Dataset Information

Septic shock and the use of norepinephrine in an intermediate care unit: Mortality and adverse events.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Septic shock is associated with high mortality. Aged and multimorbid patients are not always eligible for intensive care units. Norepinephrine is an accepted treatment for hypotension in septic shock. It is unknown whether norepinephrine has a place in treatment outside an intensive care unit and when given peripherally.

Objectives

To describe mortality, Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE-II), time to mean arterial pressure >65 mmHg, and adverse events in patients with septic shock receiving norepinephrine peripherally in an intermediate care unit.

Methods

From a retrospective chart review of 91 patients with septic shock treated with norepinephrine for hypotension, ward mortality, 30-, 60- and 90-day mortality, standardized mortality ratio (SMR) and adverse events (necrosis and arrhythmia) were analysed. Administration route via peripheral venous catheter or central venous catheter was registered.

Results

Median age was 81 (43-96) years and median APACHE-II score was 26 (12-42). Observed ward mortality was 27.5% (SMR 0.443, 95% CI: 0.287-0.654), and 30-day and 90-day mortality were 47.2% and 58.2%, respectively.

Conclusions

Elderly patients with septic shock treated with norepinephrine displayed a better survival in the ward and at 30 days than expected. Our retrospective study did not indicate frequent complications when administering norepinephrine via a peripheral venous catheter.

SUBMITTER: Hallengren M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5570296 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Septic shock and the use of norepinephrine in an intermediate care unit: Mortality and adverse events.

Hallengren Mikael M Åstrand Per P Eksborg Staffan S Barle Hans H Frostell Claes C

PloS one 20170824 8

<h4>Background</h4>Septic shock is associated with high mortality. Aged and multimorbid patients are not always eligible for intensive care units. Norepinephrine is an accepted treatment for hypotension in septic shock. It is unknown whether norepinephrine has a place in treatment outside an intensive care unit and when given peripherally.<h4>Objectives</h4>To describe mortality, Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE-II), time to mean arterial pressure >65 mmHg, and adverse even ...[more]

PMID: 28837628

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Use of high-dose norepinephrine is thought to have an immunosuppressive action that increases mortality. This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between norepinephrine dosage and prognosis of patients with septic shock. Methods:This study was a nested cohort of the DExmedetomidine for Sepsis in Intensive Care Unit Randomized Evaluation (DESIRE) trial. We evaluated 112 patients with septic shock and an initial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Cardiovascular (SOFA-C) category score >?2 and initial lactate level >?2 mmol/L. We divided the patients into two groups according to the norepinephrine dosage administered over the initial 7 days: high dose (??416 ?g/kg/week) (H group, n?=?56) and low dose (<?416 ?g/kg/week) (L group, n?=?56). The primary outcome of interest was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were ventilator-free days, initial 24-h infusion volume, initial 24- to 48-h infusion volume, and the need for renal replacement therapy. For comparisons between the H group and L group, we used the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and the t test or Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables. For time-to-event outcomes, Cox proportional hazards models were used. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were created for graphical representation. Results:Patient characteristics appeared to be similar between the two groups except for the SOFA-C score and fibrinogen degradation product level. The cumulative incidence of death at 28 days was 29.9% (16 patients) in the L group and 29.7% (15 patients) in the H group (p?=?0.99). The median number of 28-day ventilator-free days was 20 (0, 25) in the L group and 16 (0, 22) in the H group (p?<?0.05). Initial infusion volume at 0-24 h in the H group was significantly higher than that in the L group (p?=?0.004). Infusion volume at 24-48 h in the H group was also significantly higher than that in the L group (p?=?0.03). Conclusions:No statistically significant difference was observed in 28-day mortality between patients with septic shock treated with high-dose norepinephrine compared with those treated with low-dose norepinephrine. However, the number of ventilator-free days in the L group was higher than that in the H group. Trial registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01760967 Date of trial registration: January 4, 2013.

Project description:IntroductionMost 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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; I2 = 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; I2 = 26%; two trials, 1763 participants) and all-cause 28-day mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.02; P = 0.160; I2 = 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; I2 = 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.ConclusionIn 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.

Project description:Purpose: To determine whether inotrope administration is associated with increased all-cause mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients and to identify inotropes superior for improving mortality. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data retrieved from the Philips Electronic ICU (eICU) database, a clinical database of 200,859 patients from over 208 hospitals located throughout the United States. The database was searched for patients admitted with CS to the intensive care unit (ICU) between 2014 and 2015. We evaluated 34,381 CS patients. They were classified into the inotrope and non-inotrope groups based on whether inotropes were administered during hospitalization. The primary endpoint was all-cause hospital mortality. Findings: In total, 15,021 (43.69%) patients received inotropes during hospitalization. The in-hospital mortality rate was significantly higher in the inotrope group than in the non-inotrope group (2,999 [24.03%] vs. 1,547 [12.40%], adjusted hazard ratio: 2.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.09-2.39; p < 0.0001). After propensity score matching according to the cardiac index, 359 patients were included in each group. The risk of ICU (OR 5.65, 95% CI, 3.17-10.08, p < 0.001) and hospital (OR 2.63, 95% CI: 1.75-3.95, p < 0.001) mortality in the inotrope group was significantly higher. In the inotrope group, the administration of norepinephrine ≤0.1 μg/kg/min and dopamine ≤15 μg/kg/min did not increase the risk of hospital mortality, and milrinone administration was associated with a lower mortality risk (odds ratio: 0.559, 95% CI: 0.430-0.727, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, the administration of >0.1 μg/kg/min dobutamine, epinephrine, and norepinephrine and dopamine >15 μg/kg/min was associated with a higher risk of hospital mortality. Conclusions: Inotropes should be used cautiously because they may be associated with a higher risk of mortality in CS patients. Low-dose norepinephrine and milrinone may associated with lower risk of hospital mortality in these patients, and supportive therapies should be considered when high-dose inotropes are administered.

Dataset Information

Septic shock and the use of norepinephrine in an intermediate care unit: Mortality and adverse events.

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Septic shock and the use of norepinephrine in an intermediate care unit: Mortality and adverse events.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets