31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparing the effect of hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 with balanced crystalloid solution on mortality and kidney failure in patients with severe sepsis (6S - Scandinavian Starch for Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock trial): Study protocol, design and rationale for a double-blinded, randomised clinical trial

      research-article
      1 , , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 17 , 18 , 18 , 19 , 19 , 1 , 1 , 20 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 4 , 23 , 24 , 6 , 18 , 15 , 26
      Trials
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          By tradition colloid solutions have been used to obtain fast circulatory stabilisation in shock, but high molecular weight hydroxyethyl starch (HES) may cause acute kidney failure in patients with severe sepsis. Now lower molecular weight HES 130/0.4 is the preferred colloid in Scandinavian intensive care units (ICUs) and 1 st choice fluid for patients with severe sepsis. However, HES 130/0.4 is largely unstudied in patients with severe sepsis.

          Methods/Design

          The 6S trial will randomise 800 patients with severe sepsis in 30 Scandinavian ICUs to masked fluid resuscitation using either 6% HES 130/0.4 in Ringer's acetate or Ringer's acetate alone. The composite endpoint of 90-day mortality or end-stage kidney failure is the primary outcome measure. The secondary outcome measures are severe bleeding or allergic reactions, organ failure, acute kidney failure, days alive without renal replacement therapy or ventilator support and 28-day and 1/2- and one-year mortality. The sample size will allow the detection of a 10% absolute difference between the two groups in the composite endpoint with a power of 80%.

          Discussion

          The 6S trial will provide important safety and efficacy data on the use of HES 130/0.4 in patients with severe sepsis. The effects on mortality, dialysis-dependency, time on ventilator, bleeding and markers of resuscitation, metabolism, kidney failure, and coagulation will be assessed.

          Trial Registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00962156

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Conference: definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis.

          (1992)
          To define the terms "sepsis" and "organ failure" in a precise manner. Review of the medical literature and the use of expert testimony at a consensus conference. American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) headquarters in Northbrook, IL. Leadership members of ACCP/Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM). An ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference was held in August of 1991 with the goal of agreeing on a set of definitions that could be applied to patients with sepsis and its sequelae. New definitions were offered for some terms, while others were discarded. Broad definitions of sepsis and the systemic inflammatory response syndrome were proposed, along with detailed physiologic variables by which a patient could be categorized. Definitions for severe sepsis, septic shock, hypotension, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome were also offered. The use of severity scoring methods were recommended when dealing with septic patients as an adjunctive tool to assess mortality. Appropriate methods and applications for the use and testing of new therapies were recommended. The use of these terms and techniques should assist clinicians and researchers who deal with sepsis and its sequelae.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008

            Objective To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, “Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock,” published in 2004. Design Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. Methods We used the GRADE system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation [1] indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost), or clearly do not. Weak recommendations [2] indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. Results Key recommendations, listed by category, include: early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures prior to antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7–10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for post-operative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7–9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B) targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization ( 2C ); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper GI bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). Conclusion There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Septic acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: clinical characteristics and outcomes.

              Sepsis is the most common cause of acute kidney injury (AKI) in critical illness, but there is limited information on septic AKI. A prospective, observational study of critically ill patients with septic and nonseptic AKI was performed from September 2000 to December 2001 at 54 hospitals in 23 countries. A total of 1753 patients were enrolled. Sepsis was considered the cause in 833 (47.5%); the predominant sources of sepsis were chest and abdominal (54.3%). Septic AKI was associated with greater aberrations in hemodynamics and laboratory parameters, greater severity of illness, and higher need for mechanical ventilation and vasoactive therapy. There was no difference in enrollment kidney function or in the proportion who received renal replacement therapy (RRT; 72 versus 71%; P = 0.83). Oliguria was more common in septic AKI (67 versus 57%; P < 0.001). Septic AKI had a higher in-hospital case-fatality rate compared with nonseptic AKI (70.2 versus 51.8%; P < 0.001). After adjustment for covariates, septic AKI remained associated with higher odds for death (1.48; 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.89; P = 0.001). Median (IQR) duration of hospital stay for survivors (37 [19 to 59] versus 21 [12 to 42] d; P < 0.0001) was longer for septic AKI. There was a trend to lower serum creatinine (106 [73 to 158] versus 121 [88 to 184] mumol/L; P = 0.01) and RRT dependence (9 versus 14%; P = 0.052) at hospital discharge for septic AKI. Patients with septic AKI were sicker and had a higher burden of illness and greater abnormalities in acute physiology. Patients with septic AKI had an increased risk for death and longer duration of hospitalization yet showed trends toward greater renal recovery and independence from RRT.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Trials
                Trials
                BioMed Central
                1745-6215
                2011
                27 January 2011
                : 12
                : 24
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Intensive Care, Centre of Clinical Intervention Research, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Denmark
                [2 ]Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre of Clinical Intervention Research, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Denmark
                [3 ]Department of Intensive Care, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden
                [4 ]Critical Care Medicine Research Group, Tampere University Hospital, Finland
                [5 ]Department of Intensive Care, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
                [6 ]Department of Intensive Care, Landspitalet, Reykjavik, Iceland
                [7 ]Department of Intensive Care, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [8 ]Department of Intensive Care, Esbjerg Hospital, Denmark
                [9 ]Department of Intensive Care, Gentofte Hospital, Denmark
                [10 ]Department of Intensive Care, Glostrup Hospital, Denmark
                [11 ]Department of Intensive Care, Herlev Hospital, Denmark
                [12 ]Department of Intensive Care, Hillerød Hospital, Denmark
                [13 ]Department of Intensive Care, Hjørring Hospital, Denmark
                [14 ]Department of Intensive Care, Herning Hospital, Denmark
                [15 ]Department of Intensive Care, Holbæk Hospital, Denmark
                [16 ]Department of Intensive Care, Holstebro Hospital, Denmark
                [17 ]Department of Intensive Care, Hvidovre Hospital, Denmark
                [18 ]Department of Intensive Care, Næstved Hospital, Denmark
                [19 ]Department of Intensive Care, Odense University Hospital, Denmark
                [20 ]Department of Intensive Care, Slagelse Hospital, Denmark
                [21 ]Department of Intensive Care, Sønderborg Hospital, Denmark
                [22 ]Department of Intensive Care, Vejle Hospital, Denmark
                [23 ]Department of Intensive Care, Helsinki University Hospital, Finland
                [24 ]Department of Intensive Care, Kuopio University Hospital, Finland
                [25 ]St. Olav's University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
                [26 ]Department of Intensive Care, Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden
                Article
                1745-6215-12-24
                10.1186/1745-6215-12-24
                3040153
                21269526
                577f2d00-bc7e-4545-bec7-06c52dc5dd13
                Copyright ©2011 Perner et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                Categories
                Study Protocol

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article