Search

BACKGROUND: Blood transfusions are frequently given to patients with septic shock. However, the benefits and harms of different hemoglobin thresholds for transfusion have not been established.METHODS: In this multicenter, parallel-group trial, we randomly assigned patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) who had septic shock and a hemoglobin concentration of 9 g per deciliter or less to receive 1 unit of leukoreduced red cells when the hemoglobin level was 7 g per deciliter or less (lower threshold) or when the level was 9 g per deciliter or less (higher threshold) during the ICU stay. The primary outcome measure was death by 90 days after randomization.RESULTS: We analyzed data from 998 of 1005 patients (99.3%) who underwent randomization. The two intervention groups had similar baseline characteristics. In the ICU, the lower-threshold group received a median of 1 unit of blood (interquartile range, 0 to 3) and the higher-threshold group received a median of 4 units (interquartile range, 2 to 7). At 90 days after randomization, 216 of 502 patients (43.0%) assigned to the lower-threshold group, as compared with 223 of 496 (45.0%) assigned to the higher-threshold group, had died (relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.09; P=0.44). The results were similar in analyses adjusted for risk factors at baseline and in analyses of the per-protocol populations. The numbers of patients who had ischemic events, who had severe adverse reactions, and who required life support were similar in the two intervention groups.CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with septic shock, mortality at 90 days and rates of ischemic events and use of life support were similar among those assigned to blood transfusion at a higher hemoglobin threshold and those assigned to blood transfusion at a lower threshold; the latter group received fewer transfusions. (Funded by the Danish Strategic Research Council and others; TRISS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01485315.).

Udgivelsesdato: 2008, BACKGROUND: Sepsis and complications to sepsis are major causes of mortality in critically ill patients. Rapid treatment of sepsis is of crucial importance for survival of patients. The infectious status of the critically ill patient is often difficult to assess because symptoms cannot be expressed and signs may present atypically. The established biological markers of inflammation (leucocytes, C-reactive protein) may often be influenced by other parameters than infection, and may be unacceptably slowly released after progression of an infection. At the same time, lack of a relevant antimicrobial therapy in an early course of infection may be fatal for the patient. Specific and rapid markers of bacterial infection have been sought for use in these patients. METHODS: Multi-centre randomized controlled interventional trial. Powered for superiority and non-inferiority on all measured end points. Complies with, "Good Clinical Practice" (ICH-GCP Guideline (CPMP/ICH/135/95, Directive 2001/20/EC)). Inclusion: 1) Age > or = 18 years of age, 2) Admitted to the participating intensive care units, 3) Signed written informed consent.Exclusion: 1) Known hyper-bilirubinaemia. or hypertriglyceridaemia, 2) Likely that safety is compromised by blood sampling, 3) Pregnant or breast feeding.Computerized Randomisation: Two arms (1:1), n = 500 per arm: Arm 1: standard of care. Arm 2: standard of care and Procalcitonin guided diagnostics and treatment of infection.Primary Trial Objective: To address whether daily Procalcitonin measurements and immediate diagnostic and therapeutic response on day-to-day changes in procalcitonin can reduce the mortality of critically ill patients. DISCUSSION: For the first time ever, a mortality-endpoint, large scale randomized controlled trial with a biomarker-guided strategy compared to the best standard of care, is conducted in an Intensive care setting. Results will, with a high statistical power answer the question: Can the survival of critically i