Antipyretic therapy in critically ill patients with established sepsis: a trial sequential analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zhang Z
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4339198 | biostudies-literature | 2015
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Antipyretic therapy in critically ill patients with established sepsis: a trial sequential analysis.
PloS one 20150224 2
<h4>Background and objective</h4>antipyretic therapy for patients with sepsis has long been debated. The present study aimed to explore the beneficial effect of antipyretic therapy for ICU patients with sepsis.<h4>Design</h4>systematic review and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.<h4>Database</h4>Pubmed, Scopus, EBSCO and EMBASE were searched from inception to August 5, 2014.<h4>Methods</h4>Mortality was dichotomized as binary outcome variable and odds ratio (OR) was chos ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and objectiveThe effect of antipyretic therapy on mortality in patients with sepsis remains undetermined. The present study aimed to investigate the role of antipyretic therapy in ICU patients with sepsis by using a large clinical database.MethodsThe multiparameter intelligent monitoring in intensive care II (MIMIC- II) database was employed for the study. Adult patients with sepsis were included for analysis. Antipyretic therapy included antipyretic medication and external cooling. Multivariable model with interaction terms were employed to explore the association of antipyretic therapy and mortality risk.Main resultsA total of 15,268 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria and were included in the study. In multivariable model by treating temperature as a continuous variable, there was significant interaction between antipyretic therapy and the maximum temperature (Tmax). While antipyretic therapy had no significant effect on mortality in low temperature quintiles, antipyretic therapy was associated with increased risk of death in the quintile with body temperature >39°C (OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.04-1.61).ConclusionOur study shows that there is no beneficial effect on reducing mortality risk with the use of antipyretic therapy in ICU patients with sepsis. External cooling may even be harmful in patients with sepsis.
| S-EPMC4378844 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:This meta-analysis aimed to examine the impact of antipyretic therapy on mortality in critically ill septic adults. DATA SOURCES:Literature searches were implemented in Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 2016. STUDY SELECTION:Inclusion criteria were observational or randomized studies of septic patients, evaluation of antipyretic treatment, mortality reported, and English-language version available. Studies were excluded if they enrolled pediatric patients, patients with neurologic injury, or healthy volunteers. Criteria were applied by two independent reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION:Two reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated methodologic quality. Outcomes included mortality, frequency of shock reversal, acquisition of nosocomial infections, and changes in body temperature, heart rate, and minute ventilation. Randomized and observational studies were analyzed separately. DATA SYNTHESIS:Eight randomized studies (1,507 patients) and eight observational studies (17,432 patients) were analyzed. Antipyretic therapy did not reduce 28-day/hospital mortality in the randomized studies (relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.77-1.13; I = 0.0%) or observational studies (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.54-1.51; I = 76.1%). Shock reversal (relative risk, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.68-1.90; I = 51.6%) and acquisition of nosocomial infections (relative risk, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.61-2.09; I = 61.0%) were also unchanged. Antipyretic therapy decreased body temperature (mean difference, -0.38°C; 95% CI, -0.63 to -0.13; I = 84.0%), but not heart rate or minute ventilation. CONCLUSIONS:Antipyretic treatment does not significantly improve 28-day/hospital mortality in adult patients with sepsis.
| S-EPMC5389594 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sepsis is a frequent complication in critically ill patients and highly heterogeneous that is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates, especially in the elderly population. Utilizing RNA-Sequencing (RNA-Seq) to analysis biological pathways is widely used in clinical and molecular genetics studies, but in elderly patients with sepsis are still lacking. Hence, we aim to investigate the mortality-relevant biological features and transcriptomic features in elderly patients who were admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) for sepsis.
