Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25605469›Full record

Trial reportIntensive care medicine2015

Effectiveness of treatment based on PiCCO parameters in critically ill patients with septic shock and/or acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.

Zhongheng Zhang, Hongying Ni, Zhixian Qian

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Intensive care medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
16.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

62 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Intravenous fluid therapy in sepsis.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2022
    Review
  17. Effective hemodynamic monitoring.Critical care (London, England) · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhongheng ZhangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Jinhua Municipal Central Hospital, Jinhua Hospital of Zhejiang University, 351, Mingyue Road, Jinhua, 321000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China, zh_zhang1984@hotmail.com.
Hongying Ni
Zhixian Qian
Jinhua Central Hospital · CNQuzhou City People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare treatment based on either PiCCO-derived physiological values or central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring, we performed a prospective randomized controlled trial with group sequential analysis.

methodsConsecutive critically ill patients with septic shock and/or ARDS were included. The planned total sample size was 715. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality after randomization. Participants underwent stratified randomization according to the classification of ARDS and/or septic shock. Caregivers were not blinded to the intervention, but participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment.

resultsThe study was stopped early because of futility after enrollment of 350 patients including 168 in the PiCCO group and 182 in the control group. There was no loss to follow-up and data from all enrolled participants were analyzed. The result showed that treatment based on PiCCO-derived physiological values was not able to reduce the 28-day mortality risk (odds ratio 1.00, 95 % CI 0.66-1.52; p = 0.993). There was no difference between the two groups in secondary outcomes such as 14-day mortality (40.5 vs. 41.2 %; p = 0.889), ICU length of stay (median 9 vs. 7.5 days; p = 0.598), days free of vasopressors (median 14.5 vs. 19 days; p = 0.676), and days free of mechanical ventilation (median 3 vs. 6 days; p = 0.168). No severe adverse event was reported in both groups.

conclusionOn the basis of our study, PICCO-based fluid management does not improve outcome when compared to CVP-based fluid management.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessAgedCardiac OutputClinical ProtocolsCritical CareFemaleHemodynamicsHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicOrgan Dysfunction ScoresProspective StudiesPulse Wave AnalysisRespiration, ArtificialRespiratory Distress Syndrome

Identifiers

PMID25605469
OpenAlexW2039577487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.