Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34253228›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2021

Individualized resuscitation strategy for septic shock formalized by finite mixture modeling and dynamic treatment regimen.

Penglin Ma, Jingtao Liu, Feng Shen, Xuelian Liao, Ming Xiu, Heling Zhao, Mingyan Zhao, Jing Xie, Peng Wang, Man Huang and 19 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Prognostic Value of Serum Glucose Level in Critically Ill Septic Patients on Admission to Pediatric Intensive Care Unit.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2023
    Article
  20. 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

29 authors at 19 institutions in 1 country.

Penglin Ma *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Guiqian International General Hospital, Guiyang, People's Republic of China.
Jingtao Liu *Department of Critical Care Medicine, The 8th Medical Center of Chinese, PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100091, People's Republic of China.
Feng ShenDepartment of Intensive Care Unit, Guizhou Medical University Affiliated Hospital, Guiyang, People's Republic of China.
Xuelian LiaoDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of China.
Ming XiuDepartment of Intensive Care Unit, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, People's Republic of China.
Heling ZhaoDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, People's Republic of China.
Mingyan ZhaoDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, People's Republic of China.
Jing XieGeneral Intensive Care Unit Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, People's Republic of China.
Peng WangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Fu Xing Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Man HuangGeneral Intensive Care Unit, Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Tong LiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Meili DuanDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Kejian QianDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, People's Republic of China.
Yue PengDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, People's Republic of China.
Feihu ZhouDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Xin XinSurgical Intensive Care Unit, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Xianyao WanThe First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, People's Republic of China.
ZongYu WangDepartment of Intensive Care, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Shusheng LiDepartment of Emergency, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, People's Republic of China.
Jianwei HanDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The 8th medical Center of Chinese, PLA General Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Zhenliang LiDepartment of Critical Care, Beijing PingGu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Guolei DingIntensive Care Unit, The Hospital of Shunyi District, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Qun DengDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The 4th Medical Center of Chinese, PLA General Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Jicheng ZhangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Shandong Provincial Hospital, Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, People's Republic of China.
Yue ZhuDepartment of Critical Care, Beijing Luhe Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Wenjing MaDepartment of Critical Care, Beijing Miyun Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Jingwen WangIntensive Care Unit, Beijing Changping District Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Yan KangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of China.
Zhongheng ZhangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310016, People's Republic of China. zh_zhang1984@zju.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-2336-5323
Capital Medical University · CNChinese PLA General Hospital · CNSichuan University · CNBeijing Luhe Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University · CNBeijing Tongren Hospital · CNCentral South University · CNDalian Medical University · CNFujian Medical University · CNGuiyang Medical University · CNHarbin Medical University · CNHebei General Hospital · CNJilin University · CNNanchang University · CNPeking University · CNSecond Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University · CNShandong Provincial Hospital · CNShunyi Hospital of Beijing Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital · CNSir Run Run Shaw Hospital · CNTongji Hospital · CN

Funding

Yilu Gexin Fluid Therapy Research Fund Project YLGX-ZZ-2020005Young Scientists Fund 81901929
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeptic shock comprises a heterogeneous population, and individualized resuscitation strategy is of vital importance. The study aimed to identify subclasses of septic shock with non-supervised learning algorithms, so as to tailor resuscitation strategy for each class.

methodsPatients with septic shock in 25 tertiary care teaching hospitals in China from January 2016 to December 2017 were enrolled in the study. Clinical and laboratory variables were collected on days 0, 1, 2, 3 and 7 after ICU admission. Subclasses of septic shock were identified by both finite mixture modeling and K-means clustering. Individualized fluid volume and norepinephrine dose were estimated using dynamic treatment regime (DTR) model to optimize the final mortality outcome. DTR models were validated in the eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD) dataset.

resultsA total of 1437 patients with a mortality rate of 29% were included for analysis. The finite mixture modeling and K-means clustering robustly identified five classes of septic shock. Class 1 (baseline class) accounted for the majority of patients over all days; class 2 (critical class) had the highest severity of illness; class 3 (renal dysfunction) was characterized by renal dysfunction; class 4 (respiratory failure class) was characterized by respiratory failure; and class 5 (mild class) was characterized by the lowest mortality rate (21%). The optimal fluid infusion followed the resuscitation/de-resuscitation phases with initial large volume infusion and late restricted volume infusion. While class 1 transitioned to de-resuscitation phase on day 3, class 3 transitioned on day 1. Classes 1 and 3 might benefit from early use of norepinephrine, and class 2 can benefit from delayed use of norepinephrine while waiting for adequate fluid infusion.

conclusionsSeptic shock comprises a heterogeneous population that can be robustly classified into five phenotypes. These classes can be easily identified with routine clinical variables and can help to tailor resuscitation strategy in the context of precise medicine.

Indexed as

AgedAnalysis of VarianceChinaFemaleFinite Element AnalysisFluid TherapyHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedOrgan Dysfunction ScoresResuscitationRisk FactorsShock, SepticStatistics, NonparametricDynamic treatment regimeFluid resuscitationMortalitySepsis

Identifiers

PMID34253228
PMCPMC8273991
OpenAlexW3182332828

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.