Matthieu Legrand, Edouard Jullien, Antoine Kimmoun, Guillaume Geri, Hafid Ait-Oufella, Stanislas Abrard, Samuel Gaugain, Fanny Bounes, Philippe Guerci, Julien Pottecher, Matthieu Jamme, Yves Poncelin de Raucourt, Damien Barraud, Jean-Michel Constantin, William Juguet, Sigismond Lasocki, Romain Sonneville, Juliette Audibert, Gaëtan Plantefève, Olivier Ellrodt, Anne-Laure Fedou, Marc Leone, Laurent Lefebvre, Adrien Auvet, David Chen, Eric Vicaut, François Dépret
{"title":"伊洛前列素治疗严重感染性休克伴持续性低灌注:一项双盲、随机对照试验。","authors":"Matthieu Legrand, Edouard Jullien, Antoine Kimmoun, Guillaume Geri, Hafid Ait-Oufella, Stanislas Abrard, Samuel Gaugain, Fanny Bounes, Philippe Guerci, Julien Pottecher, Matthieu Jamme, Yves Poncelin de Raucourt, Damien Barraud, Jean-Michel Constantin, William Juguet, Sigismond Lasocki, Romain Sonneville, Juliette Audibert, Gaëtan Plantefève, Olivier Ellrodt, Anne-Laure Fedou, Marc Leone, Laurent Lefebvre, Adrien Auvet, David Chen, Eric Vicaut, François Dépret","doi":"10.1164/rccm.202410-1924OC","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Rationale:</b> Preclinical and preliminary clinical data suggest that iloprost may improve tissue perfusion in septic shock. However, its effect on organ failure remains unclear. <b>Objectives:</b> To investigate whether iloprost provides organ protection in septic shock with hypoperfusion. <b>Methods:</b> In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, adults with septic shock and persistent hypoperfusion (i.e., increased capillary refill time and/or skin mottling) were randomized to receive a 48-hour intravenous infusion of iloprost or placebo. The primary outcome was the change in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score from randomization to Day 7. Secondary outcomes included mortality at Day 28, organ support-free days by Day 28, and mean daily SOFA score. <b>Measurements and Main Results:</b> A total of 240 patients were randomized, and 236 were included in the analysis. Median (IQR) changes in SOFA score were -4 (-7 to 7) in the iloprost group and -5 (-8 to 5) in the placebo group (median difference, 1; 95% CI, 0-3; <i>P</i> = 0.12). At 28 days, 48 patients (42%) had died in the iloprost group and 47 (39%) had died in the placebo group (relative risk, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.80-1.5). The median average SOFA score was 11.2 (7.4-15.9) in the iloprost group, compared with 10.5 (6.8-16.5) in the placebo group (median difference, 0.25; 95% CI, -1.1 to 1.8). Median (95% confidence interval) between-group differences in 28-day ventilation-, vasopressor-, and renal replacement therapy-free survival days were 0 (0-0), 0 (-1 to 1), and 0 (0-0), respectively. Severe adverse events occurred in 15% of patients in the iloprost group and 7% of patients in the placebo group (<i>P</i> = 0.06). <b>Conclusions:</b> Among patients with septic shock and persistent hypoperfusion, iloprost did not reduce the severity of organ failure. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03788837) and EudraCT (2018-001709-10).</p>","PeriodicalId":7664,"journal":{"name":"American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1211-1219"},"PeriodicalIF":19.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12264687/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Iloprost for the Treatment of Severe Septic Shock with Persistent Hypoperfusion: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Matthieu Legrand, Edouard Jullien, Antoine Kimmoun, Guillaume Geri, Hafid Ait-Oufella, Stanislas Abrard, Samuel Gaugain, Fanny Bounes, Philippe Guerci, Julien Pottecher, Matthieu Jamme, Yves Poncelin de Raucourt, Damien Barraud, Jean-Michel Constantin, William Juguet, Sigismond Lasocki, Romain Sonneville, Juliette Audibert, Gaëtan Plantefève, Olivier Ellrodt, Anne-Laure Fedou, Marc Leone, Laurent Lefebvre, Adrien Auvet, David Chen, Eric Vicaut, François Dépret\",\"doi\":\"10.1164/rccm.202410-1924OC\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Rationale:</b> Preclinical and preliminary clinical data suggest that iloprost may improve tissue perfusion in septic shock. However, its effect on organ failure remains unclear. <b>Objectives:</b> To investigate whether iloprost provides organ protection in septic shock with hypoperfusion. <b>Methods:</b> In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, adults with septic shock and persistent hypoperfusion (i.e., increased capillary refill time and/or skin mottling) were randomized to receive a 48-hour intravenous infusion of iloprost or placebo. The primary outcome was the change in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score from randomization to Day 7. Secondary outcomes included mortality at Day 28, organ support-free days by Day 28, and mean daily SOFA score. <b>Measurements and Main Results:</b> A total of 240 patients were randomized, and 236 were included in the analysis. Median (IQR) changes in SOFA score were -4 (-7 to 7) in the iloprost group and -5 (-8 to 5) in the placebo group (median difference, 1; 95% CI, 0-3; <i>P</i> = 0.12). At 28 days, 48 patients (42%) had died in the iloprost group and 47 (39%) had died in the placebo group (relative risk, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.80-1.5). The median average SOFA score was 11.2 (7.4-15.9) in the iloprost group, compared with 10.5 (6.8-16.5) in the placebo group (median difference, 0.25; 95% CI, -1.1 to 1.8). Median (95% confidence interval) between-group differences in 28-day ventilation-, vasopressor-, and renal replacement therapy-free survival days were 0 (0-0), 0 (-1 to 1), and 0 (0-0), respectively. Severe adverse events occurred in 15% of patients in the iloprost group and 7% of patients in the placebo group (<i>P</i> = 0.06). <b>Conclusions:</b> Among patients with septic shock and persistent hypoperfusion, iloprost did not reduce the severity of organ failure. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03788837) and EudraCT (2018-001709-10).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1211-1219\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":19.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12264687/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202410-1924OC\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202410-1924OC","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Iloprost for the Treatment of Severe Septic Shock with Persistent Hypoperfusion: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.
Rationale: Preclinical and preliminary clinical data suggest that iloprost may improve tissue perfusion in septic shock. However, its effect on organ failure remains unclear. Objectives: To investigate whether iloprost provides organ protection in septic shock with hypoperfusion. Methods: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, adults with septic shock and persistent hypoperfusion (i.e., increased capillary refill time and/or skin mottling) were randomized to receive a 48-hour intravenous infusion of iloprost or placebo. The primary outcome was the change in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score from randomization to Day 7. Secondary outcomes included mortality at Day 28, organ support-free days by Day 28, and mean daily SOFA score. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 240 patients were randomized, and 236 were included in the analysis. Median (IQR) changes in SOFA score were -4 (-7 to 7) in the iloprost group and -5 (-8 to 5) in the placebo group (median difference, 1; 95% CI, 0-3; P = 0.12). At 28 days, 48 patients (42%) had died in the iloprost group and 47 (39%) had died in the placebo group (relative risk, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.80-1.5). The median average SOFA score was 11.2 (7.4-15.9) in the iloprost group, compared with 10.5 (6.8-16.5) in the placebo group (median difference, 0.25; 95% CI, -1.1 to 1.8). Median (95% confidence interval) between-group differences in 28-day ventilation-, vasopressor-, and renal replacement therapy-free survival days were 0 (0-0), 0 (-1 to 1), and 0 (0-0), respectively. Severe adverse events occurred in 15% of patients in the iloprost group and 7% of patients in the placebo group (P = 0.06). Conclusions: Among patients with septic shock and persistent hypoperfusion, iloprost did not reduce the severity of organ failure. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03788837) and EudraCT (2018-001709-10).
期刊介绍:
The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine focuses on human biology and disease, as well as animal studies that contribute to the understanding of pathophysiology and treatment of diseases that affect the respiratory system and critically ill patients. Papers that are solely or predominantly based in cell and molecular biology are published in the companion journal, the American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology. The Journal also seeks to publish clinical trials and outstanding review articles on areas of interest in several forms. The State-of-the-Art review is a treatise usually covering a broad field that brings bench research to the bedside. Shorter reviews are published as Critical Care Perspectives or Pulmonary Perspectives. These are generally focused on a more limited area and advance a concerted opinion about care for a specific process. Concise Clinical Reviews provide an evidence-based synthesis of the literature pertaining to topics of fundamental importance to the practice of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Images providing advances or unusual contributions to the field are published as Images in Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep Medicine and the Sciences.
A recent trend and future direction of the Journal has been to include debates of a topical nature on issues of importance in pulmonary and critical care medicine and to the membership of the American Thoracic Society. Other recent changes have included encompassing works from the field of critical care medicine and the extension of the editorial governing of journal policy to colleagues outside of the United States of America. The focus and direction of the Journal is to establish an international forum for state-of-the-art respiratory and critical care medicine.