Study Comparing Sepsis Treatment Methods Shows Equivalent Survival Rates

Doctors and a patient in a hospital
A 5-year, randomized clinical trial helped resolve a long-standing debate about how best to manage sepsis patients.

For years, doctors have debated the best ways to identify, predict and treat sepsis. The condition, which is usually triggered by infection, is marked by body-wide inflammation and can lead to a dangerous drop in blood pressure known as septic shock. Sepsis affects more than 800,000 people each year and kills about 20 to 30 percent of them. It’s the most expensive condition treated in U.S. hospitals, costing more than $20 billion a year.

Now, a nationwide, 5-year clinical trial that set out to compare three different treatment approaches has shown that survival of patients with septic shock was the same regardless of whether they received treatment based on structured, standardized medical plans (protocols) or the usual high-level standard of care. If patients were diagnosed shortly after the onset of sepsis and treated promptly with fluids and antibiotics, they did equally well whether they received treatment based on either of two specific protocols—one less invasive than the other—or got the usual, high-level care provided by the academic hospitals where the study was conducted.

According to the study’s leaders, the trial “helps resolve a long-standing clinical debate about how best to manage sepsis patients, particularly during the critical first few hours of treatment,” and shows that “there is not a mandated need for more invasive care in all patients.”

Learn more:
NIGMS News Release
University of Pittsburg News Release Exit icon
New England Journal of Medicine Article Exit icon
Sepsis Fact Sheet

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

You may post as "anonymous." Your e-mail address will not be published; we may use it to contact you about your comment.

*

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.