Publications

5 Publications matching the given criteria: (Clear all filters)

Abstract (Expand)

Importance: Adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy is suggested by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign in refractory septic shock only. The efficacy of hydrocortisone in patients with severe sepsis without shock remains controversial. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone therapy in patients with severe sepsis prevents the development of septic shock. Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted from January 13, 2009, to August 27, 2013, with a follow-up of 180 days until February 23, 2014. The trial was performed in 34 intermediate or intensive care units of university and community hospitals in Germany, and it included 380 adult patients with severe sepsis who were not in septic shock. Interventions: Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 either to receive a continuous infusion of 200 mg of hydrocortisone for 5 days followed by dose tapering until day 11 (n = 190) or to receive placebo (n = 190). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was development of septic shock within 14 days. Secondary outcomes were time until septic shock, mortality in the intensive care unit or hospital, survival up to 180 days, and assessment of secondary infections, weaning failure, muscle weakness, and hyperglycemia (blood glucose level >150 mg/dL [to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0555]). Results: The intention-to-treat population consisted of 353 patients (64.9% male; mean [SD] age, 65.0 [14.4] years). Septic shock occurred in 36 of 170 patients (21.2%) in the hydrocortisone group and 39 of 170 patients (22.9%) in the placebo group (difference, -1.8%; 95% CI, -10.7% to 7.2%; P = .70). No significant differences were observed between the hydrocortisone and placebo groups for time until septic shock; mortality in the intensive care unit or in the hospital; or mortality at 28 days (15 of 171 patients [8.8%] vs 14 of 170 patients [8.2%], respectively; difference, 0.5%; 95% CI, -5.6% to 6.7%; P = .86), 90 days (34 of 171 patients [19.9%] vs 28 of 168 patients [16.7%]; difference, 3.2%; 95% CI, -5.1% to 11.4%; P = .44), and 180 days (45 of 168 patients [26.8%] vs 37 of 167 patients [22.2%], respectively; difference, 4.6%; 95% CI, -4.6% to 13.7%; P = .32). In the hydrocortisone vs placebo groups, 21.5% vs 16.9% had secondary infections, 8.6% vs 8.5% had weaning failure, 30.7% vs 23.8% had muscle weakness, and 90.9% vs 81.5% had hyperglycemia. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with severe sepsis not in septic shock, use of hydrocortisone compared with placebo did not reduce the risk of septic shock within 14 days. These findings do not support the use of hydrocortisone in these patients. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00670254.

Authors: D. Keh, E. Trips, G. Marx, S. P. Wirtz, E. Abduljawwad, S. Bercker, H. Bogatsch, J. Briegel, C. Engel, H. Gerlach, A. Goldmann, S. O. Kuhn, L. Huter, A. Meier-Hellmann, A. Nierhaus, S. Kluge, J. Lehmke, M. Loeffler, M. Oppert, K. Resener, D. Schadler, T. Schuerholz, P. Simon, N. Weiler, A. Weyland, K. Reinhart, F. M. Brunkhorst

Date Published: 1st Nov 2016

Publication Type: Journal article

Human Diseases: disease by infectious agent

Abstract (Expand)

IMPORTANCE: High-dose intravenous administration of sodium selenite has been proposed to improve outcome in sepsis by attenuating oxidative stress. Procalcitonin-guided antimicrobial therapy may hasten the diagnosis of sepsis, but effect on outcome is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether high-dose intravenous sodium selenite treatment and procalcitonin-guided anti-infectious therapy in patients with severe sepsis affect mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Placebo-Controlled Trial of Sodium Selenite and Procalcitonin Guided Antimicrobial Therapy in Severe Sepsis (SISPCT), a multicenter, randomized, clinical, 2 x 2 factorial trial performed in 33 intensive care units in Germany, was conducted from November 6, 2009, to June 6, 2013, including a 90-day follow-up period. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive an initial intravenous loading dose of sodium selenite, 1000 microg, followed by a continuous intravenous infusion of sodium selenite, 1000 microg, daily until discharge from the intensive care unit, but not longer than 21 days, or placebo. Patients also were randomized to receive anti-infectious therapy guided by a procalcitonin algorithm or without procalcitonin guidance. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 90-day all-cause mortality, intervention-free days, antimicrobial costs, antimicrobial-free days, and secondary infections. RESULTS: Of 8174 eligible patients, 1089 patients (13.3%) with severe sepsis or septic shock were included in an intention-to-treat analysis comparing sodium selenite (543 patients [49.9%]) with placebo (546 [50.1%]) and procalcitonin guidance (552 [50.7%]) vs no procalcitonin guidance (537 [49.3%]). The 28-day mortality rate was 28.3% (95% CI, 24.5%-32.3%) in the sodium selenite group and 25.5% (95% CI, 21.8%-29.4%) (P = .30) in the placebo group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between patients assigned to procalcitonin guidance (25.6% [95% CI, 22.0%-29.5%]) vs no procalcitonin guidance (28.2% [95% CI, 24.4%-32.2%]) (P = .34). Procalcitonin guidance did not affect frequency of diagnostic or therapeutic procedures but did result in a 4.5% reduction of antimicrobial exposure. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Neither high-dose intravenous administration of sodium selenite nor anti-infectious therapy guided by a procalcitonin algorithm was associated with an improved outcome in patients with severe sepsis. These findings do not support administration of high-dose sodium selenite in these patients; the application of a procalcitonin-guided algorithm needs further evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00832039.