2022-11-03 | GSE216902 | GEO
Project description:Objective: It is unclear whether the host response of gram-positive sepsis differs from gram-negative sepsis at a transcriptome level. Using microarray technology, we compared the gene-expression profiles of gram-positive sepsis and gram-negative sepsis in critically ill patients. Design: A prospective cross-sectional study. Setting: A 20-bed general intensive care unit of a tertiary referral hospital. Patients: Seventy-two patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Interventions: Intravenous blood was collected for leukocyte separation and RNA extraction. Microarray experiements were then performed examing the expression level of 19,232 genes in each sample. Measurements and Main Results: There was no difference in the expression profile between gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis. The finding remained unchanged even when genes with lower expression level were included or after statistical stringency was lowered. There were, however, ninety-four genes differentially expressed between sepsis and control patients. These genes included those involved in immune regulation, inflammation and mitochondrial function. Hierarchical cluster analysis confirmed that the difference in gene expression profile existed between sepsis and control patients, but not between gram-positive and gram-negative patients. Conclusion: Gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis share a common host response at a transcriptome level. These findings support the hypothesis that the septic response is non-specific and is designed to provide a more general response that can be elicited by a wide range of different micro-organisms. The study included seventy-two critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Of these, fifty-five patients were diagnosed to have sepsis, as confirmed by microbiological culture. The remaining seventeen patients did not have sepsis and were therefore used as controls. The study was approved by the hospital ethics committee and informed consent was obtained from all patients or their relatives. Patient Samples. Whole blood was taken from each patient on admission to ICU. Neutrophils were separated from whole blood using density-gradient separation with Ficoll-PaqueP P(Amersham). Subsequent neutrophil RNA extraction was performed using guanidinium thiocyanate (Ambion). Microarray Experiment. The neutrophil RNA was converted to cDNA, fluorescently labeled and hybridized to its complimentary sequences on the microarray (Invitrogen). The fluorescent signals on each micrroarray were captured using the GenePix 4000B laser scanner (Axon Instruments). Expression level of each gene was represented by the intensity of its fluorescent signal. Data Extraction. All signal intensity values were processed using background-subtraction method. Prior to analysis, all values were log-transformed and normalized by fitting a print-tip group Lowess curve. Normalization minimizes bias due to dye chemistry, signal intensity or location of a gene on the array. It ensures the detection of genes that are truly differentially expressed, instead of those caused by experimental artifacts or variation in the hybridization process. After normalization, genes that had more than 50% of data missing were removed. We then selected genes that had at least 80% of the data showing two-fold changes from the geneâs median values. After filtering, 1617 genes were available for further analysis.
2010-05-25 | E-GEOD-6535 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:Objective: It is unclear whether the host response of gram-positive sepsis differs from gram-negative sepsis at a transcriptome level. Using microarray technology, we compared the gene-expression profiles of gram-positive sepsis and gram-negative sepsis in critically ill patients. Design: A prospective cross-sectional study. Setting: A 20-bed general intensive care unit of a tertiary referral hospital. Patients: Seventy-two patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Interventions: Intravenous blood was collected for leukocyte separation and RNA extraction. Microarray experiements were then performed examing the expression level of 19,232 genes in each sample. Measurements and Main Results: There was no difference in the expression profile between gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis. The finding remained unchanged even when genes with lower expression level were included or after statistical stringency was lowered. There were, however, ninety-four genes differentially expressed between sepsis and control patients. These genes included those involved in immune regulation, inflammation and mitochondrial function. Hierarchical cluster analysis confirmed that the difference in gene expression profile existed between sepsis and control patients, but not between gram-positive and gram-negative patients. Conclusion: Gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis share a common host response at a transcriptome level. These findings support the hypothesis that the septic response is non-specific and is designed to provide a more general response that can be elicited by a wide range of different micro-organisms. Keywords: disease state analysis, gram-positive sepsis, gram-negative sepsis
