Publication:

Cardiac Output Monitoring Managing Intravenous Therapy (COMMIT) to Treat Emergency Department Patients with Sepsis

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

2016

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Citation

Hou, Peter C., Michael R. Filbin, Anthony Napoli, Joseph Feldman, Peter S. Pang, Jeffrey Sankoff, Bruce M. Lo, Howard Dickey-White, Robert H. Birkhahn, and Nathan I. Shapiro. 2016. “Cardiac Output Monitoring Managing Intravenous Therapy (COMMIT) to Treat Emergency Department Patients with Sepsis.” Shock (Augusta, Ga.) 46 (2): 132-138. doi:10.1097/SHK.0000000000000564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SHK.0000000000000564.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective: Fluid responsiveness is proposed as a physiology-based method to titrate fluid therapy based on preload dependence. The objectives of this study were to determine if a fluid responsiveness protocol would decrease progression of organ dysfunction, and a fluid responsiveness protocol would facilitate a more aggressive resuscitation. Methods: Prospective, 10-center, randomized interventional trial. Inclusion criteria: suspected sepsis and lactate 2.0 to 4.0 mmol/L. Exclusion criteria (abbreviated): systolic blood pressure more than 90 mmHg, and contraindication to aggressive fluid resuscitation. Intervention: fluid responsiveness protocol using Non-Invasive Cardiac Output Monitor (NICOM) to assess for fluid responsiveness (>10% increase in stroke volume in response to 5 mL/kg fluid bolus) with balance of a liter given in responsive patients. Control: standard clinical care. Outcomes: primary—change in Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at least 1 over 72 h; secondary—fluids administered. Trial was initially powered at 600 patients, but stopped early due to a change in sponsor's funding priorities. Results: Sixty-four patients were enrolled with 32 in the treatment arm. There were no significant differences between arms in age, comorbidities, baseline vital signs, or SOFA scores (P > 0.05 for all). Comparing treatment versus Standard of Care—there was no difference in proportion of increase in SOFA score of at least 1 point (30% vs. 33%) (note bene underpowered, P = 1.0) or mean preprotocol fluids 1,050 mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 786–1,314) vs. 1,031 mL (95% CI: 741–1,325) (P = 0.93); however, treatment patients received more fluids during the protocol (2,633 mL [95% CI: 2,264–3,001] vs. 1,002 mL [95% CI: 707–1,298]) (P < 0.001). Conclusions: In this study of a “preshock” population, there was no change in progression of organ dysfunction with a fluid responsiveness protocol. A noninvasive fluid responsiveness protocol did facilitate delivery of an increased volume of fluid. Additional properly powered and enrolled outcomes studies are needed.

Description

Research Data

Keywords

Fluid resuscitation, sepsis, shock, stroke volume, volume responsiveness

Terms of Use

This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material (LAA), as set forth at Terms of Service

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Related Stories