-
Cureus Oct 2023The optimal fluid management strategy for patients with sepsis remains a topic of debate. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the impact of restrictive versus liberal... (Review)
Review
The optimal fluid management strategy for patients with sepsis remains a topic of debate. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the impact of restrictive versus liberal fluid regimens on mortality, adverse events, and other clinical outcomes in patients with sepsis. We systematically reviewed 11 randomized controlled trials published between 2008 and 2023, comprising a total of 4,121 participants. The studies assessed 90-day mortality, 30-day mortality, adverse events, hospital length of stay, ICU admission rate, mechanical ventilation, ventilator-free days, ICU-free days, and vasopressor-free days. Quality assessments indicated minimal bias across the studies. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in 90-day mortality between restrictive and liberal fluid regimens (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.70; P=0.30). Similar results were observed for 30-day mortality (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.80; P=0.50). Adverse events were comparable between the two groups (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.19; P=0.28). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in hospital length of stay (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, -0.85 to 1.80; P=0.48) or ICU admission rate (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.77; P=0.75) between the restrictive and liberal fluid regimens. Regarding mechanical ventilation and ventilator-free days, no significant distinctions were observed (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.17; P=0.48; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, -0.17 to 2.15; P=0.09, respectively). ICU-free days and vasopressor-free days also showed no significant differences between the two groups (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, -0.28 to 2.21; P=0.13; OR, -0.38; 95% CI, -1.14 to 0.37; P=0.32, respectively). This comprehensive meta-analysis of clinical trials suggests that restrictive and liberal fluid management strategies have comparable outcomes in patients with sepsis, including mortality, adverse events, and various clinical parameters. However, most studies favored restrictive fluid regimen over liberal approach regarding the number of vasopressor-free days, need for mechanical ventilation, adverse events, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality in sepsis patients.
PubMed: 37899903
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.47783 -
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine Jul 2023To summarize the role of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) in critically ill adults and children with severe sepsis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To summarize the role of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) in critically ill adults and children with severe sepsis.
DATA COLLECTION
A systematic search was performed using the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane from January 1990 till December 2022. Comparative studies of TPE in severe sepsis were selected. Adult and pediatric data were analyzed separately.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Eight randomized control trials and 6 observational studies (n = 50,142 patients) were included. Centrifugal TPE was the most common modality (209/280, 74.6% adults and 952/1026, 92.7% children). Every TPE study utilized different volume exchanges. Most TPE sessions (1173/1306, 89.8%) employed fresh frozen plasma (FFP) as replacement fluid and heparin as anticoagulant. Adults with severe sepsis supported with TPE using FFP had lower mortality (risk ratio, : 0.64 [95% confidence interval, : 0.49, 0.84]) compared to those who did not. In contrast, TPE was associated with increased mortality in septic children without thrombocytopenia-associated multiorgan failure (: 2.23, 95% : 1.93, 2.57). There was no difference in outcomes in patients supported with centrifugal and membrane TPE. In both populations, patients supported on TPE as a continuous regime had poorer outcome.
CONCLUSION
Current evidence indicates that TPE is a potential adjunct therapy in adults with severe sepsis but not in children.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Shock, Septic; Plasma Exchange; Sepsis; Multiple Organ Failure; Plasma
PubMed: 37097910
DOI: 10.1177/08850666231170775 -
Journal of Critical Care Oct 2022to critically appraise and synthesize the evidence on the effects of vitamin C-based regimens for patients with sepsis or septic shock. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
to critically appraise and synthesize the evidence on the effects of vitamin C-based regimens for patients with sepsis or septic shock.
METHODS
a broad search was performed on May 2021 to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing vitamin C-based regimens as adjuvant therapy for adults with sepsis or septic shock. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias table to assess the methodological quality of the included RCTs and the GRADE approach to evaluate the evidence certainty.
