A winding road to recovery from sepsis.

Decoding Sepsis Treatment: Is Early Goal-Directed Therapy Really Outdated?

Elliot Brynn in Health & Wellness December 2025 • 4 min read.

"A closer look at a meta-analysis challenging the gold standard of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) for septic shock and what it means for patient care."

Sepsis, a life-threatening condition arising from the body's overwhelming response to an infection, demands swift and effective treatment. For years, early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) has been a cornerstone of sepsis management, guiding clinicians to aggressively resuscitate patients in the critical initial hours.

EGDT, championed by a landmark study published in 2001, emphasizes achieving specific targets for vital signs like blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and urine output through the administration of intravenous fluids, vasopressors, and blood transfusions. The goal is to optimize oxygen delivery to vital organs and prevent the downward spiral of septic shock.

However, the medical community is now grappling with a challenge to this long-held standard. A recent meta-analysis, pooling data from multiple clinical trials, suggests that EGDT may not lead to better outcomes compared to more conventional or 'usual' care. This has ignited a debate, prompting healthcare professionals to re-examine the evidence and refine their approach to sepsis management.

The PRISM Meta-Analysis: Challenging the EGDT Paradigm

Published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the Protocolized Resuscitation in Sepsis Meta-Analysis (PRISM) combined individual patient data from three large clinical trials (ARISE, ProCESS, and ProMISe) that compared EGDT to usual care in the treatment of septic shock. These trials, conducted in different countries and healthcare settings, aimed to assess whether EGDT truly improved patient outcomes.

The PRISM meta-analysis concluded that EGDT did not result in a significant reduction in mortality or improvement in other key outcomes, such as organ failure or length of hospital stay, compared to usual care. This finding directly contradicted the earlier evidence that had established EGDT as the gold standard of care.

ARISE (Australasian Resuscitation In Sepsis Evaluation): Conducted in Australia and New Zealand, this trial found no significant difference in mortality between EGDT and usual care.
ProCESS (Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock): Performed in the United States, this trial also showed no benefit of EGDT compared to usual care.
ProMISe (Protocolised Management in Sepsis): Conducted in the United Kingdom, this trial similarly found no significant difference in outcomes between EGDT and usual care.

The meta-analysis has prompted questions about the true value of EGDT and whether it should remain the default approach to sepsis resuscitation. It's important to understand what "usual care" actually entailed in these trials to fully grasp the implications of these findings.

The Evolving Landscape of Sepsis Management

The PRISM meta-analysis and the subsequent debate highlight the dynamic nature of medical knowledge. While EGDT may not be the universal solution once believed, it has undoubtedly contributed to improvements in sepsis care. The focus is now shifting toward a more individualized approach, tailoring treatment strategies to the specific needs of each patient, and a de-emphasis on CVP monitoring as a singular metric.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

What is sepsis?

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition that arises from the body's overwhelming response to an infection. This means the body's defense mechanisms, meant to fight off the infection, go into overdrive, causing widespread inflammation and damage. Without prompt treatment, sepsis can lead to septic shock, organ failure, and death. The severity of sepsis highlights the urgency required in its management.

What is Early Goal-Directed Therapy (EGDT)?

Early Goal-Directed Therapy (EGDT) is a treatment approach for septic shock that focuses on achieving specific targets for vital signs like blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and urine output. These targets are achieved through the administration of intravenous fluids, vasopressors, and blood transfusions. The goal is to optimize oxygen delivery to vital organs. EGDT became a widely adopted standard of care, particularly after a landmark study published in 2001. However, the recent findings of the PRISM meta-analysis have led to questioning its effectiveness.

What is the PRISM meta-analysis?

The PRISM meta-analysis is a study that combined data from multiple clinical trials (ARISE, ProCESS, and ProMISe) to assess the effectiveness of Early Goal-Directed Therapy (EGDT) compared to usual care in treating septic shock. The analysis included individual patient data from these trials. The conclusion of the PRISM meta-analysis was that EGDT did not show a significant reduction in mortality or improvement in outcomes, such as organ failure or length of hospital stay, compared to usual care. This challenged the previous belief in EGDT as the gold standard.

What were the clinical trials that were part of the PRISM meta-analysis?

The clinical trials included in the PRISM meta-analysis – ARISE, ProCESS, and ProMISe – compared Early Goal-Directed Therapy (EGDT) to usual care. ARISE, conducted in Australia and New Zealand, ProCESS, conducted in the United States, and ProMISe, conducted in the United Kingdom, all compared EGDT to usual care. The term "usual care" refers to the standard practices followed in each setting for treating septic shock, which may have included elements of EGDT but were not as strictly protocolized. The results of these trials, when combined in the meta-analysis, showed no significant benefit of EGDT.

What are the implications of the PRISM meta-analysis findings?

The implications of the PRISM meta-analysis are significant. The findings have ignited a debate within the medical community about the continued use of Early Goal-Directed Therapy (EGDT) as the primary approach to sepsis management. The evidence suggests a shift towards a more individualized approach to treatment, where the specific needs of each patient are considered. This shift also encourages a de-emphasis on a single metric like CVP monitoring. This re-evaluation underscores the dynamic nature of medical knowledge and the importance of continually assessing and refining treatment strategies to improve patient outcomes.