Echocardiogram-guided resuscitation versus early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of septic shock: a randomized, controlled, feasibility trial

Focused Cardiac Ultrasound Findings of Fluid Tolerance and Fluid Resuscitation in Septic Shock

OBJECTIVES

Compliance with the fluid bonus component of the SEP-1 (severe sepsis and septic shock management) bundle remains poor due to concerns for iatrogenic harm from fluid overload. We sought to assess whether patients who received focused cardiac ultrasound (FCU) and were found to be fluid tolerant (FT) were more likely to receive the recommended 30 mL/kg fluid bolus within 3 hours of sepsis identification.

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational cohort study.

SETTING

University-affiliated, tertiary-care hospital in the United States.

PATIENTS

Emergency department patients presenting with septic shock from 2018 to 2021. The primary exposure was receipt of FCU with identification of fluid tolerance 3 hours from onset of septic shock.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Two hundred ninety-two of 1,024 patients with septic shock received FCU within 3 hours of sepsis onset. One hundred seventy-seven were determined to be FT. One hundred fifteen patients were determined to have poor fluid tolerance (pFT). FT patients were more likely to reach the recommended 30 mL/kg fluid bolus amount compared with pFT (FT 52.0% vs. pFT 31.3%, risk difference: 20.7%, [95% CI, 9.4-31.9]). Patients who did not receive FCU met the bolus requirement 34.3% of the time. FT patients received more fluid within 3 hours (FT 2,271 mL vs. pFT 1,646 mL, mean difference 625 mL [95% CI, 330-919]). Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between fluid tolerance FCU findings and compliance with 30 mL/kg bolus after adjustment for patient characteristics and markers of hemodynamic instability. FT with associated with a higher likelihood of meeting bolus requirement (odds ratio 2.17 [1.52-3.12]).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients found to be FT by FCU were more likely to receive the recommended 30 mL/kg bolus in the SEP-1 bundle when compared with patients found with pFT or those that did not receive FCU. There was no difference between groups in 28-day mortality, vasopressor requirement, or need for mechanical ventilation.

Lower vs Higher Fluid Volumes in Adult Patients With Sepsis: An Updated Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

IV fluids are recommended for adults with sepsis. However, the optimal strategy for IV fluid management in sepsis is unknown, and clinical equipoise exists.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Do lower vs higher fluid volumes improve patient-important outcomes in adult patients with sepsis?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We updated a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials assessing lower vs higher IV fluid volumes in adult patients with sepsis. The coprimary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. We followed the recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Primary conclusions were based on trials with low risk of bias if available.

RESULTS

We included 13 trials (N = 4,006) with four trials (n = 3,385) added to this update. The meta-analysis of all-cause mortality in eight trials with low risk of bias showed a relative risk of 0.99 (97% CI, 0.89-1.10; moderate certainty evidence). Six trials with predefined definitions of serious adverse events showed a relative risk of 0.95 (97% CI, 0.83-1.07; low certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life was not reported.

INTERPRETATION

Among adult patients with sepsis, lower IV fluid volumes probably result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality compared with higher IV fluid volumes, but the interpretation is limited by imprecision in the estimate, which does not exclude potential benefit or harm. Similarly, the evidence suggests lower IV fluid volumes result in little to no difference in serious adverse events. No trials reported on health-related quality of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO; No.: CRD42022312572; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Evolving Management Practices for Early Sepsis-induced Hypoperfusion: A Narrative Review

Sepsis causes significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Resuscitation is a cornerstone of management. This review covers five areas of evolving practice in the management of early sepsis-induced hypoperfusion: fluid resuscitation volume, timing of vasopressor initiation, resuscitation targets, route of vasopressor administration, and use of invasive blood pressure monitoring. For each topic, we review the seminal evidence, discuss the evolution of practice over time, and highlight questions for additional research. Intravenous fluids are a core component of early sepsis resuscitation. However, with growing concerns about the harms of fluid, practice is evolving toward smaller-volume resuscitation, which is often paired with earlier vasopressor initiation. Large trials of fluid-restrictive, vasopressor-early strategies are providing more information about the safety and potential benefit of these approaches. Lowering blood pressure targets is a means to prevent fluid overload and reduce exposure to vasopressors; mean arterial pressure targets of 60-65 mm Hg appear to be safe, at least in older patients. With the trend toward earlier vasopressor initiation, the need for central administration of vasopressors has been questioned, and peripheral vasopressor use is increasing, although it is not universally accepted. Similarly, although guidelines suggest the use of invasive blood pressure monitoring with arterial catheters in patients receiving vasopressors, blood pressure cuffs are less invasive and often sufficient. Overall, the management of early sepsis-induced hypoperfusion is evolving toward fluid-sparing and less-invasive strategies. However, many questions remain, and additional data are needed to further optimize our approach to resuscitation.

