Restriction of Intravenous Fluid in ICU Patients with Septic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous fluids are recommended for the treatment of patients who are in septic shock, but higher fluid volumes have been associated with harm in patients who are in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: In this international, randomized trial, we assigned patients with septic shock in the ICU who had received at least 1 liter of intravenous fluid to receive restricted intravenous fluid or standard intravenous fluid therapy; patients were included if the onset of shock had been within 12 hours before screening. The primary outcome was death from any cause within 90 days after randomization. RESULTS: We enrolled 1554 patients; 770 were assigned to the restrictive-fluid group and 784 to the standard-fluid group. Primary outcome data were available for 1545 patients (99.4%). In the ICU, the restrictive-fluid group received a median of 1798 ml of intravenous fluid (interquartile range, 500 to 4366); the standard-fluid group received a median of 3811 ml (interquartile range, 1861 to 6762). At 90 days, death had occurred in 323 of 764 patients (42.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group, as compared with 329 of 781 patients (42.1%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.7 to 4.9; P = 0.96). In the ICU, serious adverse events occurred at least once in 221 of 751 patients (29.4%) in the restrictive-fluid group and in 238 of 772 patients (30.8%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, -1.7 percentage points; 99% CI, -7.7 to 4.3). At 90 days after randomization, the numbers of days alive without life support and days alive and out of the hospital were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adult patients with septic shock in the ICU, intravenous fluid restriction did not result in fewer deaths at 90 days than standard intravenous fluid therapy. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and others; CLASSIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03668236.).

Improving Sepsis Outcomes in the Era of Pay-for-Performance and Electronic Quality Measures: A Joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIDP Position Paper.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced the Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) as a pay-for-reporting measure in 2015 and is now planning to make it a pay-for-performance measure by incorporating it into the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. This joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIPD position paper highlights concerns with this change. Multiple studies indicate that SEP-1 implementation was associated with increased broad-spectrum antibiotic use, lactate measurements, and aggressive fluid resuscitation for patients with suspected sepsis but not with decreased mortality rates. Increased focus on SEP-1 risks further diverting attention and resources from more effective measures and comprehensive sepsis care. We recommend retiring SEP-1 rather than using it in a payment model and shifting instead to new sepsis metrics that focus on patient outcomes. CMS is developing a community-onset sepsis 30-day mortality electronic clinical quality measure (eCQM) that is an important step in this direction. The eCQM preliminarily identifies sepsis using systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, antibiotic administrations or diagnosis codes for infection or sepsis, and clinical indicators of acute organ dysfunction. We support the eCQM but recommend removing SIRS criteria and diagnosis codes to streamline implementation, decrease variability between hospitals, maintain vigilance for patients with sepsis but without SIRS, and avoid promoting antibiotic use in uninfected patients with SIRS. We further advocate for CMS to harmonize the eCQM with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Adult Sepsis Event surveillance metric to promote unity in federal measures, decrease reporting burden for hospitals, and facilitate shared prevention initiatives. These steps will result in a more robust measure that will encourage hospitals to pay more attention to the full breadth of sepsis care, stimulate new innovations in diagnosis and treatment, and ultimately bring us closer to our shared goal of improving outcomes for patients.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities 2023.

OBJECTIVES: To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome, and pathophysiology of sepsis and septic shock. DESIGN: Shortly after publication of the most recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines, the Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, convened virtually and iteratively developed the article and recommendations, which represents an update from the 2018 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities. METHODS: Each task force member submitted five research questions on any sepsis-related subject. Committee members then independently ranked their top three priorities from the list generated. The highest rated clinical and basic science questions were developed into the current article. RESULTS: A total of 81 questions were submitted. After merging similar questions, there were 34 clinical and ten basic science research questions submitted for voting. The five top clinical priorities were as follows: 1) what is the best strategy for screening and identification of patients with sepsis, and can predictive modeling assist in real-time recognition of sepsis? 2) what causes organ injury and dysfunction in sepsis, how should it be defined, and how can it be detected? 3) how should fluid resuscitation be individualized initially and beyond? 4) what is the best vasopressor approach for treating the different phases of septic shock? and 5) can a personalized/precision medicine approach identify optimal therapies to improve patient outcomes? The five top basic science priorities were as follows: 1) How can we improve animal models so that they more closely resemble sepsis in humans? 2) What outcome variables maximize correlations between human sepsis and animal models and are therefore most appropriate to use in both? 3) How does sepsis affect the brain, and how do sepsis-induced brain alterations contribute to organ dysfunction? How does sepsis affect interactions between neural, endocrine, and immune systems? 4) How does the microbiome affect sepsis pathobiology? 5) How do genetics and epigenetics influence the development of sepsis, the course of sepsis and the response to treatments for sepsis? CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge advances in multiple clinical domains have been incorporated in progressive iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, allowing for evidence-based recommendations for short- and long-term management of sepsis. However, the strength of existing evidence is modest with significant knowledge gaps and mortality from sepsis remains high. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

