Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39259541›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2024

Iloprost and Organ Dysfunction in Adults With Septic Shock and Endotheliopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Morten H Bestle, Jakob Stensballe, Theis Lange, Niels E Clausen, Peter Søe-Jensen, Kristine Holst Pedersen, Mikkel Gybel-Brask, Maj-Brit N Kjær, Christian Overgaard Steensen, Diana Bertelsen Jensen and 6 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readAdaptive Clinical TrialClinical Trial, Phase IIClinical Trial, Phase III
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04123444 (Efficacy and Safety of 72-hour Infusion of Prostacyclin), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04123444 phase2 / phase3completednot on this map

Efficacy and Safety of 72-hour Infusion of Prostacyclin (1 Nanogram(ng)/Kilo(kg)/Minute(Min)) in Patients With Septic Shock Induced Endotheliopathy - a Multicentre Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Blinded, Investigator-initiated Trial"

TypeinterventionalSponsorJakob Stensballe, MD, PhDRan2019 to 2022Enrolled279ConditionsSeptic ShockArmsIloprost, Isotonic saline
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Refractory septic shock: our updated pragmatic approach.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026
    Review
  7. Prostacyclin for Patients with Septic Shock: Promise, Progress, and Perspective.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

16 authors.

Morten H BestleDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital-North Zealand, Hilleroed, Denmark.
Jakob StensballeCapital Region Blood Bank, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Theis LangeSection of Biostatistics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Niels E ClausenDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital-Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Peter Søe-JensenDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital-Herlev and Gentofte, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Kristine Holst PedersenCapital Region Blood Bank, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mikkel Gybel-BraskCapital Region Blood Bank, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Maj-Brit N KjærDepartment of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Christian Overgaard SteensenDepartment of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Diana Bertelsen JensenDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital-Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Rune GärtnerDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital-Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Martin Schønemann-LundDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital-North Zealand, Hilleroed, Denmark.
Klaus T KristiansenDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital-Amager and Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anne LindhardtDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital-Zealand University Hospital, Koege, Denmark.
Pär I JohanssonCapital Region Blood Bank, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anders PernerDepartment of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Soluble thrombomodulin is a marker of endotheliopathy, and iloprost may improve endothelial function. In patients with septic shock, high plasma levels of soluble thrombomodulin (>10 ng/mL) have been associated with worse organ dysfunction and mortality. Objective: To assess the effects of treatment with iloprost vs placebo on the severity of organ failure in patients with septic shock and plasma levels of soluble thrombomodulin higher than 10 ng/mL. Design, Setting, and Participants: This investigator-initiated, adaptive, parallel group, stratified, double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted between November 1, 2019, and July 5, 2022, at 6 hospitals in Denmark. The trial had a maximum sample size of 380, with an interim analysis for futility only at 200 patients with 90 days of follow-up. In total, 279 adults in the intensive care unit (ICU) with septic shock and endotheliopathy were included. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to masked intravenous infusion of iloprost, 1 ng/kg/min (n = 142), or placebo (n = 137) for 72 hours. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mean daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in the ICU adjusted for trial site and baseline SOFA score for the per-protocol population. SOFA scores for each of the 5 organ systems ranged from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe dysfunction (maximum score, 20). The secondary outcomes included serious adverse reactions and serious adverse events at 7 days and mortality at 90 days. Results: Of 279 randomized patients, data from 278 were analyzed (median [IQR] age, 69 [58-77] years; 171 (62%) male), 142 in the iloprost group and 136 in the placebo group. The trial was stopped for futility at the planned interim analysis. The mean [IQR] daily SOFA score was 10.6 (6.4-14.8) in the iloprost group and 10.5 (5.9-15.5) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference, 0.2 [95% CI, -0.8 to 1.2]; P = .70). Mortality at 90 days in the iloprost group was 57% (81 of 142) vs 51% (70 of 136) in the placebo group (adjusted relative risk, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.91-1.40]; P = .33). Serious adverse events occurred in 26 of 142 patients (18%) for the iloprost group vs 20 of 136 patients (15%) for the placebo group (adjusted relative risk, 1.25 [95% CI, 0.73-2.15]; P = .52). Only 1 serious adverse reaction was observed. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of adults in the ICU with septic shock and severe endotheliopathy, infusion of iloprost, 1 ng/kg/min, for 72 hours did not reduce mean daily SOFA scores compared with placebo. In a clinical context, administration of iloprost will be unlikely to improve outcome in these patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04123444.

Indexed as

IloprostMultiple Organ FailureOrgan Dysfunction ScoresShock, SepticAgedDenmarkDouble-Blind MethodEndothelium, VascularFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedThrombomodulinIloprostThrombomodulin

Identifiers

PMID39259541
PMCPMC11391323

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.