97
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Exploring mechanisms of excess mortality with early fluid resuscitation: insights from the FEAST trial

      research-article

      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

          Early rapid fluid resuscitation (boluses) in African children with severe febrile illnesses increases the 48-hour mortality by 3.3% compared with controls (no bolus). We explored the effect of boluses on 48-hour all-cause mortality by clinical presentation at enrolment, hemodynamic changes over the first hour, and on different modes of death, according to terminal clinical events. We hypothesize that boluses may cause excess deaths from neurological or respiratory events relating to fluid overload.

          Methods

          Pre-defined presentation syndromes (PS; severe acidosis or severe shock, respiratory, neurological) and predominant terminal clinical events (cardiovascular collapse, respiratory, neurological) were described by randomized arm (bolus versus control) in 3,141 severely ill febrile children with shock enrolled in the Fluid Expansion as Supportive Therapy (FEAST) trial. Landmark analyses were used to compare early mortality in treatment groups, conditional on changes in shock and hypoxia parameters. Competing risks methods were used to estimate cumulative incidence curves and sub-hazard ratios to compare treatment groups in terms of terminal clinical events.

          Results

          Of 2,396 out of 3,141 (76%) classifiable participants, 1,647 (69%) had a severe metabolic acidosis or severe shock PS, 625 (26%) had a respiratory PS and 976 (41%) had a neurological PS, either alone or in combination. Mortality was greatest among children fulfilling criteria for all three PS (28% bolus, 21% control) and lowest for lone respiratory (2% bolus, 5% control) or neurological (3% bolus, 0% control) presentations. Excess mortality in bolus arms versus control was apparent for all three PS, including all their component features. By one hour, shock had resolved (responders) more frequently in bolus versus control groups (43% versus 32%, P <0.001), but excess mortality with boluses was evident in responders (relative risk 1.98, 95% confidence interval 0.94 to 4.17, P = 0.06) and 'non-responders' (relative risk 1.67, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 2.28, P = 0.001), with no evidence of heterogeneity ( P = 0.68). The major difference between bolus and control arms was the higher proportion of cardiogenic or shock terminal clinical events in bolus arms (n = 123; 4.6% versus 2.6%, P = 0.008) rather than respiratory (n = 61; 2.2% versus 1.3%, P = 0.09) or neurological (n = 63, 2.1% versus 1.8%, P = 0.6) terminal clinical events.

          Conclusions

          Excess mortality from boluses occurred in all subgroups of children. Contrary to expectation, cardiovascular collapse rather than fluid overload appeared to contribute most to excess deaths with rapid fluid resuscitation. These results should prompt a re-evaluation of evidence on fluid resuscitation for shock and a re-appraisal of the rate, composition and volume of resuscitation fluids.

          Trial registration

          ISRCTN69856593

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • 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

            Early reversal of pediatric-neonatal septic shock by community physicians is associated with improved outcome.

            Experimental and clinical studies of septic shock support the concept that early resuscitation with fluid and inotropic therapies improves survival in a time-dependent manner. The new American College of Critical Care Medicine-Pediatric Advanced Life Support (ACCM-PALS) Guidelines for hemodynamic support of newborns and children in septic shock recommend this therapeutic approach. The objective of this study was to determine whether early septic shock reversal and use of resuscitation practice consistent with the new ACCM-PALS Guidelines by community physicians is associated with improved outcome. A 9-year (January 1993-December 2001) retrospective cohort study was conducted of 91 infants and children who presented to local community hospitals with septic shock and required transport to Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh. Shock reversal (defined by return of normal systolic blood pressure and capillary refill time), resuscitation practice concurrence with ACCM-PALS Guidelines, and hospital mortality were measured. Overall, 26 (29%) patients died. Community physicians successfully achieved shock reversal in 24 (26%) patients at a median time of 75 minutes (when the transport team arrived at the patient's bedside), which was associated with 96% survival and >9-fold increased odds of survival (9.49 [1.07-83.89]). Each additional hour of persistent shock was associated with >2-fold increased odds of mortality (2.29 [1.19-4.44]). Nonsurvivors, compared with survivors, were treated with more inotropic therapies (dopamine/dobutamine [42% vs 20%] and epinephrine/norepinephrine [42% vs 6%]) but not increased fluid therapy (median volume; 32.9 mL/kg vs 20.0 mL/kg). Resuscitation practice was consistent with ACCM-PALS Guidelines in only 27 (30%) patients; however, when practice was in agreement with guideline recommendations, a lower mortality was observed (8% vs 38%). Early recognition and aggressive resuscitation of pediatric-neonatal septic shock by community physicians can save lives. Educational programs that promote ACCM-PALS recommended rapid, stepwise escalations in fluid as well as inotropic therapies may have value in improving outcomes in these children.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Part 14: pediatric advanced life support: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Med
                BMC Med
                BMC Medicine
                BioMed Central
                1741-7015
                2013
                14 March 2013
                : 11
                : 68
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Wellcome Trust Centre for Clinical Tropical Medicine, Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, St Marys Campus, Norfolk Place, Imperial College, London W2 1PG, UK
                [2 ]Kilifi Clinical Trials Facility, KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, PO Box 230, Kilifi, Kenya
                [3 ]Medical Research Council (MRC) Clinical Trials Unit, Aviation House, 125 Kingsway London, WC2B 6NH, UK
                [4 ]Department of Paediatrics University Hospital of Wales Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XW, Wales, UK
                [5 ]Department of Paediatrics, Mulago Hospital, PO Box 7070, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
                [6 ]Department of Paediatrics, Mbale Regional Referral Hospital Pallisa Road Zone, PO Box 921, Mbale, Uganda
                [7 ]Department of Paediatrics, Soroti Regional Referral Hospital, PO Box 289, Soroti, Uganda
                [8 ]Department of Paediatrics, St Mary's Hospital, PO Box 180, Lacor, Uganda
                [9 ]Department of Paediatrics Joint Malaria Programme, Teule Hospital, PO Box 81, Muheza, Tanzania
                [10 ]Joint Malaria Programme, PO Box 2228, KCMC, Moshi, Tanzania
                Article
                1741-7015-11-68
                10.1186/1741-7015-11-68
                3599745
                23496872
                8cb3cefc-f865-4719-bbd0-b49bd792cfa7
                Copyright ©2013 Maitland 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.

                History
                : 27 September 2012
                : 14 March 2013
                Categories
                Research Article

                Medicine
                africa,children,clinical trial,fluid resuscitation,human albumin solution,mortality,saline,shock,terminal clinical events

                Comments

                Comment on this article