Echocardiography Does not Reduce Mortality in Sepsis: A Re-Evaluation Using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV Dataset.

OBJECTIVES: Echocardiography is commonly used for hemodynamic assessment in sepsis, but data regarding its association with outcome are conflicting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between echocardiography and outcomes in patients with septic shock using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV database. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study comparing patients who did or did not undergo transthoracic echocardiography within the first 5 days of admission for the primary outcome of 28-day mortality. SETTING: Admissions to the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center intensive care from 2008 to 2019. PATIENTS: Adults 16 years old or older with septic shock requiring vasopressor support within 48 hours of admission. Readmissions and patients admitted to the coronary care unit or cardiovascular intensive care were excluded, as well as patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Echocardiography was performed in 1,515 (27%) of 5,697 eligible admissions. The primary outcome was analyzed using a marginal structural model and rolling entry matching to adjust for baseline and time-varying confounders. Patients who underwent echocardiography showed no significant difference in 28-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.09; 95% CI, 0.95-1.25; p = 0.24). This was consistent across multiple sensitivity analyses. Secondary outcomes were changes in management instituted within 4 hours of imaging. Treatment changes occurred in 493 patients (33%) compared with 431 matched controls (29%), with the most common intervention being the administration of a fluid bolus. CONCLUSIONS: Echocardiography in sepsis was not associated with a reduction in 28-day mortality based on observational data. These findings do not negate the utility of echo in cases of diagnostic uncertainty or inadequate response to initial treatment.

Enteral nutrition in septic shock: a call for a paradigm shift.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to identify contemporary evidence evaluating enteral nutrition in patients with septic shock, outline risk factors for enteral feeding intolerance (EFI), describe the conundrum of initiating enteral nutrition in patients with septic shock, appraise current EFI definitions, and identify bedside monitors for guiding enteral nutrition therapy. RECENT FINDINGS: The NUTRIREA-2 and NUTRIREA-3 trial results have better informed the dose of enteral nutrition in critically ill patients with circulatory shock. In both trials, patients with predominant septic shock randomized to receive early standard-dose nutrition had more gastrointestinal complications. Compared to other contemporary RCTs that included patients with circulatory shock, patients in the NUTRIREA-2 and NUTRIREA-3 trials had higher bowel ischemia rates, were sicker, and received full-dose enteral nutrition while receiving high baseline dose of vasopressor. These findings suggest severity of illness, vasopressor dose, and enteral nutrition dose impact outcomes. SUMMARY: The provision of early enteral nutrition preserves gut barrier functions; however, these benefits are counterbalanced by potential complications of introducing luminal nutrients into a hypo-perfused gut, including bowel ischemia. Findings from the NUTRIREA2 and NUTRIREA-3 trials substantiate a 'less is more' enteral nutrition dose strategy during the early acute phase of critical illness. In the absence of bedside tools to guide the initiation and advancement of enteral nutrition in patients with septic shock, the benefit of introducing enteral nutrition on preserving gut barrier function must be weighed against the risk of harm by considering dose of vasopressor, dose of enteral nutrition, and severity of illness.

