Global epidemiology of septic shock: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tianyi FL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6886960 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC7972398 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:The global patterns and distribution of case-fatality rates (CFRs) in pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock remain poorly described. Objective:We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of children with severe sepsis and septic shock to elucidate the patterns of CFRs in developing and developed countries over time. We also described factors associated with CFRs. Data Sources:We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Excerpta Medica database, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Cochrane Central systematically for randomized clinical trials and prospective observational studies from earliest publication until January 2017, using the keywords "pediatric," "sepsis," "septic shock," and "mortality." Study Selection:Studies involving children with severe sepsis and septic shock that reported CFRs were included. Retrospective studies and studies including only neonates were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis:We conducted our systematic review and meta-analysis in close accordance to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Pooled case-fatality estimates were obtained using random-effects meta-analysis. The associations of study period, study design, sepsis severity, age, and continents in which studies occurred were assessed with meta-regression. Main Outcomes and Measures:Meta-analyses to provide pooled estimates of CFR of pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock over time. Results:Ninety-four studies that included 7561 patients were included. Pooled CFRs were higher in developing countries (31.7% [95% CI, 27.3%-36.4%]) than in developed countries (19.3% [95% CI, 16.4%-22.7%]; P < .001). Meta-analysis of CFRs also showed significant heterogeneity across studies. Continents that include mainly developing countries reported higher CFRs (adjusted odds ratios: Africa, 7.89 [95% CI, 6.02-10.32]; P < .001; Asia, 3.81 [95% CI, 3.60-4.03]; P < .001; South America, 2.91 [95% CI, 2.71-3.12]; P < .001) than North America. Septic shock was associated with higher CFRs than severe sepsis (adjusted odds ratios, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.41-1.54]). Younger age was also a risk factor (adjusted odds ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.94-0.96] per year of increase in age). Earlier study eras were associated with higher CFRs (adjusted odds ratios for 1991-2000, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.13-1.37]; P < .001) compared with 2011 to 2016. Time-trend analysis showed higher CFRs over time in developing countries than developed countries. Conclusions and Relevance:Despite the declining trend of pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock CFRs, the disparity between developing and developed countries persists. Further characterizations of vulnerable populations and collaborations between developed and developing countries are warranted to reduce the burden of pediatric sepsis globally.
| S-EPMC6450287 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMultiple corticosteroids and treatment regimens have been used as adjuncts in the treatment of septic shock. Qualitative and quantitative differences exist at cellular and tissular levels between the different drugs and their patterns of delivery. The objective of this study was to elucidate any differences between the drugs and their treatment regimens regarding outcomes for corticosteroid use in adult patients with septic shock.MethodsNetwork meta-analysis of the data used for the recently conducted Cochrane review was performed. Studies that included children and were designed to assess respiratory function in pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, as well as cross-over studies, were excluded. Network plots were created for each outcome, and all analyses were conducted using a frequentist approach assuming a random-effects model.ResultsComplete data from 22 studies and partial data from 1 study were included. Network meta-analysis provided no clear evidence that any intervention or treatment regimen is better than any other across the spectrum of outcomes. There was strong evidence of differential efficacy in only one area: shock reversal. Hydrocortisone boluses and infusions were more likely than methylprednisolone boluses and placebo to result in shock reversal.ConclusionsThere was no clear evidence that any one corticosteroid drug or treatment regimen is more likely to be effective in reducing mortality or reducing the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding or superinfection in septic shock. Hydrocortisone delivered as a bolus or as an infusion was more likely than placebo and methylprednisolone to result in shock reversal.
| S-EPMC5371269 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveInternational guidelines recommend dopamine or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor agents in septic shock. Phenylephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin and terlipressin are considered second-line agents. Our objective was to assess the evidence for the efficiency and safety of all vasopressors in septic shock.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis. We searched electronic database of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, LILACS and conference proceedings up to June 2014. We included randomized controlled trials comparing different vasopressors for the treatment of adult patients with septic shock. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Other clinical and hemodynamic measurements were extracted as secondary outcomes. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled.ResultsThirty-two trials (3,544 patients) were included. Compared to dopamine (866 patients, 450 events), norepinephrine (832 patients, 376 events) was associated with decreased all-cause mortality, RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.81-0.98), corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 11% and number needed to treat of 9. Norepinephrine was associated with lower risk for major adverse events and cardiac arrhythmias compared to dopamine. No other mortality benefit was demonstrated for the comparisons of norepinephrine to epinephrine, phenylephrine and vasopressin / terlipressin. Hemodynamic data were similar between the different vasopressors, with some advantage for norepinephrine in central venous pressure, urinary output and blood lactate levels.ConclusionsEvidence suggests a survival benefit, better hemodynamic profile and reduced adverse events rate for norepinephrine over dopamine. Norepinephrine should be regarded as the first line vasopressor in the treatment of septic shock.
