Dataset Information

Timing of norepinephrine initiation in patients with septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The effect of the timing of norepinephrine initiation on clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock is uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of early and late start of norepinephrine support on clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock. METHODS:We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies from inception to the 1st of March 2020. We included studies involving adult patients (>?18?years) with septic shock. All authors reported our primary outcome of short-term mortality and clearly comparing early versus late norepinephrine initiation with clinically relevant secondary outcomes (ICU length of stay, time to achieved target mean arterial pressure (??65?mmHg), and volume of intravenous fluids within 6?h). Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS:Five studies including 929 patients were included. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis showed that the short-term mortality of the early group was lower than that of the late group (odds ratio [OR]?=?0.45; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.61; P

SUBMITTER: Li Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7409707 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Timing of norepinephrine initiation in patients with septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Li Yuting Y Li Hongxiang H Zhang Dong D

Critical care (London, England) 20200806 1

<h4>Background</h4>The effect of the timing of norepinephrine initiation on clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock is uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of early and late start of norepinephrine support on clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies from inception to the 1st of March 2020. We included stu ...[more]

PMID: 32762765

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.

Project description:IntroductionDespite recent advances in the management of septic shock, mortality remains unacceptably high. Earlier initiation of key therapies including appropriate antimicrobials and fluid resuscitation appears to reduce the mortality in this condition. This study examined whether early initiation of vasopressor therapy is associated with improved survival in fluid therapy-refractory septic shock.MethodsUtilizing a well-established database, relevant information including duration of time to vasopressor administration following the initial documentation of recurrent/persistent hypotension associated with septic shock was assessed in 8,670 adult patients from 28 ICUs in Canada, the United States of America, and Saudi Arabia. The primary endpoint was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary endpoints were length of ICU and hospital stay as well as duration of ventilator support and vasopressor dependence. Analysis involved multivariate linear and logistic regression analysis.ResultsIn total, 8,640 patients met the definition of septic shock with time of vasopressor/inotropic initiation documented. Of these, 6,514 were suitable for analysis. The overall unadjusted hospital mortality rate was 53%. Independent mortality correlates included liver failure (odds ratio (OR) 3.46, 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.67 to 4.48), metastatic cancer (OR 1.63, CI, 1.32 to 2.01), AIDS (OR 1.91, CI, 1.29 to 2.49), hematologic malignancy (OR 1.88, CI, 1.46 to 2.41), neutropenia (OR 1.78, CI, 1.27 to 2.49) and chronic hypertension (OR 0.62 CI, 0.52 to 0.73). Delay of initiation of appropriate antimicrobial therapy (OR 1.07/hr, CI, 1.06 to 1.08), age (OR 1.03/yr, CI, 1.02 to 1.03), and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II Score (OR 1.11/point, CI, 1.10 to 1.12) were also found to be significant independent correlates of mortality. After adjustment, only a weak correlation between vasopressor delay and hospital mortality was found (adjusted OR 1.02/hr, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.03, P <0.001). This weak effect was entirely driven by the group of patients with the longest delays (>14.1 hours). There was no significant relationship of vasopressor initiation delay to duration of vasopressor therapy (P?=?0.313) and only a trend to longer duration of ventilator support (P?=?0.055) among survivors.ConclusionMarked delays in initiation of vasopressor/inotropic therapy are associated with a small increase in mortality risk in patients with septic shock.

Project description:Procalcitonin (PCT) algorithms for antibiotic treatment decisions have been studied in adult patients from primary care, emergency department, and intensive care unit (ICU) settings, suggesting that procalcitonin-guided therapy may reduce antibiotic exposure without increasing the mortality rate. However, information on the efficacy and safety of this approach in the most vulnerable population of critically ill patients with severe sepsis and septic shock is missing.Two reviewers independently performed a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, BioMed Central, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov and http://www.ISRCTN.org. Eligible studies had to be randomized controlled clinical trials or cohort studies which compare procalcitonin-guided therapy with standard care in severe sepsis patients and report at least one of the following outcomes: hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, duration of antimicrobial therapy, length of stay in the intensive care unit or length of hospital stay. Disagreements about inclusion of studies and judgment of bias were solved by consensus.Finally seven studies comprising a total of 1,075 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock were included in the meta-analysis. Both hospital mortality (RR [relative risk]: 0.91, 95%CI [confidence interval]: 0.61; 1.36) and 28-day mortality (RR: 1.02, 95%CI: 0.85; 1.23) were not different between procalcitonin-guided therapy and standard treatment groups. Duration of antimicrobial therapy was significantly reduced in favor of procalcitonin-guided therapy (HR [hazard ratio]: 1.27, 95%CI: 1.01; 1.53). Combined estimates of the length of stay in the ICU and in hospital did not differ between groups.Procalcitonin-guided therapy is a helpful approach to guide antibiotic therapy and surgical interventions without a beneficial effect on mortality. The major benefit of PCT-guided therapy consists of a shorter duration of antibiotic treatment compared to standard care. Trials are needed to investigate the effect of PCT-guided therapy on mortality, length of ICU and in-hospital stay in severe sepsis patients.

Dataset Information

Timing of norepinephrine initiation in patients with septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Timing of norepinephrine initiation in patients with septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets