Statistical analysis plan for early goal-directed therapy using a physiological holistic view - the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK: a randomized controlled trial.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:ANDROMEDA-SHOCK is an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation to lactate-targeted resuscitation in patients with septic shock in order to test the hypothesis that resuscitation targeting peripheral perfusion will be associated with lower morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE:To report the statistical analysis plan for the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial. METHODS:We describe the trial design, primary and secondary objectives, patients, methods of randomization, interventions, outcomes, and sample size. We describe our planned statistical analysis for the primary, secondary and tertiary outcomes. We also describe the subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Finally, we provide details for presenting our results, including mock tables showing baseline characteristics, the evolution of hemodynamic and perfusion variables, and the effects of treatments on outcomes. CONCLUSION:According to the best trial practice, we report our statistical analysis plan and data management plan prior to locking the database and initiating the analyses. We anticipate that this procedure will prevent analysis bias and enhance the utility of the reported results.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Septic shock is a highly lethal condition. Early recognition of tissue hypoperfusion and its reversion are key factors for limiting progression to multiple organ dysfunction and death. Lactate-targeted resuscitation is the gold-standard under current guidelines, although it has several pitfalls including that non-hypoxic sources of lactate might predominate in an unknown proportion of patients. Peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation might provide a real-time response to increases in flow that could lead to a more timely decision to stop resuscitation, thus avoiding fluid overload and the risks of over-resuscitation. This article reports the rationale, study design and analysis plan of the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK Study. METHODS:ANDROMEDA-SHOCK is a randomized controlled trial which aims to determine if a peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation is associated with lower 28-day mortality compared to a lactate-targeted resuscitation in patients with septic shock with less than 4 h of diagnosis. Both groups will be treated with the same sequential approach during the 8-hour study period pursuing normalization of capillary refill time versus normalization or a decrease of more than 20% of lactate every 2 h. The common protocol starts with fluid responsiveness assessment and fluid loading in responders, followed by a vasopressor and an inodilator test if necessary. The primary outcome is 28-day mortality, and the secondary outcomes are: free days of mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy and vasopressor support during the first 28 days after randomization; multiple organ dysfunction during the first 72 h after randomization; intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay; and all-cause mortality at 90-day. A sample size of 422 patients was calculated to detect a 15% absolute reduction in mortality in the peripheral perfusion group with 90% power and two-tailed type I error of 5%. All analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. CONCLUSIONS:If peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation improves 28-day mortality, this could lead to simplified algorithms, assessing almost in real-time the reperfusion process, and pursuing more physiologically sound objectives. At the end, it might prevent the risk of over-resuscitation and lead to a better utilization of intensive care unit resources. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03078712 (registered retrospectively March 13th, 2017).
Project description:BACKGROUND:Fluid boluses are administered to septic shock patients with the purpose of increasing cardiac output as a means to restore tissue perfusion. Unfortunately, fluid therapy has a narrow therapeutic index, and therefore, several approaches to increase safety have been proposed. Fluid responsiveness (FR) assessment might predict which patients will effectively increase cardiac output after a fluid bolus (FR+), thus preventing potentially harmful fluid administration in non-fluid responsive (FR-) patients. However, there are scarce data on the impact of assessing FR on major outcomes. The recent ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial included systematic per-protocol assessment of FR. We performed a post hoc analysis of the study dataset with the aim of exploring the relationship between FR status at baseline, attainment of specific targets, and clinically relevant outcomes. METHODS:ANDROMEDA-SHOCK compared the effect of peripheral perfusion- vs. lactate-targeted resuscitation on 28-day mortality. FR was assessed before each fluid bolus and periodically thereafter. FR+ and FR- subgroups, independent of the original randomization, were compared for fluid administration, achievement of resuscitation targets, vasoactive agents use, and major outcomes such as organ dysfunction and support, length of stay, and 28-day mortality. RESULTS:FR could be determined in 348 patients at baseline. Two hundred and forty-two patients (70%) were categorized as fluid responders. Both groups achieved comparable successful resuscitation targets, although non-fluid responders received less resuscitation fluids (0 [0-500] vs. 1500 [1000-2500] mL; p 0.0001), exhibited less positive fluid balances, but received more vasopressor testing. No difference in clinically relevant outcomes between FR+ and FR- patients was found, including 24-h SOFA score (9 [5-12] vs. 8 [5-11], p?=?0.4), need for MV (78% vs. 72%, p?=?0.16), need for RRT (18% vs. 21%, p?=?0.7), ICU-LOS (6 [3-11] vs. 6 [3-16] days, p?=?0.2), and 28-day mortality (40% vs. 36%, p?=?0.5). Only thirteen patients remained fluid responsive along the intervention period. CONCLUSIONS:Systematic assessment allowed determination of fluid responsiveness status in more than 80% of patients with early septic shock. Fluid boluses could be stopped in non-fluid responsive patients without any negative impact on clinical relevant outcomes. Our results suggest that fluid resuscitation might be safely guided by FR assessment in septic shock patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03078712. Registered retrospectively on March 13, 2017.
