vasoactive drugs, and red-cell transfusions and reflected by significantly worse organ-failure scores, more days receiving advanced cardiovascular support, and longer stays in the intensive care unit. There were no significant differences in any other secondary outcomes, including health-related quality of life, or in rates of serious adverse events. On average, EGDT increased costs, and the probability that it was cost-effective was below 20%.

CONCLUSIONS: In patients with septic shock who were identified early and received intravenous antibiotics and adequate fluid resuscitation, hemodynamic management according to a strict EGDT protocol did not lead to an improvement in outcome. (Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme; ProMISe Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN36307479.).

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Responses

Sort by: Most RecentHighest Rated

carlos faviel font

why Rivers why!!

2

Ramasamy Lela

Really surprising !No significant change in the out come in both groups!

0

Daniel McCollum

A fantastic paper. The actual difference in care between the two groups was surprisingly similar. Only around 300 ml of fluid and only slightly higher use of pressors shows how much EGDT has influenced sepsis care.

0

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
25776532
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"