Trial of Early, Goal-Directed Resuscitation for Septic Shock (ProMISe)
Source: View publication →
The ProMISe trial demonstrated that a protocolized 6-hour early, goal-directed therapy (EGDT) strategy for early septic shock did not reduce 90-day all-cause mortality compared to usual care, but was associated with higher costs and increased use of intensive care resources.
Key Findings
Study Design
Study Limitations
Clinical Significance
ProMISe, standing as the final installment of a global trilogy of landmark sepsis trials alongside ProCESS and ARISE, definitively refuted the necessity of the rigid and invasive EGDT protocol for septic shock. The trial confirmed that modern usual care—which focuses on prompt recognition, early antibiotic administration, and adequate fluid resuscitation—achieves equivalent survival outcomes without the need for routine central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) monitoring, stringent physiological targets, or the excess utilization of intensive care resources.
Historical Context
In 2001, Emmanuel Rivers published a paradigm-shifting single-center trial showing an absolute mortality reduction of 16% using a strict 6-hour EGDT bundle, leading to its rapid adoption into the international Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. Over the ensuing decade, critical care evolved, and standard clinical practice naturally integrated many components of early resuscitation. To ascertain whether the mandatory, invasive, and resource-heavy elements of EGDT (such as ScvO2 monitoring and aggressive transfusion/inotrope triggers) were still beneficial, three major multicenter trials were launched: ProCESS in the US, ARISE in Australasia, and ProMISe in the UK. Published in 2015, ProMISe corroborated the earlier trials, cementing the shift away from protocolized EGDT in modern critical care.
Guided Discussion
High-yield insights from every perspective
Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) as originally described by Rivers and tested in ProMISe targeted a central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) of >= 70%. What physiological balance does ScvO2 represent, and why might it be abnormally low or high in septic shock?
Key Response
ScvO2 reflects the balance between oxygen delivery (DO2) and consumption (VO2). In early sepsis, it can be low due to hypovolemia or low cardiac output. However, in late or distributive shock, it can be falsely normal or high due to microvascular shunting and mitochondrial dysfunction, meaning a normal ScvO2 does not always guarantee adequate cellular respiration.
The ProMISe trial, along with ProCESS and ARISE, showed no mortality benefit for EGDT over usual care, contrasting sharply with the 2001 Rivers trial. How did 'usual care' in the ProMISe trial differ from the control group in the 2001 trial, and how does this change our approach to initial sepsis resuscitation?
Key Response
Usual care evolved over 15 years to include much earlier recognition, faster empirical antibiotic administration, and adequate non-protocolized fluid resuscitation. Baseline mortality in ProMISe was much lower (approx 29%) than in Rivers (approx 46%). This implies that prompt antibiotics and basic hemodynamic stabilization are the true life-savers, rather than rigid adherence to invasive targets like CVP and ScvO2.
Patients in the EGDT arm of the ProMISe trial received significantly more intravenous fluids, vasopressors, and red-cell transfusions in the first 6 hours, resulting in higher SOFA scores at 6 hours. What are the pathophysiological consequences of over-resuscitation in early sepsis, and how should this influence our fluid management strategy beyond the initial bolus?
Key Response
Obligatory protocolized targets often lead to fluid overload, which increases endothelial glycocalyx degradation, interstitial edema, ARDS risk, and AKI from venous congestion. This highlights the need for dynamic fluid responsiveness assessment (e.g., stroke volume variation, passive leg raise) rather than fixed CVP targets, emphasizing a careful 'de-resuscitation' phase.
ProMISe demonstrated that EGDT increased healthcare costs and intensive care admissions without improving survival. What are the practical barriers to de-adopting entrenched, protocolized interventions like CVP monitoring in our institutional sepsis pathways, and how can we safely pivot to an individualized strategy?
Key Response
De-adoption is challenging due to institutional inertia, historical quality metric mandates, and clinical fear of under-resuscitation. Attendings must champion individualized, dynamically assessed care and educate staff that invasive, rigid protocols no longer reflect the best evidence, ensuring hospital pathways prioritize early recognition and antibiotics without mandating central lines for all septic shock patients.
Scholarly Review
Critical appraisal through the lens of expert reviewers and guideline development
ProMISe was a pragmatic, unblinded trial where the 'usual care' arm was delivered by clinicians aware of the trial. How might the 'Hawthorne effect' or contamination bias have influenced the mortality outcomes in the usual care group, and how can trialists design future studies of complex behavioral interventions to mitigate this?
Key Response
Clinicians in the usual care arm were primed to be vigilant about sepsis simply by participating in the trial, potentially improving their baseline care (Hawthorne effect) and adopting some EGDT principles (contamination). Cluster randomization or stepped-wedge designs can better mitigate these biases compared to individual patient randomization in unblinded complex intervention trials.
A critical appraisal of ProMISe reveals that randomization often occurred after initial fluids and antibiotics were already given by the primary teams. How does this pre-randomization treatment affect the study's ability to truly evaluate 'early' goal-directed therapy, and does it threaten the internal validity of the null finding?
Key Response
If patients are already partially resuscitated (receiving up to 2L of fluids and prompt antibiotics before randomization), the critical 'early' window where EGDT might theoretically provide benefit is missed. This blurs the distinction between the intervention and control arms, biasing the results toward the null, a major methodological point regarding 'time-zero' in critical care trials.
Following the publication of ProMISe, along with ProCESS and ARISE, how should the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines revise their recommendations regarding specific hemodynamic targets (CVP and ScvO2) for initial resuscitation, and what metrics should replace them?
Key Response
Historically, SSC guidelines mandated CVP (8-12 mmHg) and ScvO2 (>=70%) targets. Post-ProMISe, the committee must remove these specific invasive targets (downgrading the recommendation), shifting the focus toward dynamic measures of fluid responsiveness, early lactate clearance, and clinical perfusion markers like capillary refill time, reflecting high-quality evidence that protocolized central venous monitoring does not improve survival but increases resource utilization.
Clinical Landscape
Noteworthy Related Trials
Rivers Trial
Tested
Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT)
Population
Patients with severe sepsis or septic shock
Comparator
Standard therapy
Endpoint
In-hospital mortality
ProCESS Trial
Tested
Protocol-based EGDT or protocol-based standard therapy
Population
Patients with septic shock in the emergency department
Comparator
Usual care
Endpoint
60-day in-hospital mortality
ARISE Trial
Tested
Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT)
Population
Patients presenting to the emergency department with early septic shock
Comparator
Usual care
Endpoint
90-day all-cause mortality
Tailored to your role
Want this tailored to you?
Add your specialty or training stage to get role-specific takeaways and more questions.
Personalize this analysis