PoEM_Article_20

Title
Volume
Numero
Year
Article Type
Section		crt + click right on first page > Numbering & Section Options > Start Page Numbering at: X > + Section Marker: X
Corr. Author	First LastName
	Unit, City, Country
	Mail
Date of Submission (10 Feb. 2026)
Date of Revision (10 March., 10 Apr. 2026)
Date of Acceptation (10 Aug. 2026)
DOI (10.26738/poem.v3i1.58
Complete citation

Vol. 1 No. 1 2023

Abstract

Objective

The early hemodynamic optimization of septic shock patients is a cornerstone of care to hope for a better outcome, e.g., mortality decrease. However, in the prehospital setting, hemodynamic evaluation is restricted to micro and macrocirculatory clinical parameters.

This study aims to assess the relationship between micro and macrocirculatory hemodynamic parameters improvement and 30-days mortality among septic shock patients being taken care of for by a mobile intensive care unit (mICU) in the prehospital setting.

Methods

We performed a retrospective multicenter study, from January 2015 to November 2019 including septic shock patients requiring pre-hospital mICU intervention.

Results

Three hundred thirty-seven patients were analyzed. The mean age was 69 ± 15-years-old and 226 of which 67% were male patients. One hundred thirty-six patients (40%) had previous hypertension. Pulmonary infection was the main cause of septic shock (46%) and 30-days mortality reached 30%.

After propensity score analysis, for the macrocirculation: when systolic blood pressure increased by at least 30mmHg the odd ratio (OR) for 30-days mortality was 0.77 [0.65-0.84], when diastolic blood pressure increased by at least 5mmHg, the OR for 30-days mortality was 0.95 [0.88-0.99], when mean blood pressure increased by at least 30%, the OR for 30-days mortality was 0.88 [0.77-0.92] and when the heart rate decreased by at least 30 bpm, the OR for 30-days mortality was 0.62 [0.55-0.76]. For microcirculation, when the mottling score decreased by at least 2 points, the OR for 30-days mortality was 0.83 [0.75-0.91].

Conclusion

In this study, we report that prehospital improvement in micro and macrocirculatory parameters are associated with 30-days mortality rate decrease.

Introduction

Each year, 30 million people worldwide [1–3] suffer from sepsis, leading to around 11 million deaths [3] approximately one third of in-hospital deaths [4]. Sepsis mortality rate varies from 10 to 20% for sepsis and even up to 50% - 60% for septic shock, the most severe form of sepsis [5–7].

Among the factors that have made it possible to improve patient survival, we find early diagnosis, early referral to an appropriate facility, and the implementation of adequate therapies [8]. A comprehensive management strategy combining the above factors, "bundle of care", has proven its effectiveness in improving the outcome of septic shock [8–15]. The management of sepsis requires a dynamic approach constantly adapted to the severity of the patient [16, 17]. For the more serious forms, the more rapid and aggressive management is the most effective [18]. Previous studies have identified that 70% of sepsis are present before arrival at the hospital, justifying the need to implement early diagnostic and therapeutic strategies from prehospital care [19].

From a pathophysiological point of view, a sufficient tissue perfusion pressure, assessed by mean arterial pressure (MAP), is necessary for antibiotic therapy to diffuse in infected tissues [18, 20]. Obtaining a correct MAP requires hemodynamic optimization, including vascular filling in the first hours, even norepinephrine administration if necessary [8]. Hypertension is associated with mortality and morbidity rise [21]. In addition, hypertension is the main medical diagnosis in patients with septic shock [22]. A recommended target MAP of 65 mmHg is probably not suitable for all patients with chronic hypertension [8 ,23–25].

The aim of this retrospective observational study was to assess the relationship between hemodynamic parameters improvement during the pre-hospital phase of septic shock and 30-days mortality rate after hospital admission.

Patients and methods

The specificity of the French out-of-hospital emergency and care system is based on the French prehospital emergency system; the SAMU (Service d’Aide Medicale Urgente). The SAMU organization allows prehospital care equivalent to an intensive care unit by an emergency physician and a nurse. In the context of septic shock, fluid volume expansion, norepinephrine administration and antibiotic therapy can be addressed in the prehospital setting according to the recommendations [26].