RESULTS
We included 20 RCTs (2124 participants). Evidence from low to very low certainty showed that vitamin C compared to placebo may reduce all-cause mortality up to 28 days (relative risk [RR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.80, 4 RCTs, 335 participants). Considering the other comparisons (vitamin C alone or combined with thiamine and/or hydrocortisone, compared to placebo, standard care or hydrocortisone), there were a little to no difference or very uncertain evidence for adverse events, SOFA score, ICU length of stay, acute kidney injury, mechanical ventilation- and vasoactive drugs-free days up to 28 days.
CONCLUSION
Further RCTs with higher methodological quality, an increased number of participants and assessing clinically relevant outcomes are needed to provide better decision-making guidance.
PROSPERO REGISTER
CRD42021251786.
Topics: Adult; Ascorbic Acid; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sepsis; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 35763993
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2022.154099 -
Clinical Drug Investigation May 2019Sepsis and septic shock are inflammatory disorders associated with high rates of mortality. Patients with sepsis and septic shock frequently become tachycardic as a...
BACKGROUND
Sepsis and septic shock are inflammatory disorders associated with high rates of mortality. Patients with sepsis and septic shock frequently become tachycardic as a result of the utilization of vasopressor therapy and cardiac overcompensation owing to hypotension, predisposing patients to an increased risk of atrial fibrillation. Previously, it was thought that beta-blocker therapy in patients with sepsis would exacerbate hypotension; however, recent studies have shown that may not be the case.
OBJECTIVE
This review aims to ascertain whether beta-blocker therapy reduces heart rate in patients with sepsis without a corresponding decrease in blood pressure, and if beta-blockade has a beneficial effect on mortality.
METHODS
Several databases including Cochrane, EMBASE, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were scoured for trials pertaining to the utilization of beta-blockers in sepsis and septic shock, and trials that were either prospective or controlled were included in this review.
RESULTS
In the initial search, 1839 articles were found, and those were subsequently reduced to 14 trials (five randomized controlled trials, nine non-randomized trials) that were deemed appropriate for inclusion in this review. All included trials displayed beneficial effects on heart rate without any detriments to blood pressure. Of the six trials that assessed mortality, four showed substantial benefits.
CONCLUSION
The majority of the trials assessed in this review displayed beneficial results for beta-blocker use in patients with sepsis. However, owing to the deficit of large-scale randomized controlled trials addressing this topic, further research is needed to ensure the veracity of these results.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Blood Pressure; Heart Rate; Humans; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sepsis; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 30848423
DOI: 10.1007/s40261-019-00762-z -
Clinical and Experimental Emergency... Jun 2023To evaluate mortality from sepsis and septic shock in Korea during the past 10 years, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate mortality from sepsis and septic shock in Korea during the past 10 years, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched six databases for studies on mortality from sepsis and septic shock in adult patients. Primary outcomes were 28- or 30-day mortality and in-hospital mortality from sepsis and septic shock. To assess the risk of bias, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Risk of Bias 2 tools. The protocol is registered in PROSPERO (No. CRD42022365739).
RESULTS
A total of 61 studies were included. The mortality rates from sepsis and septic shock at 28 or 30 days were 22.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 20.0%-25.6%; I2=89%) and 27.6% (95% CI, 22.3%-33.5%; I2=98%), respectively, according to the Sepsis-3 criteria. Furthermore, in accordance with the Sepsis-3 criteria, the in-hospital mortality rates were 28.1% (95% CI, 25.2%-31.1%; I2=87%) and 34.3% (95% CI, 27.2%-42.2%; I2=97%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
The mortality rates from sepsis and septic shock in Korea are high. In the case of septic shock, the in-hospital mortality rate is approximately 30%.
PubMed: 36882054
DOI: 10.15441/ceem.23.005 -
Critical Care (London, England) May 2021Mortality and other clinical outcomes between culture-negative and culture-positive septic patients have been documented inconsistently and are very controversial. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Mortality and other clinical outcomes between culture-negative and culture-positive septic patients have been documented inconsistently and are very controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of culture-negative and culture-positive sepsis or septic shock.
