• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

作为主要血管加压药和脓毒性休克试验死亡率结局的替代指标,存活天数和无残疾天数。

Days alive and free as an alternative to a mortality outcome in pivotal vasopressor and septic shock trials.

机构信息

Centre for Heart Lung Innovation (HLI), St. Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, 1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada; Division of Critical Care Medicine, St. Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, 1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada.

Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Science (CHEOS), St. Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, 1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada.

出版信息

J Crit Care. 2018 Oct;47:333-337. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.05.003. Epub 2018 May 12.

DOI:10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.05.003
PMID:29958734
Abstract

PURPOSE

RCTs in septic shock negative for mortality may show organ dysfunction benefits. We hypothesized that RCTs in septic shock show significant differences between treatment groups in organ support despite no mortality differences.

METHODS

RCTs of epinephrine vs. norepinephrine plus dobutamine, norepinephrine vs. dopamine and vasopressin vs. norepinephrine reported days alive and free ("DAF") of vasopressors, ventilation and RRT, by subtracting days with support from the lesser of 28 or days to death. We also assigned zero DAF to non-survivors ("DAF and Mortality") and calculated the composite "DAF vasopressors, ventilation and RRT".

RESULTS

Using "DAF", norepinephrine was better than dopamine for vasopressors. In contrast, using "DAF and Mortality", norepinephrine was better than dopamine for vasopressors, ventilation and RRT; norepinephrine + dobutamine was better than epinephrine for ventilation. Using the novel composite "DAF vasopressors, ventilation and RRT", norepinephrine + dobutamine was better than epinephrine (p = 0.033), norepinephrine better than dopamine (p = 0.03), and vasopressin better than norepinephrine in less severe shock (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Differences between treatment groups in organ dysfunction in RCTs in septic shock occur despite lack of mortality differences depending on calculation method. If standardized and validated further, DAF could become the primary endpoint of RCTs in septic shock.

摘要

目的

在脓毒性休克中,阴性的死亡率随机对照试验(RCT)可能显示出器官功能障碍的益处。我们假设,尽管死亡率没有差异,但在脓毒性休克的 RCT 中,治疗组之间在器官支持方面可能存在显著差异。

方法

我们对肾上腺素与去甲肾上腺素加多巴酚丁胺、去甲肾上腺素与多巴胺以及血管加压素与去甲肾上腺素的 RCT 进行了研究,报告了血管加压素支持天数("DAF")和通气天数以及肾脏替代治疗(RRT)天数,通过从较少的 28 天或死亡天数中减去支持天数来计算。我们还将零 DAF 分配给非幸存者("DAF 和死亡率"),并计算了复合的"DAF 血管加压素、通气和 RRT"。

结果

使用"DAF",去甲肾上腺素在血管加压素方面优于多巴胺。相比之下,使用"DAF 和死亡率",去甲肾上腺素在血管加压素、通气和 RRT 方面优于多巴胺;去甲肾上腺素+多巴酚丁胺在通气方面优于肾上腺素。使用新的复合"DAF 血管加压素、通气和 RRT",去甲肾上腺素+多巴酚丁胺优于肾上腺素(p=0.033),去甲肾上腺素优于多巴胺(p=0.03),在病情较轻的休克中,血管加压素优于去甲肾上腺素(p=0.03)。

结论

根据计算方法,在脓毒性休克的 RCT 中,尽管死亡率没有差异,但治疗组在器官功能障碍方面仍存在差异。如果进一步标准化和验证,DAF 可能成为脓毒性休克 RCT 的主要终点。

相似文献

1
Days alive and free as an alternative to a mortality outcome in pivotal vasopressor and septic shock trials.作为主要血管加压药和脓毒性休克试验死亡率结局的替代指标,存活天数和无残疾天数。
J Crit Care. 2018 Oct;47:333-337. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.05.003. Epub 2018 May 12.
2
THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF VASOPRESSORS FOR SEPTIC SHOCK PATIENTS: A SYSTEMIC REVIEW AND NETWORK META-ANALYSIS.血管加压药治疗脓毒性休克患者的疗效和安全性:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
Shock. 2023 Dec 1;60(6):746-752. doi: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000002193. Epub 2023 Aug 4.
3
The effect of vasoactive drugs on mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. A network meta-analysis of randomized trials.血管活性药物对严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克患者死亡率的影响:一项随机试验的网状Meta分析
J Crit Care. 2017 Feb;37:91-98. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.08.010. Epub 2016 Aug 13.
4
Mortality benefit of vasopressor and inotropic agents in septic shock: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.血管加压药和正性肌力药物在感染性休克中的死亡率获益:随机对照试验的贝叶斯网络荟萃分析
J Crit Care. 2014 Oct;29(5):706-10. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.04.011. Epub 2014 Apr 26.
5
Vasopressor therapy in critically ill patients with shock.血管加压素治疗休克危重症患者。
Intensive Care Med. 2019 Nov;45(11):1503-1517. doi: 10.1007/s00134-019-05801-z. Epub 2019 Oct 23.
6
Vasopressors for the Treatment of Septic Shock: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.血管升压药治疗感染性休克:系统评价与Meta分析
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 3;10(8):e0129305. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129305. eCollection 2015.
7
Vasopressor Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit.重症监护病房中的血管加压药治疗
Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2021 Feb;42(1):59-77. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1710320. Epub 2020 Aug 20.
8
Adrenergic support in septic shock: a critical review.感染性休克中的肾上腺素能支持:一项批判性综述。
Hosp Pract (1995). 2010 Feb;38(1):62-73. doi: 10.3810/hp.2010.02.280.
9
Norepinephrine plus dobutamine versus epinephrine alone for management of septic shock: a randomised trial.去甲肾上腺素加多巴酚丁胺与单独使用肾上腺素治疗感染性休克的对比:一项随机试验。
Lancet. 2007 Aug 25;370(9588):676-84. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61344-0.
10
Effect of norepinephrine on the outcome of septic shock.去甲肾上腺素对感染性休克结局的影响。
Crit Care Med. 2000 Aug;28(8):2758-65. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200008000-00012.

引用本文的文献

1
Complex Thrombo-Inflammatory Responses versus Outcomes of Non-COVID-19 Community-Acquired Pneumonia and COVID-19.复杂血栓炎症反应与非新冠病毒感染社区获得性肺炎及新冠病毒感染肺炎的结局对比
J Innate Immun. 2024;16(1):529-552. doi: 10.1159/000542420. Epub 2024 Dec 3.
2
Community versus academic hospital community-acquired pneumonia patients: a nested cohort study.社区医院与学术型医院的社区获得性肺炎患者:一项巢式队列研究。
Pneumonia (Nathan). 2024 Nov 25;16(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s41479-024-00143-x.
3
Comparison of limited driving pressure ventilation and low tidal volume strategies in adults with acute respiratory failure on mechanical ventilation: a randomized controlled trial.
比较机械通气治疗成人急性呼吸衰竭时采用限定性压力通气和小潮气量通气策略的随机对照试验。
Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2024 Jan-Dec;18:17534666241249152. doi: 10.1177/17534666241249152.
4
Baricitinib versus tocilizumab in critically ill COVID-19 patients: A retrospective cohort study.巴瑞替尼对比托珠单抗治疗重症 COVID-19 患者:一项回顾性队列研究。
Pharmacotherapy. 2024 Jan;44(1):28-38. doi: 10.1002/phar.2867. Epub 2023 Aug 24.
5
Outcomes and characteristics of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec during the Omicron wave.在奥密克戎毒株流行期间,不列颠哥伦比亚省、安大略省和魁北克省因新冠病毒疾病住院患者的治疗结果及特征
CMAJ Open. 2023 Aug 1;11(4):E672-E683. doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20220194. Print 2023 Jul-Aug.
6
Echocardiographic profiles and hemodynamic response after vasopressin initiation in septic shock: A cross-sectional study.超声心动图特征与血管加压素起始后对感染性休克血流动力学的反应:一项横断面研究。
J Crit Care. 2023 Aug;76:154298. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2023.154298. Epub 2023 Apr 6.
7
Impact of Piperacillin-Tazobactam Dosing in Septic Shock Patients Using Real-World Evidence: An Observational, Retrospective Cohort Study.哌拉西林他唑巴坦在脓毒性休克患者中的剂量影响:一项真实世界证据的观察性、回顾性队列研究。
Ann Pharmacother. 2023 Jun;57(6):653-661. doi: 10.1177/10600280221125919. Epub 2022 Sep 25.
8
ABO and RhD blood group are not associated with mortality and morbidity in critically ill patients; a multicentre observational study of 29 512 patients.ABO 和 RhD 血型与危重症患者的死亡率和发病率无关;一项对 29512 例患者的多中心观察性研究。
BMC Anesthesiol. 2022 Apr 2;22(1):91. doi: 10.1186/s12871-022-01626-4.
9
Association of Arterial pH With Hemodynamic Response to Vasopressin in Patients With Septic Shock: An Observational Cohort Study.脓毒性休克患者动脉pH值与血管加压素血流动力学反应的关联:一项观察性队列研究
Crit Care Explor. 2022 Feb 8;4(2):e0634. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000634. eCollection 2022 Feb.
10
Effects of red blood cell transfusions given to non-septic critically ill patients: a propensity score matched study.红细胞输注对非脓毒症危重症患者的影响:一项倾向评分匹配研究。
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2021;53(5):390-397. doi: 10.5114/ait.2021.111739.