Project description:Importance:Abnormal peripheral perfusion after septic shock resuscitation has been associated with organ dysfunction and mortality. The potential role of the clinical assessment of peripheral perfusion as a target during resuscitation in early septic shock has not been established. Objective:To determine if a peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation during early septic shock in adults is more effective than a lactate level-targeted resuscitation for reducing mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants:Multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 28 intensive care units in 5 countries. Four-hundred twenty-four patients with septic shock were included between March 2017 and March 2018. The last date of follow-up was June 12, 2018. Interventions:Patients were randomized to a step-by-step resuscitation protocol aimed at either normalizing capillary refill time (n?=?212) or normalizing or decreasing lactate levels at rates greater than 20% per 2 hours (n?=?212), during an 8-hour intervention period. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days. Secondary outcomes were organ dysfunction at 72 hours after randomization, as assessed by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (range, 0 [best] to 24 [worst]); death within 90 days; mechanical ventilation-, renal replacement therapy-, and vasopressor-free days within 28 days; intensive care unit and hospital length of stay. Results:Among 424 patients randomized (mean age, 63 years; 226 [53%] women), 416 (98%) completed the trial. By day 28, 74 patients (34.9%) in the peripheral perfusion group and 92 patients (43.4%) in the lactate group had died (hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.55 to 1.02]; P?=?.06; risk difference, -8.5% [95% CI, -18.2% to 1.2%]). Peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation was associated with less organ dysfunction at 72 hours (mean SOFA score, 5.6 [SD, 4.3] vs 6.6 [SD, 4.7]; mean difference, -1.00 [95% CI, -1.97 to -0.02]; P?=?.045). There were no significant differences in the other 6 secondary outcomes. No protocol-related serious adverse reactions were confirmed. Conclusions and Relevance:Among patients with septic shock, a resuscitation strategy targeting normalization of capillary refill time, compared with a strategy targeting serum lactate levels, did not reduce all-cause 28-day mortality. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03078712.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Capillary refill time (CRT) may improve more rapidly than lactate in response to increments in systemic flow. Therefore, it can be assessed more frequently during septic shock (SS) resuscitation. Hyperlactatemia, in contrast, exhibits a slower recovery in SS survivors, probably explained by the delayed resolution of non-hypoperfusion-related sources. Thus, targeting lactate normalization may be associated with impaired outcomes. The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial compared CRT- versus lactate-targeted resuscitation in early SS. CRT-targeted resuscitation associated with lower mortality and organ dysfunction; mechanisms were not investigated. CRT was assessed every 30 min and lactate every 2 h during the 8-h intervention period, allowing a first comparison between groups at 2 h (T2). Our primary aim was to determine if SS patients evolving with normal CRT at T2 after randomization (T0) exhibited a higher mortality and organ dysfunction when allocated to the LT arm than when randomized to the CRT arm. Our secondary aim was to determine if those patients with normal CRT at T2 had received more therapeutic interventions when randomized to the LT arm. To address these issues, we performed a post hoc analysis of the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK dataset. RESULTS:Patients randomized to the lactate arm at T0, evolving with normal CRT at T2 exhibited significantly higher mortality than patients with normal CRT at T2 initially allocated to CRT (40 vs 23%, p?=?0.009). These results replicated at T8 and T24. LT arm received significantly more resuscitative interventions (fluid boluses: 1000[500-2000] vs. 500[0-1500], p?=?0.004; norepinephrine test in previously hypertensive patients: 43 (35) vs. 19 (19), p?=?0.001; and inodilators: 16 (13) vs. 3 (3), p?=?0.003). A multivariate logistic regression of patients with normal CRT at T2, including APACHE-II, baseline lactate, cumulative fluids administered since emergency admission, source of infection, and randomization group) confirmed that allocation to LT group was a statistically significant determinant of 28-day mortality (OR 3.3; 95%CI[1.5-7.1]); p?=?0.003). CONCLUSIONS:Septic shock patients with normal CRT at baseline received more therapeutic interventions and presented more organ dysfunction when allocated to the lactate group. This could associate with worse outcomes.