Levosimendan does not reduce the mortality of critically ill adult patients with sepsis and septic shock: a meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Previous studies on whether or not levosimendan improved the prognosis of patients with sepsis and septic shock have been inconsistent. We aimed to provide an updated analysis of the therapeutic value of levosimendan in adult patients with sepsis and septic shock, in order to provide evidence-based medical evidence for its use.Methods
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang Data, and CNKI were searched until August 2018 without language restriction. Randomized controlled studies of levosimendan with either inotropic drugs or placebo for the treatment of sepsis or septic shock were enrolled. The primary outcome was mortality, and cardiac index and serum lactate levels were the secondary outcomes.Results
A total of 20 randomized controlled studies were included in this meta-analysis, including 1467 patients, with 738 patients in the experimental group (levosimendan group) and 729 patients in the control group (other inotropic drugs or placebo). There were no significant differences in mortality between the levosimendan and control groups (fixed-effect relative risk [RR]?=?0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.79, 1.03], P?=?0.13). Levosimendan increased the cardiac index (VMD [weighted mean difference]?=?0.51, 95% CI [0.06, 0.95], P?=?0.02); and serum lactate levels were lower (VMD?=?-1.04, 95% CI [-1.47, -0.60], P?ConclusionsBased on current clinical evidence, levosimendan does not reduce mortality in adult critically ill patients with sepsis and septic shock. Physicians should use levosimendan with caution in patients with sepsis and septic shock.
SUBMITTER: Feng F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6511414 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Levosimendan does not reduce the mortality of critically ill adult patients with sepsis and septic shock: a meta-analysis.
Feng Fang F Chen Yu Y Li Min M Yuan Jiao-Jiao JJ Chang Xue-Ni XN Dong Chen-Ming CM
Chinese medical journal 20190501 10
<h4>Background</h4>Previous studies on whether or not levosimendan improved the prognosis of patients with sepsis and septic shock have been inconsistent. We aimed to provide an updated analysis of the therapeutic value of levosimendan in adult patients with sepsis and septic shock, in order to provide evidence-based medical evidence for its use.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang Data, and CNKI were searched until August 2018 without language restriction. Randomized contro ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVE:We aim to synthesise up-to-date randomised trials to investigate the effects of levosimendan on mortality and clinical outcomes in severe sepsis and septic shock. METHODS:A collection of databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register and Web of Science were searched updated to August 2017. Randomised trials were included when they pertain to the use of levosimendan in severe sepsis or septic shock compared with any category of inotropes, or as an adjunct to standard therapy with mortality reported. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes were clinical performances including serum lactate, cardiac function, vasopressor requirement and fluid infusion. RESULTS:A total of 10 studies with 1036 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results revealed that levosimendan could not reduce mortality significantly in severe sepsis and septic shock (OR 0.89, 95%?CI 0.69 to 1.16, P=0.39). Levosimendan use could reduce serum lactate more effectively, and enhance cardiac contractibility with increased cardiac index and left ventricular ejection fraction. However, its use could also increase fluid infusion but not reduce norepinephrine dose. No significant benefit in mortality could be observed of levosimendan versus dobutamine use, or in patients with proven cardiac dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS:Current evidence is not sufficient to support levosimendan as superior to dobutamine or as an optimal adjunct in severe sepsis and septic shock. More large-scale randomised trials are necessary to validate levosimendan use in sepsis.
| S-EPMC5884355 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAlthough metabolic alkalosis is a common occurrence in intensive care units (ICUs), no study has evaluated its prevalence or outcomes in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients suffering from severe sepsis and septic shock admitted to the ICUs of Halmstad and Varberg County hospitals. From 910 patient records, 627 patients met the inclusion criteria. We investigated the relationship between metabolic alkalosis and mortality. Further, we studied the relationship between metabolic alkalosis and ICU length of stay (LOS).ResultsMetabolic alkalosis was associated with decreased 30-day and 12-month mortalities. This effect was however lost when a multivariate analysis was conducted, correcting for age, gender, pH on admission, base excess (BE) on admission, Simplified Acute Physiology Score III (SAPS III) and acute kidney injury (AKI). We then analyzed for any dose-response effect between the severity of metabolic alkalosis and mortality and found no relationship. Bivariate analysis showed that metabolic alkalosis had a significant effect on the length of ICU stay. When adjusting for age, sex, pH at admission, BE at admission, SAPS III and AKI in a multivariate analysis, metabolic alkalosis significantly contributed to prolonged ICU length of stay. In two separate sensitivity analyses pure metabolic alkalosis and late metabolic alkalosis (time of onset >48 hours) were the only significant predictor of increased ICU length of stay.ConclusionMetabolic alkalosis did not have any effect on 30-day and 12-month mortalities after adjusting for age, sex, SAPS III-score, pH and BE on admission and AKI in a multivariate analysis. The presence of metabolic alkalosis was independently associated with an increased ICU length of stay.
