Li Yuting, Wang Youquan, Guo Jianxing, Zhang Dong
Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China.
J Intensive Med. 2024 Jun 25;5(1):100-107. doi: 10.1016/j.jointm.2024.05.001. eCollection 2025 Jan.
The effect of the modality of hydrocortisone administration on clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the impact of intermittent bolus and continuous infusion of hydrocortisone on these outcomes.
We searched the PubMed, Embase databases, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies published from inception to January 1, 2023. We included studies involving adult patients with septic shock. All authors reported our primary outcome of short-term mortality and clearly compared the clinically relevant secondary outcomes (ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, vasopressor-free days, hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, and ICU-acquired weakness [ICUAW]) of intermittent bolus and continuous infusion of hydrocortisone. Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42023392160.
Seven studies, including 554 patients, were included. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the short-term mortality between intermittent bolus and continuous infusion groups (OR=1.21, 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.73; =0.31; =9.06; =34%). Secondary outcomes showed no statistically significant difference in the ICU length of stay (MD=-0.15, 95% CI: -2.31 to 2.02; =0.89; =0.95; =0%), hospital length of stay (MD=0.63, 95% CI: -4.24 to 5.50; =0.80; =0.61; =0%), vasopressor-free days (MD=-1.18, 95% CI: -2.43 to 0.06; =0.06; =2.48; =60%), hyperglycemia (OR=1.27, 95% CI: 0.80 to 2.02; =0.31; =5.23; =43%), hypernatremia (OR=0.93, 95% CI: 0.44 to 1.96; =0.85; =0.37; =0%), or ICUAW (OR=0.83, 95% CI: 0.36 to 1.94; =0.67; =0.90; =0%) between the two groups.
This meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in short-term mortality between intermittent bolus or continuous hydrocortisone infusion in patients with septic shock. Additionally, the hydrocortisone infusion method was not associated with ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, vasopressor-free days, hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, or ICUAW.
氢化可的松给药方式对感染性休克患者临床结局的影响尚不确定。本系统评价和荟萃分析评估了氢化可的松间歇推注和持续输注对这些结局的影响。
我们检索了PubMed、Embase数据库和Cochrane图书馆,以查找从数据库建立至2023年1月1日发表的随机对照试验(RCT)和队列研究。我们纳入了涉及成年感染性休克患者的研究。所有作者均报告了我们的主要结局——短期死亡率,并明确比较了氢化可的松间歇推注和持续输注的临床相关次要结局(重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间、住院时间、无血管活性药物使用天数、高血糖、高钠血症和ICU获得性肌无力[ICUAW])。结果以比值比(OR)和平均差(MD)以及相应的95%置信区间(CI)表示。国际前瞻性系统评价注册库(PROSPERO)注册号为CRD42023392160。
纳入了7项研究,共554例患者。该荟萃分析的主要结局显示,间歇推注组和持续输注组之间的短期死亡率无统计学显著差异(OR=1.21,95%CI:0.84至1.73;P=0.31;I²=9.06;P=34%)。次要结局显示,两组之间在ICU住院时间(MD=-0.15,95%CI:-2.31至2.02;P=0.89;I²=0.95;P=0%)、住院时间(MD=0.63,95%CI:-4.24至5.50;P=0.80;I²=0.61;P=0%)、无血管活性药物使用天数(MD=-1.18,95%CI:-2.43至0.06;P=0.06;I²=2.48;P=60%)、高血糖(OR=1.27,95%CI:0.80至2.02;P=0.31;I²=5.23;P=43%)、高钠血症(OR=0.93,95%CI:0.44至1.96;P=0.85;I²=0.37;P=0%)或ICUAW(OR=0.83,95%CI:0.36至1.94;P=0.67;I²=0.90;P=0%)方面均无统计学显著差异。
该荟萃分析表明,感染性休克患者中,氢化可的松间歇推注或持续输注的短期死亡率无显著差异。此外,氢化可的松输注方式与ICU住院时间、住院时间、无血管活性药物使用天数、高血糖、高钠血症或ICUAW无关。