Dataset Information

Reevaluating the Role of Corticosteroids in Septic Shock: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: What Is Known and Objective. To reevaluate the benefits and risks of corticosteroid treatment in adult patients with septic shock. Methods. This study was performed based on PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of corticosteroids versus placebo were retrieved from PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central RCTs, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1980 to April 2018. We also conducted a trial sequential analysis to indicate the possibility of type I or II errors and calculate the information size. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE) was applying to assess the certainty of evidence at the primary outcome level. Results. Twenty-one RCTs were identified and analyzed. Patients treated with corticosteroid had a 7% reduction in relative risk in 28-day all-cause mortality compared to controls (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99). However, there were no significant differences for the intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09) or in-hospital mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11). Corticosteroids shortened the length of ICU stay by 1.04 days (RR -1.04, 95% CI -1.72 to -0.36) and the length of hospital stay by 2.49 days (RR -2.49, 95% CI -4.96 to -0.02). Corticosteroids increased the risk of hyperglycemia (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.16) but not gastroduodenal bleeding (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.37) or superinfection (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.15). However, some date on secondary outcomes were unavailable because they were not measured or not reported in the included studies which may cause a lack of power or selective outcome reporting. The information size was calculated at 10044 patients. Trial sequential analysis showed that the meta-analysis was conclusive and the risk of type 2 error was minimal. What Is New and Conclusion. Corticosteroids are likely to be effective in reducing 28-day mortality and attenuating septic shock without increasing the rate of life-threatening complications. TSA showed that the risk of type II error in this meta-analysis was minimal and the result was conclusive.

SUBMITTER: Lian XJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6590573 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reevaluating the Role of Corticosteroids in Septic Shock: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Lian X-J XJ Huang D-Z DZ Cao Y-S YS Wei Y-X YX Lian Z-Z ZZ Qin T-H TH He P-C PC Liu Y-H YH Wang S-H SH

BioMed research international 20190610

<i>What Is Known and Objective.</i> To reevaluate the benefits and risks of corticosteroid treatment in adult patients with septic shock. <i>Methods.</i> This study was performed based on PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of corticosteroids versus placebo were retrieved from PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central RCTs, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1980 to April 2018. We also conducted a trial sequential analysis to indicate the possibility of ty ...[more]

PMID: 31281831

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCatecholamines, especially norepinephrine, are the most frequently used vasopressors for treating patients with septic shock. During the recent decades, terlipressin, vasopressin V1A agonist, and even Ca2+ sensitizer were increasingly used by physicians. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of such different kinds of vasoactive medications on mortality among patients with septic shock.MethodsRelevant randomized controlled trials were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials updated to February 22, 2018. A network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of different types of vasoactive medications. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS), and adverse events were also assessed.ResultsA total of 43 trials with 5767 patients assessing 17 treatment modalities were included. Treatments ranking based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve values from largest to smallest were NE/DB 85.9%, TP 75.1%, NE/EP 74.6%, PI 74.1%, EP 72.5%, VP 66.1%, NE 59.8%, PE 53.0%, DA 42.1%, DX 38.2%, SP 27.0%, PA 24.3%, EX 22.8%, LE 21.5%, and DB 13.3% for 28-day mortality. Treatments ranking for ICU mortality were TP/NE 86.4%, TP 80.3%, TP/DB/NE 65.7%, VP/NE 62.8%, NE 57.4%, VP 56.5%, PE 48.4%, DA 33.0%, PA 27.5%, LE 22.1%, and DB 9.9%. The incidence of myocardial infarction was reported with NE/EP 3.33% (n = 1 of 30), followed by EP 3.11% (n = 5 of 161), and then VP 3.10% (n = 19 of 613), NE 3.03% (n = 43 of 1417), DA 2.21% (n = 19 of 858), NE/DB 2.01% (n = 4 of 199), LE 1.16% (n = 3 of 258), and PA 0.39% (n = 1 of 257). The incidence of arrhythmia was reported with DA 26.01% (n = 258 of 992), followed by EP 22.98% (n = 37 of 161), and then NE/DB 20.60% (n = 41 of 199), NE/EP 20.0% (n = 6 of 30), NE 8.33% (n = 127 of 1525), LE 5.81% (n = 15 of 258), PA 2.33% (n = 6 of 257), and VP 1.67% (n = 10 of 600).ConclusionsThe use of norepinephrine plus dobutamine was associated with lower 28-day mortality for septic shock, especially among patients with lower cardiac output.

