Comparison of the effects of vitamin C and thiamine on refractory hypotension in patients with sepsis: A randomized controlled trial.

Q3 Medicine
N Nandhini, Deepak Malviya, Samiksha Parashar, Chandrakant Pandey, Soumya Sankar Nath, Manoj Tripathi
{"title":"Comparison of the effects of vitamin C and thiamine on refractory hypotension in patients with sepsis: A randomized controlled trial.","authors":"N Nandhini,&nbsp;Deepak Malviya,&nbsp;Samiksha Parashar,&nbsp;Chandrakant Pandey,&nbsp;Soumya Sankar Nath,&nbsp;Manoj Tripathi","doi":"10.4103/ijciis.ijciis_107_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The study aimed to compare the effect of thiamine and ascorbic acid (AA) on mortality, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, duration and dose of vasopressor support, and need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) in patients with septic shock with refractory hypotension.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consenting adult patients with septic shock and refractory hypotension were included in this study. Patients were divided into three groups: Group A received 100 ml of balanced salt solution 8 hourly, Group B received 2 mg/kg of thiamine 8 hourly, Group C received 25 mg/kg of AA 8 hourly intravenous (IV) for 72 h. All patients received IV infusion of hydrocortisone 200 mg/day for 72 h. Serum lactate, dose and duration of vasopressor support, SOFA score, need for RRT and hospital mortality were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The SOFA Score was significantly lower in Group B than in Group A and C at 24, 48, and 72 h. Dosage of norepinephrine was lower in Group B at 66 h and after that, whereas in Groups A and C, it was comparable at all time points. Mortality in Group B was significantly lower but comparable in Groups A and C. The need for RRT was significantly lower in Group B (44%) compared to the control group (88%) but comparable in Group C (76%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In patients with septic shock treated with hydrocortisone, co-treatment with thiamine led to earlier correction of organ dysfunction, reduced need for RRT, and improved mortality compared to patients treated with AA or balanced salt solution. The addition of AA did not yield measurable benefits beyond hydrocortisone alone.</p>","PeriodicalId":13938,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science","volume":"12 3","pages":"138-145"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9728072/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijciis.ijciis_107_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: The study aimed to compare the effect of thiamine and ascorbic acid (AA) on mortality, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, duration and dose of vasopressor support, and need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) in patients with septic shock with refractory hypotension.

Methods: Consenting adult patients with septic shock and refractory hypotension were included in this study. Patients were divided into three groups: Group A received 100 ml of balanced salt solution 8 hourly, Group B received 2 mg/kg of thiamine 8 hourly, Group C received 25 mg/kg of AA 8 hourly intravenous (IV) for 72 h. All patients received IV infusion of hydrocortisone 200 mg/day for 72 h. Serum lactate, dose and duration of vasopressor support, SOFA score, need for RRT and hospital mortality were analyzed.

Results: The SOFA Score was significantly lower in Group B than in Group A and C at 24, 48, and 72 h. Dosage of norepinephrine was lower in Group B at 66 h and after that, whereas in Groups A and C, it was comparable at all time points. Mortality in Group B was significantly lower but comparable in Groups A and C. The need for RRT was significantly lower in Group B (44%) compared to the control group (88%) but comparable in Group C (76%).

Conclusion: In patients with septic shock treated with hydrocortisone, co-treatment with thiamine led to earlier correction of organ dysfunction, reduced need for RRT, and improved mortality compared to patients treated with AA or balanced salt solution. The addition of AA did not yield measurable benefits beyond hydrocortisone alone.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

比较维生素C和硫胺素对脓毒症患者难治性低血压的影响:一项随机对照试验。
背景:本研究旨在比较硫胺素和抗坏血酸(AA)对感染性休克合并难治性低血压患者的死亡率、序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分、血管加压剂支持的持续时间和剂量以及肾替代治疗(RRT)需求的影响。方法:自愿接受脓毒性休克合并难治性低血压的成人患者。将患者分为3组:A组给予平衡盐溶液100 ml 8小时,B组给予硫胺素2 mg/kg 8小时,C组给予AA 25 mg/kg 8小时静脉滴注(IV) 72小时。所有患者均给予氢化可的松200 mg/d静脉滴注,持续72小时。分析血清乳酸、血管加压剂支持剂量和持续时间、SOFA评分、RRT需求和住院死亡率。结果:B组在24、48、72 h的SOFA评分明显低于A、C组。B组在66 h及之后的去甲肾上腺素用量较低,而A、C组在各时间点的差异具有可比性。B组的死亡率显著降低,但与A组和C组相当。与对照组(88%)相比,B组(44%)的RRT需求显著降低,但与C组(76%)相当。结论:在氢化可的松治疗的脓毒性休克患者中,与AA或平衡盐溶液治疗的患者相比,硫胺素联合治疗可以更早地纠正器官功能障碍,减少RRT的需要,并提高死亡率。除了单用氢化可的松外,添加AA并没有产生可测量的益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: IJCIIS encourages research, education and dissemination of knowledge in the field of Critical Illness and Injury Science across the world thus promoting translational research by striking a synergy between basic science, clinical medicine and public health. The Journal intends to bring together scientists and academicians in the emergency intensive care and promote translational synergy between Laboratory Science, Clinical Medicine and Public Health. The Journal invites Original Articles, Clinical Investigations, Epidemiological Analysis, Data Protocols, Case Reports, Clinical Photographs, review articles and special commentaries. Students, Residents, Academicians, Public Health experts and scientists are all encouraged to be a part of this initiative by contributing, reviewing and promoting scientific works and science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信