METHODS: We 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.
RESULTS: We 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.
CONCLUSION: In 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.
METHODS: Patients enrolled in the PROGRESS registry were evaluated for use of vasopressor and LDC (equivalent or lesser potency to hydrocortisone 50 mg six-hourly plus 50 microg 9-alpha-fludrocortisone) for treatment of severe sepsis at any time in intensive care units (ICUs). Baseline characteristics and hospital mortality were analyzed, and logistic regression techniques used to develop propensity score and outcome models adjusted for baseline imbalances between groups.
RESULTS: A total of 8,968 patients with severe sepsis and sufficient data for analysis were studied. A total of 79.8% (7,160/8,968) of patients received vasopressors, and 34.0% (3,051/8,968) of patients received LDC. Regional use of LDC was highest in Europe (51.1%) and lowest in Asia (21.6%). Country use was highest in Brazil (62.9%) and lowest in Malaysia (9.0%). A total of 14.2% of patients on LDC were not receiving any vasopressor therapy. LDC patients were older, had more co-morbidities and higher disease severity scores. Patients receiving LDC spent longer in ICU than patients who did not (median of 12 versus 8 days; P <0.001). Overall hospital mortality rates were greater in the LDC than in the non-LDC group (58.0% versus 43.0%; P <0.001). After adjusting for baseline imbalances, in all mortality models (with vasopressor use), a consistent association remained between LDC and hospital mortality (odds ratios varying from 1.30 to 1.47).
CONCLUSIONS: Widespread use of LDC for the treatment of severe sepsis with significant regional and country variation exists. In this study, 14.2% of patients received LDC despite the absence of evidence of shock. Hospital mortality was higher in the LDC group and remained higher after adjustment for key determinates of mortality.