Project description:Background: Septic shock is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Studies have reported that Chinese herbal injections (CHIs) in combination with Western medicine (WM) were more favorable. However, the debate on optimal CHIs is ongoing. The objective of this study is to explore the comparative effectiveness of CHIs for septic shock. Methods: We retrieved data from the English and Chinese databases with retrieval time from database inception to 30 September 2021. Network meta-analysis was performed, with evaluation of methodological quality among the included studies and assessment of strength of evidence among the outcomes. Results: A total of 77 RCTs with 5,647 patients were included. All the studies were rated as some concerns. In terms of 28-days-mortality, Yiqifumai injection (YQFM)+WM, Shuxuetong injection (SXT)+WM, Xuebijing injection (XBJ)+WM, and Shenfu injection (SF)+WM were better than WM; YQFM + WM and SXT + WM were superior for Shenmai injection (SM)+WM; YQFM + WM was superior for SF + WM; YQFM + WM ranked first. Regarding ICU length of stay, SF + WM and XBJ + WM were better than WM; XBJ + WM was superior for SF + WM; XBJ + WM ranked first. Concerning hospital length of stay, Shenqifuzheng injection (SQFZ)+WM, Shengmai injection (SGM)+WM, and XBJ + WM had greater potential than WM and SF + WM; SQFZ + WM ranked first. As for SOFA score at 7-days, XBJ + WM and SF + WM were superior for WM; XBJ + WM was superior for SF + WM; XBJ + WM ranked first. Regarding procalcitonin level at 7-days, SF + WM, SM + WM, and Xiyanping injection (XYP)+WM were better than WM; XYP + WM was superior for SF + WM, SGM + WM, SM + WM, Danshen injection (DS)+WM, and XBJ + WM; XYP + WM ranked first. Concerning serum lactate level at 7-days, SF + WM and SM + WM were more effective than XBJ + WM and WM; SM + WM ranked first. The comparisons were rated as moderate (15.05%), low (40.86%), and very low quality (44.09%); the strength of evidence of ranking probability for hospital length of stay was low whereas the remaining outcomes were rated as very low. Conclusions: CHIs combined with WM might have higher efficacies for septic shock than WM alone. YQFM, XBJ, SQFZ, XYP, SM, SGM, and SF may be the potential optimal CHIs for septic shock. More and better evidence is needed to validate the conclusions. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?, identifier CRD42021282958.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to conduct a comprehensive and updated systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the outcome benefits of various blood purification modalities for adult patients with severe infection or sepsis.Data sourcesWe conducted a search of PubMed, MEDLINE, clinical trial registries, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases with no language restrictions.Study selectionOnly randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected.Data extractionThe primary outcome was overall mortality. The secondary outcomes were the length of mechanical ventilation (MV) days and ICU stay, incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), and kidney replacement therapy requirement.Data synthesisWe included a total of 60 RCTs with 4,595 participants, comparing 16 blood purification modalities with 17 interventions. Polymyxin-B hemoperfusion (relative risk [RR]: 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.86) and plasma exchange (RR: 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.91) were associated with low mortality (very low and low certainty of evidence, respectively). Because of the presence of high clinical heterogeneity and intransitivity, the potential benefit of polymyxin-B hemoperfusion remained inconclusive. The analysis of secondary outcomes was limited by the scarcity of available studies. HA330 with high-volume continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH), HA330, and standard-volume CVVH were associated with shorter ICU stay. HA330 with high-volume CVVH, HA330, and standard-volume CVVH were beneficial in reducing MV days. None of the interventions showed a significant reduction in the incidence of AKI or the need for kidney replacement therapy.ConclusionsOur NMA suggests that plasma exchange and polymyxin-B hemoperfusion may provide potential benefits for adult patients with severe infection or sepsis/septic shock when compared with standard care alone, but most comparisons were based on low or very low certainty evidence. The therapeutic effect of polymyxin-B hemoperfusion remains uncertain. Further RCTs are required to identify the specific patient population that may benefit from extracorporeal blood purification.

