Kellum John A, Pike Francis, Yealy Donald M, Huang David T, Shapiro Nathan I, Angus Derek C
1Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. 2Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. 3Department of Emergency Medicine, The Beth Israel Hospital, Harvard University, Boston, MA.
Crit Care Med. 2017 Mar;45(3):438-445. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002206.
The Protocol-based Care for Early Septic Shock trial found no differences across alternative resuscitation strategies in all-cause mortality. A separate aim was to determine whether differences in resuscitation strategies affected trajectories of biomarkers of key pathways associated with downstream clinical outcomes of sepsis and whether there were differences in survival across treatment arms for patients with different baseline biomarker profiles.
Secondary analysis of a large randomized clinical trial.
Thirty-one U.S. hospitals.
Six hundred twenty-eight patients with septic shock.
Two resuscitation protocols versus usual care.
We measured a panel of biomarkers representing four pathophysiologic domains: "inflammation" (tumor necrosis factor, interleukin-6, and -10); "coagulation" (D-dimers, thrombin-antithrombin complex); "oxidative stress" (urine isoprostane); and "tissue hypoxia" (lactate) at 0, 6, 24, and 72 hours after treatment. We analyzed whether alternative resuscitation strategies affected biomarker trajectories over 72 hours and whether effects on 90-day hospital mortality varied by baseline (time 0) biomarker profiles-both using regression models with interaction terms for treatment arms. For all baseline biomarkers, higher concentrations were associated with increased risk of death by 90 days. However, there was no significant effect of treatment assignment on subsequent biomarker trajectories. We did find evidence for heterogeneity of treatment effect of protocol-based care on mortality for patients with different baseline [interleukin-6] and [interleukin-6] × [interleukin-10] profiles, whereas patients with the lowest quartiles fared better with protocol-based care (odds ratios, 0.32 [0.13-075]; p = 0.01 and 0.32 [0.14-0.73]; p = 0.01, respectively).
In patients with septic shock, alterations in inflammation, coagulation, oxidative stress, and tissue hypoxia are common and associated with adverse outcomes but are not influenced by protocol-based resuscitation compared with usual care. However, contrary to expectation, protocol-based resuscitation appeared to be superior in patients with lower concentrations of inflammatory biomarkers. The mechanisms responsible for this effect are unclear.
基于方案的早期脓毒性休克治疗试验发现,不同复苏策略在全因死亡率方面并无差异。另一个目的是确定复苏策略的差异是否会影响与脓毒症下游临床结局相关的关键通路生物标志物的变化轨迹,以及不同基线生物标志物特征的患者在各治疗组中的生存情况是否存在差异。
对一项大型随机临床试验进行二次分析。
美国31家医院。
628例脓毒性休克患者。
两种复苏方案与常规治疗。
我们在治疗后0、6、24和72小时测量了一组代表四个病理生理领域的生物标志物:“炎症”(肿瘤坏死因子、白细胞介素-6和-10);“凝血”(D-二聚体、凝血酶-抗凝血酶复合物);“氧化应激”(尿异前列腺素);以及“组织缺氧”(乳酸)。我们分析了不同的复苏策略是否会在72小时内影响生物标志物的变化轨迹,以及对90天医院死亡率的影响是否因基线(0时)生物标志物特征而异——两者均使用带有治疗组交互项的回归模型。对于所有基线生物标志物,较高浓度与90天内死亡风险增加相关。然而,治疗分配对随后的生物标志物变化轨迹没有显著影响。我们确实发现,对于具有不同基线[白细胞介素-6]和[白细胞介素-6]×[白细胞介素-10]特征的患者,基于方案的治疗在死亡率方面存在治疗效果异质性,而四分位数最低的患者接受基于方案的治疗效果更好(优势比分别为0.32[0.13 - 0.75];p = 0.01和0.32[0.14 - 0.73];p = 0.01)。
在脓毒性休克患者中,炎症、凝血、氧化应激和组织缺氧的改变很常见且与不良结局相关,但与常规治疗相比,基于方案的复苏并未对其产生影响。然而,与预期相反,基于方案的复苏在炎症生物标志物浓度较低的患者中似乎更具优势。造成这种效果的机制尚不清楚。