Timing and dose do not tell the same story: a reply to Wieruszewski and Khanna - Takeaways - MDSpire
Coming Soon: Introducing MDSpire News. Learn more
Conexiant’s news site is now MDSpire News. Learn more

Timing and Dose Offer Different Perspectives: Response to Wieruszewski and Khanna

  • By

  • Žiga Kalamar

  • Giovanni Landoni

  • Andrej Markota

  • October 12, 2026

Share

  • 1

    In TRICYCLE, the median 5.2-hour interval ran from earliest hospital presentation with sepsis or septic shock to randomization, not from vasopressor-threshold attainment.

  • 2

    TRICYCLE allowed enrollment up to 12 hours after the vasopressor eligibility threshold, but this was a maximum window, not the actual threshold-to-randomization interval.

  • 3

    Although randomization vasopressor doses were comparable in TRICYCLE and ATHOS-3, enrollment timing differed, so similar doses do not establish comparable shock duration or stage.

  • 4

    Vasopressor dose reflects both elapsed time and the speed and severity of hemodynamic deterioration, so a high dose alone does not show that treatment was delayed.

  • 5

    The authors characterize TRICYCLE as evaluating early multimodal vasopressor therapy and argue that early treatment should not be defined by a single vasopressor dose cutoff.

Original Source(s)

Related Content