We performed a retrospective, multicenter study, from January 2015 to November 2019, including patients with septic shock, treated in prehospital setting by a mICU team from Toulouse hospital, Necker hospital, Lariboisière, Pitié Salpêtrière hospital, Hôtel Dieu and Paris Fire Brigade.

The patients received care according to the recommendations of the protocols and habits of the pre-hospital and hospital teams.

The patients included in the study were those treated by a mICU team for prehospital septic shock, according to the definition of the “sepsis 3” conference in 2016 [17]. Underage patients, deprived of their liberty, under guardianship or curatorship as well as pregnant women were not included in the study.

The data analyzed included demographic data (age, weight, height), medical history, current treatments, suspected origin of sepsis, and schedules related to the pre-hospital care phase (time of call from the SAMU, time of arrival on site of the mICU team and time of arrival at the hospital), the data of the clinical examination collected at the initial stage of the prehospital setting (1st contact with the patient) and at the end of the pre-hospital phase (last values before hospital admission) - heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP), pulsed oxygen saturation (SpO2), respiratory rate (RR), Glasgow coma scale (GCS), body core temperature, capillary blood sugar, capillary refill time, skin mottling score [27] - and lactatemia at the start of pre-hospital. Skin mottling score is a clinical score ranging from 0 to 5 associated with sepsis-outcome.

The data describing the treatments administered were also collected (vascular filling (products, volume), use of vasopressors (products, dosage), mechanical ventilation parameters if applicable, antibiotic therapy (qualitative and quantitative).

IGS II, SAPS II and SOFA scores were calculated from hospital data on day 1 [28, 29]. These scores are used to predict sepsis outcome among patients admitted in ICU.

The study was approved by the ethics committee of the French Society of Anesthesia and Resuscitation on December 12, 2017 (reference number: IRB 00010254-2017-026).

Statistical analysis

The primary outcome was the 30-days mortality after hospital admission. The absolute variations (initial value in the prehospital setting – final value before hospital admission) of SBP, DBP, MAP and HR were calculated in order to evaluate the treatment effect on the macrocirculation. An increase of 30 mmHg of SBP, 5 mmHg of DBP and 30% MAP as well as a decrease of 30 beats per minute during pre-hospital care, were chosen at the beginning because of their clinical relevance representing the positive effect on hemodynamic treatment of septic shock. For microcirculation, an absolute variation in the mottling score of at least 2 points was considered to be significantly representative of a positive treatment effect of pre-hospital hemodynamic management of septic shock. The components of the hemodynamic treatment, vascular filling and/or administration of norepinephrine, were not analyzed individually but as a whole, given the absence of protocolization (possibility of using one and/or other therapies left to the discretion of the team in charge of the patient).

Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to assess the relationship between each covariate and 30-days mortality.

The results are expressed as an absolute value with relative percentage for the qualitative variables, as a mean with standard deviation for the quantitative variables of normal distribution and as a median with interquartile range (1st quartile - 3rd quartile) for the quantitative variables of non-Gaussian distribution.

Univariate analysis comparisons were made using Student's t-test for quantitative variables of normal distribution, Wilcoxon's test for continuous variables of non-Gaussian distribution, and Chi-square test for categorical variables.

In order to reduce the potential effect of confounding covariates on the relationship between 30-days mortality and changes in SBP, DBP, MAP, HR and mottling score, a propensity score analysis was performed. The propensity score was estimated using a logistic regression based on confounding covariates on 30-days mortality: pre-hospital duration, vascular filling volume, norepinephrine infusion, initial values of SBP, DBP, MAP, HR, and skin mottling score. The “nearest neighbor matching” method was used to match patients from the logit of the propensity score [30]. A threshold of 10% of the absolute differences of the means was used to estimate the balance of covariates after matching [31]. After matching, the association between 30-days mortality and micro and macrocirculation parameters was evaluated by logistic regression.