Early Restrictive or Liberal Fluid Management for Sepsis-Induced Hypotension

BACKGROUND

Intravenous fluids and vasopressor agents are commonly used in early resuscitation of patients with sepsis, but comparative data for prioritizing their delivery are limited.

METHODS

In an unblinded superiority trial conducted at 60 U.S. centers, we randomly assigned patients to either a restrictive fluid strategy (prioritizing vasopressors and lower intravenous fluid volumes) or a liberal fluid strategy (prioritizing higher volumes of intravenous fluids before vasopressor use) for a 24-hour period. Randomization occurred within 4 hours after a patient met the criteria for sepsis-induced hypotension refractory to initial treatment with 1 to 3 liters of intravenous fluid. We hypothesized that all-cause mortality before discharge home by day 90 (primary outcome) would be lower with a restrictive fluid strategy than with a liberal fluid strategy. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 1563 patients were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Resuscitation therapies that were administered during the 24-hour protocol period differed between the two groups; less intravenous fluid was administered in the restrictive fluid group than in the liberal fluid group (difference of medians, -2134 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2318 to -1949), whereas the restrictive fluid group had earlier, more prevalent, and longer duration of vasopressor use. Death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 occurred in 109 patients (14.0%) in the restrictive fluid group and in 116 patients (14.9%) in the liberal fluid group (estimated difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.4 to 2.6; P = 0.61); 5 patients in the restrictive fluid group and 4 patients in the liberal fluid group had their data censored (lost to follow-up). The number of reported serious adverse events was similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CLOVERS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434028.).

A Study to Compare Ultrasound-guided and Clinically Guided Fluid Management in Children with Septic Shock

Background

To evaluate the role of ultrasound during initial fluid resuscitation along with clinical guidance in reducing the incidence of fluid overload on day 3 in children with septic shock.

Materials and methods

It was a prospective, parallel limb open-labeled randomized controlled superiority trial done in the PICU of a government-aided tertiary care hospital in Eastern India. Patient enrolment took place between June 2021 and March 2022. Fifty-six children aged between 1 month and 12 years, with proven or suspected septic shock, were randomized to receive either ultrasound-guided or clinically guided fluid boluses (1:1 ratio) and subsequently followed up for various outcomes. The primary outcome was frequency of fluid overload on day 3 of admission. The treatment group received ultrasound-guided fluid boluses along with the clinical guidance and the control group received the same but without ultrasound guidance upto 60 mL/kg of fluid boluses.

Results

The frequency of fluid overload on day 3 of admission was significantly lower in the ultrasound group (25% vs 62%, p = 0.012) as was the median (IQR) cumulative fluid balance percentage on day 3 [6.5 (3.3-10.3) vs 11.3 (5.4-17.5), p = 0.02]. The amount of fluid bolus administered was also significantly lower by ultrasound [median 40 (30-50) vs 50 (40-80) mL/kg, p = 0.003]. Resuscitation time was shorter in the ultrasound group (13.4 ± 5.6 vs 20.5 ± 8 h, p = 0.002).

Conclusion

Ultrasound-guided fluid boluses were found to be significantly better than clinically guided therapy, in preventing fluid overload and its associated complications in children with septic shock. These factors make ultrasound a potentially useful tool for resuscitation of children with septic shock in the PICU.

How to cite this article

Kaiser RS, Sarkar M, Raut SK, Mahapatra MK, Uz Zaman MA, Roy O, et al. A Study to Compare Ultrasound-guided and Clinically Guided Fluid Management in Children with Septic Shock. Indian J Crit Care Med 2023;27(2):139-146.