2007-12-01 | GSE6535 | GEO
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the benefits and harms of antithrombin III in critically ill patients.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.Data sourcesCENTRAL, Medline, Embase, International Web of Science, LILACS, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and CINHAL (to November 2006); hand search of reference lists, contact with authors and experts, and search of registers of ongoing trials.Review methodsTwo reviewers independently selected parallel group randomised clinical trials comparing antithrombin with placebo or no intervention and extracted data related to study methods, interventions, outcomes, bias risk, and adverse events. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Trials in any type of critically ill patients in intensive care were eligible. All trials, irrespective of blinding or language status, that compared any antithrombin III regimen with no intervention or placebo were included. Trials were considered to be at low risk of bias if they had adequate randomisation procedure, blinding, and used intention to treat analysis. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with fixed and random effects models according to heterogeneity.Main outcome measuresMortality, length of stay in intensive care or hospital, quality of life, severity of sepsis, respiratory failure, duration of mechanical ventilation, incidence of surgical intervention, intervention effect among various populations, and adverse events (such as bleeding).Results20 trials randomly assigning 3458 patients met inclusion criteria. Eight trials had low risk of bias. Compared with placebo or no intervention, antithrombin III did not reduce overall mortality (relative risk 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.03). No subgroup analyses on risk of bias, populations of patients, or with and without adjuvant heparin yielded significant results. Antithrombin III increased the risk of bleeding events (1.52, 1.30 to 1.78). Heterogeneity was observed in only a few analyses.ConclusionAntithrombin III cannot be recommended for critically ill patients based on the available evidence.
| S-EPMC2137061 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:Antithrombin III (AT III) is an anticoagulant with anti-inflammatory properties. We assessed the benefits and harms of AT III in critically ill patients. METHODS:We searched from inception to 27 August 2015 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CAB, BIOSIS and CINAHL. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published or language. RESULTS:We included 30 RCTs with a total of 3933 participants. The majority of included trials were at high risk of bias. Combining all trials, regardless of bias, showed no statistically significant effect of AT III on mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88-1.03, I (2) = 0%, fixed-effect model, 29 trials, 3882 participants). Among those with severe sepsis and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), AT III showed no impact on mortality (RR 0.95, 95% Cl 0.88-1.03, I (2) = 0%, fixed-effect model, 12 trials, 2858 participants). We carried out multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the benefits and harms of AT III and to examine the impact of risk of bias. AT III significantly increased bleeding events (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.35-1.84, I (2) = 0%, fixed-effect model, 11 trials, 3019 participants). However, for all other outcome measures and analyses, the results did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS:There is insufficient evidence to support AT III substitution in any category of critically ill participants including those with sepsis and DIC. AT III did not show an impact on mortality, but increased the risk of bleeding.
| S-EPMC7095103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hyperglycemia frequently occurs with acute medical illness, especially among patients with cardiovascular disease, and has been linked to increased morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. Even patients who are normoglycemic can develop hyperglycemia in response to acute metabolic stress. An expanding body of literature describes the benefits of normalizing hyperglycemia with insulin therapy in hospitalized patients. As a result, both the American Diabetes Association and the American College of Endocrinology have developed guidelines for optimal control of hyperglycemia, specifically targeting critically ill, hospitalized patients. Conventional blood glucose values of 140-180 mg/dL are considered desirable and safely achievable in most patients. More aggressive control to <110 mg/dL remains controversial, but has shown benefits in certain patients, such as those in surgical intensive care. Intravenous infusion is often used for initial insulin administration, which can then be transitioned to subcutaneous insulin therapy in those patients who require continued insulin maintenance. This article reviews the data establishing the link between hyperglycemia and its risks of morbidity and mortality, and describes strategies that have proven effective in maintaining glycemic control in high-risk hospitalized patients.
