Search

Introduction: Fever treatment is commonly applied in patients with sepsis but its impact on survival remains undetermined. Patients with respiratory and haemodynamic failure are at the highest risk for not tolerating the metabolic cost of fever. However, fever can help to control infection. Treating fever with paracetamol has been shown to be less effective than cooling. In the SEPSISCOOL pilot study, active fever control by external cooling improved organ failure recovery and early survival. The main objective of this confirmatory trial is to assess whether fever control at normothermia can improve the evolution of organ failure and mortality at day 60 of febrile patients with septic shock. This study will compare two strategies within the first 48 hours of septic shock: treatment of fever with cooling or no treatment of fever., Methods and Analysis: SEPSISCOOL II is a pragmatic, investigator-initiated, adaptive, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, superiority trial in patients admitted to the intensive care unit with febrile septic shock. After stratification based on the acute respiratory distress syndrome status, patients will be randomised between two arms: (1) cooling and (2) no cooling. The primary endpoint is mortality at day 60 after randomisation. The secondary endpoints include the evolution of organ failure, early mortality and tolerance. The target sample size is 820 patients., Ethics and Dissemination: The study is funded by the French health ministry and was approved by the ethics committee CPP Nord Ouest II (Amiens, France). The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: NCT04494074., Competing Interests: Competing interests: FS is a member of the executive committee of the French Intensive Care Society (SRLF). All other authors declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To compare the haemodynamic effect of crystalloids and colloids during acute severe hypovolaemic shock., Design: Exploratory subgroup analysis of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (Colloids Versus Crystalloids for the Resuscitation of the Critically Ill, CRISTAL, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00318942)., Setting: CRISTAL was conducted in intensive care units in Europe, North Africa and Canada., Participants: Current analysis included all patients who had a pulmonary artery catheter in place at randomisation. 220 patients (117 received crystalloids vs 103 colloids) underwent pulmonary artery catheterisation., Intervention: Crystalloids versus colloids for fluid resuscitation in hypovolaemic shock., Outcome Measures: Haemodynamic data were collected at the time of randomisation and subsequently on days 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7., Results: Median cumulative volume of fluid administered during the first 7 days was higher in the crystalloids group than in the colloids group (3500 (2000-6000) vs 2500 (1000-4000) mL, p=0.01). Patients in the colloids arm exhibited a lower heart rate over time compared with those allocated to the crystalloids arm (p=0.014). There was no significant difference in Cardiac Index (p=0.053), mean blood pressure (p=0.4), arterial lactates (p=0.9) or global Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (p=0.3) over time between arms., Conclusions: During acute severe hypovolaemic shock, patients monitored by a pulmonary artery catheter achieved broadly similar haemodynamic outcomes, using lower volumes of colloids than crystalloids. The heart rate was lower in the colloids arm., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)