The tests performed are two-sided with a p-value <0.05 defining the significance of the difference. Statistical analyzes were performed using R software version 3,4,2

(http://www,R-project,org; the R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Results

In this study, 337 patients with septic shock, according to the definition of the consensus conference “sepsis 3” of 2016, were retrospectively analyzed [17].

Global characteristics of the population are summarized in Table 1.

Suspected origin of septic shock during pre-hospital care was mainly pulmonary (n=153, 46%), digestive (n=78, 23%) and urinary (n=52, 15%).

Univariate analysis

The results of the univariate analysis are summarized in Table 2.

Multivariate analysis

After matching by propensity score, the association between 30-days mortality and micro and macrocirculation parameters were evaluated by logistic regression. The balance of covariates after matching is represented by Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for SBP, DBP, MAP, HR and skin mottling score respectively.

* Micro-circulation

For microcirculation, when the skin mottling score decreased by at least 2 points, then the OR of death at D30 was 0.83 [0.75-0.91].

* Macro-circulation

Thus, for macrocirculation, between the start and the end of pre-hospital care:

- when the SBP increased by at least 30mmHg then the OR of death on D30 was 0.77 [0.65-0.84],

- when the DBP increased by at least 5mmHg then the OR of death on D30 was 0.95 [0.88-0.99],

- when the MAP increased by at least 30% then the OR of death on D30 was 0.88 [0.77-0.92],

- when the HR decreased by at least 30 beats per minute then the OR of death at D30 was 0.62 [0.55-0.76].

Discussion

In this study, we observed that the improvement in the micro and macrocirculatory hemodynamic parameters of patients with septic shock treated in pre-hospital setting by a mICU team is associated with a 30-days mortality decrease.

Indeed, data from previous studies had reported that circulatory, clinical or biological failures are associated with worsening of the patient [32–36].

From a pathophysiological point of view, the inflammation caused by sepsis is associated with vasodilation and vascular permeability as reflected by micro and macrocirculatory parameters [37].

In prehospital setting, only clinical parameters are available to assess the micro and macrocirculatory. For macro-circulation, MAP being considered to reflect tissue perfusion, the importance of maintaining or restoring it to reduce the occurrence or worsening of organ failures appears essential. Since invasive monitoring is rarely possible in pre-hospital, a non-invasive MAP measurement is the only one that can be used in pre-hospital. For microcirculation, the advisability of considering clinical parameters as a therapeutic target has already been reported for skin mottling score and capillary refill time [38].

For optimal management, the "sepsis 3" conference of 2016 [17], recommends a fluid volume expansion initiated in the first hours, followed by the administration of norepinephrine even if the MAP remains below 65 mmHg [8,17]. However, recent studies show the benefits of using norepinephrine earlier in order to reduce the time to target MAP and improve survival [39–41].

A MAP target of 65 mmHg for all patients without taking into account their personal history does not appear physiologically logical. Indeed, among patients suffering from, pathophysiological changes aim to allow adaptation to the higher blood pressure regimen [42–44]. Previous studies have reported the benefit of a higher blood pressure target in hypertensive population without altering heart function [45–47], microcirculation [48] and kidney function [23]. Thus, Lee et al. reported that a MAP target between 75 and 85 mmHg is associated with increased survival in hypertensive patients with septic shock [49]. In addition, it has been reported that the shorter the duration of the period of low blood pressure, e.g., hypoperfusion, the better is the survival [50].

However, this study has limitations. First, this is a retrospective study. Second, the study was conducted in an adult population exclusively; therefore, the results cannot be extrapolated directly to a pediatric population. Third, the external validity is low due to the specificity of the French pre-hospital emergency medical system. Fourth, the study population is represented by septic shock, therefore the results cannot be extrapolated to non-septic shock patients, i.e., sepsis. Nevertheless, the micro and macrocirculatory hemodynamic parameters reported in this study are simple and accessible since the prehospital setting to assess the severity and the treatment effect of septic shock cared for by a mICU team. Further studies are needed to confirm whether these parameters could be used to increase prehospital management and triage of septic shock.