| S-EPMC3004512 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background: Systemic inflammation is a whole body reaction that can have an infection-positive (i.e. sepsis) or infection-negative origin. It is important to distinguish between septic and non-septic presentations early and reliably, because this has significant therapeutic implications for critically ill patients. We hypothesized that a molecular classifier based on a small number of RNAs expressed in peripheral blood could be discovered that would: 1) determine which patients with systemic inflammation had sepsis; 2) be robust across independent patient cohorts; 3) be insensitive to disease severity; and 4) provide diagnostic utility. The overall goal of this study was to identify and validate such a molecular classifier. Methods and Findings: We conducted an observational, non-interventional study of adult patients recruited from tertiary intensive care units (ICU). Biomarker discovery was conducted with an Australian cohort (n = 105) consisting of sepsis patients and post -surgical patients with infection-negative systemic inflammation. Using this cohort, a four-gene classifier consisting of a combination of CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLA2G7 and PLAC8 RNA biomarkers was identified. This classifier, designated SeptiCyte® Lab, was externally validated using RT-qPCR and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in five cohorts (n = 345) from the Netherlands. Cohort 1 (n=59) consisted of unambiguous septic cases and infection-negative systemic inflammation controls; SeptiCyte® Lab gave an area under curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-1.00). ROC analysis of a more heterogeneous group of patients (Cohorts 2-5; 249 patients after excluding 37 patients with infection likelihood possible) gave an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93). Disease severity, as measured by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score or the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score, was not a significant confounding variable. The diagnostic utility o f SeptiCyte® Lab was evaluated by comparison to various clinical and laboratory parameters that would be available to a clinician within 24 hours of ICU admission. SeptiCyte® Lab was significantly better at differentiating sepsis from infection-negative systemic inflammation than all tested parameters, both singly and in various logistic combinations. SeptiCyte® Lab more than halved the diagnostic error rate compared to PCT in all tested cohorts or cohort combinations. Conclusions: SeptiCyte® Lab is a rapid molecular assay that may be clinically useful in the management of ICU patients with systemic inflammation. SIRS and Sepsis ICU patients, admission samples Retrospective, mutli-site sutdy using retrospective physician adjudication as a comparator
2015-10-24 | E-GEOD-74224 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:IntroductionFever is frequently observed in critically ill patients. An independent association of fever with increased mortality has been observed in non-neurological critically ill patients with mixed febrile etiology. The association of fever and antipyretics with mortality, however, may be different between infective and non-infective illness.MethodsWe designed a prospective observational study to investigate the independent association of fever and the use of antipyretic treatments with mortality in critically ill patients with and without sepsis. We included 1,425 consecutive adult critically ill patients (without neurological injury) requiring >48 hours intensive care admitted in 25 ICUs. We recorded four-hourly body temperature and all antipyretic treatments until ICU discharge or 28 days after ICU admission, whichever occurred first. For septic and non-septic patients, we separately assessed the association of maximum body temperature during ICU stay (MAXICU) and the use of antipyretic treatments with 28-day mortality.ResultsWe recorded body temperature 63,441 times. Antipyretic treatment was given 4,863 times to 737 patients (51.7%). We found that treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or acetaminophen independently increased 28-day mortality for septic patients (adjusted odds ratio: NSAIDs: 2.61, P=0.028, acetaminophen: 2.05, P=0.01), but not for non-septic patients (adjusted odds ratio: NSAIDs: 0.22, P=0.15, acetaminophen: 0.58, P=0.63). Application of physical cooling did not associate with mortality in either group. Relative to the reference range (MAXICU ≥ 39.5°C increased risk of 28-day mortality in non-septic patients (adjusted odds ratio 8.14, P=0.01), but not in septic patients (adjusted odds ratio 0.47, P=0.11) [corrected].ConclusionsIn non-septic patients, high fever (≥39.5°C) independently associated with mortality, without association of administration of NSAIDs or acetaminophen with mortality. In contrast, in septic patients, administration of NSAIDs or acetaminophen independently associated with 28-day mortality, without association of fever with mortality. These findings suggest that fever and antipyretics may have different biological or clinical or both implications for patients with and without sepsis.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00940654.
| S-EPMC3396278 | biostudies-literature