Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jan 23;24(1):23.
doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-2732-y.

Systematic assessment of fluid responsiveness during early septic shock resuscitation: secondary analysis of the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial

Eduardo Kattan  1 , Gustavo A Ospina-Tascón  2 , Jean-Louis Teboul  3 , Ricardo Castro  1 , Maurizio Cecconi  4 , Giorgio Ferri  5 , Jan Bakker  1   6   7   8 , Glenn Hernández  9 ; ANDROMEDA-SHOCK Investigators
Collaborators, Affiliations

Systematic assessment of fluid responsiveness during early septic shock resuscitation: secondary analysis of the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial

Eduardo Kattan et al. Crit Care. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Early resuscitation; Fluid overload; Fluid responsiveness; Septic shock.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Achievement of resuscitation endpoints during the intervention period according to fluid responsiveness status at baseline. FR+, fluid responsive; FR−, non-fluid responsive
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a, b Evolution of fluid responsiveness during protocolized resuscitation, according to fluid responsiveness status at baseline
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Singer M, Deustchman C, Warren Seymour C, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3) JAMA. 2016;315:801–810. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rhodes A, Evans L, Alhazzani W, Levy M, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:486–552. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002255. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Malbrain MLNG, Van Regenmortel N, Saugel B, De Tavernier B, Van Gaal PJ, Joannes-Boyau O, et al. Principles of fluid management and stewardship in septic shock: it is time to consider the four D’s and the four phases of fluid therapy. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8:66. doi: 10.1186/s13613-018-0402-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Monnet X, Teboul J-L. My patient has received fluid. How to assess its efficacy and side effects? Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8:54. doi: 10.1186/s13613-018-0400-z. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Silversides JA, Perner A, Malbrain MLNG. Liberal versus restrictive fluid therapy in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2019;45:1440–1442. doi: 10.1007/s00134-019-05713-y. - DOI - PubMed

Substances

Associated data

Grants and funding