Conclusion

In this study, we report an association between survival and micro and macrocirculatory hemodynamic parameters improvement among septic shock patients cared for by a mICU team in the prehospital setting

An early intervention, from the prehospital setting, personalized mean arterial pressure management appears desirable among hypertensive patients.

Authors' details

1. Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital Ambroise Paré – Boulogne Billancourt, France

2. SAMU 972 CHU de Martinique Pierre Zobda Quitman Hospital, Fort-de-France Martinique, France

3. Paris Fire Brigade, Paris, France

4. Department of Emergency Medicine, SAMU 31, University Hospital of Toulouse, Toulouse, France

5. Emergency Department, Cochin Hospital, Paris, France & Emergency Department, SMUR, Hôtel Dieu Hospital, Paris, France

6. Intensive Care Unit, SMUR, Pitie Salpêtriere Hospital, 47 Boulevard de l’Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France

7. SAMU 31, Castres Hospital, Castres, France

8. Intensive Care Unit, Anaesthesiology, SAMU, Necker Enfants Malades Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France

Author contributions

All authors contributed equally and validated the final version of record.

Declarations

Conflicts Of Interests

The Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Registration

No registration applicable.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the ethics committee of the French Society of Anesthesia and Resuscitation on December 12, 2017 (reference number: IRB 00010254-2017-026).

References

1. Fleischmann C, Scherag A, Adhikari NKJ, Hartog CS, Tsaganos T, Schlattmann P, et al. Assessment of Global Incidence and Mortality of Hospital-treated Sepsis. Current Estimates and Limitations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(3):259–72. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201504-0781OC

2. Gaieski DF, Edwards JM, Kallan MJ, Carr BG. Benchmarking the Incidence and Mortality of Severe Sepsis in the United States*. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(5):1167–74. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e31827c09f8

3. Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, Shackelford KA, Tsoi D, Kievlan DR, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990–2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2020 Jan 18;395(10219):200–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32989-7

4. Liu V, Escobar GJ, Greene JD, Soule J, Whippy A, Angus DC, et al. Hospital Deaths in Patients With Sepsis From 2 Independent Cohorts. JAMA. 2014 Jul 2;312(1):90–2. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.5804

5. Busani S, Damiani E, Cavazzuti I, Donati A, Girardis M. Intravenous immunoglobulin in septic shock: review of the mechanisms of action and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness. Minerva anestesiol. 2016;82(5):559–72.

6. Luhr R, Cao Y, Söderquist B, Cajander S. Trends in sepsis mortality over time in randomised sepsis trials: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of mortality in the control arm, 2002–2016. Crit Care. 2019 Jul 3;23(1):241. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-019-2528-0

7. Sakr Y, Elia C, Mascia L, Barberis B, Cardellino S, Livigni S, et al. Epidemiology and outcome of sepsis syndromes in Italian ICUs: a muticentre, observational cohort study in the region of Piedmont. Minerva Anestesiol. 2013 Sep;79(9):993–1002.

8. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801–10. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.0287

9. Jouffroy R, Gilbert B, Tourtier JP, Bloch-Laine E, Ecollan P, Bounes V, et al. Impact of Prehospital Antibiotic Therapy on Septic Shock Mortality. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2021 May 4;25(3):317–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10903127.2020.1763532

10. Nauclér P, Huttner A, van Werkhoven CH, Singer M, Tattevin P, Einav S, et al. Impact of time to antibiotic therapy on clinical outcome in patients with bacterial infections in the emergency department: implications for antimicrobial stewardship. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Feb 1;27(2):175–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2020.02.032

11. Peltan ID, Brown SM, Bledsoe JR, Sorensen J, Samore MH, Allen TL, et al. ED Door-to-Antibiotic Time and Long-term Mortality in Sepsis. CHEST. 2019 May 1;155(5):938–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2019.02.008

