Use of hydroxyethyl starch in sepsis research: A systematic review with meta-analysis
Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. 2021
BACKGROUND After being used for more than a decade the use of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 130/0.38-0.45 in clinical practice was discouraged because of serious adverse events including bleeding, acute kidney injury and death. But could these adverse effects have been discovered sooner? By comparing the summary effect estimates of the adverse effects of HES 130/0.38-0.45 in different study designs we aimed to disclose any signal of this. METHODS We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library and hand-searched the reference lists of relevant studies to identify studies for inclusion. Eligible trials were randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies in patients with sepsis and randomised trials in animals with induced sepsis comparing HES 130/0.38-0.45 to any type of crystalloid. Relevant outcomes were all-cause mortality at longest follow-up, renal replacement therapy (RRT), acute kidney injury (AKI) and bleeding. We extracted data, conducted conventional meta-analyses and assessed risk of bias and the quality of evidence. RESULTS We included 8 RCTs including 3,273 patients, 1 observational study including 379 patients and 5 randomised animal trials including 94 test animals. There was no suggestion of interaction in subgroup analyses comparing the different study designs for any outcomes (all-cause mortality at longest follow-up P=0.33; RRT P=0.70; AKI P=0.63; bleeding P=0.20). CONCLUSIONS We observed no interaction between the summary effect estimates of RCTs, observational studies in patients and randomised animal trials for any of the outcomes. Accordingly, we found no evidence indicating that the adverse effects of HES 130/0.38-0.45 could have been discovered sooner.
Is restrictive fluid resuscitation beneficial not only for hemorrhagic shock but also for septic shock?: A meta-analysis
BACKGROUND Whether to use limited fluid resuscitation (LFR) in patients with hemorrhagic shock or septic shock remains controversial. This research was aimed to assess the pros and cons of utilizing LFR in hemorrhagic shock or septic shock patients. METHODS PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of science, CNKI, VIP, and Wan Fang database searches included for articles published before December 15, 2020. Randomized controlled trials of LFR or adequate fluid resuscitation in hemorrhagic shock or septic shock patients were selected. RESULT This meta-analysis including 28 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and registered 3288 patients. The 7 of 27 RCTs were the patients with septic shock. Others were traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients. Comparing LFR or adequate fluid resuscitation in hemorrhagic shock or septic shock patients, the summary odds ratio (OR) was 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.60, P < .00001) for mortality, 0.46 (95% CI 0.31-0.70, P = .0002) for multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), 0.35 (95% CI 0.25-0.47) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and 0.33 (95% CI 0.20-0.56) for disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). CONCLUSION Limited fluid resuscitation is the benefit of both traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients and septic shock patients.
The effect of exchange transfusion on mortality in neonatal sepsis: a meta-analysis
European journal of pediatrics. 2021
Although antimicrobials are the cornerstone of neonatal sepsis management, adjunctive therapies are required to improve outcomes. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of exchange transfusion (ET) on mortality (primary outcome) in neonatal sepsis, as well as on immunoglobulin, complement and neutrophil levels and assess its complications (secondary outcomes). Databases searched include PubMed, NCBI, Google Scholar, CINHAL, Ovid and Scopus. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled observational studies (COSs) and uncontrolled observational studies (UOSs) reporting mortality data from using ET in neonatal sepsis were included. Studies with additional interventions, non-septic ET indications and populations aged > 28 days were excluded. Data extracted include demographics, features of study, sepsis and ET, as well as mortality rates, immunological and laboratory changes and complications. Data was meta-analysed and displayed using forest plots. The meta-analysis of 14 studies (3 RCTs, 11 COSs) revealed a mortality benefit in septic neonates who underwent ET-RR 0.72 (CI 0.61-0.86, p = 0.01) and a significant increase in pooled immunological parameters (immunoglobulin, complement levels) (SMD 1.13, [0.25, 2.02], p = 0.02) and neutrophil levels (SMD 1.07 [0.04, 2.11], p = 0.03) compared to controls. The descriptive analysis of 9 UOSs revealed thrombocytopenia as the most frequently reported complication (n = 48). Moderate-high risk of bias was largely due to inadequate sample sizes and follow-up durations.Conclusion: Currently, the use of ET in neonatal sepsis is not directly recommended due to low certainty of evidence, inadequate power and moderate-high risk of bias and heterogeneity.Trial registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020176629) ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=176629 ) What is Known: • Exchange transfusion is one of the adjunctive methods for treatment of neonatal sepsis. What is New: • The pooled analysis of all studies shows that exchange transfusion has a low certainty of evidence in the context of neonatal mortality. However, at this point, this intervention cannot be refuted or recommended due to heterogeneity of studies and inadequate power.