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Persistent hyperlactatemia has been considered as a signal of tissue hypoperfusion in septic shock patients, but multiple non-hypoperfusion-related pathogenic mechanisms could be involved. Therefore, pursuing lactate normalization may lead to the risk of fluid overload. Peripheral perfusion, assessed by the capillary refill time (CRT), could be an effective alternative resuscitation target as recently demonstrated by the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial. We designed the present randomized controlled trial to address the impact of a CRT-targeted (CRT-T) vs. a lactate-targeted (LAC-T) fluid resuscitation strategy on fluid balances within 24 h of septic shock diagnosis. In addition, we compared the effects of both strategies on organ dysfunction, regional and microcirculatory flow, and tissue hypoxia surrogates. RESULTS:Forty-two fluid-responsive septic shock patients were randomized into CRT-T or LAC-T groups. Fluids were administered until target achievement during the 6 h intervention period, or until safety criteria were met. CRT-T was aimed at CRT normalization (??3 s), whereas in LAC-T the goal was lactate normalization (??2 mmol/L) or a 20% decrease every 2 h. Multimodal perfusion monitoring included sublingual microcirculatory assessment; plasma-disappearance rate of indocyanine green; muscle oxygen saturation; central venous-arterial pCO2 gradient/ arterial-venous O2 content difference ratio; and lactate/pyruvate ratio. There was no difference between CRT-T vs. LAC-T in 6 h-fluid boluses (875 [375-2625] vs. 1500 [1000-2000], p?=?0.3), or balances (982[249-2833] vs. 15,800 [740-6587, p?=?0.2]). CRT-T was associated with a higher achievement of the predefined perfusion target (62 vs. 24, p?=?0.03). No significant differences in perfusion-related variables or hypoxia surrogates were observed. CONCLUSIONS:CRT-targeted fluid resuscitation was not superior to a lactate-targeted one on fluid administration or balances. However, it was associated with comparable effects on regional and microcirculatory flow parameters and hypoxia surrogates, and a faster achievement of the predefined resuscitation target. Our data suggest that stopping fluids in patients with CRT???3 s appears as safe in terms of tissue perfusion. Clinical Trials: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03762005 (Retrospectively registered on December 3rd 2018).
Project description:BACKGROUND:We sought to determine the effects of alternative resuscitation strategies on microcirculatory perfusion and examine any association between microcirculatory perfusion and mortality in sepsis. METHODS:This was a prospective, formally designed substudy of participants in the Protocolized Care in Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) trial. We recruited from six sites with the equipment and training to perform these study procedures. All subjects were adults with septic shock, and each was assigned to alternative resuscitation strategies. The two main analyses assessed (1) the impact of resuscitation strategies on microcirculatory perfusion parameters and (2) the association of microcirculatory perfusion with 60-day in-hospital mortality. We measured sublingual microcirculatory perfusion using sidestream dark field in vivo video microscopy at the completion of the 6-h ProCESS resuscitation protocol and then again at 24 and 72 h. RESULTS:We enrolled 207 subjects (demographics were similar to the overall ProCESS cohort) and observed 40 (19.3%) deaths. There were no differences in average perfusion characteristics between treatment arms. Analyzing the relationship between microcirculatory perfusion and mortality, we found an association between vascular density parameters and mortality. Total vascular density (beta?=?0.006, p?<?0.003), perfused vascular density (beta?=?0.005, p?<?0.04), and De Backer score (beta?=?0.009, p?<?0.01) were higher overall in survivors in a generalized estimating equation model, and this association was significant at the 72-h time point (p?<?0.05 for each parameter). CONCLUSIONS:Microcirculatory perfusion did not differ between three early septic shock treatment arms. We found an association between microcirculatory perfusion parameters of vascular density at 72 h and mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00510835 . Registered on August 2, 2007.
Project description:The Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock study is a randomised, multicentre, prospective, three-arm, parallel-group trial of alternative resuscitation strategies for early septic shock.To state our analysis plan for trial data.Our plan is to guide data collection and analysis using pre-existing definitions and testing, with local consensus-based efforts where needed. We examine protocolised care (two experimental approaches) and compare this to usual "wild type" care.Our plan is to address three aims (clinical efficacy, biology of illness and recovery, and costs and cost-effectiveness) and four hypotheses, and we specify rules for handling data and determining outcomes.By using measures to maintain study conduct and analysis rigour, we hope to improve understanding of early septic shock resuscitation and care of patients.