| S-EPMC5207677 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Kallistatin, an endogenous serine proteinase inhibitor, is protective against sepsis in animal models. The aim of this study was to determine the plasma concentration of kallistatin in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with severe sepsis and septic shock and to determine their potential correlation with disease severity and outcomes. We enrolled 86 ICU patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Their plasma concentrations of kallistatin, kallikrein, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-?, interleukin (IL)-1?, IL-6, and IL-8 were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The association of kallistatin levels with disease severity and patient outcomes was evaluated. The relationship between kallistatin and other biomarkers was also analyzed. Plasma kallistatin levels on day 1 of ICU admission were lower in patients with septic shock compared with patients with severe sepsis (p = 0.004). Twenty-nine patients who died in the hospital had significantly lower day 1 kallistatin levels than patients who survived (p = 0.031). Using the optimal cutoff value (4 ?g/ml) of day 1 plasma kallistatin determined by receiver operating characteristic curves for 60-day mortality, we found that high kallistatin levels were associated with a preferable 60-day survival (p = 0.012) by Kaplan-Meier analysis and lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores over the first 5 days in the ICU (p = 0.001). High kallistatin levels were also independently associated with a decreased risk of septic shock, the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome, and positive blood cultures. In addition, there were inverse correlations between day 1 kallistatin levels and the levels of TNF-?, IL-1?, IL-6, and C-reactive protein, and SOFA scores on day 1. Our results indicate that during severe sepsis and septic shock, a decrease in plasma concentrations of kallistatin reflects increased severity and poorer outcome of disease.
| S-EPMC5443576 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sepsis is commonly associated with acute kidney injury (AKI), particularly in those requiring dialysis (AKI-D). To date, Sepsis-3 criteria have not been applied to AKI-D patients. We investigated sepsis prevalence defined by Sepsis-3 criteria and evaluated the outcomes of septic-associated AKI-D among critically ill patients. Using the data collected from a prospective multi-center observational study, we applied the Sepsis-3 criteria to critically ill AKI-D patients treated in intensive care units (ICUs) in 30 hospitals between September 2014 and December 2015. We described the prevalence, outcomes, and characteristics of sepsis as defined by the screening Sepsis-3 criteria among AKI-D patients, and compared the outcomes of AKI-D patients with or without sepsis using the Sepsis-3 criteria. A total of 1078 patients (median 70 years; 673 (62.4%) men) with AKI-D were analyzed. The main etiology of AKI was sepsis (71.43%) and the most frequent indication for acute dialysis was oliguria (64.4%). A total of 577 (53.3% of 1078 patients) met the Sepsis-3 criteria, and 206 among the 577 patients (19.1%) had septic shock. Having sepsis and septic shock were independently associated with 90-day mortality among these ICU AKI-D patients (hazard ratio (HR) 1.23 (p = 0.027) and 1.39 (p = 0.004), respectively). Taking mortality as a competing risk factor, AKI-D patients with septic shock had a significantly reduced chance of weaning from dialysis at 90 days than those without sepsis (HR 0.65, p = 0.026). The combination of the Sepsis-3 criteria with the AKI risk score led to better performance in forecasting 90-day mortality. Sepsis affects more than 50% of ICU AKI patients requiring dialysis, and one-fifth of these patients had septic shock. In AKI-D patients, coexistent with or induced by sepsis (as screened by the Sepsis-3 criteria), there is a significantly higher mortality and reduced chance of recovering sufficient renal function, when compared to those without sepsis.
| S-EPMC6832288 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectSeveral studies have investigated a survival benefit for levosimendan treatment in patients with septic shock. However, data are conflicting. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of levosimendan treatment on mortality in patients with septic shock.Materials and methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library Databases up to March 27, 2017, without language restrictions. We searched for terms related to septic shock, levosimendan, randomized clinical trial. Randomized controlled trials reported the effect of levosimendan on mortality were included. Moreover, we constructed the trial sequential analysis (TSA) to determine the reliability of the outcomes. Furthermore, secondary outcomes were cardiac index(CI), mean arterial pressure (MAP), blood lactate, norepinephrine dose and length of ICU stay.ResultsTen studies with a total of 816 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in the mortality between the levosimendan group and the standard inotropic therapy group [RR = 0.96, 95% CI (0.81-1.12), I2 = 0]. However, methods adapted from formal interim monitoring boundaries applied to TSA indicated that the cumulative evidence was unreliable and inconclusive. Blood lactate was significantly reduced in the levosimendan group while there was no difference in MAP, CI, norepinephrine dose and length of ICU stay.ConclusionsFindings from this meta-analysis demonstrated that levosimendan treatment may not reduce mortality in patients with septic shock. The result remains inclusive and further randomized controlled trials were needed to confirm these conclusions.
