ArticleTrials2022
Optimal target blood pressure in elderly with septic shock (OPTPRESS) trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of targeting high mean arterial pressure for older patients with septic shock (OPTPRESS): a multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial.Intensive care medicine · 2025Trial
- High blood pressure-targeted management associated with reduced benefits of higher body mass index in elderly patients with septic shock: a post hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Association between time to target mean arterial pressure and 90-day mortality in septic shock: a post hoc analysis of the OPTPRESS trial.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Diagnostic values of noradrenaline administered dose, procalcitonin (PCT) and blood lactic acid for septic shock.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors at 20 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHemodynamic stabilization is a core component in the resuscitation of septic shock. However, the optimal target blood pressure remains debatable. Previous randomized controlled trials suggested that uniformly adopting a target mean arterial pressure (MAP) higher than 65 mmHg for all adult septic shock patients would not be beneficial; however, it has also been proposed that higher target MAP may be beneficial for elderly patients, especially those with arteriosclerosis.
methodsA multicenter, pragmatic single-blind randomized controlled trial will be conducted to compare target MAP of 80-85 mmHg (high-target) and 65-70 mmHg (control) in the resuscitation of septic shock patients admitted to 28 hospitals in Japan. Patients with septic shock aged ≥65 years are randomly assigned to the high-target or control groups. The target MAP shall be maintained for 72 h after randomization or until vasopressors are no longer needed to improve patients' condition. To minimize the adverse effects related to catecholamines, if norepinephrine dose of ≥ 0.1 μg/kg/min is needed to maintain the target MAP, vasopressin will be initiated. Other therapeutic approaches, including fluid administration, hydrocortisone use, and antibiotic choice, will be determined by the physician in charge based on the latest clinical guidelines. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality at 90 days after randomization. DISCUSSION: The result of this trial will provide great insight on the resuscitation strategy for septic shock in the era of global aged society. Also, it will provide the better understanding on the importance of individualized treatment strategy in hemodynamic management in critically ill patients.
trial registrationUMIN Clinical Trials Registry; UMIN000041775. Registered 13 September 2020.
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.