Mortality in septic patients treated with vitamin C: a systematic meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Supplementation of vitamin C in septic patients remains controversial despite eight large clinical trials published only in 2020. We aimed to evaluate the evidence on potential effects of vitamin C treatment on mortality in adult septic patients.Methods
Data search included PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. A meta-analysis of eligible peer-reviewed studies was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Only studies with valid classifications of sepsis and intravenous vitamin C treatment (alone or combined with hydrocortisone/thiamine) were included.Results
A total of 17 studies including 3133 patients fulfilled the predefined criteria and were analyzed. Pooled analysis indicated no mortality reduction in patients treated with vitamin C when compared to reference (risk difference - 0.05 [95% CI - 0.11 to - 0.01]; p = 0.08; p for Cochran Q = 0.002; I2 = 56%). Notably, subgroup analyses revealed an improved survival, if vitamin C treatment was applied for 3-4 days (risk difference, - 0.10 [95% CI - 0.19 to - 0.02]; p = 0.02) when compared to patients treated for 1-2 or > 5 days. Also, timing of the pooled mortality assessment indicated a reduction concerning short-term mortality (< 30 days; risk difference, - 0.08 [95% CI - 0.15 to - 0.01]; p = 0.02; p for Cochran Q = 0.02; I2 = 63%). Presence of statistical heterogeneity was noted with no sign of significant publication bias.Conclusion
Although vitamin C administration did not reduce pooled mortality, patients may profit if vitamin C is administered over 3 to 4 days. Consequently, further research is needed to identify patient subgroups that might benefit from intravenous supplementation of vitamin C.
SUBMITTER: Scholz SS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7787590 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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:Decreased thyroid hormone (TH) has been considered as one of the potential predictors of mortality in sepsis. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of decreased TH on mortality in septic patients during intensive care unit (ICU) admission. We included studies that assessed thyroid function by measuring the serum thyroid hormone level and in-hospital mortality in adult septic patients. Reviews, case reports, editorials, letters, commentaries, animal studies, duplicate studies, and studies with irrelevant populations and inappropriate controls were excluded. A total of 1,578 patients from eight studies were included. Triiodothyronine levels in non-survivors were relatively lower than that of survivors (6 studies; standardized mean difference [SMD] 2.31; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52-4.10; I2?=?97%; P?=?0.01). Thyroxine levels in non-survivors were also lower than that of survivors (5 studies; SMD 2.40; 95% CI, 0.91-3.89). There were no statistically significant differences in thyroid-stimulating hormone levels between non-survivors and survivors. The present meta-analysis suggested that the decreased TH during ICU admission might be associated with the increase in mortality in adult septic patients. Hence, the measurement of TH could provide prognostic information on mortality in adult septic patients.
| S-EPMC6148249 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether vitamin D supplementation is associated with lower mortality in adults.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register from their inception to 26 December 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials comparing vitamin D supplementation with a placebo or no treatment for mortality were included. Independent data extraction was conducted and study quality assessed. A meta-analysis was carried out by using fixed effects and random effects models to calculate risk ratio of death in the group receiving vitamin D supplementation and the control group.Main outcome measuresAll cause mortality.Results52 trials with a total of 75 454 participants were identified. Vitamin D supplementation was not associated with all cause mortality (risk ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.02, I2=0%), cardiovascular mortality (0.98, 0.88 to 1.08, 0%), or non-cancer, non-cardiovascular mortality (1.05, 0.93 to 1.18, 0%). Vitamin D supplementation statistically significantly reduced the risk of cancer death (0.84, 0.74 to 0.95, 0%). In subgroup analyses, all cause mortality was significantly lower in trials with vitamin D3 supplementation than in trials with vitamin D2 supplementation (P for interaction=0.04); neither vitamin D3 nor vitamin D2 was associated with a statistically significant reduction in all cause mortality.ConclusionsVitamin D supplementation alone was not associated with all cause mortality in adults compared with placebo or no treatment. Vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of cancer death by 16%. Additional large clinical studies are needed to determine whether vitamin D3 supplementation is associated with lower all cause mortality.Study registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42018117823.