The Frequency of POCUS in the Treatment of Sepsis in the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) is ubiquitous in the modern emergency department (ED). POCUS can be helpful in the management of patients with sepsis in many ways including determining the cause of sepsis, assessing fluid status, guiding resuscitation, and performing procedures. However, the frequency and manner in which POCUS is incorporated into the care of septic patients in community emergency medicine remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate POCUS frequency and exam types used in the care of patients with sepsis in two community EDs in Southern California. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 5,264 ED visits with a diagnosis of sepsis at two community emergency departments between January 2014 and December 2018. Patients 18 years or older who were diagnosed with sepsis and had either lactate ≥ 4 mmol, a documented mean arterial pressure (MAP) < 65 mmHg, or a systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 90 mmHg were included. Charts were reviewed to determine if POCUS was used during the ED evaluation. Primary outcomes were frequency of POCUS use in the cohort, change in POCUS use over the study period, and the types of exams performed. Results: POCUS was used in 21% of encounters meeting inclusion criteria and was positively correlated with ED arrival year (OR = 1.09; CI 1.04, 1.15; p=0.001). The most common POCUS exam was ultrasound-guided central line placement, with the next most common exams being cardiac, followed by inferior vena cava (IVC). Only the frequency of cardiac, IVC, lung and Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) exams were found to increase significantly over the study period. Conclusions: Total POCUS use increased significantly in this cohort of septic patients over the study period due to more cardiac, IVC, lung and FAST exams being performed.

POCUS in dyspnea, nontraumatic hypotension, and shock; a systematic review of existing evidence

BACKGROUND

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been adopted as a powerful tool in acute medicine. This systematic review aims to critically appraise the existing literature on point-of-care ultrasound in respiratory or circulatory deterioration.

METHODS

Original studies on POCUS and dyspnea, nontraumatic hypotension, and shock from March 2002 until March 2022 were assessed in the PubMed and Embase Databases. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies using an established checklist.

RESULTS

We included 89 articles in this review. Point-of-care ultrasound in the initial workup increases the diagnostic accuracy in patients with dyspnea, nontraumatic hypotension and shock in the ED, ICU and medical ward setting. No improvement is found in patients with severe sepsis in the ICU setting. POCUS is capable of narrowing the differential diagnoses and is faster, and more feasible in the acute setting than other diagnostics available. Results on outcome measures are heterogenous. The quality of the included studies is considered low most of the times, mainly because of performance and selection bias and absence of a gold standard as the reference test.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that POCUS contributes to a higher diagnostic accuracy in dyspnea, nontraumatic hypotension, and shock. It aides in narrowing the differential diagnoses and shortening the time to correct diagnosis and effective treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRY

INPLASY; Registration number: INPLASY202220020; URL: https://inplasy.com/.

Application Value of Emergency Bedside Echocardiography in Early Warning of Acute and Severe Shock and Clinical Classification

Objective

A case-control study was conducted to explore the application value of emergency bedside echocardiography in early warning of acute and severe shock and clinical classification.

Methods

A total of 135 critically ill patients admitted to ICU from August 2019 to November 2020 were divided into shock group (n = 53) and nonshock group (n = 82) according to the occurrence of shock. The internal diameter index of inferior vena cava was measured and recorded by bedside ultrasound in patients with shock before and after treatment and in patients without shock. Shock index and inferior vena cava diameter deformation index (SCI) were calculated according to the results. The diagnostic time and curative effect of different ultrasonic examination methods for the types of shock were compared and analyzed.

Results

At admission, the maximum and minimum ventilation of inferior vena cava in patients without shock were higher than those in the shock group, and the internal diameter deformation index of inferior vena cava in the shock group was higher than that in the shock group (P < 0.05). In the shock group, IVCmax and IVCmin before and after treatment were higher than those before resuscitation, while SCI was lower than that before resuscitation. The results of ROC curve analysis showed that SCI and IVCmin were significantly better than IVCmax and IVCmin in predicting shock area and slightly better than IVCmin. There was significant difference in diagnosis time between the two groups (P < 0.05). The specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of emergency ultrasound diagnosis were lower than those of clinical diagnosis (P < 0.05). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of emergency ultrasound diagnosis were lower than those of clinical diagnosis (P < 0.05). The sensitivity and positive predictive value of the emergency ultrasound group were higher than those of the routine ultrasound group (P < 0.05). The diagnosis rate of shock type AUC in the emergency ultrasound group was 0.854, and the diagnostic value was high.

Conclusion

IVCmax, IVCmin, and SCI obtained by bedside ultrasound have certain clinical significance for the diagnosis and treatment of shock. Emergency bedside ultrasound examination and measurement of shock patients are helpful to quickly evaluate and identify the types of early shock.

