Annane Djillali, Vignon Philippe, Renault Alain, Bollaert Pierre-Edouard, Charpentier Claire, Martin Claude, Troché Gilles, Ricard Jean-Damien, Nitenberg Gérard, Papazian Laurent, Azoulay Elie, Bellissant Eric
Raymond Poincaré Hospital (AP-HP), University of Versailles Saint Quentin, PRES UniverSud, Paris, France.
Lancet. 2007 Aug 25;370(9588):676-84. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61344-0.
International guidelines for management of septic shock recommend that dopamine or norepinephrine are preferable to epinephrine. However, no large comparative trial has yet been done. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of norepinephrine plus dobutamine (whenever needed) with those of epinephrine alone in septic shock.
This prospective, multicentre, randomised, double-blind study was done in 330 patients with septic shock admitted to one of 19 participating intensive care units in France. Participants were assigned to receive epinephrine (n=161) or norepinephrine plus dobutamine (n=169), which were titrated to maintain mean blood pressure at 70 mm Hg or more. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148278.
There were no patients lost to follow-up; one patient withdrew consent after 3 days. At day 28, there were 64 (40%) deaths in the epinephrine group and 58 (34%) deaths in the norepinephrine plus dobutamine group (p=0.31; relative risk 0.86, 95% CI 0.65-1.14). There was no significant difference between the two groups in mortality rates at discharge from intensive care (75 [47%] deaths vs 75 [44%] deaths, p=0.69), at hospital discharge (84 [52%] vs 82 [49%], p=0.51), and by day 90 (84 [52%] vs 85 [50%], p=0.73), time to haemodynamic success (log-rank p=0.67), time to vasopressor withdrawal (log-rank p=0.09), and time course of SOFA score. Rates of serious adverse events were also similar.
There is no evidence for a difference in efficacy and safety between epinephrine alone and norepinephrine plus dobutamine for the management of septic shock.
脓毒性休克管理的国际指南推荐多巴胺或去甲肾上腺素优于肾上腺素。然而,尚未进行大规模的对比试验。我们旨在比较去甲肾上腺素加多巴酚丁胺(必要时使用)与单独使用肾上腺素治疗脓毒性休克的疗效和安全性。
这项前瞻性、多中心、随机、双盲研究在法国19个参与研究的重症监护病房之一收治的330例脓毒性休克患者中进行。参与者被分配接受肾上腺素(n = 161)或去甲肾上腺素加多巴酚丁胺(n = 169),根据需要进行滴定以维持平均血压在70mmHg或更高。主要结局是28天全因死亡率。分析采用意向性分析。该试验已在ClinicalTrials.gov注册,编号为NCT00148278。
没有患者失访;1例患者在3天后撤回同意。在第28天,肾上腺素组有64例(40%)死亡,去甲肾上腺素加多巴酚丁胺组有58例(34%)死亡(p = 0.31;相对风险0.86,95%CI 0.65 - 1.14)。两组在重症监护病房出院时的死亡率(75例[47%]死亡 vs 75例[44%]死亡,p = 0.69)、出院时(84例[52%] vs 82例[49%],p = 0.51)和第90天时(84例[52%] vs 85例[50%],p = 0.73)、血流动力学成功时间(对数秩检验p = 0.67)、血管升压药撤药时间(对数秩检验p = 0.09)以及序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分的时间进程方面均无显著差异。严重不良事件发生率也相似。
对于脓毒性休克的治疗,单独使用肾上腺素与去甲肾上腺素加多巴酚丁胺在疗效和安全性上没有差异的证据。