Resuscitating the macro- vs. microcirculation in septic shock.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review summarizes current literature about the relationships between macro and microcirculation and their practical clinical implications in children with septic shock. RECENT FINDINGS: Current evidence from experimental and clinical observational studies in children and adults with septic shock reveals that the response to treatment and resuscitation is widely variable. Furthermore, there is a loss of hemodynamic coherence, as resuscitation-induced improvement in macrocirculation (systemic hemodynamic parameters) does not necessarily result in a parallel improvement in the microcirculation. Therefore, patient-tailored monitoring is essential in order to adjust treatment requirements during resuscitation in septic shock. Optimal monitoring must integrate macrocirculation (heart rate, blood pressure, cardiac output, and ultrasound images), microcirculation (videomicroscopy parameters and capillary refill time) and cellular metabolism (lactic acid, central venous blood oxygen saturation, and difference of central venous to arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure). SUMMARY: There is a dire need for high-quality studies to assess the relationships between macrocirculation, microcirculation and tissue metabolism in children with septic shock. The development of reliable and readily available microcirculation and tissue perfusion biomarkers (other than lactic acid) is also necessary to improve monitoring and treatment adjustment in such patients.

High adsorption capacity of hemoperfusion on imipenem in critically ill patients with septic shock: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by an excessive host response to infection, manifested by elevated levels of inflammatory cytokines. At present, the use of hemoperfusion to remove inflammatory cytokines from the bloodstream has been expanding. Meanwhile, the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics characteristics of antibiotics in critically ill patients may be impacted by hemoperfusion. CASE PRESENTATION: The patient was a 69-year-old male with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. When admitted to the ICU, Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome (MODS) appeared within 48 h, and he was suspected of septic shock due to acute granulocytopenia and significantly increased procalcitonin. Broad-spectrum antibiotics imipenem was administered according to Sepsis 3.0 bundle and hemoperfusion lasting 4 h with a neutron-macroporous resin device (HA-380, Jafron, China) five times was conducted to lower the extremely high value of serum inflammatory factors. Blood samples were collected to measure imipenem plasma concentration to investigate the effect of hemoperfusion quantitatively. This study showed that 4 h of hemoperfusion had a good adsorption ability on inflammatory factors and could remove about 75.2% of imipenem. CONCLUSIONS: This case demonstrated the high adsorption capacity of hemoperfusion on imipenem in critically ill patients. It implies a timely imipenem supplement is required, especially before hemoperfusion.

Protocolized reduction of non-resuscitation fluids versus usual care in septic shock patients (REDUSE): a randomized multicentre feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Non-resuscitation fluids constitute the majority of fluid administered for septic shock patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). This multicentre, randomized, feasibility trial was conducted to test the hypothesis that a restrictive protocol targeting non-resuscitation fluids reduces the overall volume administered compared with usual care. METHODS: Adults with septic shock in six Swedish ICUs were randomized within 12 h of ICU admission to receive either protocolized reduction of non-resuscitation fluids or usual care. The primary outcome was the total volume of fluid administered within three days of inclusion. RESULTS: Median (IQR) total volume of fluid in the first three days, was 6008 ml (interquartile range [IQR] 3960-8123) in the restrictive fluid group (n = 44), and 9765 ml (IQR 6804-12,401) in the control group (n = 48); corresponding to a Hodges-Lehmann median difference of 3560 ml [95% confidence interval 1614-5302]; p < 0.001). Outcome data on all-cause mortality, days alive and free of mechanical ventilation and acute kidney injury or ischemic events in the ICU within 90 days of inclusion were recorded in 98/98 (100%), 95/98 (98%) and 95/98 (98%) of participants respectively. Cognition and health-related quality of life at six months were recorded in 39/52 (75%) and 41/52 (79%) of surviving participants, respectively. Ninety out of 134 patients (67%) of eligible patients were randomized, and 15/98 (15%) of the participants experienced at least one protocol violation. CONCLUSION: Protocolized reduction of non-resuscitation fluids in patients with septic shock resulted in a large decrease in fluid administration compared with usual care. A trial using this design to test if reducing non-resuscitation fluids improves outcomes is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05249088, 18 February 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05249088.