12. Seok H, Song J, Jeon JH, Choi HK, Choi WS, Moon S, et al. Timing of antibiotics in septic patients: a prospective cohort study. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Nov 1;26(11):1495–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2020.01.037

13. Seymour CW, Gesten F, Prescott HC, Friedrich ME, Iwashyna TJ, Phillips GS, et al. Time to Treatment and Mortality during Mandated Emergency Care for Sepsis. N Engl J Med. 376(23):2235–44. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1703058

14. Singer M. Antibiotics for Sepsis: Does Each Hour Really Count, or Is It Incestuous Amplification? Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 Oct 1;196(7):800–2. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201703-0621ed

15. Sterling SA, Miller WR, Pryor J, Puskarich MA, Jones AE. The Impact of Timing of Antibiotics on Outcomes in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis*. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(9):1907–15. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000001142

16. Leisman DE, Doerfler ME, Ward MF, Masick KD, Wie BJ, Gribben JL, et al. Survival Benefit and Cost Savings From Compliance With a Simplified 3-Hour Sepsis Bundle in a Series of Prospective, Multisite, Observational Cohorts. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(3):395–406. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000002184

17. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017 Mar 1;43(3):304–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6

18. Jouffroy R, Vivien B. Implementation of earlier antibiotic administration in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock in Japan: antibiotic action needs time and tissue perfusion to reach target. Crit Care. 2020 Jan 14;24(1):17.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-2727-8

19. The EPISEPSIS Study Group. EPISEPSIS: a reappraisal of the epidemiology and outcome of severe sepsis in French intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 2004 Apr 1;30(4):580–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-003-2121-4

20. Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, Light B, Parrillo JE, Sharma S, et al. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock*. Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2006;34(6):1589–96. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000217961.75225.E9

21. Kung HC, Xu J. Hypertension-related Mortality in the United States, 2000-2013. NCHS Data Brief. 2015 Mar;(193):1–8.

22. Unal A, Kostek O, Takir M, Caklili O, Uzunlulu M, Oguz A. Prognosis of patients in a medical intensive care unit. North Clin Istanb. 2015 Dec 31;2(3):189–95. https://doi.org/10.14744/nci.2015.79188

23. Asfar P, Meziani F, Hamel J-F, Grelon F, Megarbane B, Anguel N, et al. High versus Low Blood-Pressure Target in Patients with Septic Shock. N Engl J Med. 370(17):1583–93. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1312173

24. Hylands M, Moller MH, Asfar P, Toma A, Frenette AJ, Beaudoin N, et al. A systematic review of vasopressor blood pressure targets in critically ill adults with hypotension. Can J Anaesth. 2017 Jul;64(7):703–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-017-0877-1

25. Lamontagne F, Meade MO, Hébert PC, Asfar P, Lauzier F, Seely AJE, et al. Higher versus lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy in shock: a multicentre pilot randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2016 Apr 1;42(4):542–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-016-4237-3

26. Adnet F, Lapostolle F. International EMS Systems: France. Resuscitation. 2004 Oct 1;63(1):7–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.04.001

27. Le Borgne P, Kam C, Bilbault P. Marbrures: expression clinique de la dysfonction microcirculatoire dans le choc septique. Ann Fr Med Urgence. 2016 May;6(3):212–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13341-016-0637-9

28. Le Gall JR, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F. A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. JAMA. 1993 Dec 22;270(24):2957–63. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.270.24.2957 Erratum in: JAMA 1994 May 4;271(17):1321. PMID: 8254858.

29. Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, Willatts S, De Mendonça A, Bruining H, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. Intensive Care Med. 1996 Jul 1;22(7):707–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01709751

30. Austin PC. An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies. Multivar Behav Res. 2011 May 31;46(3):399–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786

31. Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009 Nov 10;28(25):3083–107. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3697

32. Ait-Oufella H, Bige N, Boelle PY, Pichereau C, Alves M, Bertinchamp R, et al. Capillary refill time exploration during septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2014 Jul 1;40(7):958–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-014-3326-4

33. Ait-Oufella H, Lemoinne S, Boelle PY, Galbois A, Baudel JL, Lemant J, et al. Mottling score predicts survival in septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2011 May 1;37(5):801–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-011-2163-y

34. Charlton M, Sims M, Coats T, Thompson JP. The microcirculation and its measurement in sepsis. J. Intensive Care Soc. 2017 Aug 1;18(3):221–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1751143716678638

35. De Backer D, Creteur J, Preiser JC, Dubois MJ, Vincent JL. Microvascular Blood Flow Is Altered in Patients with Sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002 Jul 1;166(1):98–104. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200109-016oc

36. Sakr Y, Dubois MJ, De Backer D, Creteur J, Vincent JL. Persistent microcirculatory alterations are associated with organ failure and death in patients with septic shock*. Crit Care Med. 2004 Sep;32(9):1825–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000138558.16257.3f

37. Angus DC, van der Poll T. Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(9):840–51. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1208623 Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2013 Nov 21;369(21):2069..

38. Jouffroy R, Saade A, Tourtier JP, Gueye P, Bloch-Laine E, Ecollan P, et al. Skin mottling score and capillary refill time to assess mortality of septic shock since pre-hospital setting. Am J Emerg Med. 2019 Apr 1;37(4):664–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2018.07.010

39. Bai X, Yu W, Ji W, Lin Z, Tan S, Duan K, et al. Early versus delayed administration of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock. Crit Care. 2014 Oct 3;18(5):532. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-014-0532-y

40. Hamzaoui O, Georger JF, Monnet X, Ksouri H, Maizel J, Richard C, et al. Early administration of norepinephrine increases cardiac preload and cardiac output in septic patients with life-threatening hypotension. Crit Care. 2010 Jul 29;14(4):R142. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc9207

41. Morimatsu H, Singh K, Uchino S, Bellomo R, Hart G. Early and exclusive use of norepinephrine in septic shock. Resuscitation. 2004 Aug 1;62(2):249–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.03.016

42. Dünser MW, Takala J, Ulmer H, Mayr VD, Luckner G, Jochberger S, et al. Arterial blood pressure during early sepsis and outcome. Intensive Care Med. 2009 Jul 1;35(7):1225–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-009-1427-2

43. Immink RV, van den Born BJH, van Montfrans GA, Koopmans RP, Karemaker JM, van Lieshout JJ. Impaired Cerebral Autoregulation in Patients With Malignant Hypertension. Circulation. 2004 Oct 12;110(15):2241–5. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000144472.08647.40

44. Strandgaard S, Olesen J, Skinhøj E, Lassen NA. Autoregulation of Brain Circulation in Severe Arterial Hypertension. BMJ. 1973 Mar 3;1(5852):507. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1.5852.507

45. Bourgoin A, Leone M, Delmas A, Garnier F, Albanèse J, Martin C. Increasing mean arterial pressure in patients with septic shock: Effects on oxygen variables and renal function*. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(4):780–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000157788.20591.23

46. LeDoux D, Astiz ME, Carpati CM, Rackow EC. Effects of perfusion pressure on tissue perfusion in septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2000;28(8):2729–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-200008000-00007

47. Xu JY, Ma SQ, Pan C, He HL, Cai SX, Hu SL, et al. A high mean arterial pressure target is associated with improved microcirculation in septic shock patients with previous hypertension: a prospective open label study. Crit Care. 2015 Dec 1;19(1):130. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-015-0866-0

48. Thooft A, Favory R, Salgado DR, Taccone FS, Donadello K, De Backer D, et al. Effects of changes in arterial pressure on organ perfusion during septic shock. Crit Care. 2011 Sep 21;15(5):R222. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc10462

49. Lee GT, Hwang SY, Jo IJ, Kim TR, Yoon H, Park JH, et al. Associations between mean arterial pressure and 28-day mortality according to the presence of hypertension or previous blood pressure level in critically ill sepsis patients. J Thorac Dis. 2019 May 31;(5):1980–1988. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2019.04.108

