-
Critical Care (London, England) Mar 2017Multiple corticosteroids and treatment regimens have been used as adjuncts in the treatment of septic shock. Qualitative and quantitative differences exist at cellular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple corticosteroids and treatment regimens have been used as adjuncts in the treatment of septic shock. Qualitative and quantitative differences exist at cellular and tissular levels between the different drugs and their patterns of delivery. The objective of this study was to elucidate any differences between the drugs and their treatment regimens regarding outcomes for corticosteroid use in adult patients with septic shock.
METHODS
Network meta-analysis of the data used for the recently conducted Cochrane review was performed. Studies that included children and were designed to assess respiratory function in pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, as well as cross-over studies, were excluded. Network plots were created for each outcome, and all analyses were conducted using a frequentist approach assuming a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Complete data from 22 studies and partial data from 1 study were included. Network meta-analysis provided no clear evidence that any intervention or treatment regimen is better than any other across the spectrum of outcomes. There was strong evidence of differential efficacy in only one area: shock reversal. Hydrocortisone boluses and infusions were more likely than methylprednisolone boluses and placebo to result in shock reversal.
CONCLUSIONS
There was no clear evidence that any one corticosteroid drug or treatment regimen is more likely to be effective in reducing mortality or reducing the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding or superinfection in septic shock. Hydrocortisone delivered as a bolus or as an infusion was more likely than placebo and methylprednisolone to result in shock reversal.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Child; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 28351429
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-017-1659-4 -
The Western Journal of Emergency... Feb 2021Most experts recommend norepinephrine as the first-line agent in septic shock. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness and safety of norepinephrine in patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Most experts recommend norepinephrine as the first-line agent in septic shock. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness and safety of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Epistemonikos, as well as MEDLINE from 1966 till August 2019. Screening of full texts, evaluation for eligibility, and data extraction were done by four independent reviewers. We estimated risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) using a random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary outcomes included the number of participants who achieved the target mean arterial pressure (MAP), time to achieve the target MAP, and number of participants with all-cause 28-day mortality. The secondary outcomes included the length of stay in the intensive care unit, length of hospital stay, incidence of arrhythmia and myocardial infarction, vasopressor-free days, and number of participants with all-cause 90-day mortality.
RESULTS
We identified 11 randomized controlled trials with a total of 4,803 participants. There was no difference in the number of participants who achieved the target MAP between those patients receiving norepinephrine and other vasopressors (RR 1.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 6.54; P = 0.640; I = 94%; two trials, 116 participants). There was no significant difference in time to achieve the target MAP (MD -0.05; 95%, CI, -0.32 to 0.21; P = 0.690; I = 26%; two trials, 1763 participants) and all-cause 28-day mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.02; P = 0.160; I = 0%; seven trials, 4,139 participants). Regarding the secondary outcome, norepinephrine may significantly reduce the incidence of arrhythmia as compared to other vasopressors (RR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.97; P = 0.030; I = 64%; six trials, 3974 participants). There was no difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction (RR 1.28; 95% CI, 0.79 to 2.09), vasopressor-free day (RR 0.46; 95% CI, -1.82 to 2.74) and all-cause 90-day mortality (RR 1.08; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.21) between norepinephrine and vasopressors.
CONCLUSION
In minimizing the occurrence of an arrhythmia, norepinephrine is superior to other vasopressors, making it safe to be used in septic shock. However, there was insufficient evidence concerning mortality and achievement of the target MAP outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Norepinephrine; Shock, Septic; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 33856300
DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2020.10.47825 -
PloS One 2015International guidelines recommend dopamine or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor agents in septic shock. Phenylephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin and terlipressin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
International guidelines recommend dopamine or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor agents in septic shock. Phenylephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin and terlipressin are considered second-line agents. Our objective was to assess the evidence for the efficiency and safety of all vasopressors in septic shock.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched electronic database of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, LILACS and conference proceedings up to June 2014. We included randomized controlled trials comparing different vasopressors for the treatment of adult patients with septic shock. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Other clinical and hemodynamic measurements were extracted as secondary outcomes. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled.
