Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29687277›Full record

ArticleAnnals of intensive care2018

Early goal-directed therapy using a physiological holistic view: the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK-a randomized controlled trial.

Glenn Hernández, Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti, Gustavo Ospina-Tascón, Fernando Godinho Zampieri, Arnaldo Dubin, F Javier Hurtado, Gilberto Friedman, Ricardo Castro, Leyla Alegría, Maurizio Cecconi and 3 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of intensive care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03078712 (Early Goal Directed Therapy Using a Physiological Holistic View. A Multicenter Study in Latin America), which is not on this map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT03078712 nacompletednot on this map

Early Goal Directed Therapy Using a Physiological Holistic View. A Multicenter Study in Latin America: The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorPontificia Universidad Catolica de ChileRan2017 to 2018Enrolled424ConditionsSeptic Shock, Hyperlactatemia, Peripheral PerfusionArmsPeripheral Perfusion guided resuscitation, Lactate guided resuscitation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Septic shock in the prehospital setting: a scoping review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Quality of evidence supporting Surviving Sepsis Campaign Recommendations.Anaesthesia, critical care & pain medicine · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Vasopressors in septic shock: which, when, and how much?Annals of translational medicine · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 7 institutions in 9 countries.

Glenn HernándezDepartamento de Medicina Intensiva, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Diagonal Paraguay 362, Santiago, Chile. glennguru@gmail.com.
Alexandre Biasi CavalcantiResearch Institute HCor, Hospital do Coração, R. Des. Eliseu Guilherme, 147 - Paraíso, São Paulo, Brazil.
Gustavo Ospina-TascónDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Fundación Valle del Lili, Universidad ICESI, Carrera 98 # 18-49, Cali, Colombia.
Fernando Godinho ZampieriResearch Institute HCor, Hospital do Coração, R. Des. Eliseu Guilherme, 147 - Paraíso, São Paulo, Brazil.
Arnaldo DubinServicio de Terapia Intensiva, Sanatorio Otamendi y Miroli, Azcuénaga 894, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
F Javier HurtadoCentro de Tratamiento Intensivo, Hospital Español, Escuela de Medicina, Universidad de la República, Avda. Gral. Garibaldi, 1729 esq. Rocha, Montevideo, Uruguay.
Gilberto FriedmanDepartamento de Medicina Interna, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, R. Ramiro Barcelos 2350 - Santa Cecilia, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Ricardo CastroDepartamento de Medicina Intensiva, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Diagonal Paraguay 362, Santiago, Chile.
Leyla AlegríaDepartamento de Medicina Intensiva, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Diagonal Paraguay 362, Santiago, Chile.
Maurizio CecconiSt George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Rd, London, SW17 0QT, UK.
Jean-Louis TeboulService de Réanimation médicale, Hôpitaux universitaires Paris-Sud, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
Jan BakkerDepartamento de Medicina Intensiva, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Diagonal Paraguay 362, Santiago, Chile.
ANDROMEDA-SHOCK Study Investigators
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile · CLFundación Valle del Lili · COUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul · BRColumbia University Irving Medical Center · USHospital do Coração · BRSt George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversidad de la República de Uruguay · UY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeptic shock is a highly lethal condition. Early recognition of tissue hypoperfusion and its reversion are key factors for limiting progression to multiple organ dysfunction and death. Lactate-targeted resuscitation is the gold-standard under current guidelines, although it has several pitfalls including that non-hypoxic sources of lactate might predominate in an unknown proportion of patients. Peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation might provide a real-time response to increases in flow that could lead to a more timely decision to stop resuscitation, thus avoiding fluid overload and the risks of over-resuscitation. This article reports the rationale, study design and analysis plan of the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK Study.

methodsANDROMEDA-SHOCK is a randomized controlled trial which aims to determine if a peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation is associated with lower 28-day mortality compared to a lactate-targeted resuscitation in patients with septic shock with less than 4 h of diagnosis. Both groups will be treated with the same sequential approach during the 8-hour study period pursuing normalization of capillary refill time versus normalization or a decrease of more than 20% of lactate every 2 h. The common protocol starts with fluid responsiveness assessment and fluid loading in responders, followed by a vasopressor and an inodilator test if necessary. The primary outcome is 28-day mortality, and the secondary outcomes are: free days of mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy and vasopressor support during the first 28 days after randomization; multiple organ dysfunction during the first 72 h after randomization; intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay; and all-cause mortality at 90-day. A sample size of 422 patients was calculated to detect a 15% absolute reduction in mortality in the peripheral perfusion group with 90% power and two-tailed type I error of 5%. All analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle.

conclusionsIf peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation improves 28-day mortality, this could lead to simplified algorithms, assessing almost in real-time the reperfusion process, and pursuing more physiologically sound objectives. At the end, it might prevent the risk of over-resuscitation and lead to a better utilization of intensive care unit resources. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03078712 (registered retrospectively March 13th, 2017).

Indexed as

Fluid responsivenessLactatePeripheral perfusionResuscitationSeptic shock

Identifiers

PMID29687277
PMCPMC5913056
OpenAlexW2807221187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.