Cited by 100Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyAbdominal Surgery and Complications

A lactate-targeted resuscitation strategy may be associated with higher mortality in patients with septic shock and normal capillary refill time: A post hoc analysis of the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK study

Open access
Kattan, Eduardo, Hernández, Glenn, Ospina-Tascón, Gustavo, Valenzuela, Emilio Daniel, Bakker, Jan, Castro, Ricardo·2020·Annals of Intensive Care

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Capillary refill time (CRT) may improve more rapidly than lactate in response to increments in systemic flow. Therefore, it can be assessed more frequently during septic shock (SS) resuscitation. Hyperlactatemia, in contrast, exhibits a slower recovery in SS survivors, probably explained by the delayed resolution of non-hypoperfusion-related sources. Thus, targeting lactate normalization may be associated with impaired outcomes. The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial compared CRT- versus lactate-targeted resuscitation in early SS. CRT-targeted resuscitation associated with lower mortality and organ dysfunction; mechanisms were not investigated. CRT was assessed every 30 min and lactate every 2 h during the 8-h intervention period, allowing a first comparison between groups at 2 h (T2). Our primary aim was to determine if SS patients evolving with normal CRT at T2 after randomization (T0) exhibited a higher mortality and organ dysfunction when allocated to the LT arm than when randomized to the CRT arm. Our secondary aim was to determine if those patients with normal CRT at T2 had received more therapeutic interventions when randomized to the LT arm. To address these issues, we performed a post hoc analysis of the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK dataset. RESULTS: Patients randomized to the lactate arm at T0, evolving with normal CRT at T2 exhibited significantly higher mortality than patients with normal CRT at T2 initially allocated to CRT (40 vs 23%, p = 0.009). These results replicated at T8 and T24. LT arm received significantly more resuscitative interventions (fluid boluses: 1000[500-2000] vs. 500[0-1500], p = 0.004; norepinephrine test in previously hypertensive patients: 43 (35) vs. 19 (19), p = 0.001; and inodilators: 16 (13) vs. 3 (3), p = 0.003). A multivariate logistic regression of patients with normal CRT at T2, including APACHE-II, baseline lactate, cumulative fluids administered since emergency admission, source of infection, and randomization group) confirmed that allocation to LT group was a statistically significant determinant of 28-day mortality (OR 3.3; 95%CI[1.5-7.1]); p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Septic shock patients with normal CRT at baseline received more therapeutic interventions and presented more organ dysfunction when allocated to the lactate group. This could associate with worse outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13613-020-00732-1

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 41 · Cited by 100

Authors
Kattan, E., Hernández, G., Ospina-Tascón, G., Valenzuela, E. D., Bakker, J., & Castro, R.
Affiliations
  • Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (CL)
  • Fundación Valle del Lili (CO)
Corresponding author
  • Kattan, Eduardo
  • Ospina-Tascón, Gustavo
  • Valenzuela, Emilio Daniel
  • Bakker, Jan
  • Castro, Ricardo
Venue
Annals of Intensive Care
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
114
ISSN
2110-5820 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3080265800
Cited by
100
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11
FWCI
6.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Intensive Care (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
FONDECYT-CONICYT (1170043)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Abdominal Surgery and Complications
Keywords
septic shock, capillary refill time, early goal-directed therapy, 28-day mortality, organ dysfunction, fluid bolus, norepinephrine, inodilators, vasopressors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review