| S-EPMC4523170 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: The meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of terlipressin compared with norepinephrine for septic shock. Materials and Methods: The relevant studies from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase were searched by two independent investigators. A variety of keywords were used to search the studies. Stata software (version 11.0, Stata Corp LP, College Station, TX, USA) was used for statistical analysis. Results: A total of six studies were identified and incorporated into the meta-analysis. The results showed that there was no difference for 28-day mortality (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = [0.85,1.15], P = 0.849), AE (RR = 2.54, 95% CI = [0.58,11.08], P = 0.214), and MAP (SMD = -0.10, 95% CI = [-0.35,0.14], P = 0.405), OI, urinary output, Scr, total bilirubin, ALT, and AST between TP group and NE group. While TP could decrease HR at 24 and 48 h compared with NE. Conclusions: Current results suggest that terlipressin showed no added survival benefit for septic shock when compared with norepinephrine, while terlipressin could decrease heart rate in the late phase of septic shock compared with norepinephrine without further liver and kidney injury. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019128743). Available online at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42019128743.
| S-EPMC6936170 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimCombined hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone therapy for septic shock has not been evaluated with an independent systematic review. We aimed to elucidate the beneficial effects of a dual corticosteroid treatment regime involving both hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone for adult patients with septic shock on mortality.MethodsWe searched the Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ICHUSHI databases for reports published before April 2019. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the use of both hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone with either corticosteroid-free or hydrocortisone-only treatments on adult patients with septic shock. Three researchers independently reviewed the studies. The meta-analyses were undertaken to assess primary outcome (28-day mortality) and secondary outcomes (in-hospital mortality, long-term mortality, shock reversal, and adverse events).ResultsAmong the four studies eligible for data synthesis, we included 2,050 patients from three studies for quantitative synthesis. All studies used similar regimens (hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone for 7 days without tapering). The 28-day mortality rate was reduced after dual corticosteroid treatment (risk ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.78-0.99). The heterogeneity between the studies was low (I 2 = 0%). Patients who underwent dual corticosteroid treatment had lower long-term mortality rates (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98) and higher rate of shock reversal after 28 days (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12) than control patients. Adverse events (except for hyperglycemia) were similar among the treatment groups.ConclusionsThe available evidence suggests that a combination of fludrocortisone and hydrocortisone is more effective than adjunctive therapy and could be recommended for septic shock.
| S-EPMC7507448 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Venous thrombosis can affect all veins in the body including cerebral veins, where it causes cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT). CVT is an aetiology of stroke, particularly in children and young adults. Its clinical features vary widely according to the occluded vessel. Data concerning the epidemiology of CVT are scant. This protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis aims to critically synthesise data concerning prevalence, incidence, risk factors, anatomical patterns, diagnostic and therapeutic delays, and mortality rate of CVT in the global population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science databases will be searched for relevant abstracts of studies published between 1 January 1990 and 31 October 2017, without language restriction. After the screening of abstracts, study selection, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias, we will assess studies individually for heterogeneity. Random effects meta-analysis will then be used to pool studies judged to be clinically homogenous. Funnel plot analysis and Egger's test will be used to detect publication bias. Results will be presented according to economic level of the various countries (high-income vs low/middle-income countries). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Since the current study will be based on published data, ethical approval is not required. This review is expected to provide relevant data to help in evaluating the global burden of CVT. The final report of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017074266.
