Septic shock-3 vs 2: An analysis of the ALBIOS study 11 Medical and Health Sciences 1103 Clinical Sciences

Francesco Vasques, Eleonora Duscio, Federica Romitti, Iacopo Pasticci, Pietro Caironi, Jennifer Meessen, Roberto Latini, Massimo Cressoni, Luigi Camporota, Antonio Pesenti, Roberto Fumagalli, Michael Quintel, Luciano Gattinoni

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Background: A reanalysis of the ALBIOS trial suggested that patients with septic shock - defined by vasopressor-dependent hypotension in the presence of severe sepsis (Shock-2) - had a survival benefit when treated with albumin. The new septic shock definition (Shock-3) added the criterion of a lactate threshold of 2 mmol/L. We investigated how the populations defined according to Shock-2 and Shock-3 differed and whether the albumin benefit would be confirmed. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of the ALBIOS study, a randomized controlled study conducted between 2008 and 2012 in 100 intensive care units in Italy comparing the administration of 20% albumin and crystalloids versus crystalloids alone in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. We analyzed data from 1741 patients from ALBIOS with serum lactate measurement available at baseline. We compared group size, physiological variables and 90-day mortality between patients defined by Shock-2 and Shock-3 and between the albumin and crystalloid treatment groups. Results: We compared the Shock-2 and the Shock-3 definitions and the albumin and crystalloid treatment groups in terms of group size and physiological, laboratory and outcome variables. The Shock-3 definition reduced the population with shock by 34%. The Shock-3 group had higher lactate (p < 0.001), greater resuscitation-fluid requirement (p = 0.014), higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (p < 0.001) and Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment scores (p = 0.022), lower platelet count (p = 0.002) and higher 90-day mortality (46.7% vs 51.9%; p = 0.031). Albumin decreased mortality in Shock-2 patients compared to crystalloids (43.5% vs 49.9%; 12.6% relative risk reduction; p = 0.04). In patients defined by Shock-3 a similar benefit was observed for albumin with a 11.3% relative risk reduction (48.7% vs 54.9%; 11.3% relative risk reduction; p = 0.22). Conclusions: The Sepsis-3 definition reduced the size of the population with shock and showed a similar effect size in the benefits of albumin. The Shock-3 criteria will markedly slow patients' recruitment rates, in view of testing albumin in septic shock. Trial registration:, number NCT00707122. Registered on 30 June 2008.

Original languageEnglish
Article number237
JournalCritical Care
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Sep 27 2018


  • Albumin
  • Crystalloids
  • Sepsis
  • Septic shock
  • Shock-3

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Septic shock-3 vs 2: An analysis of the ALBIOS study 11 Medical and Health Sciences 1103 Clinical Sciences'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this