Hou Peter C, Filbin Michael R, Napoli Anthony, Feldman Joseph, Pang Peter S, Sankoff Jeffrey, Lo Bruce M, Dickey-White Howard, Birkhahn Robert H, Shapiro Nathan I
*Department of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts †Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts ‡Department of Emergency Medicine, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, Rhode Island §Department of Emergency Medicine, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, New Jersey ||Department of Emergency Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana ¶Department of Emergency Medicine, Denver General Hospital, Denver, Colorado #Department of Emergency Medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School/Sentara Norfolk General, Norfolk, Virginia **Department of Emergency Medicine, HMHP/Mercy Health, Northeast Ohio Medical University (NEOMED), Rootstown, Ohio ††Department of Emergency Medicine, New York Methodist Hospital, Brooklyn, New York ‡‡Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts §§The Center for Vascular Biology Research, Division of Molecular and Vascular Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Shock. 2016 Aug;46(2):132-8. doi: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000000564.
Fluid responsiveness is proposed as a physiology-based method to titrate fluid therapy based on preload dependence. The objectives of this study were to determine if a fluid responsiveness protocol would decrease progression of organ dysfunction, and a fluid responsiveness protocol would facilitate a more aggressive resuscitation.
Prospective, 10-center, randomized interventional trial.
suspected sepsis and lactate 2.0 to 4.0 mmol/L. Exclusion criteria (abbreviated): systolic blood pressure more than 90 mmHg, and contraindication to aggressive fluid resuscitation.
fluid responsiveness protocol using Non-Invasive Cardiac Output Monitor (NICOM) to assess for fluid responsiveness (>10% increase in stroke volume in response to 5 mL/kg fluid bolus) with balance of a liter given in responsive patients.
standard clinical care.
primary-change in Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at least 1 over 72 h; secondary-fluids administered. Trial was initially powered at 600 patients, but stopped early due to a change in sponsor's funding priorities.
Sixty-four patients were enrolled with 32 in the treatment arm. There were no significant differences between arms in age, comorbidities, baseline vital signs, or SOFA scores (P > 0.05 for all). Comparing treatment versus Standard of Care-there was no difference in proportion of increase in SOFA score of at least 1 point (30% vs. 33%) (note bene underpowered, P = 1.0) or mean preprotocol fluids 1,050 mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 786-1,314) vs. 1,031 mL (95% CI: 741-1,325) (P = 0.93); however, treatment patients received more fluids during the protocol (2,633 mL [95% CI: 2,264-3,001] vs. 1,002 mL [95% CI: 707-1,298]) (P < 0.001).
In this study of a "preshock" population, there was no change in progression of organ dysfunction with a fluid responsiveness protocol. A noninvasive fluid responsiveness protocol did facilitate delivery of an increased volume of fluid. Additional properly powered and enrolled outcomes studies are needed.
液体反应性被认为是一种基于生理学的方法,用于根据前负荷依赖性来滴定液体治疗。本研究的目的是确定液体反应性方案是否会减少器官功能障碍的进展,以及液体反应性方案是否会促进更积极的复苏。
前瞻性、10中心、随机干预试验。
疑似脓毒症且乳酸水平为2.0至4.0 mmol/L。排除标准(简要):收缩压高于90 mmHg,以及积极液体复苏的禁忌症。
使用无创心输出量监测仪(NICOM)的液体反应性方案,以评估液体反应性(给予5 mL/kg液体负荷后,每搏输出量增加>10%),对有反应的患者给予一升的平衡量。
标准临床护理。
主要指标——脓毒症相关器官功能衰竭评估(SOFA)评分在72小时内至少增加1分;次要指标——给予的液体量。该试验最初计划纳入600名患者,但由于赞助商资金优先级的变化而提前终止。
共纳入64名患者,治疗组32名。两组在年龄、合并症、基线生命体征或SOFA评分方面无显著差异(所有P>0.05)。比较治疗组与标准治疗组,SOFA评分至少增加1分的比例无差异(分别为30%和33%)(注意效能不足,P=1.0),或方案前平均液体量分别为1050 mL(95%置信区间[CI]:786-1314)和1031 mL(95%CI:741-1325)(P=0.93);然而,治疗组患者在方案期间接受的液体更多(分别为2633 mL[95%CI:2264-3001]和1002 mL[95%CI:707-1298])(P<0.001)。
在这项针对“休克前期”人群的研究中,液体反应性方案并未改变器官功能障碍的进展。无创液体反应性方案确实有助于增加液体量的输注。需要进行更多有适当效能和纳入足够病例的结局研究。