SEPSISPAM
PubMed • Full text • PDF
Clinical Question
For patients with septic shock, does treatment to a goal MAP of 80-85 mmHg reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days when compared to a goal MAP of 65-70 mmHg?
Bottom Line
For patients with septic shock, a goal MAP of 80-85 mmHg does not reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days when compared to a goal of 65-70 mmHg. The higher MAP goal was associated with reduction in rates of renal dysfunction for patients with a history of chronic hypertension.
Major Points
No large, randomized-controlled trial exist to support a MAP target in sepsis. A higher MAP goal than the current 65 mmHg as recommended by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign[1] may theoretically improve end-organ perfusion, especially for those with chronic hypertension.[2]
The 2014 Sepsis and Mean Arterial Pressure (SEPSISPAM) trial randomized 776 patients with septic shock to a goal MAP of 65-70 or 80-85 mmHg for up to 5 days through vasopressor administration. (Both groups' average achieved MAPs were about 5 mmHg above the target range after day 2.) There was no difference between the two groups for all-cause mortality at 28 or 90 days. Those with a history of chronic hypertension had less renal dysfunction with a higher MAP goal. The higher MAP goal was generally well tolerated, except for an increase in AF.
Guidelines
Surviving Sepsis Campaign severe sepsis and septic shock (2016, adapted)[3]
- During the initial resuscitation, target MAP of 65 mm Hg in patients with septic shock needing vasopressors
- Recommend norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence)
- Can add vasopressin up to 0.03 U/min (weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence) or epinephrine (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence) to norepinephrine to achieve MAP targets
- Can add vasopressin up to 0.03 U/min to decrease norepinephrine dose (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence)
Design
- Multicenter, randomized, open label, controlled trial
- N=776
- MAP goal 65-70 mmHg (n=388)
- MAP goal 80-85 mmHg (n=388)
- Setting: 29 French centers
- Enrollment: 2010-2011
- Follow-up: 90 days
- Analysis: Intention-to-treat
- Primary outcomes: All-cause mortality at day 28
Population
Inclusion Criteria
- Age ≥18 years with septic shock refractory to administration of 30 mL/kg NS or colloids or was deemed to have inadequate response on right-heart catheterization, pulse-pressure measurement, SV measurement, or echocardiography
- Sepsis defined by ≥2 SIRS criteria, likely or proven infection, and ≥1 organ with new dysfunction
- If requiring norepinephrine or epinephrine:
- Minimum infusion rate of 0.1 ug/kg/min
- Evaluation for enrollment within six hours of initiation of vasopressor therapy
Exclusion Criteria
- Lack of competence and no legal guardian, incarceration, pregnancy, or other legal protection
- No French health system affiliation
- Recent participation in another study
- Recent participation in an interventional study with a primary outcome of mortality
- Investigator's decision to withhold resuscitation
Baseline Characteristics
From the MAP 65-70 mmHg group. Groups were similar.
- Demographics: 65 years, male 64.4%
- PMH: Ischemic heart disease 10.1%, HF 13.7%, COPD 12.1%, CKD 7.7% (ESRD on HD 3.1%), cirrhosis 7.2%, DM 23.2%, autoimmune disease or cancer 34.8%, chronic arterial hypertension
- Recent surgery: Elective 1.3%, emergent 14.2%
- Sepsis data:
- Infection source: Lung 51.5%, abdomen 17.3, urinary tract 11.3%, other 18.8%
- Community-acquired: 65.2%
- Severity:
- SAPS II score: 57.2 (out of 163, higher numbers indicate more severe disease)
- SOFA score: 10.8 (out of 20, higher numbers indicate more organ dysfunction)
- AKI: 48.7%
- Requiring intubation: 73.7%
- Other data on inclusion: MAP 73 mmHg, HR 103 BPM, pH 7.30, serum lactate 3.7 mmol/L, PaO2:FIO2 198 mmHg, creatinine 1.96 mg/dL, Hgb 10.3 g/dL
- Initial therapy before inclusion: Fluids administered 2.9 L
- Vasopressors (median dose): Norepinephrine 94.8% (0.35 ug/kg/min), epinephrine 5.2% (0.23 ug/kg/min), dobutamine 5.4%
- Infection source: Lung 51.5%, abdomen 17.3, urinary tract 11.3%, other 18.8%
Interventions
- Randomization to a group with stratification by history of hypertension
- MAP 65-70 mmHg - Lower MAP target
- MAP 80-85 mmHg - Higher MAP target
- MAP goal was reduced to 65-70 if adverse events related to elevated goal (i.e. clinically-relevant bleeding, MI, major ventricular arrhythmia, SVT that was poorly tolerated, mesenteric ischemia, or distal-limb ischemia)
- Both groups maintained goal MAPS for up to 5 days or until weaned from vasopressors with subsequent BP goals directed by treating physician
- Resuscitation per French guidelines
- Norepinephrine administered preferentially (one center used epinephrine preferentially)
- Decision for use of activated protein C and hydrocortisone use was left to the treating physician
- Diuretics, NSAIDS, IV contrast, and nephrotoxic agents were disallowed except for extenuating circumstances
- Initiation of RRT if ≥1 of the following present:
- Anuria
- Hyperkalemia with changes on EKG
- "Pure" metabolic acidosis with pH <7.2
- BUN >84 mg/dL
- Sedation, analgesia, and muscle relaxants left to discretion of clinicians
- Goal RASS target of -3 to 0
Outcomes
Presented as MAP 65-70 mmHg vs. MAP 80-85 mmHg. Some data and statistical analyses are inconsistently presented between the main text and supplementary appendix.[4] Conflicting data are extracted from the main text.
