-
1.
Effects of combination therapy of antithrombin and thrombomodulin for sepsis-associated disseminated intravascular coagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Totoki, T., Makino, Y., Yamakawa, K., Koami, H., Wada, T., Ito, T., Iba, T.
Thrombosis journal. 2024;22(1):10
Abstract
BACKGROUND Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) syndrome is a highly lethal condition characterized by the complication of multiple organ damage. Although the effects of combined antithrombin (AT) and recombinant thrombomodulin (rTM) on DIC syndrome have previously been examined, the results are inconsistent and inconclusive. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review on the combined administration of AT and rTM for the treatment of septic DIC to investigate the superiority of the combination therapy over either AT or rTM monotherapy using a random-effects analysis model. METHOD We searched electronic databases, including Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Igaku-Chuo Zasshi (ICHU-SHI) Japanese Central Review of Medicine Web from inception to January 2022. Studies assessing the efficacy of combined AT and rTM were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was occurrence of serious bleeding complications compared to monotherapy. We presented the pooled odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) depending on reporting results in each primary study. RESULTS We analyzed seven enrolled clinical trials, all of which were observational studies. Combination therapy had a non-significant favorable association with lower 28-day mortality compared to monotherapy (HR 0.67 [0.43-1.05], OR 0.73 [0.45-1.18]). The I(2) values were 60% and 72%, respectively, suggesting high heterogeneity. As a secondary outcome, bleeding complications were similar between the two groups (pooled OR 1.11 [0.55-2.23], I(2) value 55%). CONCLUSIONS Although the findings in this analysis could not confirm a statistically significant effect of AT and rTM combination therapy for septic DIC, it showed a promising effect in terms of improving mortality. The incidence of bleeding was low and clinically feasible. Further research is warranted to draw more conclusive results. TRIAL REGISTRATION This study was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN ID 000049820).
-
2.
A Network Meta-Analysis of Two Doses of Recombinant Human Thrombopoietin for Treating Sepsis-Related Thrombocytopenia
Chen, D., Hou, Y., Wei, C., Cai, X.
International Journal of Clinical Practice. 2022;2022:2124019
Abstract
Previous studies suggest that sepsis remains a common critical illness with a global incidence of 31.5 million. The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative therapeutic value of recombinant human thrombopoietin (rhTPO) in treating sepsis patients with thrombocytopenia. We conducted a comprehensive electronic search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and CNKI from its inception through December 31, 2021. Thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 963 patients were included. Network meta-analyses showed that rhTPO 300 U/kg/day and rhTPO 15000 U/day significantly increased the platelet (PLT) levels on the 7(th) day and decreased the requirement of transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs), plasma, and PLT compared with IVIG and NAT. SUCRA showed that rhTPO 300 U/kg/day ranked first in terms of 28-day mortality (85.5%) and transfusion, including RBC (88.7%), plasma (89.6%), and PLT (95.2%), while rhTPO 15000 U/day ranked first for the length of the intensive care unit (ICU) stay (95.9%) and PLT level at day 7 (91.6%). rhTPO 300 U/kg/day may be the optimal dose to reduce 28-day mortality and transfusion requirements. However, rhTPO 15000 U/day may be the optimal dose for shortening the ICU stay and increasing the PLT level on the 7th day. However, additional studies to further validate our findings are needed.
-
3.
The effect of early vasopressin use on patients with septic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Huang H, Wu C, Shen Q, Xu H, Fang Y, Mao W
The American journal of emergency medicine. 2021;48:203-208
Abstract
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.
-
4.
Efficacy and Safety of Recombinant Human Thrombopoietin on Sepsis Patients With Thrombocytopenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Zhang J, Lu Z, Xiao W, Hua T, Zheng Y, Yang M
Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:940
Abstract
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.
-
5.
Clinical Efficiency of Vasopressin or Its Analogs in Comparison With Catecholamines Alone on Patients With Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Yao RQ, Xia DM, Wang LX, Wu GS, Zhu YB, Zhao HQ, Liu Q, Xia ZF, Ren C, Yao YM
Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:563
Abstract
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.
-
6.
Terlipressin for the treatment of septic shock in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Huang L, Zhang S, Chang W, Xia F, Liu S, Yang Y, Qiu H
BMC anesthesiology. 2020;20(1):58
Abstract
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.
-
7.
