Legrand Matthieu, Jullien Edouard, Kimmoun Antoine, Geri Guillaume, Ait-Oufella Hafid, Abrard Stanislas, Gaugain Samuel, Bounes Fanny, Guerci Philippe, Pottecher Julien, Jamme Matthieu, Poncelin de Raucourt Yves, Barraud Damien, Constantin Jean-Michel, Juguet William, Lasocki Sigismond, Sonneville Romain, Audibert Juliette, Plantefève Gaëtan, Ellrodt Olivier, Fedou Anne-Laure, Leone Marc, Lefebvre Laurent, Auvet Adrien, Chen David, Vicaut Eric, Dépret François
Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
French Clinical Research Infrastructure Network Initiative-Cardio Renal Clinical Trialists Network, Nancy, France.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2025 Jul;211(7):1211-1219. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202410-1924OC.
Preclinical and preliminary clinical data suggest that iloprost may improve tissue perfusion in septic shock. However, its effect on organ failure remains unclear. To investigate whether iloprost provides organ protection in septic shock with hypoperfusion. In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, adults with septic shock and persistent hypoperfusion (i.e., increased capillary refill time and/or skin mottling) were randomized to receive a 48-hour intravenous infusion of iloprost or placebo. The primary outcome was the change in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score from randomization to Day 7. Secondary outcomes included mortality at Day 28, organ support-free days by Day 28, and mean daily SOFA score. A total of 240 patients were randomized, and 236 were included in the analysis. Median (IQR) changes in SOFA score were -4 (-7 to 7) in the iloprost group and -5 (-8 to 5) in the placebo group (median difference, 1; 95% CI, 0-3; = 0.12). At 28 days, 48 patients (42%) had died in the iloprost group and 47 (39%) had died in the placebo group (relative risk, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.80-1.5). The median average SOFA score was 11.2 (7.4-15.9) in the iloprost group, compared with 10.5 (6.8-16.5) in the placebo group (median difference, 0.25; 95% CI, -1.1 to 1.8). Median (95% confidence interval) between-group differences in 28-day ventilation-, vasopressor-, and renal replacement therapy-free survival days were 0 (0-0), 0 (-1 to 1), and 0 (0-0), respectively. Severe adverse events occurred in 15% of patients in the iloprost group and 7% of patients in the placebo group ( = 0.06). Among patients with septic shock and persistent hypoperfusion, iloprost did not reduce the severity of organ failure. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03788837) and EudraCT (2018-001709-10).
临床前和初步临床数据表明,伊洛前列素可能改善感染性休克中的组织灌注。然而,其对器官衰竭的影响仍不清楚。为了研究伊洛前列素在伴有灌注不足的感染性休克中是否提供器官保护作用。在这项多中心、双盲、随机对照试验中,患有感染性休克和持续性灌注不足(即毛细血管再充盈时间延长和/或皮肤花斑)的成年人被随机分配接受48小时静脉输注伊洛前列素或安慰剂。主要结局是从随机分组至第7天序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分的变化。次要结局包括第28天的死亡率、至第28天无器官支持的天数以及每日平均SOFA评分。共有240例患者被随机分组,236例纳入分析。伊洛前列素组SOFA评分的中位数(四分位间距)变化为-4(-7至7),安慰剂组为-5(-8至5)(中位数差异为1;95%CI,0至3;P=0.12)。在第28天,伊洛前列素组有48例患者(42%)死亡,安慰剂组有47例患者(39%)死亡(相对风险,1.08;95%CI,0.80至1.5)。伊洛前列素组的平均SOFA评分中位数为11.2(7.4至15.9),而安慰剂组为10.5(6.8至16.5)(中位数差异为0.25;95%CI,-1.1至1.8)。在第28天无机械通气、无血管活性药物和无肾脏替代治疗生存天数的组间差异中位数(95%置信区间)分别为0(0至0)、0(-1至1)和0(0至0)。伊洛前列素组15%的患者发生严重不良事件,安慰剂组7%的患者发生严重不良事件(P=0.06)。在伴有感染性休克和持续性灌注不足的患者中,伊洛前列素并未降低器官衰竭的严重程度。该临床试验已在www.clinicaltrials.gov(NCT03788837)和欧洲临床试验数据库(EudraCT,2018-001709-10)注册。