Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/81451
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Type: Journal article
Title: Harmonizing international trials of early goal-directed resuscitation for severe sepsis and septic shock: methodology of ProCESS, ARISE, and ProMISe
Author: Huang, D.
Angus, D.
Barnato, A.
Gunn, S.
Kellum, J.
Stapleton, D.
Weissfeld, L.
Yealy, D.
Peake, S.
Delaney, A.
Bellomo, R.
Cameron, P.
Higgins, A.
Holdgate, A.
Howe, B.
Webb, S.
Williams, P.
Osborn, T.
Mouncey, P.
Harrison, D.
et al.
Citation: Intensive Care Medicine, 2013; 39(10):1760-1775
Publisher: Springer
Issue Date: 2013
ISSN: 0342-4642
1432-1238
Contributor: Peake, Sandra Lois
Williams, Patricia Joan
Statement of
Responsibility: 
The ProCESS/ARISE/ProMISe Methodology Writing Committee
Abstract: PURPOSE To describe and compare the design of three independent but collaborating multicenter trials of early goal-directed resuscitation for severe sepsis and septic shock. METHODS We reviewed the three current trials, one each in the USA (ProCESS: protocolized care for early septic shock), Australasia (ARISE: Australasian resuscitation in sepsis evaluation), and the UK (ProMISe: protocolised management in sepsis). We used the 2010 CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials) statement and the 2008 CONSORT extension for trials assessing non-pharmacologic treatments to describe and compare the underlying rationale, commonalities, and differences. RESULTS All three trials conform to CONSORT guidelines, address the same fundamental questions, and share key design elements. Each trial is a patient-level, equal-randomized, parallel-group superiority trial that seeks to enroll emergency department patients with inclusion criteria that are consistent with the original early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) trial (suspected or confirmed infection, two or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, and refractory hypotension or elevated lactate), is powered to detect a 6–8 % absolute mortality reduction (hospital or 90-day), and uses trained teams to deliver EGDT. Design differences appear to primarily be driven by between-country variation in health care context. The main difference between the trials is the inclusion of a third, alternative resuscitation strategy arm in ProCESS. CONCLUSIONS Harmonization of study design and methods between severe sepsis trials is feasible and may facilitate pooling of data on completion of the trials.
Keywords: Septic shock; Clinical trial; Severe sepsis; Early goal-directed therapy; Study design; Methodology
Description: ProCESS/ARISE/ProMISe methodology writing committee members: Sandra L. Peake and Patricia Williams for the University of Adelaide, South Australia.
Rights: © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and ESICM 2013
RMID: 0020131743
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-013-3024-7
Appears in Collections:Medicine publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.