| S-EPMC5725040 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAppropriate antimicrobial dosing is challenging because of changes in pharmacokinetics (PK) parameters and an increase in multidrug-resistant (MDR) organisms in critically ill patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of an empirical therapy of high-dose versus standard-dose meropenem in sepsis and septic shock patients.MethodsWe performed a prospective randomized open-label study to compare the changes of modified sequential organ failure assessment (mSOFA) score and other clinical outcomes of the high-dose meropenem (2-g infusion over 3 h every 8 h) versus the standard-dose meropenem (1-g infusion over 3 h every 8 h) in sepsis and septic shock patients. Patients' characteristics, clinical and microbiological outcomes, 14 and 28-day mortality, vasopressor- and ventilator-free days, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital-free days, percent of the time of antibiotic concentrations above the minimum inhibitory concentration (%T>MIC), and safety were assessed.ResultsSeventy-eight patients were enrolled. Median delta mSOFA was comparable between two groups (- 1 in the high-dose group vs. - 1 in the standard-dose group; P value = 0.75). There was no difference between the two groups regarding clinical and microbiological cure, 14- and 28-day mortality, vasopressor- and ventilator-free days, and ICU- and hospital-free days. In patients admitted from the emergency department (ED) with a mSOFA score ≥ 7, the high-dose group demonstrated significantly better microbiological cure compared with the standard-dose group (75% (9/12 patients) vs. 20% (2/10 patients); P value = 0.03). Likewise, the high-dose group presented higher microbiological cure rate in patients admitted from ED who had either APACHE II score > 20 (83.3% (10/12) vs. 28.6% (2/7); P value = 0.045) or on mechanical ventilator (87.5% (7/8) vs. 23.1% (3/13); P value = 0.008) than the standard-dose group. Adverse events were comparable between the two groups.ConclusionsEmpirical therapy with the high-dose meropenem presented comparable clinical outcomes to the standard-dose meropenem in sepsis and septic shock patients. Besides, subgroup analysis manifested superior microbiological cure rate in sepsis or septic shock patients admitted from ED.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03344627, registered on November 17, 2017.
| S-EPMC7158081 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Infections with polyomavirus BK virus (BKV) are a common cause of renal dysfunction after renal transplantation and may also be harmful in surgical patients with shock. The aim of the present study was to determine the frequency of BKV viremia in critically ill surgical patients with septic or hemorrhagic shock, and, if viremia is detectable, whether viremia may be associated with renal dysfunction.A total of 125 plasma samples from 44 critically ill surgical patients with septic or hemorrhagic shock were tested by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for BKV DNA during their stay on the intensive care unit (ICU). BKV viremia occurred in four patients, i.e. in three of the septic and in one of the hemorrhagic shock group. There was no association between viremia and renal dysfunction. All positive samples contained a low viral load (< 500 copies/ml).Since BK viremia was rarely found and with low viral load only in critically ill surgical patients with shock, it is very unlikely that BK viremia results in BK nephropathy later on.
| S-EPMC3305643 | biostudies-literature
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:For more than two decades, sepsis was defined as a microbial infection that produces fever (or hypothermia), tachycardia, tachypnoea and blood leukocyte changes. Sepsis is now increasingly being considered a dysregulated systemic inflammatory and immune response to microbial invasion that produces organ injury for which mortality rates are declining to 15-25%. Septic shock remains defined as sepsis with hyperlactataemia and concurrent hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy, with in-hospital mortality rates approaching 30-50%. With earlier recognition and more compliance to best practices, sepsis has become less of an immediate life-threatening disorder and more of a long-term chronic critical illness, often associated with prolonged inflammation, immune suppression, organ injury and lean tissue wasting. Furthermore, patients who survive sepsis have continuing risk of mortality after discharge, as well as long-term cognitive and functional deficits. Earlier recognition and improved implementation of best practices have reduced in-hospital mortality, but results from the use of immunomodulatory agents to date have been disappointing. Similarly, no biomarker can definitely diagnose sepsis or predict its clinical outcome. Because of its complexity, improvements in sepsis outcomes are likely to continue to be slow and incremental.
| S-EPMC5538252 | biostudies-other
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