RESULTS
Thirty-two trials (3,544 patients) were included. Compared to dopamine (866 patients, 450 events), norepinephrine (832 patients, 376 events) was associated with decreased all-cause mortality, RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.81-0.98), corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 11% and number needed to treat of 9. Norepinephrine was associated with lower risk for major adverse events and cardiac arrhythmias compared to dopamine. No other mortality benefit was demonstrated for the comparisons of norepinephrine to epinephrine, phenylephrine and vasopressin / terlipressin. Hemodynamic data were similar between the different vasopressors, with some advantage for norepinephrine in central venous pressure, urinary output and blood lactate levels.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests a survival benefit, better hemodynamic profile and reduced adverse events rate for norepinephrine over dopamine. Norepinephrine should be regarded as the first line vasopressor in the treatment of septic shock.
Topics: Epinephrine; Hemodynamics; Humans; Lypressin; Norepinephrine; Phenylephrine; Shock, Septic; Terlipressin; Treatment Outcome; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Vasopressins
PubMed: 26237037
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129305 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Jun 2022Sepsis, a life-threatening organ dysfunction induced by infection, is a major public health problem. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency and mortality of sepsis,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sepsis, a life-threatening organ dysfunction induced by infection, is a major public health problem. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency and mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock in China.
METHODS
We Searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library from 1 January 1992 to 1 June 2020 for studies that reported on the frequency and mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock conducted in China. Random effects models were performed to estimate the pooled frequency and mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock.
RESULTS
Our search yielded 846 results, of which 29 studies were included in this review. The pooled frequency of sepsis was estimated at 33.6% (95% CI 25.9% to 41.3%, I = 99.2%; p < 0.001), and the pooled mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock were 29.0% (95% CI 25.3%-32.8%, I = 92.1%; p = 0), 31.1% (95% CI 25.3% to 36.9%, I = 85.8%; p < 0.001) and 37.3% (95% CI 28.6%-46.0%, I = 93.5%; p < 0.001). There was significant heterogeneity between studies. With a small number of included studies and the changing definition of sepsis, trends in sepsis frequency and mortality were not sufficient for analysis. Epidemiological data on sepsis in the emergency department (ED) are severely lacking, and more research is urgently needed in this area is urgently needed.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings indicated that the frequency and mortality of sepsis and septic shock in China were much higher than North America and Europe countries. Based on our results, an extremely high incidence and mortality of sepsis and septic shock in China's mainland requires more healthcare budget support. Epidemiological data on sepsis and septic shock in ED are severely lacking, and more research is urgently needed in this area. Trial registration This systematic review was conducted according to the statement of the preferred reporting items for systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021243325) and the meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P).
Topics: Humans; China; Sepsis; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 35729526
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-022-07543-8 -
JAMA Feb 2016Septic shock currently refers to a state of acute circulatory failure associated with infection. Emerging biological insights and reported variation in epidemiology... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Developing a New Definition and Assessing New Clinical Criteria for Septic Shock: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3).
IMPORTANCE
Septic shock currently refers to a state of acute circulatory failure associated with infection. Emerging biological insights and reported variation in epidemiology challenge the validity of this definition.
OBJECTIVE
To develop a new definition and clinical criteria for identifying septic shock in adults.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
The Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine convened a task force (19 participants) to revise current sepsis/septic shock definitions. Three sets of studies were conducted: (1) a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in adults published between January 1, 1992, and December 25, 2015, to determine clinical criteria currently reported to identify septic shock and inform the Delphi process; (2) a Delphi study among the task force comprising 3 surveys and discussions of results from the systematic review, surveys, and cohort studies to achieve consensus on a new septic shock definition and clinical criteria; and (3) cohort studies to test variables identified by the Delphi process using Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) (2005-2010; n = 28,150), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) (2010-2012; n = 1,309,025), and Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) (2009-2013; n = 1,847,165) electronic health record (EHR) data sets.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Evidence for and agreement on septic shock definitions and criteria.
