Man versus machine: provider directed versus precision automated critical care management in a porcine model of distributive shock

Background: Critical care management of shock is a labor-intensive process. Precision Automated Critical Care Management (PACC-MAN) is an automated closed-loop system incorporating physiologic and hemodynamic inputs to deliver interventions while avoiding excessive fluid or vasopressor administration. To understand PACC-MAN efficacy, we compared PACC-MAN to provider-directed management (PDM). We hypothesized that PACC-MAN would achieve equivalent resuscitation outcomes to PDM while maintaining normotension with lower fluid and vasopressor requirements. Methods: Twelve swine underwent 30% controlled hemorrhage over 30 min, followed by 45 min of aortic occlusion to generate a vasoplegic shock state, transfusion to euvolemia, and randomization to PACC-MAN or PDM for 4.25 h. Primary outcomes were total crystalloid volume, vasopressor administration, total time spent at hypotension (mean arterial blood pressure <60 mm Hg), and total number of interventions. Results: Weight-based fluid volumes were similar between PACC-MAN and PDM; median and IQR are reported (73.1 mL/kg [59.0-78.7] vs. 87.1 mL/kg [79.4-91.8], P = 0.07). There was no statistical difference in cumulative norepinephrine (PACC-MAN: 33.4 mu g/kg [27.1-44.6] vs. PDM: 7.5 [3.3-24.2] mu g/kg, P = 0.09). The median percentage of time spent at hypotension was equivalent (PACC-MAN: 6.2% [3.6-7.4] and PDM: 3.1% [1.3-6.6], P = 0.23). Urine outputs were similar between PACC-MAN and PDM (14.0 mL/kg vs. 21.5 mL/kg, P = 0.13). Conclusion: Automated resuscitation achieves equivalent resuscitation outcomes to direct human intervention in this shock model. This study provides the first translational experience with the PACC-MAN system versus PDM.