Vascular Reactivity Index as an Effective Predictor of Mortality in Patients With Septic Shock: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a serious complication that occurs after trauma, burns, and infections, and it is an important cause of death in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Despite many new measures being proposed for sepsis treatment, its mortality rate remains high; sepsis has become a serious threat to human health, and there is an urgent need to carry out in-depth clinical research related to sepsis. In recent years, it has been found that septic shock-induced vasoplegia is a result of vascular hyporesponsiveness to vasopressors. Therefore, this study intended to establish an objective formula related to vasoplegia that can be used to assess the prognosis of patients and guide clinical treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from 106 septic shock patients admitted to the ICU of Jining No. 1 People's Hospital from January 2020 to December 2022. The patients were divided into mortality and survival groups based on 28-day survival, and hemodynamics were monitored by the pulse index continuous cardiac output system. The dose and duration of vasopressors, major hemodynamic parameters, lactic acid (Lac) levels, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were recorded within 48 h of hospital admission. Multifactorial logistic regression was used to analyze the independent risk factors affecting the prognosis of patients, and the predictive value of the vascular response index (VRI) was analyzed by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. RESULTS: The differences between the survival and mortality groups in terms of age, sex ratio, body weight, ICU length of stay, distribution of infection sites, underlying disease conditions, baseline Lac levels, and some hemodynamic parameters were not statistically significant (P > .05). The results of multifactorial logistic regression showed that the admission Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, Lac level at 24 h of treatment, maximal vasoactive inotropic score at 24 h (VISmax24), maximal vasoactive inotropic score at 48 h (VISmax48), and VRI were independent risk factors affecting 28-day mortality. Within 48 h of receiving vasopressor therapy, the VRI was lower in the mortality group than in the survival group. The area under the ROC curve for the VRI was 0.86, and the best cutoff value of the VRI for predicting 28-day mortality was 32.50 (YI = 0.80), with a sensitivity of 0.90, a specificity of 0.90, and a better prediction of mortality than the other indicators. CONCLUSIONS: The VRI is a good predictor of mortality in patients with septic shock, and a lower VRI indicates more severe vasoplegia, poorer prognosis, and higher mortality in patients with septic shock.

How to Survive Sepsis: Patient Testimonial.

Leaving university I started working for the Belgian National Radio as a journalist. I used to travel a lot and produce radio features about life abroad and how people all over the world dealt with the different challenges in society. A privileged job that I enjoyed doing for many years. In the meantime, I got married and became a mother of two sons. Nothing to worry about, so it seemed, until January 30, 2009. I had been fighting the symptoms of flu for some days. Instead of recovering, I began to feel worse and worse: I had a high fever, was asleep most of the time, could barely eat or drink, and had to cough a lot. The general practitioner sent me to hospital. A few hours later, I had to be reanimated. It was a close call: I was infected by the Streptococcus pyogenes bacteria. My blood started thickening, my organs stopped functioning, and I went into a septic shock, followed by a cardiac arrest. I was successfully reanimated, but still not stable. For 10 days, I was fighting to survive at the intensive care unit (ICU), with several cardiac arrests and reanimations, some of which were long-lasting. The Head of the ICU informed my husband that there was less than 5% chance to survive and if so, he could not predict what kind of damage there would be: the amount of drugs that I had been given, including noradrenaline, was so extremely high, that it became very unclear how my body would respond to it. And if, as by miracle, I would survive: what kind of damage would there be? Physical? Mental? Physical and mental? No specialist could answer those questions. But both the health care professionals and my family fought to keep me alive.

Management of Sepsis in the First 24 Hours: Bundles of Care and Individualized Approach.

Early diagnosis and prompt management are essential to enhance the outcomes of patients with sepsis and septic shock. Over the past two decades, evidence-based guidelines have guided appropriate treatment and recommended the implementation of a bundle strategy to deliver fundamental treatments within the initial hours of care. Shortly after its introduction, the implementation of a bundle strategy has led to a substantial decrease in mortality rates across various health care settings. The primary advantage of these bundles is their universality, making them applicable to all patients with sepsis. However, this same quality also represents their primary disadvantage as it fails to account for the significant heterogeneity within the septic patient population. Recently, the individualization of treatments included in the bundle has been suggested as a potential strategy for further improving the prognosis of patients with sepsis. New strategies for the early identification of microorganisms and their resistance patterns, advanced knowledge of antibiotic kinetics in critically ill patients, more conservative fluid therapy in specific patient populations, and early use of alternative vasopressors to catecholamines, as well as tailored source control based on patient conditions and site of infection, are potential approaches to personalize initial care for specific subgroups of patients. These innovative methodologies have the potential to improve the management of septic shock. However, their implementation in clinical practice should be guided by solid evidence. Therefore, it is imperative that future research evaluate the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of these strategies.

