Can We Use Something Other Than Lactate To Guide Resuscitation?

Nurses: you see those orders. q1, q2, q4h lactates to help guide resuscitation in septic shock. You have to drop what you're doing and draw labs. Hopefully, if the patient is sick enough to need the labs, they have a central line. Hold off of titrating drips, hold off on the ever important charting you are required to do, let's trend lactates which I have previously discussed the utility of (or lack of utility). Along the way we contribute to iatrogenic anemia, spend a bunch of lab money, etc.

What if there was another option? Well, the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial proves that you can intelligently resuscitate patients without checking lactate levels. What they did was randomize >400pts to either have their resuscitation guided by lactate or this nifty little trick called Capillary Refill Time.

One of my favorite parts of the trial wasn't even the CRT vs. lactate component but their algorithm to determine fluid responsiveness which is a major interest of mine. I am not a fan of arbitrarily giving a pt liter after liter of fluid to "clear lactate" or improve the blood pressure. That just does not work and my body of work has data to prove that. I digress. Sometimes you need to read the supplementary materials in these articles as their algorithm was hidden in there.

Standard of care by CMS (the body that pays the hospitals and therefore us in the US) has mandated checking lactates despite no good evidence that trending it does much. This study shows that checking CRT is AT LEAST as good as checking lactate levels. The mortality was not statistically significant (p=0.06) but I wonder what would've happened if they would've had an additional 200pts in the trial. The CRT group had 34.9% mortality vs 43.4% in the lactate group. The CRT group also had fewer organ failures (p=0.045). Other fun facts include the fact that the lactate group received more fluids in the first 8h (p=0.01) but not overall. I don't know what to make of this.

All in all, even with its limitations, I feel this is a solid study. I really like it. I do not use CRT in my practice but I may be asking for a microscope slide to keep in my pocket in the upcoming weeks.

A hat tip to the authors

Hernandez G, Ospina‐Tascon GA, Damiani LP, Estenssoro E, Dubin A, Hurtado J, et al. Effect of a resuscitation strategy targeting peripheral perfusion status vs serum lactate levels on 28‐day mortality among patients with septic shock: the ANDROMEDA‐SHOCK randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;321(7):654–64.

- EJ




Link to FULL FREE ARTICLE

Although great care has been taken to ensure that the information in this post is accurate, eddyjoemd, LLC shall not be held responsible or in any way liable for the continued accuracy of the information, or for any errors, omissions or inaccuracies, or for any consequences arising therefrom.

Thiamine and Renal Failure in Septic Shock Patients

Every possible option to decreased morbidity, mortality, and costs are worth looking at in my book. The study that I am reviewing at this moment was published in 2017. I am ashamed that I had not run into it until today. It's challenging to stay up to date in everything. I digress.

Some would quickly bash this study for it being small (n=70) and a post-hoc secondary analysis of a pilot study. I am not going to do that. Why not? Well first of all, I do not participate in research myself. Just reading and enjoying these studies. Also, thiamine has no side effects described in the literature. Third, it is an inexpensive medication. Fourth, if it does turn out to decrease the incidence of acute kidney injury and the need for renal replacement therapy, aren't you going to feel guilty for not adopting these strategies for your patients? I hate resorting to that but my responsibility is for patients. What happens if this data is wrong? Nothing. What happens if this data is right and no one does anything for several years? Many patients may suffer.

This article is completely free and I encourage you to download it and read it for yourself. Amongst the points illustrated by the authors, they mention that it's not only perfusion that injures the kidneys during sepsis. There are other factors listed in the article. The way that it is postulated that thiamine works for these patients is by assisting in the mitochondrial dysfunction. Data that I have found not listed in this article shows that thiamine deficiency could have an incidence between 20-70% of critically ill patients. 

What they found was 21% of the patients in the placebo arm of the trial went on to need dialysis. Just one patient, or 3% in the thiamine group went on to require this. The authors note that acidosis was the primary indication for dialysis in 66% of the patients who required it. I personally would like to dig deeper into these numbers as there is some data that thiamine administration helps decrease lactic acidosis. 

This data should make you wonder if the strategy that many clinicians take of providing more IV fluids to patients whose renal function deteriorates is the correct strategy. Are we going to look in the mirror in a decade and want to punch our past selves in the face?   

- EJ

Link to Abstract

Link to Full Article

ADDENDUM: The prospective RCT is going to be completed in July 2022. Here is the link to clinicaltrials.gov's study details here: LINK

Moskowitz A, Andersen LW, Cocchi MN, Karlsson M, Patel PV, Donnino MW. Thiamine as a renal protective agent in septic shock. A secondary analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Anns Am Thorac Soc. 2017;14(5):737–41.

Although great care has been taken to ensure that the information in this post is accurate, eddyjoemd, LLC shall not be held responsible or in any way liable for the continued accuracy of the information, or for any errors, omissions or inaccuracies, or for any consequences arising therefrom.

Thiamine, Ascorbic Acid and Corticosteroids: The Mechanisms by which they should help in Sepsis

Want some nerdy stuff? Well this is some nerdy stuff! I'm taking a nice deep look at this figure. I am not going to lie to you at this moment, October 19th, and tell you I know what all this means, because I don't. But people who are more intelligent that I am have suggested that these are the mechanisms by which thiamine, ascorbic acid, and corticosteroids should help in the treatment of septic patients. I have a lot to learn.

I hope I don't get dinged for copyright stuff but honestly if this offends you, let me know. I will take it down. I will likely go deeper into this article at a later time. Wanted to share this image with you right now, though.





Link to Abstract

Link to FREE FULL Article

Moskowitz, A.; Andersen, L.W.; Huang, D.T.; Berg, K.M.; Grossestreuer, A.V.; Marik, P.E.; Sherwin, R.L.; Hou, P.C.; Becker, L.B.; Cocchi, M.N.; et al. Ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine in sepsis: A review of the biologic rationale and the present state of clinical evaluation. Crit. Care 2018, 22, 283.

Although great care has been taken to ensure that the information in this post is accurate, eddyjoemd, LLC shall not be held responsible or in any way liable for the continued accuracy of the information, or for any errors, omissions or inaccuracies, or for any consequences arising therefrom.