Authors: F. Bloos, E. Trips, A. Nierhaus, J. Briegel, D. K. Heyland, U. Jaschinski, O. Moerer, A. Weyland, G. Marx, M. Grundling, S. Kluge, I. Kaufmann, K. Ott, M. Quintel, F. Jelschen, P. Meybohm, S. Rademacher, A. Meier-Hellmann, S. Utzolino, U. X. Kaisers, C. Putensen, G. Elke, M. Ragaller, H. Gerlach, K. Ludewig, M. Kiehntopf, H. Bogatsch, C. Engel, F. M. Brunkhorst, M. Loeffler, K. Reinhart

Date Published: 1st Sep 2016

Publication Type: Journal article

Human Diseases: disease by infectious agent

Abstract (Expand)

INTRODUCTION: The optimal nutritional strategy remains controversial, particularly in severely septic patients. Our aim was to analyze the effect of three nutritional strategies--enteral (EN), parenteral (PN), and combined nutrition (EN+PN)--on the outcome of patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This secondary analysis of the prospective, randomized-controlled, multicenter "Intensive Insulin Therapy and Pentastarch Resuscitation in Severe Sepsis (VISEP)" trial only included patients with a length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) of more than 7 days. Besides patient characteristics, data on nutrition therapy were collected daily for up to 21 days. Morbidity as measured by the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, incidence of secondary infections, renal replacement therapy, ventilator-free days and severe hypoglycemia, length of ICU stay, and mortality at 90 days were compared between the three nutritional strategies. RESULTS: In all, 353 patients were included in the analysis with the majority (68.5 %) receiving EN+PN, 24.4 % receiving EN, and only 7.1 % receiving PN. Median caloric intake was 918 kcal/day (EN), 1,210 kcal/day (PN), and 1,343 kcal/day (EN+PN; p < 0.001). In the latter group, calories were predominantly administered via the parenteral route within the first week. The rate of death at 90 days was lower with EN than with EN+PN (26.7 % vs. 41.3 %, p = 0.048), as was the rate of secondary infections, renal replacement therapy, and duration of mechanical ventilation. In the adjusted Cox regression analysis, the effect on mortality [hazard ratio (HR)= 1.86, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.16-2.98, p = 0.010] and the rate of secondary infections (HR= 1.89, 95 % CI: 1.27-2.81, p = 0.002) remained different between EN and EN+PN. CONCLUSION: In patients with severe sepsis or septic shock and prolonged ICU stay, EN alone was associated with improved clinical outcome compared to EN+PN. This hypothesis-generating result has to be confirmed by a randomized-controlled trial in this specific patient population.

Authors: G. Elke, E. Kuhnt, M. Ragaller, D. Schadler, I. Frerichs, F. M. Brunkhorst, M. Loffler, K. Reinhart, N. Weiler

Date Published: 5th Mar 2013

Publication Type: Not specified

Human Diseases: disease by infectious agent

Abstract (Expand)