| S-EPMC6689821 | biostudies-literature
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
Project description:We aimed to compare the effects of vitamin C, glucocorticoids, vitamin B1, combinations of these drugs, and placebo or usual care on longer-term mortality in adults with sepsis or septic shock. MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO-ICTRP were searched. The final search was carried out on September 3rd, 2021. Multiple reviewers independently selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing very-high-dose vitamin C (≥ 12 g/day), high-dose vitamin C (< 12, ≥ 6 g/day), vitamin C (< 6 g/day), glucocorticoid (< 400 mg/day of hydrocortisone), vitamin B1, combinations of these drugs, and placebo/usual care. We performed random-effects network meta-analysis and, where applicable, a random-effects component network meta-analysis. We used the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework to assess the degree of treatment effect certainty. The primary outcome was longer-term mortality (90-days to 1-year). Secondary outcomes were severity of organ dysfunction over 72 h, time to cessation of vasopressor therapy, and length of stay in intensive care unit (ICU). Forty-three RCTs (10,257 patients) were eligible. There were no significant differences in longer-term mortality between treatments and placebo/usual care or between treatments (10 RCTs, 7,096 patients, moderate to very-low-certainty). We did not find any evidence that vitamin C or B1 affect organ dysfunction or ICU length of stay. Adding glucocorticoid to other treatments shortened duration of vasopressor therapy (incremental mean difference, - 29.8 h [95% CI - 44.1 to - 15.5]) and ICU stay (incremental mean difference, - 1.3 days [95% CI - 2.2 to - 0.3]). Metabolic resuscitation with vitamin C, glucocorticoids, vitamin B1, or combinations of these drugs was not significantly associated with a decrease in longer-term mortality.
| S-EPMC8724116 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe reported mortality for sepsis and septic shock varies between 15% and 59% in international comparison. For Germany, the number of studies is limited. Previous estimations of mortality in Germany are outdated or based on claims data analyses. Various authors discuss whether lacking quality initiatives and treatment standards in Germany could cause higher mortality for sepsis. This contrasts with the internationally well-recognized performance of the German intensive care infrastructure during the COVID-19 pandemic.ObjectivesThe objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to estimate 30-day and 90-day mortality of patients with sepsis and patients with septic shock in Germany and to compare the mortality with that of other industrialized regions (Europe, North America).Material and methodsA systematic literature search included interventional and observational studies published between 2009 and 2020 in PubMed and the Cochrane Library that analyzed adult patients with sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock in Europe and North America. Studies with less than 20 patients were excluded. The 30-day and 90-day mortality for sepsis and septic shock were pooled separately for studies conducted in Germany, Europe (excluding Germany) and North America in a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Mortality over time was analyzed in a linear regression model.ResultsOverall, 134 studies were included. Of these, 15 studies were identified for the estimation of mortality in Germany, covering 10,434 patients, the number of patients per study ranged from 28 to 4183 patients. The 30-day mortality for sepsis was 26.50% (95% confidence interval, CI: 19.86-33.15%) in Germany, 23.85% (95% CI: 20.49-27.21%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 19.58% (95% CI: 14.03-25.14%) in North America. The 30-day mortality for septic shock was 30.48% (95% CI: 29.30-31.67%) in Germany, 34.57% (95% CI: 33.51-35.64%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 33.69% (95% CI: 31.51-35.86%) in North America. The 90-day mortality for septic shock was 38.78% (95% CI: 32.70-44.86%) in Germany, 41.90% (95% CI: 38.88-44.91%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 34.41% (95% CI: 25.66-43.16%) in North America. A comparable decreasing trend in sepsis 30-day mortality was observed in all considered regions since 2009.ConclusionOur analysis does not support the notion that mortality related to sepsis and septic shock in Germany is higher in international comparison. A higher mortality would not be obvious either, since intensive care, for example also during the COVID-19 pandemic, is regarded as exemplary in Germany and the structural quality, such as the number of intensive care beds per 100,000 inhabitants, is high in international comparison. Nevertheless, deficits could also exist outside intensive care medicine. A comparison of international individual studies should take greater account of the structure of healthcare systems, the severity of disease and the limitations resulting from the data sources used.
| S-EPMC7871311 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Sepsis, a life-threatening organ dysfunction induced by infection, is a major public health problem. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency and mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock in China. Methods We Searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library from 1 January 1992 to 1 June 2020 for studies that reported on the frequency and mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock conducted in China. Random effects models were performed to estimate the pooled frequency and mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock. Results Our search yielded 846 results, of which 29 studies were included in this review. The pooled frequency of sepsis was estimated at 33.6% (95% CI 25.9% to 41.3%, I2 = 99.2%; p < 0.001), and the pooled mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock were 29.0% (95% CI 25.3%–32.8%, I2 = 92.1%; p = 0), 31.1% (95% CI 25.3% to 36.9%, I2 = 85.8%; p < 0.001) and 37.3% (95% CI 28.6%–46.0%, I2 = 93.5%; p < 0.001). There was significant heterogeneity between studies. With a small number of included studies and the changing definition of sepsis, trends in sepsis frequency and mortality were not sufficient for analysis. Epidemiological data on sepsis in the emergency department (ED) are severely lacking, and more research is urgently needed in this area is urgently needed. Conclusions Our findings indicated that the frequency and mortality of sepsis and septic shock in China were much higher than North America and Europe countries. Based on our results, an extremely high incidence and mortality of sepsis and septic shock in China's mainland requires more healthcare budget support. Epidemiological data on sepsis and septic shock in ED are severely lacking, and more research is urgently needed in this area. Trial registration This systematic review was conducted according to the statement of the preferred reporting items for systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021243325) and the meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P). Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-022-07543-8.
