4.3 Review

The PRECISE RCT: Evolution of an Early Septic Shock Fluid Resuscitation Trial

期刊

TRANSFUSION MEDICINE REVIEWS
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 333-341

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.tmrv.2011.11.003

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institute of Health Research
  2. CSL Behring
  3. CCCTG
  4. CCCTBG
  5. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  6. Canadian Blood Services
  7. CIHR
  8. Government of Canada (Ottawa, Ontario)
  9. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research
  10. Fonds de la Recherche en Sante du Quebec (FRSQ)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Severe sepsis and septic shock are the most common reasons for admission to an intensive care unit; and the risk of death is substantial, estimated at approximately 40%. Evidence suggests that early resuscitation strategies that include the use of resuscitation fluids, antibiotics, blood, and inotropes reduce death. Although fluid resuscitation is an immediate life-saving intervention, a fundamental question that remains unanswered is whether the type of resuscitation fluid impacts survival when it is initiated very early in the course of septic shock. A randomized controlled trial published in 2008 confirmed that hydroxyethyl starch fluids cause acute renal failure defined by the requirement for renal replacement therapy. In contrast, a subgroup analysis from a randomized controlled trial suggests that 4% albumin fluid may reduce death from severe sepsis; however, these findings require confirmation in a large randomized trial. Our team is planning a pragmatic early septic shock fluid resuscitation trial that will compare the effectiveness of 5% albumin vs normal saline on 90-day mortality (PRECISE). In this article, we summarize the scientific rationale and inherent challenges associated with the conduct of PRECISE, the background work and planning elements that have been undertaken, and the PRECISE RCT protocol with rationale and justifications provided for the chosen population, the interventions, and the outcome measures. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据