Project description:Background:Assessment of tissue hypoxia at the bedside has yet to be translated into daily clinical practice in septic shock patients. Perfusion markers are surrogates of deeper physiological phenomena. Lactate-to-pyruvate ratio (LPR) and the ratio between veno-arterial PCO2 difference and Ca-vO2 (?PCO2/Ca-vO2) have been proposed as markers of tissue hypoxia, but they have not been compared in the clinical scenario. We studied acute septic shock patients under resuscitation. We wanted to evaluate the relationship of these hypoxia markers with clinical and biochemical markers of hypoperfusion during septic shock resuscitation. Methods:Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Septic shock patients were randomized to fluid resuscitation directed to normalization of capillary refill time (CRT) versus normalization or significant lowering of lactate. Multimodal assessment of perfusion was performed at 0, 2, 6 and 24 hours, and included macrohemodynamic and metabolic perfusion variables, CRT, regional flow and hypoxia markers. Patients who attained their pre-specified endpoint at 2-hours were compared to those who did not. Results:Forty-two patients were recruited, median APACHE-II score was 23 [15-31] and 28-day mortality 23%. LPR and ?PCO2/Ca-vO2 ratio did not correlate during early resuscitation (0-2 h) and the whole study period (24-hours). ?PCO2/Ca-vO2 ratio derangements were more prevalent than LPR ones, either in the whole cohort (52% vs. 23%), and in association with other perfusion abnormalities. In patients who reached their resuscitation endpoints, the proportion of patients with altered ?PCO2/Ca-vO2 ratio decreased significantly (66% to 33%, P=0.045), while LPR did not (14% vs. 25%, P=0.34). Conclusions:Hypoxia markers did not exhibit correlation during resuscitation in septic shock patients. They probably interrogate different pathophysiological processes and mechanisms of dysoxia during early septic shock. Future studies should better elucidate the interaction and clinical role of hypoxia markers during septic shock resuscitation.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Fluid accumulation frequently coexists with acute kidney injury (AKI) and is associated with increased risk for AKI progression and mortality. Among septic shock patients, restricted use of resuscitation fluid has been reported to reduce the risk of worsening of AKI. Restrictive fluid therapy, however, has not been studied in the setting of established AKI. Here, we present the protocol and statistical analysis plan of the REstricted fluid therapy VERsus Standard trEatment in Acute Kidney Injury-the REVERSE-AKI trial that compares a restrictive fluid therapy regimen to standard therapy in critically ill patients with AKI. METHODS:REVERSE-AKI is an investigator-initiated, multinational, open-label, randomized, controlled, feasibility pilot trial conducted in seven ICUs in five countries. We aim to randomize 100 critically ill patients with AKI to a restrictive fluid treatment regimen vs standard management. In the restrictive fluid therapy regimen, the daily fluid balance target is neutral or negative. The primary outcome is the cumulative fluid balance assessed after 72 hours from randomization. Secondary outcomes include safety, feasibility, duration, and severity of AKI, and outcome at 90 days (mortality and dialysis dependence). CONCLUSIONS:This is the first multinational trial investigating the feasibility and safety of a restrictive fluid therapy regimen in critically ill patients with AKI. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinical.trials.gov NCT03251131.
Project description:This study determines the systemic and microvascular hemodynamic consequences of administering a low dose sodium nitrite after fluid resuscitation from hemorrhagic shock. Hemodynamic responses to hemorrhagic shock and resuscitation were studied in the hamster window chamber model. Moderated hemorrhage was induced by arterial controlled bleeding of 50% of the blood volume (BV) and the hypovolemic state was maintained for 1h. Volume restitution was performed by infusion of 25% of BV using Hextend (6% Hetastarch 670kDa in lactated electrolyte solution) 10min after fluid resuscitation 100microl of specific concentrations of sodium nitrite were infused. The experimental groups were named based on the nitrite concentration used, namely: 0microM, 10microM and 50microM. Systemic parameters, microvascular hemodynamics and capillary perfusion (functional capillary density, FCD) were followed during entire protocol. Exogenous 10microM nitrite maintained systemic and microhemodynamic conditions post fluid resuscitation from hemorrhagic shock, compared to 50microM or no nitrite. A moderated increase in plasma nitrite during the early phase of resuscitation reversed arteriolar vasoconstriction and increased capillary perfusion and venous return, improving central cardiac function. Nitrite effects on resistance vessels, directly influenced intravascular pressure redistribution, sustained blood flow, and prevented tissue ischemia. In conclusion, increasing nitrite plasma bioavailability after fluid resuscitation from hemorrhagic shock can be a potential therapy to enhance microvascular perfusion and to improve overall outcome.