| S-EPMC9210671 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe value of time to positivity (TTP) on diagnosis for catheter-related bloodstream infection and distinguishment on bacteria group and infection source has been investigated. However, the relationship between TTP and patient outcome requires verification, and we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science for publications associated with the topic. We included studies that researched the TTP on predicting patient mortality and septic shock. Quality assessment is performed with Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). The analysis is performed using Review Manager Version 5.0.24. on articles available for data extraction on the exact population of each outcome group. The existence of publication bias was assessed by funnel plots. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using the Cochran Q and [Formula: see text] statistics. The outcome is reported as an odds ratio. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021272286.ResultsTwenty-four eligible studies were included in our study. Twenty-four in the mortality group and six in the septic shock group. Mortality is significantly associated with the short time to positivity group with an odds ratio of 2.98 (95% CI: 2.25-3.96, p-value < 0.001). The odds ratio for developing septic shock in the short TTP group is 4.06 (95% CI: 2.41-6.84, p-value < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed short TTP as a significant predictor of mortality and septic shock in Gram's positive and Gram's negative related bloodstream infections. TTP is not associated with mortality among patients with candidaemia.ConclusionsShort time to positivity is a reliable marker for patient outcome in certain bacterial species. Studies concerning confounding factors such as the delay in bottle loading and other confounding factors are needed to enhance external validity.
| S-EPMC8830084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy of vitamin C in patients experiencing sepsis and septic shock. The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about vitamin C treatments for critically ill patients suffering from sepsis and septic shock from inception until December 31, 2019. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes were the ICU length of stay and the dose of vasopressors. A meta-analysis of nine RCTs with a total of 584 patients (301 in the intervention group and 283 in the control group) was conducted. There were significant differences between the vitamin C group and the control group in 28-day mortality (fixed effects OR = 0.60 95% CI [0.42, 0.85], p = 0.004) and in the dose of vasopressors (SMD = -0.88 95% CI [-1.48, -0.29], p = 0.003); however, the ICU length of stay was the same between the two groups (SMD = -0.33 95% CI [-0.87, 0.20] p = 0.23). This meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of vitamin C (compared with placebo) led to a reduction in ICU mortality and a reduction in the dose of vasopressors in patients with septic shock. However, the ICU length of stay was not significantly different between the two groups. Therefore, multicentre and high-quality RCTs are needed to further clarify the safety and effectiveness of vitamin C among patients with sepsis and septic shock.
| S-EPMC10358524 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:This meta-analysis aimed to examine the impact of antipyretic therapy on mortality in critically ill septic adults. DATA SOURCES:Literature searches were implemented in Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 2016. STUDY SELECTION:Inclusion criteria were observational or randomized studies of septic patients, evaluation of antipyretic treatment, mortality reported, and English-language version available. Studies were excluded if they enrolled pediatric patients, patients with neurologic injury, or healthy volunteers. Criteria were applied by two independent reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION:Two reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated methodologic quality. Outcomes included mortality, frequency of shock reversal, acquisition of nosocomial infections, and changes in body temperature, heart rate, and minute ventilation. Randomized and observational studies were analyzed separately. DATA SYNTHESIS:Eight randomized studies (1,507 patients) and eight observational studies (17,432 patients) were analyzed. Antipyretic therapy did not reduce 28-day/hospital mortality in the randomized studies (relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.77-1.13; I = 0.0%) or observational studies (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.54-1.51; I = 76.1%). Shock reversal (relative risk, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.68-1.90; I = 51.6%) and acquisition of nosocomial infections (relative risk, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.61-2.09; I = 61.0%) were also unchanged. Antipyretic therapy decreased body temperature (mean difference, -0.38°C; 95% CI, -0.63 to -0.13; I = 84.0%), but not heart rate or minute ventilation. CONCLUSIONS:Antipyretic treatment does not significantly improve 28-day/hospital mortality in adult patients with sepsis.
| S-EPMC5389594 | biostudies-literature