RESULTS
The systematic review identified 44 studies reporting septic shock outcomes (total of 166,479 patients) from a total of 92 sepsis epidemiology studies reporting different cutoffs and combinations for blood pressure (BP), fluid resuscitation, vasopressors, serum lactate level, and base deficit to identify septic shock. The septic shock-associated crude mortality was 46.5% (95% CI, 42.7%-50.3%), with significant between-study statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 99.5%; τ2 = 182.5; P < .001). The Delphi process identified hypotension, serum lactate level, and vasopressor therapy as variables to test using cohort studies. Based on these 3 variables alone or in combination, 6 patient groups were generated. Examination of the SSC database demonstrated that the patient group requiring vasopressors to maintain mean BP 65 mm Hg or greater and having a serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (18 mg/dL) after fluid resuscitation had a significantly higher mortality (42.3% [95% CI, 41.2%-43.3%]) in risk-adjusted comparisons with the other 5 groups derived using either serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L alone or combinations of hypotension, vasopressors, and serum lactate level 2 mmol/L or lower. These findings were validated in the UPMC and KPNC data sets.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Based on a consensus process using results from a systematic review, surveys, and cohort studies, septic shock is defined as a subset of sepsis in which underlying circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than sepsis alone. Adult patients with septic shock can be identified using the clinical criteria of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy to maintain mean BP 65 mm Hg or greater and having a serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L after adequate fluid resuscitation.
Topics: Adult; Advisory Committees; Biomarkers; Blood Pressure Determination; Cohort Studies; Consensus; Delphi Technique; Fluid Therapy; Humans; Hypotension; Lactates; Observational Studies as Topic; Resuscitation; Review Literature as Topic; Shock, Septic; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 26903336
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.0289 -
Critical Care (London, England) May 2020Sepsis and septic shock remain drivers for mortality in critically ill patients. The heterogeneity of the syndrome hinders the generation of reproducible numbers on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Sepsis and septic shock remain drivers for mortality in critically ill patients. The heterogeneity of the syndrome hinders the generation of reproducible numbers on mortality risks. Consequently, mortality rates range from 15 to 56%. We aimed to update and extend the existing knowledge from meta-analyses and estimate 30- and 90-day mortality rates for sepsis and septic shock separately, stratify rates by region and study type and assess mortality rates across different sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of articles published in PubMed or in the Cochrane Database, between 2009 and 2019 in English language including interventional and observational studies. A meta-analysis of pooled 28/30- and 90-day mortality rated separately for sepsis and septic shock was done using a random-effects model. Time trends were assessed via Joinpoint methodology and for the assessment of mortality rate over different SOFA scores, and linear regression was applied.
RESULTS
Four thousand five hundred records were identified. After title/abstract screening, 783 articles were assessed in full text for eligibility. Of those, 170 studies were included. Average 30-day septic shock mortality was 34.7% (95% CI 32.6-36.9%), and 90-day septic shock mortality was 38.5% (95% CI 35.4-41.5%). Average 30-day sepsis mortality was 24.4% (95% CI 21.5-27.2%), and 90-day sepsis mortality was 32.2% (95% CI 27.0-37.5%). Estimated mortality rates from RCTs were below prospective and retrospective cohort studies. Rates varied between regions, with 30-day septic shock mortality being 33.7% (95% CI 31.5-35.9) in North America, 32.5% (95% CI 31.7-33.3) in Europe and 26.4% (95% CI 18.1-34.6) in Australia. A statistically significant decrease of 30-day septic shock mortality rate was found between 2009 and 2011, but not after 2011. Per 1-point increase of the average SOFA score, average mortality increased by 1.8-3.3%.
