Corporeal Compression at the Onset of Septic shock (COCOONs): a compression method to reduce fluid balance of septic shock patients

Affiliation auteurs!!!! Error affiliation !!!!
TitreCorporeal Compression at the Onset of Septic shock (COCOONs): a compression method to reduce fluid balance of septic shock patients
Type de publicationJournal Article
Year of Publication2019
AuteursDargent A, Large A, Soudry-Faure A, Doise J-M, Abdulmalak C, Jonval L, Andreu P, Roudaut J-B, Prin S, Charles P-E, Payen D, Quenot J-P, Hamet M, Poussant T, Delorme M, Lhoumeau A, Comte T, Bourredjem A, Grp COCOONStudy
JournalSCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume9
Pagination11566
Date PublishedAUG 9
Type of ArticleArticle
ISSN2045-2322
Résumé

Fluid overload in septic intensive care unit (ICU) patients is common and strongly associated with poor outcome. There is currently no treatment for capillary leak, which is mainly responsible for high positive fluid balance (FB) in sepsis. We hypothesized that increasing interstitial pressure with extensive corporeal compression would reduce FB. The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of a compression treatment during sepsis. This pilot, two-center, single-arm trial enrolled critically ill, non-surgical, septic patients receiving mechanical ventilation. The therapeutic intervention was the early application of compression bandages on more than 80% of the body surface. The primary outcome was negative net FB on day 7. The primary endpoint was reached in 29 of 45 patients (64%) with available data, for a planned objective of 26. By day 4, cumulative FB was 7280 ml [3300-9700]. SOFA-and aged-matched patients from a historical cohort had a significantly higher FB at 1, 2 and 7 days. Tolerance was good, although low-stage pressure ulcers were observed in 16 patients (26%). No effect on intra-abdominal pressure or respiratory plateau pressure was observed. In conclusion, corporeal compression demonstrated potential efficacy in limiting FB during septic shock, with acceptable feasibility and tolerance.

DOI10.1038/s41598-019-47939-2