Early goal-directed treatment versus standard care in management of early septic shock: Meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Abstract

Since the incorporation of the early hemodynamic resuscitation in septic shock according to the early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) protocol among the 6-hour resuscitation bundle of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, a great debate has been raised about the issue. The present meta-analysis aims to determine whether the resuscitative phase really takes advantages by being performed with EGDT. A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of EGDT versus usual care in patients with early septic shock was performed. Four high-quality RCTs have been included with 4,464 patients (1990 in EGDT and 2013 in usual care arm). ICU admission and cardiovascular support necessity increased in the EGDT group (OR = 2.00, 95% CI 1.55-2.57 and OR = 1.33, 95% CI 1.08-1.64, respectively). EGDT has no significant effect on mortality (90 days, 60 days, 28 days, and mortality by the time of hospital discharge). EGDT has no significant effect in reducing the length of hospital stay, the necessity of respiratory and renal function support, and the duration of respiratory and cardiocirculatory support. EGDT seems to increase the resource demand in terms of ICU admissions and cardiocirculatory support necessity without reducing mortality, renal and respiratory organ support necessity, respiratory and cardiocirculatory support duration, and length of hospital stay. Systematic review, level I.