CONCLUSION
Trends of lower sepsis and continuous septic shock mortality rates over time and regional disparities indicate a remaining unmet need for improving sepsis management. Further research is needed to investigate how trends in the burden of disease influence mortality rates in sepsis and septic shock at 30- and 90-day mortality over time.
Topics: Australia; Europe; Humans; Mortality; North America; Sepsis; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 32430052
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-020-02950-2 -
Critical Care Explorations Jan 2024To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis.
OBJECTIVES
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis.
DATA SOURCES
We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, up to January 10, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing corticosteroids with placebo or standard care with sepsis.
DATA EXTRACTION
The critical outcomes of interest included mortality, shock reversal, length of stay in the ICU, and adverse events.
DATA ANALYSIS
We performed both a pairwise and dose-response meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of different corticosteroid doses on outcomes. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to assess certainty in pooled estimates.
DATA SYNTHESIS
We included 45 RCTs involving 9563 patients. Corticosteroids probably reduce short-term mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99; moderate certainty) and increase shock reversal at 7 days (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.11-1.38; high certainty). Corticosteroids may have no important effect on duration of ICU stay (mean difference, -0.6 fewer days; 95% CI, 1.48 fewer to 0.27 more; low certainty); however, probably increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.18; moderate certainty) and hypernatremia (RR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.32-2.03; moderate certainty) and may increase the risk of neuromuscular weakness (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.45; low certainty). The dose-response analysis showed a reduction in mortality with corticosteroids with optimal dosing of approximately 260 mg/d of hydrocortisone (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98) or equivalent.
CONCLUSIONS
We found that corticosteroids may reduce mortality and increase shock reversal but they may also increase the risk of hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, and neuromuscular weakness. The dose-response analysis indicates optimal dosing is around 260 mg/d of hydrocortisone or equivalent.
PubMed: 38250247
DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000001000 -
Intensive Care Medicine Jul 2018To assess the effect of low dose corticosteroids on outcomes in adults with septic shock. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To assess the effect of low dose corticosteroids on outcomes in adults with septic shock.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing low-dose corticosteroids to placebo in adults with septic shock. Trial selection, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment were performed in duplicate. The primary outcome was short-term mortality. Secondary and tertiary outcomes included longer-term mortality, adverse events, quality of life, and duration of shock, mechanical ventilation and ICU stay.
RESULTS
There were 22 RCTs, including 7297 participants, providing data on short-term mortality. In two low risk of bias trials, the relative risk (RR) of short-term mortality with corticosteroid versus placebo was 0.98 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-1.08, p = 0.71]. Sensitivity analysis including all trials was similar (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.91-1.02, p = 0.21) as was analysis of longer-term mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.90-1.02, p = 0.18). In low risk of bias trials, the risk of experiencing any adverse event was higher with corticosteroids; however, there was substantial heterogeneity (RR 1.66; 95% CI 1.03-2.70, p = 0.04, I = 78%). No trials reported quality of life outcomes. Duration of shock [mean difference (MD) -1.52 days; 95% CI -1.71 to -1.32, p < 0.0001], duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -1.38 days; 95% CI -1.96 to -0.80, p < 0.0001), and ICU stay (MD -0.75 days; 95% CI -1.34 to -0.17, p = 0.01) were shorter with corticosteroids versus placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
In adults with septic shock treated with low dose corticosteroids, short- and longer-term mortality are unaffected, adverse events increase, but duration of shock, mechanical ventilation and ICU stay are reduced. PROSPERO registration no. CRD42017084037.
