2,833 publications from this institution
The administration of drotrecogin alfa (activated) to patients with severe sepsis was associated with a significant survival benefit that tended to increase with higher baseline likelihood of death. Current data suggest that the increased risk of bleeding does not vary according to likelihood of death.
<b>Introduction</b>: Despite considerable advances in our understanding of how sepsis develops and multiple clinical trials of potential therapies, no new pharmacologic agent has been consistently shown to improve survival. <b>Areas covered</b>: We reviewed relevant publications identified through PubMed and from the authors' knowledge of this field. We discuss the main reasons why clinical trials on new therapeutic interventions have failed in the past, including heterogeneity of study populations and choice of outcome measures. We discuss how changes in study design and in patient selection could help improve identification of effective agents in the future. <b>Expert opinion</b>: The search for new sepsis therapies must continue but lessons must be learned from previous clinical trials so that the same mistakes are not repeated. Rather than grouping all patients with sepsis together, we should study only those most likely to benefit from the intervention. Better characterization of patients will be facilitated using modern 'omics technology and analysis of the increasingly large quantities of clinical data available, enabling more personalized patient selection for trial inclusion. New clinical trial design and inclusion of other endpoints in addition to mortality will also aid our search for the elusive positive clinical trial and effective interventions for sepsis.
Vincent, J L; Akca, S; De Mendonca, A; Haji-Michael, P; Sprung, C; Moreno, R; Antonelli, M; Suter, P M
Intravenous (IV) fluids and vasopressor agents are key components of hemodynamic management. Since their introduction, their use in the perioperative setting has continued to evolve, and we are now on the brink of automated administration. IV fluid therapy was first described in Scotland during the 1832 cholera epidemic, when pioneers in medicine saved critically ill patients dying from hypovolemic shock. However, widespread use of IV fluids only began in the 20th century. Epinephrine was discovered and purified in the United States at the end of the 19th century, but its short half-life limited its implementation into patient care. Advances in venous access, including the introduction of the central venous catheter, and the ability to administer continuous infusions of fluids and vasopressors rather than just boluses, facilitated the use of fluids and adrenergic agents. With the advent of advanced hemodynamic monitoring, most notably the pulmonary artery catheter, the role of fluids and vasopressors in the maintenance of tissue oxygenation through adequate cardiac output and perfusion pressure became more clearly established, and hemodynamic goals could be established to better titrate fluid and vasopressor therapy. Less invasive hemodynamic monitoring techniques, using echography, pulse contour analysis, and heart-lung interactions, have facilitated hemodynamic monitoring at the bedside. Most recently, advances have been made in closed-loop fluid and vasopressor therapy, which apply computer assistance to interpret hemodynamic variables and therapy. Development and increased use of artificial intelligence will likely represent a major step toward fully automated hemodynamic management in the perioperative environment in the near future. In this narrative review, we discuss the key events in experimental medicine that have led to the current status of fluid and vasopressor therapies and describe the potential benefits that future automation has to offer.
Vincent, Jean-Louis MD, PhD, FCCM; Thijs, Lambert MD, PhD; Artigas, Antonio MD; Marshall, John MD, FRCSC; Suter, Peter MD, FCCM Author Information