Lung ultrasound-guided fluid resuscitation in neonatal septic shock: A randomized controlled trial.

This randomized controlled trial aimed to determine whether lung ultrasound-guided fluid resuscitation improves the clinical outcomes of neonates with septic shock. Seventy-two patients were randomly assigned to undergo treatment with lung ultrasound-guided fluid resuscitation (LUGFR), or with usual fluid resuscitation (Control) in the first 6 h since the start of the sepsis treatment. The primary study outcome was 14-day mortality after randomization. Fourteen-day mortalities in the two groups were not significantly different (LUGFR group, 13.89%; control group, 16.67%; p = 0.76; hazard ratio 0.81 [95% CI 0.27-2.50]). The LUGFR group experienced shorter length of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) stays (21 vs. 26 days, p = 0.04) and hospital stays (32 vs. 39 days, p = 0.01), and less fluid was used in the first 6 h (77 vs. 106 mL/kg, p = 0.02). Further, our study found that ultrasound-guided fluid resuscitation can significantly reduce the incidence of acute kidney injury (25% vs. 47.2%, p = 0.05) and intracranial hemorrhage (grades I-II) within 72 h (13.9% vs. 36.1%, p = 0.03). However, no significant difference was found in the resolution of shock within 1 h or 6 h, use of mechanical ventilation or vasopressor support, time to achieve lactate level < 2 mmol/L, and the number of participants developing hepatomegaly in the first 6 h. CONCLUSION: Lung ultrasound is a noninvasive and convenient tool for predicting fluid overload in neonatal septic shock. Fluid resuscitation guided by lung ultrasound can shorten the length of hospital and NICU stays, reduce the amount of fluid used in the first 6 h, and reduce the risk of acute kidney injury and intracranial hemorrhage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital: 2021-IIT-156-EK, date of registration: November 13, 2021. And ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06144463 (retrospectively registered). WHAT IS KNOWN: • Excessive fluid resuscitation in neonates with septic shock had worse outcomes. WHAT IS NEW: • Lung ultrasound should be routinely used to guide fluid resuscitation in neonatal septic shock.

Echocardiographic characteristics in neonates with septic shock.

Clinical parameters used for hemodynamic assessment and titration of vasopressor therapy in neonates with septic shock have several limitations. Functional echocardiography is an emerging tool for bedside assessment of cardiac function and may be useful for diagnosis of shock and assessing the response to therapy. Data regarding echocardiographic parameters in neonates with shock is lacking. This prospective observational study was conducted in a Level III NICU with the primary objective of comparing echocardiographic characteristics of neonates with septic shock at diagnosis, following fluid boluses, and after maximum inotropic support [A1]. Additionally, we compared these characteristics with those of healthy stable neonates who were gestation and postnatal age-matched. A total of 36 neonates with septic shock and 30 gestation and postnatal age-matched controls were enrolled. The mean (SD) gestation and birth weight of neonates with septic shock were 30.6 (4.0) weeks and 1538 (728) g, respectively. Gram-negative bacilli constituted 78.9% of all isolates. At presentation, there was no significant difference between neonates with shock and controls in terms of ventricular outputs, shortening fraction, ratio of early to late diastolic trans-mitral flow velocity, and myocardial performance indices. The distensibility index of inferior vena cava was higher in neonates with shock compared to controls, (17% vs 10%, (p < 0.01)). Left ventricular output was 209 (92) and 227 (102) ml/kg/min (p = 0.53) and right ventricular output was 427 (203) and 459 (227) ml/kg/min, (p = 0.03), respectively, before and after inotropic therapy.     Conclusion: Echocardiographic parameters may not differentiate neonates with septic shock from hemodynamically stable neonates. Neonates with shock associated with predominantly gram-negative sepsis are not able to augment cardiac functions, either at the onset or after administration of inotropes.      Trial registration: (CTRI/2017/12/010766). What is known: • For neonates with shock, echocardiography is becoming increasingly popular as an objective method of evaluating hemodynamics. • In healthy preterm neonate, cardiac output has been known to increase in response to altered hemodynamics during states of increased oxygen demand. What is new: •  In the setting of septic shock induced by gram-negative organisms, echocardiographic parameters are less likely to assist in the assessment of the response to vasoactive agents. Cytokines, induced by gram-negative organisms, may alter adrenoreceptors in myocardium and vasculature.

