Is Mortality the Only Outcome Measure in ICU Patients?

  • J.-L. Vincent
Conference paper


Clinical trials, by definition, need to have an aim, an outcome measure. Indeed, there is no point conducting a trial if there is no endpoint in view. The choice of the outcome measure employed will vary according to the agent/technique being assessed but in intensive care medicine, the majority of clinical trials currently focus on the 28 day all-cause mortality rate. This measure may, however, not necessarily be the most appropriate, and we will discuss the reasons for this, and possible alternatives, in this paper.


Organ Failure Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Infection Type Intensive Care Medicine Veteran Administration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Petros AJ, Marshall JC, van Saene HKF (1995) Should morbidity replace mortality as an end-point for clinical trials in intensive care? Lancet 345:369–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hoffman SL, Punjabi NH, Kumala S et al (1984) Reduction of mortality in chloramphenicol-treated severe typhoid fever by high-dose dexamethasone. N Engl J Med 310:82–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    The veterans administration systemic sepsis cooperative study group (1987) Effect of high-dose glucocorticoid therapy on mortality in patients with clinical signs of systemic sepsis. N Engl J Med 317:659–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marshall JC, Cook DJ, Christou NV et al (1995) Multiple organ dysfunction score: A reliable descriptor of a complex clinical outcome. Crit Care Med 23:1638–1652PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J et al (1996) The SOFA (sepsis-related organ failure assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. Intensive Care Med 22:707–710PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sprung CL, Eidelman LA (1996) Worldwide similarities and differences in the forgoing of life-sustaining treatments. Intensive Care Med 22:1003–1005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Prendergast TJ, Luce JM (1997) Increasing incidence of withholding and withdrawal of life support from the critically ill. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 155:15–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Decruyenaere J, De Deyne C, Poelaert J, Colardyn F (1995) Morbidity or mortality as end-point for clinical trials in intensive care (letter). Lancet 345:986–987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sibbald WJ, Vincent JL (1995) Round table conference on clinical trials for the treatment of sepsis. Brussels, March 12–14, 1994. Intensive Care Med 21:184–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vincent JL (1997) New therapies in sepsis. Chest 112:S330–S338CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • J.-L. Vincent
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Intensive Care, Erasme University HospitalFree University of BrusselsBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations