High versus Low Blood-Pressure Target in Patients with Septic ShockPierre Asfar, Ferhat Meziani, Jean‐François Hamel et al.|New England Journal of Medicine|2014 BACKGROUND: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommends targeting a mean arterial pressure of at least 65 mm Hg during initial resuscitation of patients with septic shock. However, whether this blood-pressure target is more or less effective than a higher target is unknown. METHODS: In a multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned 776 patients with septic shock to undergo resuscitation with a mean arterial pressure target of either 80 to 85 mm Hg (high-target group) or 65 to 70 mm Hg (low-target group). The primary end point was mortality at day 28. RESULTS: At 28 days, there was no significant between-group difference in mortality, with deaths reported in 142 of 388 patients in the high-target group (36.6%) and 132 of 388 patients in the low-target group (34.0%) (hazard ratio in the high-target group, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.38; P=0.57). There was also no significant difference in mortality at 90 days, with 170 deaths (43.8%) and 164 deaths (42.3%), respectively (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.30; P=0.74). The occurrence of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups (74 events [19.1%] and 69 events [17.8%], respectively; P=0.64). However, the incidence of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation was higher in the high-target group than in the low-target group. Among patients with chronic hypertension, those in the high-target group required less renal-replacement therapy than did those in the low-target group, but such therapy was not associated with a difference in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting a mean arterial pressure of 80 to 85 mm Hg, as compared with 65 to 70 mm Hg, in patients with septic shock undergoing resuscitation did not result in significant differences in mortality at either 28 or 90 days. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; SEPSISPAM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01149278.).
Intravascular Complications of Central Venous Catheterization by Insertion SiteBACKGROUND: Three anatomical sites are commonly used to insert central venous catheters, but insertion at each site has the potential for major complications. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned nontunneled central venous catheterization in patients in the adult intensive care unit (ICU) to the subclavian, jugular, or femoral vein (in a 1:1:1 ratio if all three insertion sites were suitable [three-choice scheme] and in a 1:1 ratio if two sites were suitable [two-choice scheme]). The primary outcome measure was a composite of catheter-related bloodstream infection and symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis. RESULTS: A total of 3471 catheters were inserted in 3027 patients. In the three-choice comparison, there were 8, 20, and 22 primary outcome events in the subclavian, jugular, and femoral groups, respectively (1.5, 3.6, and 4.6 per 1000 catheter-days; P=0.02). In pairwise comparisons, the risk of the primary outcome was significantly higher in the femoral group than in the subclavian group (hazard ratio, 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5 to 7.8; P=0.003) and in the jugular group than in the subclavian group (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.0 to 4.3; P=0.04), whereas the risk in the femoral group was similar to that in the jugular group (hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8 to 2.1; P=0.30). In the three-choice comparison, pneumothorax requiring chest-tube insertion occurred in association with 13 (1.5%) of the subclavian-vein insertions and 4 (0.5%) of the jugular-vein insertions. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, subclavian-vein catheterization was associated with a lower risk of bloodstream infection and symptomatic thrombosis and a higher risk of pneumothorax than jugular-vein or femoral-vein catheterization. (Funded by the Hospital Program for Clinical Research, French Ministry of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01479153.).
Timing of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Patients with Acute Kidney Injury and SepsisBACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury is the most frequent complication in patients with septic shock and is an independent risk factor for death. Although renal-replacement therapy is the standard of care for severe acute kidney injury, the ideal time for initiation remains controversial. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned patients with early-stage septic shock who had severe acute kidney injury at the failure stage of the risk, injury, failure, loss, and end-stage kidney disease (RIFLE) classification system but without life-threatening complications related to acute kidney injury to receive renal-replacement therapy either within 12 hours after documentation of failure-stage acute kidney injury (early strategy) or after a delay of 48 hours if renal recovery had not occurred (delayed strategy). The failure stage of the RIFLE classification system is characterized by a serum creatinine level 3 times the baseline level (or ≥4 mg per deciliter with a rapid increase of ≥0.5 mg per deciliter), urine output less than 0.3 ml per kilogram of body weight per hour for 24 hours or longer, or anuria for at least 12 hours. The primary outcome was death at 90 days. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early for futility after the second planned interim analysis. A total of 488 patients underwent randomization; there were no significant between-group differences in the characteristics at baseline. Among the 477 patients for whom follow-up data at 90 days were available, 58% of the patients in the early-strategy group (138 of 239 patients) and 54% in the delayed-strategy group (128 of 238 patients) had died (P=0.38). In the delayed-strategy group, 38% (93 patients) did not receive renal-replacement therapy. Criteria for emergency renal-replacement therapy were met in 17% of the patients in the delayed-strategy group (41 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with septic shock who had severe acute kidney injury, there was no significant difference in overall mortality at 90 days between patients who were assigned to an early strategy for the initiation of renal-replacement therapy and those who were assigned to a delayed strategy. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; IDEAL-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01682590 .).
Femoral vs Jugular Venous Catheterization and Risk of Nosocomial Events in Adults Requiring Acute Renal Replacement TherapyCONTEXT: Based on concerns about the risk of infection, the jugular site is often preferred over the femoral site for short-term dialysis vascular access. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether jugular catheterization decreases the risk of nosocomial complications compared with femoral catheterization. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A concealed, randomized, multicenter, evaluator-blinded, parallel-group trial (the Cathedia Study) of 750 patients from a network of 9 tertiary care university medical centers and 3 general hospitals in France conducted between May 2004 and May 2007. The severely ill, bed-bound adults had a body mass index (BMI) of less than 45 and required a first catheter insertion for renal replacement therapy. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive jugular or femoral vein catheterization by operators experienced in placement at both sites. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of infectious complications, defined as catheter colonization on removal (primary end point), and catheter-related bloodstream infection. RESULTS: Patient and catheter characteristics, including duration of catheterization, were similar in both groups. More hematomas occurred in the jugular group than in the femoral group (13/366 patients [3.6%] vs 4/370 patients [1.1%], respectively; P = .03). The risk of catheter colonization at removal did not differ significantly between the femoral and jugular groups (incidence of 40.8 vs 35.7 per 1000 catheter-days; hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-1.16; P = .31). A prespecified subgroup analysis demonstrated significant qualitative heterogeneity by BMI (P for the interaction term < .001). Jugular catheterization significantly increased incidence of catheter colonization vs femoral catheterization (45.4 vs 23.7 per 1000 catheter-days; HR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.13-3.91; P = .017) in the lowest tercile (BMI <24.2), whereas jugular catheterization significantly decreased this incidence (24.5 vs 50.9 per 1000 catheter-days; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.23-0.69; P < .001) in the highest tercile (BMI >28.4). The rate of catheter-related bloodstream infection was similar in both groups (2.3 vs 1.5 per 1000 catheter-days, respectively; P = .42). CONCLUSION: Jugular venous catheterization access does not appear to reduce the risk of infection compared with femoral access, except among adults with a high BMI, and may have a higher risk of hematoma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00277888.
Relationship between SARS-CoV-2 infection and the incidence of ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections: a European multicenter cohort study