50. The ProCESS Investigators. A Randomized Trial of Protocol-Based Care for Early Septic Shock. N Engl J Med. 370(18):1683–93. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1401602

Copyright: This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite this paper? Jouffroy R, Gueye P, Thomas L, Gilbert B, Bloch-Laine E, Ecollan P, et al. Association between prehospital septic shock hemodynamic parameters improvement and 28-day mortality. Panorama of Emergency Medicine. 2023,1(1) https://doi.org/10.26738/poem.v1i1.20

Panorama of Emergency Medicine

Corresponding Author

Romain Jouffroy

(Intensive Care Unit,
University Hospital Ambroise Paré,
Boulogne Billancourt, France)

romain.jouffroy@aphp.fr

A complete list of the Authors'Affiliations
is available at the end of the article.

Submitted: 12 Jan 2023

Revised: 27 Feb 2023

Accepted: 5 April 2023

Published by New Health Concept

panoramaoem.cloud

FIGURE 1 - Systolic blood pressure love plot before and after matching.

Legend: CCF: chronic cardiac failure, HTA: hypertension, ImmunoD: immunosuppression, CRF: chronic renal failure..

FIGURE 2 - Diastolic blood pressure love plot before and after matching.

Legend: CCF: chronic cardiac failure, HTA: hypertension, ImmunoD: immunosuppression, CRF: chronic renal failure.

FIGURE 3 - Mean blood pressure love plot before and after matching.

Legend: CCF: chronic cardiac failure, HTA: hypertension, ImmunoD: immunosuppression, CRF: chronic renal failure.

FIGURE 4 - Heart rate love plot before and after matching.

Legend: CCF: chronic cardiac failure, HTA: hypertension, ImmunoD: immunosuppression, CRF: chronic renal failure.

TABLE 1 - Global characteristics of the population
	General population (n=337)
Age (years)	69 ± 15
Weight (kg)	71 ± 16
Height (cm)	170 ± 8
Male gender	226 (67%)
Hypertension	136 (40%)
Chronic heart failure	55 (16%)
Diabetes mellitus	84 (25%)
Cancer	114 (34%)
COPD	46 (14%)
Chronic renal failure	38 (11%)
Initial SBP (mmHg)	100 ± 45
Initial DBP (mmHg)	58 ± 20
Initial MAP (mmHg)	71 ± 22

Initial HR (beats.min-1)	113 ± 29
Initial RR (movements.min-1)	30 [22 – 38]
Initial pulse oximetry (%)	92 [85 – 96]
Initial temperature (°C)	38.5 [36.7 – 39.3]
Initial glycemia (mmol.l-1)	8.1 [5.9 – 11.0]
Initial Glasgow coma score	15 [13– 15]
Initial lactatemia (mmol.l-1)	6.2 ± 3.7
Prehospital vascular filling (ml)	750 [500 – 1200]
Prehospital norepinephrine administration	100 (30%)
Dose of norepinephrine (mg.h-1)	1.0 [0.5 – 2.0]
Prehospital antibiotic therapy	114 (34%)
Prehospital duration (min)	70 ± 31
Final SBP (mmHg)	105 ± 26
Final DBP (mmHg)	61 ± 19

Final MAP (mmHg)	75 ± 19
Final HR (beats.min-1)	107 ± 24
Final RR (movements.min-1)	25 [20 – 33]
Final pulse oximetry (%)	97 [94 – 99]
Final temperature (°C)	38.2 [36.7 – 38.9]
Final blood sugar (mmol.l-1)	7.4 [5.5 – 10.0]
Final Glasgow coma score	15 [14 – 15]
Final Lactatemia (mmol.l-1)	5 ± 3.7
SOFA score	7 [3 – 10]
SAPS2 score	58 ± 22
Length of stay in intensive care unit (days)	5 [3 – 9]
Length of stay in hospital (days)	12 [7 – 20]
Pre-hospital hemodynamic optimization (%)	204 (61%)
The results are expressed as an absolute value with relative percentage for the qualitative variables, as an average with standard deviation for the quantitative variables of normal distribution and as a median with interquartile range (1st quartile - 3rd quartile) for the quantitative variables of non-Gaussian distribution..

