Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42467247›Full record

ArticleIntensive care medicine2026

Persistent tissue hypoperfusion improves risk stratification beyond vasopressor dose in refractory septic shock: a secondary analysis of the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK-2 trial.

Eduardo Kattan, Gustavo A Ospina-Tascón, Nicolas Orozco, Jean-Louis Teboul, Paulo Melo, Pedro D Wendel-Garcia, Sebastian Morales, Macarena Amthauer, Oliver Hunsicker, Miguel Ibarra-Estrada and 15 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Intensive care medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors.

Eduardo KattanDepartamento de Medicina Intensiva, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. e.kattan@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1997-6893
Gustavo A Ospina-TascónDepartamento de Medicina Intensiva, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Nicolas OrozcoDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Fundación Valle del Lili, Cali, Colombia.
Jean-Louis TeboulFaculté de Médecine Paris-Saclay, Université Paris-Saclay, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
Paulo MeloDepartamento de Medicina Intensiva, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Pedro D Wendel-GarciaDivision of Cardiothoracic Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, General Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Medical University of Vienna and Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria.
Sebastian MoralesDepartamento de Medicina Intensiva, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Macarena AmthauerDepartamento de Medicina Intensiva, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Oliver HunsickerDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine CCM/CVK, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
Miguel Ibarra-EstradaUnidad de Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Civil Fray Antonio Alcalde, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.
Marc LeoneDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Aix Marseille University, North Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France.
Ashish K KhannaDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, USA.
Olfa HamzaouiUnité de Médecine Intensive et Réanimation Polyvalente, CHU de Reims, Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France.
Antonio MessinaIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milano, Italy.
Sheila Nainan MyatraDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain, Tata Memorial Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Fernando RamascoDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Surgical Intensive Care, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, Spain.
Antoine Vieillard-BaronDepartment of Medical and Surgical Intensive Care, University Hospital of Ambroise Paré, Boulogne Billancourt, France.
Zbigniew PutowskiCentre for Intensive Care and Perioperative Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland.
Giorgio FerriUnidad de Cuidados Intensivos, Hospital Barros Luco Trudeau, Santiago, Chile.
Ricardo CastroDepartamento de Medicina Intensiva, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Alexandre Biasi-CavalcantiDepartamento de Medicina Intensiva, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Daniel De BackerDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, CHIREC Hospitals, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Jan BakkerDepartamento de Medicina Intensiva, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Glenn HernandezDepartamento de Medicina Intensiva, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
ANDROMEDA-SHOCK-2 investigators, ANDROMEDA-Research Network

Funding

Universität St. Gallen RPG25143
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA recent Delphi consensus highlighted elements for defining refractory septic shock. We assessed whether integrating persistent tissue hypoperfusion with vasopressor dose after protocolized resuscitation improves mortality risk stratification compared with vasopressor dose alone.

methodsWe performed an exploratory secondary analysis of the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK-2 trial. After 6 h of hemodynamic resuscitation, refractoriness was operationalized as a norepinephrine equivalent dose (NEE) > 0.5 µg/kg/min plus an abnormal capillary refill time (> 3 s) and non-decreasing lactate (two-hypoperfusion criteria). A complementary analysis included NEE > 0.5 µg/kg/min combined with either of the tissue perfusion criteria. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality.

resultsAmong 1363 patients with complete data, 188 (13.8%) had NEE > 0.5 µg/kg/min at 6-h, with 47.9% mortality. Fifty-three patients (3.9%) were classified as refractory septic shock under the two-hypoperfusion criteria and 124 (9.1%) under the ≥ 1-hypoperfusion criterion. Mortality was 73.6% (39/53) among patients meeting two-hypoperfusion criteria, compared with 23.7% (310/1310) among those classified as non-refractory according to these criteria. (aHR, 4.68; 95% CI 3.31-6.64;p < 0.001). Under ≥ 1-hypoperfusion criterion, mortality was 55.0% (68/124), compared with 22.7% (281/1239) among those classified as non-refractory under this approach (aHR, 2.62; 95% CI 1.90-3.46;p < 0.001). Refractory patients under either approach required had fewer life-support free days. Compared with NEE > 0.5 µg/kg/min alone, the two-hypoperfusion construct yielded superior prognostic enrichment for 28-day mortality (LR + , 8.12; 95% CI 4.70-14.03 vs. 2.71; 95% CI 2.10-3.50;p < 0.001).

conclusionIn early septic shock, combining persistent tissue hypoperfusion with vasopressor dose improves risk stratification beyond vasopressor dose alone and identifies a subgroup with markedly increased mortality. These hypothesis-generating findings require validation in future studies.

Indexed as

Capillary refill timeLactateRefractory shockSeptic shockTissue hypoperfusionVasopressors

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.