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

Recent Data about the Use of Corticosteroids in Sepsis-Review of Recent Literature

Sepsis, characterized by life-threatening organ dysfunction due to a maladaptive host response to infection, and its more severe form, septic shock, pose significant global health challenges. The incidence of these conditions is increasing, highlighting the need for effective treatment strategies. This review explores the complex pathophysiology of sepsis, emphasizing the role of the endothelium and the therapeutic potential of corticosteroids. The endothelial glycocalyx, critical in maintaining vascular integrity, is compromised in sepsis, leading to increased vascular permeability and organ dysfunction. Corticosteroids have been used for over fifty years to treat severe infections, despite ongoing debate about their efficacy. Their immunosuppressive effects and the risk of exacerbating infections are significant concerns. The rationale for corticosteroid use in sepsis is based on their ability to modulate the immune response, promote cardiovascular stability, and potentially facilitate organ restoration. However, the evidence is mixed, with some studies suggesting benefits in terms of microcirculation and shock reversal, while others report no significant impact on mortality or organ dysfunction. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign provides cautious recommendations for their use. Emerging research highlights the importance of genomic and transcriptomic analyses in identifying patient subgroups that may benefit from corticosteroid therapy, suggesting a move toward personalized medicine in sepsis management. Despite potential benefits, the use of corticosteroids in sepsis requires careful consideration of individual patient risk profiles, and further research is needed to optimize their use and integrate genomic insights into clinical practice. This review underscores the complexity of sepsis treatment and the ongoing need for evidence-based approaches to improve patient outcomes.

Resuscitation With Early Adrenaline Infusion for Children With Septic Shock: A Randomized Pilot Trial

OBJECTIVES

In children with septic shock, guidelines recommend resuscitation with 40-60 mL/kg of fluid boluses, yet there is a lack of evidence to support this practice. We aimed to determine the feasibility of a randomized trial comparing early adrenaline infusion with standard fluid resuscitation in children with septic shock.

DESIGN

Open-label parallel randomized controlled, multicenter pilot study. The primary end point was feasibility; the exploratory clinical endpoint was survival free of organ dysfunction by 28 days.

SETTING

Four pediatric Emergency Departments in Queensland, Australia.

PATIENTS

Children between 28 days and 18 years old with septic shock.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive a continuous adrenaline infusion after 20 mL/kg fluid bolus resuscitation (n = 17), or standard care fluid resuscitation defined as delivery of 40 to 60 mL/kg fluid bolus resuscitation prior to inotrope commencement (n = 23).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Forty of 58 eligible patients (69%) were consented with a median age of 3.7 years (interquartile range [IQR], 0.9-12.1 yr). The median time from randomization to inotropes was 16 minutes (IQR, 12-26 min) in the intervention group, and 49 minutes (IQR, 29-63 min) in the standard care group. The median amount of fluid delivered during the first 24 hours was 0 mL/kg (IQR, 0-10.0 mL/kg) in the intervention group, and 20.0 mL/kg (14.6-28.6 mL/kg) in the standard group (difference, -20.0; 95% CI, -28.0 to -12.0). The number of days alive and free of organ dysfunction did not differ between the intervention and standard care groups, with a median of 27 days (IQR, 26-27 d) versus 26 days (IQR, 25-27 d). There were no adverse events reported associated with the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

In children with septic shock, a protocol comparing early administration of adrenaline versus standard care achieved separation between the study arms in relation to inotrope and fluid bolus use.