The efficacy and safety of continuous blood purification in neonates with septic shock and acute kidney injury: a two-center retrospective study.

To investigate the efficacy and safety of continuous blood purification (CBP) in neonates with septic shock and acute kidney injury (AKI). This retrospective study was conducted at two tertiary care children's hospitals between January 2015 and May 2022. A total of 26 neonates with septic shock and AKI were included in this study, with a mortality rate of 50%. Fourteen neonates (53.8%) received continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration, and 12 (46.2%) received continuous veno-venous hemofiltration. Compared with the indices before CBP, urine output increased 12 h after CBP initiation (P = 0.003) and serum creatinine decreased (P = 0.019). After 24 h of CBP, blood urea nitrogen had decreased (P = 0.006) and mean arterial pressure had increased (P = 0.007). At the end of CBP, the vasoactive-inotropic score and blood lactate were decreased (P = 0.035 and 0.038, respectively) and PH was increased (P = 0.015). Thrombocytopenia was the most common complication of CBP.  Conclusion: CBP can efficiently maintain hemodynamic stability, improve renal function, and has good safety in neonates with septic shock and AKI. However, the mortality rate remains high, and whether CBP improves the prognosis of neonates with septic shock and AKI remains unclear. What is Known: • Over 50% of children with septic shock have severe AKI, of which 21.6% required CBP. • The clinical application of CBP in septic shock has attracted increasing attention. What is New: • CBP can efficiently maintain hemodynamic stability, improve renal function, and has good safety in neonates with septic shock and AKI. • The mortality rate in neonates with septic shock and AKI receiving CBP remains high.

Fluid resuscitation in children with severe infection and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This study aimed to evaluate the current evidence on various aspects of fluid therapy such as type, volume, and timing of fluid bolus administration in children with septic shock. Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials including children less than 18 years of age admitted to the pediatric emergency and intensive care unit with severe infection and shock requiring fluid resuscitation. The intervention included balanced crystalloids (BC) vs normal saline (NS), colloids vs NS, restricted vs liberal fluid bolus, and slow vs fast fluid bolus. The primary outcome was mortality rate. Of the 219 citations retrieved, 12 trials (3526 children with severe infection with or without malaria and shock) were included. The pooled results found no significant difference in the mortality rate between groups comparing balanced crystalloids (BC) vs normal saline (NS), colloids vs NS, restricted vs liberal fluid bolus, and slow vs fast fluid bolus. The risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) was significantly less in the BC group compared to the NS group. The certainty of evidence for mortality was of "moderate certainty" in the BC vs NS group, and was of "very low certainty" for the other two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis found no significant difference in the mortality rate between the types of resuscitation fluid, and their speed or volume of administration. However, a significantly decreased risk of AKI was found in the BC group. More evidence is needed regarding the speed and volume of administration of fluid boluses in critically ill children.Prospero registration: CRD42020209066. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Balanced crystalloids (BC) may be better than normal saline (NS) for fluid resuscitation in critically ill children. WHAT IS NEW: • BC are better than NS for fluid resuscitation in critically ill children as they decrease AKI and hyperchloremia.

Perfusion Index Variations in Children With Septic Shock: Single-Center Observational Cohort Study in India.