| S-EPMC5892743 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionGlobally, acute generalised peritonitis (AGP) is a common medical and surgical emergency which is a major contributor to non-trauma deaths despite improvements in diagnosis and surgical and intensive care management. In order to determine the global burden of AGP, geared at tailoring key interventions to curb its morbidity and mortality, we proposed this first ever systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the contemporary prevalence, and to determine the most frequent AGP and the case fatality rate of AGP, at the global scene.Methods and analysisWe intend to search Africa n Journal s Online, Americana em Ciências da Saúde, Citation index, EMBASE, Global Index Medicus, Literatura Latino Africa Index Medicus, Medline and Scientific Electronic Library Online databases from 1 January 2009 to 31 July 2019 to identify studies that reported the prevalence, types of AGP, and case fatality rate of AGP in the global population without any language restrictions. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be conducted independently at each level by a pair of independent investigators. Random-effects meta-analysis will be used to pool studies judged to be clinically homogeneous. The presence of heterogeneity will be evaluated using the χ² test on Cochrane's Q statistic and quantified with the I² statistics. Publication bias will be evaluated statistically and visually using the Egger's test and funnel plots, respectively. Findings will be reported and compared by countries, WHO regions and globally.Ethics and disseminationSince this study will be based on published data, it does will not require an ethical approval. The findings will be published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal. They will also be presented at scientific conferences and to relevant public health actors.Prospero registration numberCRD42019143331.
| S-EPMC6955529 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hepatitis C virus (HCV) morbidity appears to be high in Mongolia. Yet, the scale and nature of the infection burden is not well-understood. Our study's objective is to systematically review and synthetize all available epidemiological data on HCV antibody (Ab) prevalence, ribonucleic acid (RNA) prevalence, incidence, risk factors to HCV exposure, and circulating HCV genotypes/subtypes among different at-risk populations. Additionally, we aim to estimate national population-level HCV-Ab prevalence and the number of HCV chronically infected individuals in the population of Mongolia.Our systematic review will be reported based on the items outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2009) statement. All reports with primary data collected from surveillance or observational studies on Mongolian populations will be eligible for inclusion if the study sample size is greater than 25. Included reports need to present studies that use biological assay for HCV-Ab ascertainment. We will consider three primary outcomes of interest: HCV-Ab incidence, HCV-Ab prevalence, and HCV genotypes/subtypes among different at-risk populations. In addition, two secondary outcomes of interests will be also collected: HCV RNA prevalence, and unadjusted and/or adjusted statistically significant risk factors for HCV exposure (p value ≤0.05). In order to identify relevant reports, we will search PubMed, Embase, and Index Medicus for the Southeast Asian region. Additionally, we will search Mongolian scientific and medical journals not indexed in PubMed or Embase and the archives of Mongolian local conferences. Lastly, the literature search will be supplemented by checking references of the included reports and identified reviews. We will use broad search criteria with no language or time restrictions. Meta-analyses will estimate pooled HCV-Ab prevalence (by at-risk population, sex, age group, and period), and pooled RNA prevalence among HCV-Ab positive individuals in the general population. Age-adjustment of estimates will be conducted.The proposed systematic review and meta-analysis will produce a comprehensive synthesis of HCV epidemiology in Mongolia. The study will provide empirical evidence to inform health policy decision-making, resource allocation, and planning and implementation of relevant public health interventions.We have not registered with PROSPERO.
| S-EPMC5549321 | biostudies-other
Project description:Introduction:Vasoplegia is common and associated with a poor prognosis in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Vitamin C therapy in combination with vitamin B1 and glucocorticoid, as well as monotherapy in various doses, has been investigated as a treatment for the vasoplegic state in sepsis, through targeting the inflammatory cascade. However, the combination effect and the relative contribution of each drug have not been well evaluated. Furthermore, the best combination between the three agents is currently unknown. We are planning a systematic review (SR) with network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the different treatments and identify the combination with the most favourable effect on survival.Methods and analysis:We will include all randomised controlled trials comparing any intervention using intravenous vitamin C, vitamin B1 and/or glucocorticoid with another or with placebo in the treatment of sepsis. We are interested in comparing the following active interventions. Very high-dose vitamin C (?12?g/day), high-dose vitamin C (?6?g/day), vitamin C (<6?g/day); low-dose glucocorticoid (<400?mg/day of hydrocortisone (or equivalent)), vitamin B1 and combinations of the drugs above. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up within 1?year but 90?days or longer postrandomisation. All relevant studies will be sought through database searches and trial registries. All reference selection and data extraction will be conducted by two independent reviewers. We will conduct a random-effects NMA to synthesise all evidence for each outcome and obtain a comprehensive ranking of all treatments. We will use the surface under the cumulative ranking curve and the mean ranks to rank the various interventions. To differentiate between the effect of combination therapies and the effect of a component, we will employ a component NMA.Ethics and dissemination:This SR does not require ethical approval. We will publish findings from this systematic review in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and present these at scientific conferences.Prospero registration number:CRD42018103860.
| S-EPMC6858173 | biostudies-literature