Mortality Benefit From the Passive Leg Raise Maneuver in Guiding Resuscitation of Septic Shock Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials
Journal of intensive care medicine. 2021;:8850666211019713
BACKGROUND Fluid therapy plays a major role in the management of critically ill patients. Yet assessment of intravascular volume in these patients is challenging. Different invasive and non-invasive methods have been used with variable results. The passive leg raise (PLR) maneuver has been recommended by international guidelines as a means to determine appropriate fluid resuscitation. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine if using this method of volume assessment has an impact on mortality outcome in patients with septic shock. METHODS This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched available data in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception until October 2020 for prospective, randomized, controlled trials that compared PLR-guided fluid resuscitation to standard care in adult patients with septic shock. Our primary outcome was mortality at the longest duration of follow-up. RESULTS We screened 1,425 article titles and abstracts. Of the 23 full-text articles reviewed, 5 studies with 462 patients met our eligibility criteria. Odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for mortality at the longest reported time interval were calculated for each study. Using random effects modeling, the pooled OR (95% CI) for mortality with a PLR-guided resuscitation strategy was 0.82 (0.52 -1.30). The included studies were not blinded and they ranged from having low to high risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. CONCLUSION Our analysis showed there was no statistically significant difference in mortality among septic shock patients treated with PLR-guided resuscitation vs. those with standard care.
Impact of red blood cell transfusion on oxygen transport and metabolism in patients with sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva. 2021;33(1):154-166
Red blood cell transfusion is thought to improve cell respiration during septic shock. Nevertheless, its acute impact on oxygen transport and metabolism in this condition remains highly debatable. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of red blood cell transfusion on microcirculation and oxygen metabolism in patients with sepsis and septic shock. We conducted a search in the MEDLINE®, Elsevier and Scopus databases. We included studies conducted in adult humans with sepsis and septic shock. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. A p value < 0.05 was considered significant. Nineteen manuscripts with 428 patients were included in the analysis. Red blood cell transfusions were associated with an increase in the pooled mean venous oxygen saturation of 3.7% (p < 0.001), a decrease in oxygen extraction ratio of -6.98 (p < 0.001) and had no significant effect on the cardiac index (0.02L/minute; p = 0,96). Similar results were obtained in studies including simultaneous measurements of venous oxygen saturation, oxygen extraction ratio, and cardiac index. Red blood cell transfusions led to a significant increase in the proportion of perfused small vessels (2.85%; p = 0.553), while tissue oxygenation parameters revealed a significant increase in the tissue hemoglobin index (1.66; p = 0.018). Individual studies reported significant improvements in tissue oxygenation and sublingual microcirculatory parameters in patients with deranged microcirculation at baseline. Red blood cell transfusions seemed to improve systemic oxygen metabolism with apparent independence from cardiac index variations. Some beneficial effects have been observed for tissue oxygenation and microcirculation parameters, particularly in patients with more severe alterations at baseline. More studies are necessary to evaluate their clinical impact and to individualize transfusion decisions.
Mortality benefit of crystalloids administered in 1-6 hours in septic adults in the ED systematic review with narrative synthesis
Emergency medicine journal : EMJ. 2021
BACKGROUND Based on the 2018 update of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, the Committee for Quality Improvement of the NHSs of England recommended the instigation of the elements of the 'Sepsis-6 bundle' within 1 hour to adult patients screened positive for sepsis. This bundle includes a bolus infusion of 30 mL/kg crystalloids in the ED. Besides the UK, both in the USA and Australia, compliance with similar 1-hour targets became an important quality indicator. However, the supporting evidence may neither be contemporaneous nor necessarily valid for emergency medicine settings. METHOD A systematic review was designed and registered at PROSPERO to assess available emergency medicine/prehospital evidence published between 2012 and 2020, investigating the clinical benefits associated with a bolus infusion of a minimum 30 mL/kg crystalloids within 1 hour to adult patients screened positive for sepsis. Due to the small number of papers that addressed this volume of fluids in 1 hour, we expanded the search to include studies looking at 1-6 hours. RESULTS Seven full-text articles were identified, which investigated various aspects of the fluid resuscitation in adult sepsis. However, none answered completely to the original research question aimed to determine either the effect of time-to-crystalloids or the optimal fluid volume of resuscitation. Our findings demonstrated that in the USA/UK/Australia/Canada, adult ED septic patients receive 23-43 mL/kg of crystalloids during the first 6 hours of resuscitation without significant differences either in mortality or in adverse effects. CONCLUSION This systematic review did not find high-quality evidence supporting the administration of 30 mL/kg crystalloid bolus to adult septic patients within 1 hour of presentation in the ED. Future research must investigate both the benefits and the potential harms of the recommended intervention.
The effect of early vasopressin use on patients with septic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis
The American journal of emergency medicine. 2021;48:203-208
BACKGROUND The effect of early vasopressin 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 start of vasopressin support within 6 h after the diagnosis on clinical outcomes in septic shock patients. METHODS We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies from inception to the 1st of February 2021. We included studies involving adult patients (> 16 years)with septic shock. All authors reported our primary outcome of short-term mortality and in the experimental group patients in the studies receiving vasopressin infusion within 6 h after diagnosis of septic shock and in the control group patients in the studies receiving no vasopressin infusion or vasopressin infusion 6 h after diagnosis of septic shock, clearly comparing with clinically relevant secondary outcomes(use of renal replacement therapy(RRT),new onset arrhythmias, ICU length of stay and length of hospitalization). Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS Five studies including 788 patients were included. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis showed that short-term mortality between the two groups was no difference (odds ratio [OR] = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.48; P = 0.6; χ2 = 0.83; I2 = 0%). Secondary outcomes demonstrated that the use of RRT was less in the experimental group than that of the control group (OR = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.88; P = 0.007; χ2 = 3.15; I2 = 36%).The new onset arrhythmias between the two groups was no statistically significant difference (OR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.1; P = 0.10; χ2 = 4.7; I2 = 36%). There was no statistically significant difference in the ICU length of stay(mean difference = 0.16; 95% CI, - 0.91 to 1.22; P = 0.77; χ2 = 6.08; I2 = 34%) and length of hospitalization (mean difference = -2.41; 95% CI, -6.61 to 1.78; P = 0.26; χ2 = 8.57; I2 = 53%) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Early initiation of vasopressin in patients within 6 h of septic shock onset was not associated with decreased short-term mortality, new onset arrhythmias, shorter ICU length of stay and length of hospitalization, but can reduce the use of RRT. Further large-scale RCTs are still needed to evaluate the benefit of starting vasopressin in the early phase of septic shock.
Terlipressin for the treatment of septic shock in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BMC anesthesiology. 2020;20(1):58
BACKGROUND Catecholamines are the first-line vasopressors used in patients with septic shock. However, the search for novel drug candidates is still of great importance due to the development of adrenergic hyposensitivity accompanied by a decrease in catecholamine activity. Terlipressin (TP) is a synthetic vasopressin analogue used in the management of patients with septic shock. In the current study, we aimed to compare the effects of TP and catecholamine infusion in treating septic shock patients. METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by searching articles published in PUBMED, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials between inception and July 2018. We only selected randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of TP and catecholamine in adult patients with septic shock. The primary outcome was overall mortality. The secondary outcomes were the ICU length of stay, haemodynamic changes, tissue perfusion, renal function, and adverse events. RESULTS A total of 9 studies with 850 participants were included in the analysis. Overall, no significant difference in mortality was observed between the TP and catecholamine groups (risk ratio(RR), 0.85 (0.70 to 1.03); P = 0.09). In patients < 60 years old, the mortality rate was lower in the TP group than in the catecholamine group (RR, 0.66 (0.50 to 0.86); P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the ICU length of stay (mean difference, MD), - 0.28 days; 95% confidence interval (CI), - 1.25 to 0.69; P = 0.58). Additionally, TP improved renal function. The creatinine level was decreased in patients who received TP therapy compared to catecholamine-treated participants (standard mean difference, SMD), - 0.65; 95% CI, - 1.09 to - 0.22; P = 0.003). No significant difference was found regarding the total adverse events (Odds Ratio(OR), 1.48(0.51 to 4.24); P = 0.47), whereas peripheral ischaemia was more common in the TP group (OR, 8.65(1.48 to 50.59); P = 0.02). CONCLUSION The use of TP was associated with reduced mortality in septic shock patients less than 60 years old. TP may also improve renal function and cause more peripheral ischaemia. PROSPERO registry: CRD42016035872.
