What is it about?
This was a randomized, controlled trial comparing three different ways to care for patients with severe, life-threatening infections (septic shock): an intensive, more invasive protocol, a moderate, less invasive protocol, or usual care (doctors did what they would otherwise normally do, without a protocol).
Featured Image
Why is it important?
Prior studies found that protocol-based care improved outcomes. We found that using the protocols did not significantly decrease death rates compared to usual care. Prior to this, the best available evidence suggested that a formal, invasive care protocol resulted in improved outcomes for patients with septic shock.
Perspectives
This is thought to be due to the fact that increasing awareness overall about septic shock over the last 12 years had led "usual care" to improve outcomes up to the levels of care seen with protocols.
Alexander T Limkakeng
Duke University
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: A Randomized Trial of Protocol-Based Care for Early Septic Shock, The New England Journal of Medicine and Surgery and the Collateral Branches of Science, May 2014, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM/MMS),
DOI: 10.1056/nejmoa1401602.
You can read the full text:
Resources
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