CONTEXT: Early appropriate antimicrobial therapy leads to lower mortality rates associated with severe sepsis. The role of empirical combination therapy comprising at least 2 antibiotics of different mechanisms remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of moxifloxacin and meropenem with the effect of meropenem alone on sepsis-related organ dysfunction. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial of 600 patients who fulfilled criteria for severe sepsis or septic shock (n = 298 for monotherapy and n = 302 for combination therapy). The trial was performed at 44 intensive care units in Germany from October 16, 2007, to March 23, 2010. The number of evaluable patients was 273 in the monotherapy group and 278 in the combination therapy group. INTERVENTIONS: Intravenous meropenem (1 g every 8 hours) and moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 hours) or meropenem alone. The intervention was recommended for 7 days and up to a maximum of 14 days after randomization or until discharge from the intensive care unit or death, whichever occurred first. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Degree of organ failure (mean of daily total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] scores over 14 days; score range: 0-24 points with higher scores indicating worse organ failure); secondary outcome: 28-day and 90-day all-cause mortality. Survivors were followed up for 90 days. RESULTS: Among 551 evaluable patients, there was no statistically significant difference in mean SOFA score between the meropenem and moxifloxacin group (8.3 points; 95% CI, 7.8-8.8 points) and the meropenem alone group (7.9 points; 95% CI, 7.5-8.4 points) (P = .36). The rates for 28-day and 90-day mortality also were not statistically significantly different. By day 28, there were 66 deaths (23.9%; 95% CI, 19.0%-29.4%) in the combination therapy group compared with 59 deaths (21.9%; 95% CI, 17.1%-27.4%) in the monotherapy group (P = .58). By day 90, there were 96 deaths (35.3%; 95% CI, 29.6%-41.3%) in the combination therapy group compared with 84 deaths (32.1%; 95% CI, 26.5%-38.1%) in the monotherapy group (P = .43). CONCLUSION: Among adult patients with severe sepsis, treatment with combined meropenem and moxifloxacin compared with meropenem alone did not result in less organ failure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00534287.

Authors: F. M. Brunkhorst, M. Oppert, G. Marx, F. Bloos, K. Ludewig, C. Putensen, A. Nierhaus, U. Jaschinski, A. Meier-Hellmann, A. Weyland, M. Grundling, O. Moerer, R. Riessen, A. Seibel, M. Ragaller, M. W. Buchler, S. John, F. Bach, C. Spies, L. Reill, H. Fritz, M. Kiehntopf, E. Kuhnt, H. Bogatsch, C. Engel, M. Loeffler, M. H. Kollef, K. Reinhart, T. Welte

Date Published: 13th Jun 2012

Publication Type: Not specified

Human Diseases: bacterial infectious disease

Abstract (Expand)

BACKGROUND: The role of intensive insulin therapy in patients with severe sepsis is uncertain. Fluid resuscitation improves survival among patients with septic shock, but evidence is lacking to support the choice of either crystalloids or colloids. METHODS: In a multicenter, two-by-two factorial trial, we randomly assigned patients with severe sepsis to receive either intensive insulin therapy to maintain euglycemia or conventional insulin therapy and either 10% pentastarch, a low-molecular-weight hydroxyethyl starch (HES 200/0.5), or modified Ringer's lactate for fluid resuscitation. The rate of death at 28 days and the mean score for organ failure were coprimary end points. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early for safety reasons. Among 537 patients who could be evaluated, the mean morning blood glucose level was lower in the intensive-therapy group (112 mg per deciliter [6.2 mmol per liter]) than in the conventional-therapy group (151 mg per deciliter [8.4 mmol per liter], P<0.001). However, at 28 days, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the rate of death or the mean score for organ failure. The rate of severe hypoglycemia (glucose level, < or = 40 mg per deciliter [2.2 mmol per liter]) was higher in the intensive-therapy group than in the conventional-therapy group (17.0% vs. 4.1%, P<0.001), as was the rate of serious adverse events (10.9% vs. 5.2%, P=0.01). HES therapy was associated with higher rates of acute renal failure and renal-replacement therapy than was Ringer's lactate. CONCLUSIONS: The use of intensive insulin therapy placed critically ill patients with sepsis at increased risk for serious adverse events related to hypoglycemia. As used in this study, HES was harmful, and its toxicity increased with accumulating doses. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00135473.)

Authors: F. M. Brunkhorst, C. Engel, F. Bloos, A. Meier-Hellmann, M. Ragaller, N. Weiler, O. Moerer, M. Gruendling, M. Oppert, S. Grond, D. Olthoff, U. Jaschinski, S. John, R. Rossaint, T. Welte, M. Schaefer, P. Kern, E. Kuhnt, M. Kiehntopf, C. Hartog, C. Natanson, M. Loeffler, K. Reinhart

Date Published: 10th Jan 2008

Publication Type: Not specified

Human Diseases: bacterial infectious disease

Powered by
(v.1.13.0-master)
Copyright © 2008 - 2021 The University of Manchester and HITS gGmbH
Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology, University of Leipzig

By continuing to use this site you agree to the use of cookies