Extremely early initiation of vasopressors might not decrease short-term mortality for adults with septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 5.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Cheng-Hsin Ma, Jack Healy, Ebrima Kinteh, Cheng-Chin Ma, Ching-Fang Tiffany Tzeng, Eric H Chou, Chin-Chieh Wu, Shih-Chieh Shao, Kuan-Fu Chen
{"title":"Extremely early initiation of vasopressors might not decrease short-term mortality for adults with septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Cheng-Hsin Ma, Jack Healy, Ebrima Kinteh, Cheng-Chin Ma, Ching-Fang Tiffany Tzeng, Eric H Chou, Chin-Chieh Wu, Shih-Chieh Shao, Kuan-Fu Chen","doi":"10.1186/s13613-025-01428-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal timing for initiating vasopressor therapy in patients with septic shock remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the impact of early versus late vasopressor initiation on clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted by searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Studies comparing early and late vasopressor administration in septic shock patients were included. The primary outcome was short-term mortality, and subgroup analyses were performed based on different initiation timings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven studies with 6,661 patients were included. Different studies define the 'early administration' timeframe variously, ranging from one to seven hours. No significant difference in short-term mortality was observed between early and late administration in the combined analysis of 3,757 patients from two RCTs and three quasi-experimental studies (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: [0.36, 1.19], I²: 82%). However, lower mortality was found in subgroups with early but not extremely early initiation (one to three hours, OR: 0.70, 95% CI: [0.60, 0.82], I²: 0%), and those using septic shock diagnosis as time zero (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: [0.48, 0.85], I²: 39%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings found that earlier initiation of vasopressor therapy, particularly within one to three hours after the diagnosis of septic shock, may be associated with reduced short-term mortality in certain subgroups. However, due to the heterogeneity in study definitions and potential confounding factors, these results should be interpreted cautiously. Further standardized investigations are warranted to precisely determine the optimal timing for vasopressor initiation to maximize survival outcomes in patients with septic shock.</p>","PeriodicalId":7966,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Intensive Care","volume":"15 1","pages":"18"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11769887/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-025-01428-0","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The optimal timing for initiating vasopressor therapy in patients with septic shock remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the impact of early versus late vasopressor initiation on clinical outcomes.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted by searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Studies comparing early and late vasopressor administration in septic shock patients were included. The primary outcome was short-term mortality, and subgroup analyses were performed based on different initiation timings.

Results: Eleven studies with 6,661 patients were included. Different studies define the 'early administration' timeframe variously, ranging from one to seven hours. No significant difference in short-term mortality was observed between early and late administration in the combined analysis of 3,757 patients from two RCTs and three quasi-experimental studies (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: [0.36, 1.19], I²: 82%). However, lower mortality was found in subgroups with early but not extremely early initiation (one to three hours, OR: 0.70, 95% CI: [0.60, 0.82], I²: 0%), and those using septic shock diagnosis as time zero (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: [0.48, 0.85], I²: 39%).

Conclusion: Our findings found that earlier initiation of vasopressor therapy, particularly within one to three hours after the diagnosis of septic shock, may be associated with reduced short-term mortality in certain subgroups. However, due to the heterogeneity in study definitions and potential confounding factors, these results should be interpreted cautiously. Further standardized investigations are warranted to precisely determine the optimal timing for vasopressor initiation to maximize survival outcomes in patients with septic shock.

过早使用血管加压药可能不会降低脓毒性休克成人患者的短期死亡率:系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:脓毒性休克患者开始血管加压治疗的最佳时机尚不清楚。本研究旨在评估早期和晚期血管加压药物对临床结果的影响。方法:通过检索PubMed、Embase和Cochrane数据库进行系统综述和荟萃分析。研究比较了感染性休克患者早期和晚期血管加压素的使用。主要结局是短期死亡率,并根据不同的起始时间进行亚组分析。结果:纳入11项研究,6661例患者。不同的研究对“早期服药”时间框架的定义各不相同,从1小时到7小时不等。在两项随机对照试验和三项准实验研究的3757例患者的联合分析中,早期和晚期的短期死亡率没有显著差异(OR: 0.66, 95% CI: [0.36, 1.19], I²:82%)。然而,在早期但不是极早开始的亚组(1至3小时,OR: 0.70, 95% CI: [0.60, 0.82], I²:0%)和将感染性休克诊断为零时间的亚组(OR: 0.64, 95% CI: [0.48, 0.85], I²:39%)中发现死亡率较低。结论:我们的研究结果发现,在某些亚组中,早期开始血管加压素治疗,特别是在脓毒性休克诊断后1至3小时内,可能与降低短期死亡率有关。然而,由于研究定义的异质性和潜在的混杂因素,这些结果应谨慎解释。进一步的标准化调查是必要的,以准确地确定血管加压素启动的最佳时机,以最大限度地提高脓毒性休克患者的生存结果。
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
Annals of Intensive Care
Annals of Intensive Care CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
14.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
107
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Intensive Care is an online peer-reviewed journal that publishes high-quality review articles and original research papers in the field of intensive care medicine. It targets critical care providers including attending physicians, fellows, residents, nurses, and physiotherapists, who aim to enhance their knowledge and provide optimal care for their patients. The journal's articles are included in various prestigious databases such as CAS, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, OCLC, PubMed, PubMed Central, Science Citation Index Expanded, SCOPUS, and Summon by Serial Solutions.
×
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