Clinical Efficiency of Vasopressin or Its Analogs in Comparison With Catecholamines Alone on Patients With Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:563
Background: Vasopressin is an efficient remedy for septic shock patients as its great capacity in promoting hemodynamic stabilization. The aim of current systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the clinical efficiency of vasopressin or its analogs with sole catecholamines on patients with septic shock. Methods: A systematic search of Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed online databases was performed up to 30 Oct 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing use of vasopressin or its analogs (e.g., terlipressin, selepressin) with administration of catecholamines alone. Results: We included 23 RCTs with 4,225 patients in the current study. Compared with solely use of catecholamines, administration of vasopressin or its analogs was not associated with reduced 28-day or 30-day mortality among patients with septic shock [RR=0.94 (95% CI, 0.87-1.01), P=0.08, I(2) = 0%]. The result of primary endpoint remained unchanged after conducting sensitivity analysis. Despite a significantly higher risk of digital ischemia in patients receiving vasopressin or its analogs [RR=2.65 (95% CI, 1.26-5.56), P < 0.01, I(2) = 48%], there was no statistical significance in the pooled estimate for other secondary outcomes, including total adverse events, arrhythmia, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiac arrest, acute mesenteric ischemia, ICU/hospital length of stay, and mechanical ventilation (MV) duration. Conclusions: The administration of vasopressin or its analogs was not associated with reduced 28-day or 30-day mortality among patients with septic shock, while an increased incidence of digital ischemia should be noted in patients receiving agonists for vasopressin receptors.
Efficacy and Safety of Recombinant Human Thrombopoietin on Sepsis Patients With Thrombocytopenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:940
BACKGROUND The efficacy and safety of the administration of recombinant human thrombopoietin (rhTPO) in sepsis patients with thrombocytopenia were still inconclusive. OBJECTIVES To investigate whether rhTPO is a benefit for sepsis patients with thrombocytopenia. METHODS PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Database were electronically searched to the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to March 4, 2020. The primary outcome was the level of platelet (PLT) on the 7(th) day of treatment, and secondary outcomes were 28-d mortality, the level of coagulation indicators, hepatic and renal function indicators, blood transfusion, and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay. RESULTS Ten RCTs involving 681 patients were included. For compared with conventional antibiotic therapy, rhTPO could significantly increase platelet counts (PCs) [standardized mean difference (SMD), 2.61; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.28-3.94; P < 0.001], decreased 28-d mortality [relative risk (RR), 0.66; 95%CI, 0.46-0.97; P=0.03], transfusion volume of blood products and length of ICU stay. Additionally, for compared with conventional antibiotic therapy combined with intravenous immunoglobulin, the pooled results shown that rhTPO also associated with an improvement of PCs on 7(th) of treatment (SMD, 0.86; 95%CI, 0.54-1.17; P < 0.001), and a reduced transfusion volume of blood products. However, there were no differences in 28-d mortality and the length of ICU stay. CONCLUSIONS Current evidence shown that rhTPO could increase PCs on 7(th) day of treatment and reduce the transfusion volume of blood products in sepsis-related thrombocytopenia during hospitalization. The conclusions are needed to be verified indeed by more multicenter RCTs due to the limitation of the included studies.