METHODS
We searched the PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases for studies from inception to the 1st of January 2021. We included studies involving patients with sepsis or septic shock. All authors reported our primary outcome of all-cause mortality and clearly compared culture-negative versus culture-positive patients with clinically relevant secondary outcomes (ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, mechanical ventilation requirements, mechanical ventilation duration and renal replacement requirements). Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Seven studies including 22,655 patients were included. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the all-cause mortality between two groups (OR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.01; P = 0.12; Chi- = 30.71; I = 80%). Secondary outcomes demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference in the ICU length of stay (MD = - 0.19;95% CI, - 0.42 to 0.04; P = 0.10;Chi- = 5.73; I = 48%), mechanical ventilation requirements (OR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.11; P = 0.61; Chi = 6.32; I = 53%) and renal replacement requirements (OR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.01; P = 0.06; Chi- = 1.21; I = 0%) between two groups. The hospital length of stay of culture-positive group was longer than that of the culture-negative group (MD = - 3.48;95% CI, - 4.34 to - 2.63; P < 0.00001;Chi- = 1.03; I = 0%). The mechanical ventilation duration of culture-positive group was longer than that of the culture-negative group (MD = - 0.64;95% CI, - 0.88 to - 0.4; P < 0.00001;Chi- = 4.86; I = 38%).
CONCLUSIONS
Culture positivity or negativity was not associated with mortality of sepsis or septic shock patients. Furthermore, culture-positive septic patients had similar ICU length of stay, mechanical ventilation requirements and renal replacement requirements as those culture-negative patients. The hospital length of stay and mechanical ventilation duration of culture-positive septic patients were both longer than that of the culture-negative patients. Further large-scale studies are still required to confirm these results.
Topics: Blood Culture; Humans; Sepsis
PubMed: 33964934
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-021-03592-8 -
European Review For Medical and... May 2023This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of midodrine on treating patients with septic shock. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of midodrine on treating patients with septic shock.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Literature search was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The mean differences (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) were calculated using the inverse variance for continuous variables. Data analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3.
RESULTS
A total of 6 studies were finally included in this meta-analysis. Adding midodrine to patients with septic shock was associated with a reduction in hospital mortality [risk ratio (RR) 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57-1.00; p=0.05] and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.87; p=0.008). However, there were no significant differences in the duration of intravenous vasopressors [standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.18; 95% CI, -0.47-0.11; p=0.23], intravenous vasopressor reinstitution (RR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.19-1.80; p=0.35), the length of ICU stay [mean difference (MD) -0.53 days; 95% CI, -2.24-1.17; p=0.54], and the length of hospital stay (MD -2.40 days; 95% CI, -5.26-0.46; p=0.10) between midodrine group and intravenous vasopressor alone group.
CONCLUSIONS
The additional use of midodrine might reduce hospital mortality and ICU mortality in patients with septic shock. More high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to verify this conclusion.
Topics: Humans; Shock, Septic; Midodrine; Intensive Care Units; Hospital Mortality; Length of Stay; Prognosis
PubMed: 37203847
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202305_32331 -
Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and... Oct 2022Sepsis cases caused substantial mortality and a significant burden on healthcare costs and resources. To tackle this problem, there has been discussion surrounding O2...
Sepsis cases caused substantial mortality and a significant burden on healthcare costs and resources. To tackle this problem, there has been discussion surrounding O2 parameters as it has a distinct outcome in septic patients. This review aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of the central venous-arterial carbon dioxide difference (PCO2) gap in patients with septic shock. A comprehensive systematic search was performed through electronic databases including Pubmed, Scopus, and Embase for studies focusing on the use of PCO2 gap as a mortality predictor in septic shock patients. Other secondary outcomes such as mean arterial pressure, lactate clearance, the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score, and intensive care unit length of stay were also measured. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tool was used to assess the risk of bias. A total of 8 studies were analysed. The mortality rate (odds ratio=0.50, 95% CI=0.28-0.87, P < .01) and lactate levels (mean difference [MD] = -0.98; 95% CI=-1.62 to -0.35; P=.001) of the low PCO2 gap group were significantly lower than the high gap group. The low gap group had a significantly higher mean arterial pressure compared to the high gap group (MD=4.54; 95% CI=2.14 to 6.95; P=.001). There were no pronounced outcomes in acute physiology and chronic health evaluation score and intensive care unit length of stay. PCO2 gap can potentially be used as a marker for mortality rate in septic shock patients. It is also significantly associated with other predictors, such as mean arterial pressure and lactate clearance.