Project description:IntroductionCurrent low (stress) dose corticosteroid regimens may have therapeutic advantage in severe sepsis and septic shock despite conflicting results from two landmark randomised controlled trials (RCT). We systematically reviewed the efficacy of corticosteroid therapy in severe sepsis and septic shock.MethodsRCTs were identified (1950-September 2008) by multiple data-base electronic search (MEDLINE via OVID, OVID PreMedline, OVID Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, Health Technology Assessment Database and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) and hand search of references, reviews and scientific society proceedings. Three investigators independently assessed trial inclusion and data extraction into standardised forms; differences resolved by consensus.ResultsCorticosteroid efficacy, compared with control, for hospital-mortality, proportion of patients experiencing shock-resolution, and infective and non-infective complications was assessed using Bayesian random-effects models; expressed as odds ratio (OR, (95% credible-interval)). Bayesian outcome probabilities were calculated as the probability (P) that OR ≥1. Fourteen RCTs were identified. High-dose (>1000 mg hydrocortisone (equivalent) per day) corticosteroid trials were associated with a null (n = 5; OR 0.91(0.31-1.25)) or higher (n = 4, OR 1.46(0.73-2.16), outlier excluded) mortality probability (P = 42.0% and 89.3%, respectively). Low-dose trials (<1000 mg hydrocortisone per day) were associated with a lower (n = 9, OR 0.80(0.40-1.39); n = 8 OR 0.71(0.37-1.10), outlier excluded) mortality probability (20.4% and 5.8%, respectively). OR for shock-resolution was increased in the low dose trials (n = 7; OR 1.20(1.07-4.55); P = 98.2%). Patient responsiveness to corticotrophin stimulation was non-determinant. A high probability of risk-related treatment efficacy (decrease in log-odds mortality with increased control arm risk) was identified by metaregression in the low dose trials (n = 9, slope coefficient -0.49(-1.14, 0.27); P = 92.2%). Odds of complications were not increased with corticosteroids.ConclusionsAlthough a null effect for mortality treatment efficacy of low dose corticosteroid therapy in severe sepsis and septic shock was not excluded, there remained a high probability of treatment efficacy, more so with outlier exclusion. Similarly, although a null effect was not excluded, advantageous effects of low dose steroids had a high probability of dependence upon patient underlying risk. Low dose steroid efficacy was not demonstrated in corticotrophin non-responders. Further large-scale trials appear mandated.

Project description:BackgroundTo update a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and further explore the outcome of IV vitamin C (IVVC) administration in sepsis or septic shock patients.MethodsThis study is a meta-analysis of RCTs. The RCTs of vitamin C therapy in sepsis or septic shock were searched in PubMed, EMBASE and Clinical Trials.gov from inception to January 16, 2023. We registered the protocol with PROSPERO (CRD42022354875). The primary outcome was delta Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at 72-96 h. Two reviewers independently assessed RCTs according to eligibility criteria: (1) study type: RCT; (2) patient population: patients ≥ 18 years with sepsis or septic shock; (3) intervention: IVVC at any doses as monotherapy or combined with thiamine or and hydrocortisone compared with standard of care, no intervention or placebo (defined as control group); (4) the RCT described short-term mortality or SOFA score. Then, two authors independently extracted related information from RCTs.ResultsEighteen RCTs (n = 3364 patients) were identified in this meta-analysis. There were significant effects in the delta SOFA score from baseline to 72-96 h (MD, - 0.62; 95% CI, - 1.00 to - 0.25; p = 0.001) and the duration of vasopressor use (MD, - 15.07; 95% CI, - 21.59 to - 8.55; p < 0.00001) with IVVC therapy. Treatment with IVVC was not shown to improve short-term mortality (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.04; p = 0.14); nevertheless, dose at 25-100 mg/kg/d subgroup associated with a significant reduction in short-term mortality (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.97; p = 0.03). An increase adverse event was observed in IVVC therapy (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.06 to 3.68; p = 0.03).ConclusionIn this meta-analysis, IVVC in sepsis or septic shock patients significantly improved delta SOFA score and reduced the duration of vasopressor use, whereas it was not associated with reduction in short-term mortality and had higher adverse events.

Dataset Information

Reevaluating the Role of Corticosteroids in Septic Shock: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Publications

Reevaluating the Role of Corticosteroids in Septic Shock: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets