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。

IF 19.4 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:临床前和初步临床资料提示伊洛前列素可改善脓毒性休克的组织灌注。然而,它对器官衰竭的影响尚不清楚。方法:在这项多中心、双盲、随机对照试验中,患有感染性休克和持续灌注不足(即毛细血管再充血时间升高和/或皮肤斑驳)的成年人随机接受48小时静脉输注伊洛前列素或安慰剂。主要结局是顺序器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分从随机分配到第7天的变化。次要结局包括第28天的死亡率、第28天无器官支持天数和平均每日SOFA评分。结果:共纳入240例患者,其中236例纳入分析。伊洛前列素组SOFA评分的中位[IQR] δ为-4[- 7,7],安慰剂组为-5[- 8,5](中位差1;95% CI, 0 ~ 3;P = 0.12)。在第28天,伊洛前列素组有48例(42%)患者死亡,安慰剂组有47例(39%)患者死亡(相对危险度为1.08;95% CI, 0.80 ~ 1.5)。伊洛前列素组平均SOFA评分的中位数为11.2[7.4,15.9],安慰剂组为10.5[6.8,16.5](中位数差0.25;95% CI, -1.1 ~ 1.8)。28天通气、血管加压药物和无肾替代治疗生存天数组间差异的中位数(95% CI)分别为0(0 ~ 0)、0(-1 ~ 1)和0(0 ~ 0)。伊洛前列素组和安慰剂组的严重不良事件发生率分别为15%和7% (p= 0.06)。结论:在脓毒性休克和持续性低灌注患者中,伊洛前列素并没有降低器官衰竭的严重程度。临床试验注册可在www.Clinicaltrials: gov, ID: NCT03788837。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
27.30
自引率
4.50%
发文量
1313
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信