Vasopressin in septic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Nagendran M, Russell JA, Walley KR, Brett SJ, Perkins GD, Hajjar L, Mason AJ, Ashby D, Gordon AC
Intensive care medicine. 2019
Abstract
PURPOSE We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis to investigate the possible benefits and harms of vasopressin therapy in adults with septic shock both overall and in pre-defined subgroups. METHODS Our pre-specified study protocol is published on PROSPERO, CRD42017071698. We identified randomised clinical trials up to January 2019 investigating vasopressin therapy versus any other vasoactive comparator in adults with septic shock. Individual patient data from each trial were compiled. Conventional two-stage meta-analyses were performed as well as one-stage regression models with single treatment covariate interactions for subgroup analyses. RESULTS Four trials were included with a total of 1453 patients. For the primary outcomes, there was no effect of vasopressin on 28-day mortality [relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.86-1.12] or serious adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82-1.26). Vasopressin led to more digital ischaemia [absolute risk difference (ARD) 1.7%, 95% CI 0.3%-3.2%] but fewer arrhythmias (ARD - 2.8%, 95% CI - 0.2% to - 5.3%). Mesenteric ischaemia and acute coronary syndrome events were similar between groups. Vasopressin reduced the requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT) (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-0.99), but this finding was not robust to sensitivity analyses. There were no statistically significant interactions in the pre-defined subgroups (baseline kidney injury severity, baseline lactate, baseline norepinephrine requirement and time to study inclusion). CONCLUSIONS Vasopressin therapy in septic shock had no effect on 28-day mortality although the confidence intervals are wide. It appears safe but with a different side effect profile from norepinephrine. The finding on reduced RRT should be interpreted cautiously. Future trials should focus on long-term outcomes in select patient groups as well as incorporating cost effectiveness analyses regarding possible reduced RRT use.
-
8.
The effects and safety of vasopressin receptor agonists in patients with septic shock: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
Jiang L, Sheng Y, Feng X, Wu J
Critical care (London, England). 2019;23(1):91
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects and safety of vasopressin receptor agonists in patients with septic shock. METHODS PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of vasopressin receptor agonists in septic shock patients. Two reviewers performed literature selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation independently. The primary outcome was mortality. And secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and incidence of adverse events. In addition, a trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed. RESULTS Twenty studies were eligible for meta-analysis. The results showed vasopressin receptor agonists use was associated with reduced mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.99; I(2) = 0%). Nevertheless, they had no significant effects on ICU length of stay (mean deviation (MD) - 0.08, 95% CI, - 0.68 to 0.52, I(2) = 0%) and duration of mechanical ventilation (MD - 0.58, 95% CI - 1.47 to 0.31, I(2) = 57%). Additionally, there was no significant difference in total adverse events between two groups (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.90, I(2) = 57%), but vasopressin receptor agonists administration could significantly increase the risk of digital ischemia (RR 4.85, 95% CI 2.81 to 8.39, I(2) = 26%). Finally, there was no statistical difference of cardiovascular events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.57, I(2) = 1%), arrhythmia (0.77, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.23, I(2) = 23%), mesenteric ischemia (0.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.55, I(2) = 0%), diarrhea (2.47, 95% CI 0.77 to 7.96, I(2) = 49%), cerebrovascular events (1.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 10.54, I(2) = 0%), and hyponatremia (1.47, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.55, I(2) = 0%) between two groups. Egger's test showed there was no significant publication bias among studies (P = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS The use of vasopressin might result in reduced mortality in patients with septic shock. An increased risk of digital ischemia must be taken into account.
-
9.
Terlipressin for septic shock patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled study
Zhu Y, Huang H, Xi X, Du B
Journal of intensive care. 2019;7:16
Abstract
Background: Catecholamines are commonly used in septic shock but face limitations of their hypo-responsiveness and adverse events due to high dose. Terlipressin is a synthetic vasopressin analog with greater selectivity for the V1-receptor. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of terlipressin in septic shock. Methods: We searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database from inception up to July 15, 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they reported data on any of the predefined outcomes in patients with septic shock and managed with terlipressin or any catecholamines. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were explored. Results: Ten studies with 928 patients were included. Despite the shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, use of terlipressin did not reduce the risk of mortality (RR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.05; I (2) = 0%; P = 0.28) when compared with control. This finding was confirmed by further subgroup and sensitivity analyses. In addition, lactate clearance, length of stay in ICU or hospital, total adverse events, digital ischemia, and arrhythmia were also similar between groups, while terlipressin was associated with shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and less norepinephrine requirements. Conclusions: Current results suggest terlipressin did not show added survival benefit in septic shock therapy when compared with catecholamines.
-
10.
Terlipressin Versus Norepinephrine for Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Huang P, Guo Y, Li B, Liu Q
Frontiers in pharmacology. 2019;10:1492
Abstract
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.