Osborn Tiffany M
Section of Acute and Critical Care Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 4901 Forest Park Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63108, USA.
Crit Care Clin. 2017 Apr;33(2):323-344. doi: 10.1016/j.ccc.2016.12.004.
Between 2014 and 2015, 3 independent, multicenter, randomized controlled trials evaluated early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) in severe sepsis and septic shock: Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) from the United States; Australasian Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation (ARISE), and Protocolised Management in Sepsis (ProMISe) in the United Kingdom. All 3 trials confirmed that there was no survival benefit of EGDT compared to usual resuscitation. How should we define usual care for sepsis given these study findings? Furthermore, the definition of sepsis has now been updated. This article reviews key findings of these 3 trials and discusses these important issues in sepsis management.
在2014年至2015年期间,3项独立的多中心随机对照试验对严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克的早期目标导向治疗(EGDT)进行了评估:美国的“早期脓毒性休克的标准化治疗”(ProCESS);澳大利亚的“脓毒症复苏评估”(ARISE)以及英国的“脓毒症的标准化管理”(ProMISe)。所有这3项试验均证实,与常规复苏相比,EGDT并无生存获益。鉴于这些研究结果,我们应如何定义脓毒症的常规治疗?此外,脓毒症的定义现已更新。本文回顾了这3项试验的主要发现,并讨论了脓毒症管理中的这些重要问题。