OBJECTIVES: To study in children with septic shock: 1) variation in peripheral perfusion index (PI), which is a derived variable from pulse oximetry; 2) correlation between PI and lactate concentration; and 3) exploratory diagnostic evaluation between mortality and PI. DESIGN: Prospective observational study (from October 2018 to March 2020). SETTING: Pediatric emergency department and PICU of a tertiary hospital in India. PATIENTS: Children (1 mo to 16 yr old) with septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data collected included demographic, clinical, laboratory, and outcome-related variables. Hemodynamic variables like heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and PI, along with serum lactate were recorded at specified intervals. A total of 112 children with septic shock were recruited, with median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 50 (IQR 12,118.5) months and 65 of 112 (58%) were male children. Overall mortality was 25 of 112 (22%). At admission, the median PI was 0.6 (IQR -0.30, 0.93), and we used PI less than or equal to 0.6 to define a "critical PI." Of 61 children with critical PI at admission, 26 of 61 increased above this threshold by 6 hours. We observed a negative correlation between PI and lactate, at admission ( r = -0.27; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.08; p = 0.006) and at 6 hours ( r = -0.21; 95% CI, -0.39 to -0.02; p = 0.03). In the exploratory analysis, a PI cutoff of less than or equal to 0.6 at 6 hours had area under the receiver operating curve of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.60-0.88). That is, with a 70% sensitivity and 81% specificity for mortality, the performance of such a test in our population (pre-to-post-test probability) for mortality would be 0.22-0.51. CONCLUSIONS: We have used pulse oximetry-derived PI in children presenting with septic shock and found that the value is negatively correlated with a rise in serum lactate concentration. However, the utility of using a critical threshold value in PI (≤ 0.6) after 6 hours of treatment to be indicative of later mortality has considerable uncertainty.

Association of an In-Hospital Desirability of Outcomes Ranking Scale With Postdischarge Health-Related Quality of Life: A Secondary Analysis of the Life After Pediatric Sepsis Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) scale for use in children with septic shock and determine its correlation with a decrease in 3-month postadmission health-related quality of life (HRQL) or death. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the Life After Pediatric Sepsis Evaluation prospective study. SETTING: Twelve U.S. PICUs, 2013-2017. PATIENTS: Children (1 mo-18 yr) with septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We applied a 7-point pediatric critical care (PCC) DOOR scale: 7: death; 6: extracorporeal life support; 5: supported by life-sustaining therapies (continuous renal replacement therapy, vasoactive, or invasive ventilation); 4: hospitalized with or 3: without organ dysfunction; 2: discharged with or 1: without new morbidity to patients by assigning the highest applicable score on specific days post-PICU admission. We analyzed Spearman rank-order correlations (95% CIs) between proximal outcomes (PCC-DOOR scale on days 7, 14, and 21, ventilator-free days, cumulative 28-day Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 (PELOD-2) scores, and PICU-free days) and 3-month decrease in HRQL or death. HRQL was measured by Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory 4.0 or Functional Status II-R for patients with developmental delay. Patients who died were assigned the worst possible HRQL score. PCC-DOOR scores were applied to 385 patients, median age 6 years (interquartile range 2, 13) and 177 (46%) with a complex chronic condition(s). Three-month outcomes were available for 245 patients (64%) and 42 patients (17%) died. PCC-DOOR scale on days 7, 14, and 21 demonstrated fair correlation with the primary outcome (-0.42 [-0.52, -0.31], -0.47 [-0.56, -0.36], and -0.52 [-0.61, -0.42]), similar to the correlations for cumulative 28-day PELOD-2 scores (-0.51 [-0.59, -0.41]), ventilator-free days (0.43 [0.32, 0.53]), and PICU-free days (0.46 [0.35, 0.55]). CONCLUSIONS: The PCC-DOOR scale is a feasible, practical outcome for pediatric sepsis trials and demonstrates fair correlation with decrease in HRQL or death at 3 months.