TABLE 2 - Results of univariate analysis between survivors and deceased at D30.
	Survivors (n=237)	Deceased (n=100)	P value
Age (years)	67 ± 15	73 ± 14	0.003
Weight (kg)	71 ± 16	70 ± 15	0.583
Height (cm)	170 ± 8	170 ± 9	0.773
Male gender	156 (66%)	70 (70%)	0.456
Hypertension	93 (39%)	43 (43%)	0.521
Heart Failure	32 (14%)	23 (23%)	0.033
Diabetes mellitus	64 (27%)	20 (20%)	0.176
Cancer	74 (31%)	40 (40%)	0.121
COPD	28 (12%)	18 (18%)	0.133
Chronic renal failure	24 (10%)	14 (14%)	0.306
Initial SBP (mmHg)	101 ± 50	98 ± 28	0.554
Initial DBP (mmHg)	59 ± 20	57 ± 20	0.484

Initial MAP (mmHg)	71 ± 22	70 ± 21	0.668
Initial HR (beats.min-1)	114 ± 28	111 ± 31	0.416
Initial RR (movements.min-1)	20 [22 – 36]	30 [25 – 39]	0.207
Initial SpO2 (%)	93 [88 – 97]	90 [83 – 95]	0.071
Initial body core temperature (°C)	38.6 [37.1 – 39.4]	38.2 [35.8 – 39.0]	0.031
Initial glycemia (mmol.l-1)	8.6 [6.2 – 11.9]	7.1 [5.2 – 9.6]	0.007
Initial Glasgow coma score	15 [13 – 15]	15 [12 – 15]	0.061
Initial lactatemia (mmol.l-1)	5.8 ± 3.5	6.9 ± 4.0	0.049
Prehospital vascular filling (ml)	800 [500 – 1150]	750 [500 - 1200]	0.504
Prehospital norepinephrine infusion	68 (29%)	32 (32%)	0.507
Norepinephrine dose (mg.h-1)	1.0 [0.5 – 2.0]	1.0 [0.7 – 2.0]	0.668
Prehospital antibiotic therapy administration	83 (35%)	31 (31%)	0.476
Prehospital duration (min)	70 ± 32	72 ± 30	0.567
Final SBP (mmHg)	105 ± 26	102 ± 27	0.264
Final DBP (mmHg)	61 ± 19	60 ± 19	0.483

Final MAP (mmHg)	76 ± 19	72 ± 18	0.175
Final HR (beats.min-1)	107 ± 24	109 ± 26	0.338
Final RR (movements.min-1)	25 [18 – 30]	30 [21 – 35]	0.004
Final SpO2 (%)	97 [95 – 99]	97 [92 – 98]	0.030
Final body core temperature (°C)	38.3 [37.2 – 39.0]	38 [35.9 -38.9]	0.009
Final glycemia (mmol.l-1)	7.4 [5.0 – 10.0]	7.3 [5.6 – 9.1]	0.660
Final Glasgow coma score	15 [14 – 15]	14 [13 – 15]	0.004
Final lactatemia (mmol.l-1)	3.8 ± 3.1	6.2 ± 4.3	<10-3
SOFA score	6 [3 – 9]	9 [6 – 12]	<10-3
SAPS2 score	52 ± 20	70 ± 23	<10-3
In intensive care unit length of stay (days)	5 [3 – 10]	4 [2 – 8]	0.04
In hospital length of stay (days)	15 [9 – 23]	5 [2 – 12]	<10-3
Pre-hospital hemodynamic optimization (%)	147 (62%)	57 (57%)	0.389
Results are expressed as an absolute value with relative percentage for the qualitative variables, as an average with standard deviation for the quantitative variables of normal distribution and as a median with interquartile range (1st quartile - 3rd quartile) for the quantitative variables of non-Gaussian distribution. Values in bold and italics correspond to those with a p value <0.05..