Topics: Adult; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 29761216
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-018-5197-6 -
American Journal of Respiratory and... May 2024The use of hydrocortisone in adult patients with septic shock is controversial, and the effectiveness of adding fludrocortisone to hydrocortisone remains uncertain. To... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
Effectiveness of Fludrocortisone Plus Hydrocortisone versus Hydrocortisone Alone in Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
The use of hydrocortisone in adult patients with septic shock is controversial, and the effectiveness of adding fludrocortisone to hydrocortisone remains uncertain. To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of fludrocortisone plus hydrocortisone, hydrocortisone alone, and placebo or usual care in adults with septic shock. A systematic review and a Bayesian network meta-analysis of peer-reviewed randomized trials were conducted. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at last follow-up. Treatment effects are presented as relative risks (RRs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Placebo or usual care was the reference treatment. Among 7,553 references, we included 17 trials (7,688 patients). All-cause mortality at last follow-up was lowest with fludrocortisone plus hydrocortisone (RR, 0.85; 95% CrI, 0.72-0.99; 98.3% probability of superiority, moderate-certainty evidence), followed by hydrocortisone alone (RR, 0.97; 95% CrI, 0.87-1.07; 73.1% probability of superiority, low-certainty evidence). The comparison of fludrocortisone plus hydrocortisone versus hydrocortisone alone was based primarily on indirect evidence (only two trials with direct evidence). Fludrocortisone plus hydrocortisone was associated with a 12% lower risk of all-cause mortality compared with hydrocortisone alone (RR, 0.88; 95% CrI, 0.74-1.03; 94.2% probability of superiority, moderate-certainty evidence). In adult patients with septic shock, fludrocortisone plus hydrocortisone was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality at last follow-up than placebo and hydrocortisone alone. The scarcity of head-to-head trials comparing fludrocortisone plus hydrocortisone versus hydrocortisone alone led our network meta-analysis to rely primarily on indirect evidence for this comparison. Although we undertook several sensitivity analyses and assessments, these findings should be considered while also acknowledging the heterogeneity of included trials.
Topics: Humans; Fludrocortisone; Hydrocortisone; Shock, Septic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Drug Therapy, Combination; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Male; Bayes Theorem; Female; Adult; Middle Aged
PubMed: 38271488
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.202310-1785OC -
Critical Care Medicine Sep 2015We sought to systematically review and meta-analyze the available data on the association between timing of antibiotic administration and mortality in severe sepsis and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
We sought to systematically review and meta-analyze the available data on the association between timing of antibiotic administration and mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock.
DATA SOURCES
A comprehensive search criteria was performed using a predefined protocol.
INCLUSION CRITERIA
adult patients with severe sepsis or septic shock, reported time to antibiotic administration in relation to emergency department triage and/or shock recognition, and mortality.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
immunosuppressed populations, review article, editorial, or nonhuman studies.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers screened abstracts with a third reviewer arbitrating. The effect of time to antibiotic administration on mortality was based on current guideline recommendations: 1) administration within 3 hours of emergency department triage and 2) administration within 1 hour of severe sepsis/septic shock recognition. Odds ratios were calculated using a random effect model. The primary outcome was mortality.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 1,123 publications were identified and 11 were included in the analysis. Among the 11 included studies, 16,178 patients were evaluable for antibiotic administration from emergency department triage. Patients who received antibiotics more than 3 hours after emergency department triage (< 3 hr reference) had a pooled odds ratio for mortality of 1.16 (0.92-1.46; p = 0.21). A total of 11,017 patients were evaluable for antibiotic administration from severe sepsis/septic shock recognition. Patients who received antibiotics more than 1 hour after severe sepsis/shock recognition (< 1 hr reference) had a pooled odds ratio for mortality of 1.46 (0.89-2.40; p = 0.13). There was no increased mortality in the pooled odds ratios for each hourly delay from less than 1 to more than 5 hours in antibiotic administration from severe sepsis/shock recognition.
CONCLUSION
Using the available pooled data, we found no significant mortality benefit of administering antibiotics within 3 hours of emergency department triage or within 1 hour of shock recognition in severe sepsis and septic shock. These results suggest that currently recommended timing metrics as measures of quality of care are not supported by the available evidence.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Emergency Service, Hospital; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Length of Stay; Sepsis; Shock, Septic; Triage
PubMed: 26121073
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001142