Resuscitation With Vitamin C, Hydrocortisone, and Thiamin in Children With Septic Shock: A Multicenter Randomized Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: Adjunctive therapy with vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamin has been evaluated in adults, but randomized controlled trial (RCT) data in children are lacking. We aimed to test the feasibility of vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamin in PICU patients with septic shock; and to explore whether the intervention is associated with increased survival free of organ dysfunction. DESIGN: Open-label parallel, pilot RCT multicenter study. The primary endpoint was feasibility. Clinical endpoints included survival free of organ dysfunction censored at 28 days and nine secondary outcomes, shock reversal, and two proxy measures of intervention efficacy. SETTING: Six PICUs in Australia and New Zealand. PATIENTS: Children of age between 28 days and 18 years requiring vasoactive drugs for septic shock between August 2019 and March 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive 1 mg/kg hydrocortisone every 6 hours (q6h), 30 mg/kg ascorbic acid q6h, and 4 mg/kg thiamin every 12 hours (n = 27), or standard septic shock management (n = 33). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sixty of 77 (78%) eligible patients consented with 91% of approached parents providing consent. The median time from randomization to intervention was 44 (interquartile range [IQR] 29-120) min. Seventy of seventy-seven (28%) patients had received IV steroids before randomization. Median survival alive and free of organ dysfunction was 20.0 (0.0-26.0) days in the intervention and 21.0 (0.0-25.0) days in the standard care group. Median PICU length of stay was 5.3 (2.5-11.3) days in the intervention group versus 6.9 (3.0-11.5) days in the control group. Shock reversal occurred at a median of 35.2 (14.6-101.2) hours in the intervention group versus 47.3 (22.4-106.8) hours in the standard care group (median difference -12 hr; 95% CI, -56.8 to 32.7 hr). CONCLUSIONS: In children requiring vasopressors for septic shock, a protocol comparing adjunctive treatment with high-dose vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamin versus standard care was feasible. These findings assist in making modifications to the trial protocol to enable a better-designed larger RCT.

Restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy in adult ICU patients with septic shock-Bayesian analyses of the CLASSIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The CLASSIC trial assessed the effects of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. This pre-planned study provides a probabilistic interpretation and evaluates heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE). METHODS: We analysed mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs) and days alive without life-support within 90 days using Bayesian models with weakly informative priors. HTE on mortality was assessed according to five baseline variables: disease severity, vasopressor dose, lactate levels, creatinine values and IV fluid volumes given before randomisation. RESULTS: The absolute difference in mortality was 0.2%-points (95% credible interval: -5.0 to 5.4; 47% posterior probability of benefit [risk difference <0.0%-points]) with restrictive IV fluid. The posterior probabilities of benefits with restrictive IV fluid were 72% for SAEs, 52% for SARs and 61% for days alive without life-support. The posterior probabilities of no clinically important differences (absolute risk difference ≤2%-points) between the groups were 56% for mortality, 49% for SAEs, 90% for SARs and 38% for days alive without life-support. There was 97% probability of HTE for previous IV fluid volumes analysed continuously, that is, potentially relatively lower mortality of restrictive IV fluids with higher previous IV fluids. No substantial evidence of HTE was found in the other analyses. CONCLUSION: We could not rule out clinically important effects of restrictive IV fluid therapy on mortality, SAEs or days alive without life-support, but substantial effects on SARs were unlikely. IV fluids given before randomisation might interact with IV fluid strategy.

Effects of IV fluid restriction according to site-specific intensity of standard fluid treatment-protocol.

BACKGROUND: Variation in usual practice in fluid trials assessing lower versus higher volumes may affect overall comparisons. To address this, we will evaluate the effects of heterogeneity in treatment intensity in the Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care trial. This will reflect the effects of differences in site-specific intensities of standard fluid treatment due to local practice preferences while considering participant characteristics. METHODS: We will assess the effects of heterogeneity in treatment intensity across one primary (all-cause mortality) and three secondary outcomes (serious adverse events or reactions, days alive without life support and days alive out of hospital) after 90 days. We will classify sites based on the site-specific intensity of standard fluid treatment, defined as the mean differences in observed versus predicted intravenous fluid volumes in the first 24 h in the standard-fluid group while accounting for differences in participant characteristics. Predictions will be made using a machine learning model including 22 baseline predictors using the extreme gradient boosting algorithm. Subsequently, sites will be grouped into fluid treatment intensity subgroups containing at least 100 participants each. Subgroups differences will be assessed using hierarchical Bayesian regression models with weakly informative priors. We will present the full posterior distributions of relative (risk ratios and ratios of means) and absolute differences (risk differences and mean differences) in each subgroup. DISCUSSION: This study will provide data on the effects of heterogeneity in treatment intensity while accounting for patient characteristics in critically ill adult patients with septic shock. REGISTRATIONS: The European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT): 2018-000404-42, ClinicalTrials. gov: NCT03668236.