Primary Outcome
- All-cause mortality at day 28
- 34.0% vs. 36.6% (HR for MAP 80-85 mmHg 1.07; 95% CI 0.84-1.38; P=0.57)
Secondary Outcomes
- All-cause mortality at day 90
- 42.3% vs. 43.8% (HR for MAP 80-85 mmHg 1.04; 95% CI 0.83-1.30; P=0.74)
- Survival or no organ support at day 28
- 62.1% vs. 60.6% (P=0.66)
- Days free of organ support through day 28
- Vasopressor: 18 vs. 16 days (P=0.03)
- Mechanical ventilation: 16 vs. 15 days (P=0.21)
- RRT: 21 vs. 19 days (P=0.36)
- Change in renal SOFA score
- Calculated as maximum score between days 1 and 7 minus inclusion SOFA score.
- +1.0 vs. +0.8 (P=0.076)
- No chronic hypertension: +0.9 vs. +0.9 (P=0.95)
- Chronic hypertension: +1.1 vs. +0.7 (P=0.005)
- Doubling of creatinine
- 41.6% vs. 38.6% (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.66-1.17; P=0.42)
- No chronic hypertension: 33.0% vs. 38.5% (P=0.32)
- Chronic hypertension: 52.0% vs. 38.9% (P=0.02)
- RRT through day 7
- 35.8% vs. 33.5% (P=0.50)
- No chronic hypertension: 30.7% vs. 34.8% (P=0.36)
- Chronic hypertension: 42.2% vs. 31.7% (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.41-0.99; P=0.046)
- Length of stay
- ICU: 8 vs. 8 days (P=0.60)
- Hospital: Not presented
- SOFA score by day 7
- Not presented
Additional Analyses
- MAP during the 5 day period
- Higher for the MAP 80-85 mmHg group (P=0.02; see Figure 2)
- Survival at day 28 without organ support
- Organ support includes vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, or RRT.
- 62.1% vs. 60.1% (P=0.66)
- Administration of other therapeutics
- Corticosteroids: 80.0% vs. 85.0%
- Activated protein C: 6.8% vs. 7.5%
- Cumulative measurements through day 5
- Fluid intake: 10.0 vs. 10.5 L (P=0.89)
- UOP: 6.7 vs. 6.9 L (P=0.87)
- Fluid balance: +2.8 vs. +2.4 liters (P=0.74)
Adverse Events
- Any
- 17.8% vs. 19.1% (P=0.64)
- MI: 0.5% vs. 1.8% (P=0.18)
- AF: 2.8% vs. 6.7% (P=0.02)
- VF or V-tach: 3.9% vs. 5.7% (P=0.24)
- Digital ischemia: 2.3% vs. 2.6% (P=0.82)
- Mesenteric ischemia: 2.3% vs. 2.3% (P=1.00)
- Bleeding: 10.8% vs. 8.0% (P=0.22)
Criticisms
- Not blinded
- Incomplete recording of inclusion variables like right-heart catheterization, pulse pressure measurement, SV measurement, and echocardiography
- Underpowered secondary to lower than expected mortality
- MAPs achieved tended to be above their goal ranges (70-75 and 85-90 mmHg)
- Widespread corticosteroid use
- Stroke was not measured, which is problematic given the rate of AF<[2]
Funding
- French Ministry of Health
- Authors with multiple financial disclosures
Further Reading
- ↑ Dellinger RP et al. "Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012." Critical Care Medicine (2013) 41(2) 580-637.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Russell JA. "Editorial: Is there a good MAP for septic shock?" The New England Journal of Medicine. ePublished 2014-03-18. Accessed 2014-04-15.
- ↑ Rhodes A, et al. "Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016." Critical Care Medicine. 2017;45(3)1-67.
- ↑ Supplementary appendix