Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40960603›Full record

Trial reportIntensive care medicine2025

Heterogeneity in the response to a high vs low mean arterial pressure target in patients with septic shock a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

Romain Pirracchio, Nicholas Fong, Matthieu Legrand

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Intensive care medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01149278 (Assessment of Two Levels of Arterial Pressure on Survival in Patients With Septic Shock), 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.

NCT01149278 nacompletednot on this map

Assessment of Two Levels of Arterial Pressure on Survival in Patients With Septic Shock

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital, AngersRan2010 to 2012Enrolled800ConditionsSeptic Shock, Arterial Pressure, Hemodynamics, MortalityArmsmaintain mean arterial pressure between 80-85 mm Hg, maintain mean arterial pressure between 65-70 mm Hg
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. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors.

Romain PirracchioDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Nicholas FongDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Matthieu LegrandDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA. Matthieu.legrand@ucsf.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9788-5316

Funding

The choice of vasopressor to prevent postoperative acute kidney injury after major non-cardiac surgery: a multicenter pragmatic cluster cross-over randomized trial (the VEGA-2 trial)R01DK139484 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI SACHIN KHETERPAL, Matthieu Legrand · 2024 to 2026
$2.0M
Identification of sub-phenotypes of severely ill burn patients and risk for secondary sepsis: SEPSISBURNR01GM151494 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Matthieu Legrand · 2023 to 2026
$1.5M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK139484NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM151494
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe best blood pressure target in sepsis is a matter of debate. SEPSIS-PAM, a large multicenter pragmatic randomized controlled trial, compared two mean arterial pressure targets (65-70 mmHg vs 80-85 mmHg) in septic shock and did not find any difference in mortality. The goal of this study was to assess whether (i) heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) exists in the response to different targets and (ii) the initial clinical trajectory can inform the optimal blood pressure target.

methodsThe primary outcome was mortality at day 28. Secondary outcomes included mortality at day 90, acute kidney injury (AKI), and severe AKI based on the KDIGO classification, need for renal replacement therapy, renal replacement therapy, and vasopressor-free days. The presence of HTE was tested for and, if present, quantified. The interaction between post-randomization evolution of the MAP, norepinephrine requirements, lactate, mottling score, and urine output was estimated using a multimediation analysis.

results776 patients were enrolled and analyzed in this study. There was no evidence of significant treatment effect heterogeneity based on baseline characteristics (sweep p-value = 0.664; 95% CI: 0.633-0.673). The direct effect of a higher MAP target on mortality, holding 24 h mediators at their control-level values, was not significant (RD = 0.017; 95% CI - 0.052 to 0.086; p = 0.62). However, if reaching a higher MAP required high norepinephrine doses and/or did not result in mottled skin resolution at 24 h, the effect transmitted through those mediators was associated with higher mortality (risk difference = 0.027; 95% CI 0.012-0.047 and 0.012; 95% CI 0.001-0.026).

conclusionOur results suggest the absence of heterogeneity of the response to different blood pressure targets in patients with septic shock. Targeting a higher MAP target may be associated with harm when high norepinephrine doses are required or when mottled skin is present.

trial registrationSEPSISPAM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01149278.

Indexed as

Arterial PressureShock, SepticAcute Kidney InjuryAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorepinephrineRenal Replacement TherapyTreatment OutcomeVasoconstrictor AgentsNorepinephrineVasoconstrictor AgentsBlood pressureHeterogeneityIndivisualizedSepsisShockTarget

Identifiers

PMID40960603
PMCPMC13324118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.