Machines that save lives in the intensive care unit: the ultrasonography machine

This article highlights the ultrasonography machine as a machine that saves lives in the intensive care unit. We review its utility in the limited resource intensive care unit and some elements of machine design that are relevant to both the constrained operating environment and the well-resourced intensive care unit. As the ultrasonography machine can only save lives, if is operated by a competent intensivist; we discuss the challenges of training the frontline clinician to become competent in critical care ultrasonography followed by a review of research that supports its use.

When Minutes Matter: Rapid Infusion in Emergency Care

Purpose of Review

This review provides historical context and an update on recent advancements in volume resuscitation for circulatory shock. Emergency department providers who manage critically ill patients with undifferentiated shock will benefit from the insights of early pioneers and an overview of newer techniques which can be used to optimize resuscitation in the first minutes of care.

Recent Findings

Rapid infusion of fluids and blood products can be a life-saving intervention in the management of circulatory and hemorrhagic shock. Recent controversy over the role of fluid resuscitation in sepsis and trauma management has obscured the importance of early and rapid infusion of sufficient volume to restore circulation and improve organ perfusion. Evidence from high-quality studies demonstrates that rapid and early resuscitation improves patient outcomes.

Summary

Current practice standards, guidelines, and available literature support the rapid reversal of shock as a key priority in the treatment of hypotension from traumatic and non-traumatic conditions. An improved understanding of the physiologic rationale of rapid infusion and the timing, volume, and methods of fluid delivery will help clinicians improve care for critically ill patients presenting with shock.

Clinical Case

A 23-year-old male presents to the emergency department (ED) after striking a tree while riding an all-terrain vehicle. On arrival at the scene, first responders found an unconscious patient with an open skull fracture and a Glasgow coma scale score of 3. Bag-valve-mask (BVM) ventilation was initiated, and a semi-rigid cervical collar was placed prior to transport to your ED for stabilization while awaiting air transport to the nearest trauma center. You are the attending emergency medicine physician at a community ED staffed by two attending physicians, two physicians assistants, and six nurses covering 22 beds. On ED arrival, the patient has no spontaneous respiratory effort, and vital signs are as follows: pulse of 140 bpm, blood pressure of 65/30 mmHg, and oxygen saturation 85% while receiving BVM ventilation with 100% oxygen. He is bleeding profusely through a gauze dressing applied to the exposed dura. The prehospital team was unable to establish intravenous access. What are the management priorities for this patient in shock, and how should his hypotension best be addressed?

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Macrocirculatory and Microcirculatory Endpoints in Sepsis Resuscitation

Sepsis is a common disease process encountered by physicians. Sepsis can lead to septic shock, which carries a hospital mortality rate in excess of 40%. Although the Surviving Sepsis Guidelines recommend targeting a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mmHg and normalization of lactate, these endpoints do not necessarily result in tissue perfusion in states of shock. While MAP and lactate are commonly used markers in resuscitation, clinicians may be able to improve their resuscitation by broadening their assessment of the microcirculation, which more adequately reflects tissue perfusion. As such, in order to achieve a successful resuscitation, clinicians must optimize both macrocirculatory (MAP, cardiac output) and microcirculatory (proportion of perfused vessels, lactate, mottling, capillary refill time) endpoints. This review will summarize various macrocirculatory and microcirculatory markers of perfusion that can be used to guide the initial resuscitation of patients with sepsis.

Lower vs Higher Fluid Volumes During Initial Management of Sepsis: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

OBJECTIVE

IV fluids are recommended during the initial management of sepsis, but the quality of evidence is low, and clinical equipoise exists. We aimed to assess patient-important benefits and harms of lower vs higher fluid volumes in adult patients with sepsis.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomized clinical trials of IV fluid volume separation in adult patients with sepsis. We adhered to our published protocol; the Cochrane handbook; the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation statements. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), and quality of life.

RESULTS

We included nine trials (n = 637); all were published after 2015 and had an overall high risk of bias. We found no statistically significant difference between lower vs higher fluid volumes in all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69-1.10; I² = 0%; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.34-2.22) or SAEs (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78-1.05; I² = 0%; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.68-1.21). No trials reported on quality of life. We did not find differences in the secondary or exploratory outcomes. The quality of evidence was very low across all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, we found very low quantity and quality of evidence supporting the decision on the volumes of IV fluid therapy in adults with sepsis.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03668236; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.