4.6 Article

Lactated Ringer's Versus 4% Albumin on Lactated Ringer's in Early Sepsis Therapy in Cancer Patients: A Pilot Single-Center Randomized Trial

期刊

CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
卷 47, 期 10, 页码 E798-E805

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003900

关键词

albumin; cancer; crystalloids; fluids; randomized clinical trial; septic shock

资金

  1. Grifols

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the effects of the administration of 4% albumin on lactated Ringer's, when compared with lactated Ringer's alone, in the early phase of sepsis in cancer patients. Design: Single-center, randomized, double-blind, controlled-parallel trial. Setting: A tertiary care university cancer hospital. Patients: Cancer patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Interventions: Between October 2014 and December 2016, patients were randomly assigned to receive either bolus of albumin in a lactated Ringer's solution or lactated Ringer's solution alone during the first 6 hours of fluid resuscitation after intensive care medicine (ICU) admission. Primary outcome was defined as death from any cause at 7 days. Secondary outcomes were defined as death from any cause within 28 days, change in Sequence Organ Failure Assessment scores from baseline to day 7, days alive and free of mechanical ventilation, days alive and free of vasopressor, renal replacement therapy during ICU stay, and length of ICU and hospital stay. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 360 patients were enrolled in the trial. At 7 days, 46 of 180 patients (26%) died in the albumin group and 40 of 180 (22%) died in the lactated Ringer's group (p = 0.5). At 28 days, 96 of 180 patients (53%) died in the albumin group and 83 of 180 (46%) died in the lactated Ringer's group (p = 0.2). No significant differences in secondary outcomes were observed. Conclusions: Adding albumin to early standard resuscitation with lactated Ringer's in cancer patients with sepsis did not improve 7-day survival.

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

4.6
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