Trial reportIntensive care medicine2022
Remote ischemic conditioning in septic shock: the RECO-Sepsis randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Intensive care medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03201575 (REmote Ischemic COnditioning in Septic Shock), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
REmote Ischemic COnditioning in Septic Shock: The RECO-Sepsis Study
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Remote ischemic conditioning in intensive care: From bench to bedside.Annals of intensive care · 2026Review
- The nasal microbiota is a potential diagnostic biomarker for sepsis in critical care units.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Clinical value of CVP+VIVC in predicting fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock.African health sciences · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine whether remote ischemic conditioning (RECO), compared to standard care, limits the severity and the consequences of multiple organ failure in patients with septic shock.
methodsThe RECO-Sepsis trial, a prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel group trial with blinded assessment of the outcome, was conducted at six intensive care units in France in adult patients with septic shock. Within 12 h after the onset of septic shock, patients were randomized (1:1 ratio) to receive either RECO applied by inflating/deflating (200/0 mmHg for 5/5 min) 4 times a cuff around an arm or a sham procedure every 12 h for 24 h. The primary endpoint was the severity of multiple organ failure assessed by the mean daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score from inclusion to the fourth day after inclusion (day 4). Patients were followed for 90 days.
resultsAmong 180 randomized patients, 178 completed the trial (RECO group: 87; control group: 91) and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (108 men [60.7%], median age 68 [59-75] years). There was no significant difference in the mean daily SOFA score between the intervention group and the control group (7.2 points [5.2-10.7] versus 7.6 points [4.9-10.7], respectively; p = 0.919). Cumulative mortality within 90 days was 27.6% in the RECO group and 39.6% control group (Log-rank test, p = 0.10; adjusted hazard ratio 0.59, 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.99; p = 0.049).
conclusionsIn patients with septic shock, RECO failed to reduce the severity of organ failures assessed by mean daily SOFA score from inclusion to day 4. Adequately powered trials are needed to assess potential delayed benefits of RECO.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.