PubMed: 36301280
DOI: 10.5152/TJAR.2021.21139 -
Critical Care (London, England) Jun 2022Fluid challenges are widely adopted in critically ill patients to reverse haemodynamic instability. We reviewed the literature to appraise fluid challenge... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Fluid challenges are widely adopted in critically ill patients to reverse haemodynamic instability. We reviewed the literature to appraise fluid challenge characteristics in intensive care unit (ICU) patients receiving haemodynamic monitoring and considered two decades: 2000-2010 and 2011-2021.
METHODS
We assessed research studies and collected data regarding study setting, patient population, fluid challenge characteristics, and monitoring. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane search engines were used. A fluid challenge was defined as an infusion of a definite quantity of fluid (expressed as a volume in mL or ml/kg) in a fixed time (expressed in minutes), whose outcome was defined as a change in predefined haemodynamic variables above a predetermined threshold.
RESULTS
We included 124 studies, 32 (25.8%) published in 2000-2010 and 92 (74.2%) in 2011-2021, overall enrolling 6,086 patients, who presented sepsis/septic shock in 50.6% of cases. The fluid challenge usually consisted of 500 mL (76.6%) of crystalloids (56.6%) infused with a rate of 25 mL/min. Fluid responsiveness was usually defined by a cardiac output/index (CO/CI) increase ≥ 15% (70.9%). The infusion time was quicker (15 min vs 30 min), and crystalloids were more frequent in the 2011-2021 compared to the 2000-2010 period.
CONCLUSIONS
In the literature, fluid challenges are usually performed by infusing 500 mL of crystalloids bolus in less than 20 min. A positive fluid challenge response, reported in 52% of ICU patients, is generally defined by a CO/CI increase ≥ 15%. Compared to the 2000-2010 decade, in 2011-2021 the infusion time of the fluid challenge was shorter, and crystalloids were more frequently used.
Topics: Critical Illness; Crystalloid Solutions; Fluid Therapy; Hemodynamic Monitoring; Hemodynamics; Humans; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 35729632
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-022-04056-3 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021The meta-analysis aims to identify whether septic shock patients can benefit from esmolol. The relevant studies from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase were searched by... (Review)
Review
The meta-analysis aims to identify whether septic shock patients can benefit from esmolol. The relevant studies from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase were searched by two independent investigators using a variety of keywords. Stata software (version 12.0, Stata Corp LP, College Station, TX, United States)was used for statistical analysis. A total of 14 studies were identified and incorporated into the meta-analysis. For overall analysis, the treatment of esmolol was associated with decreased 28-day mortality (RR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.56-0.77, < 0.001). Meanwhile, our analysis found that, esmolol could decrease HR (SMD: -1.70; 95% CI: [-2.24-(-1.17)], cTnI (SMD: -1.61; 95% CI: [-2.06-(-1.16)] compared with standard treatment. No significant differences between the two groups were found in MAP, Lac, CI, and SVI. The findings of this meta-analysis intend to demonstrate that septic shock patients with high heart beats rate might be benefit from esmolol treatment despite enough fluid resuscitation. While, dependent on the study published, with the further development of septic shock, the positive impact of esmolol varies. The appropriate heart rate change interval cannot be confirmed, further high-quality and large-scale RCTs should be performed to verify it and screening more suitable heart rate levels. CRD42021239513.
PubMed: 34140891
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.682232