Acetaminophen and Clinical Outcomes in Sepsis

Sarah N. Obeidalla MEd , Gordon R. Bernard MD , Lorraine B. Ware MD , V. Eric Kerchberger MD
{"title":"Acetaminophen and Clinical Outcomes in Sepsis","authors":"Sarah N. Obeidalla MEd ,&nbsp;Gordon R. Bernard MD ,&nbsp;Lorraine B. Ware MD ,&nbsp;V. Eric Kerchberger MD","doi":"10.1016/j.chstcc.2024.100118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The Ibuprofen in Sepsis Study (ISS) randomized trial found no difference in duration of shock, ARDS, or mortality with ibuprofen treatment for sepsis. However, higher use of acetaminophen, a known hemoprotein reductant with potentially beneficial effects in sepsis, as an antipyretic in the control arm may have masked the clinical benefits from either drug.</div></div><div><h3>Research Question</h3><div>Does an association exist between administration of acetaminophen and clinical outcomes in adults with sepsis?</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Methods</h3><div>We performed a retrospective propensity-matched analysis of the previously reported ISS trial. We created a propensity score for receiving acetaminophen during the first 2 study days using sex, age, presence of shock at enrollment, trial study drug assignment (ibuprofen or placebo), febrile status at enrollment, need for mechanical ventilation, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score at enrollment, and then matched trial participants 1:1 into acetaminophen-exposed and acetaminophen-unexposed groups based on their propensity scores. We tested the association between receipt of acetaminophen with 30-day mortality as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included development of renal failure and ventilator-free days (VFDs).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 455 patients in the original trial, 276 patients (61%) were matched into acetaminophen-exposed and acetaminophen-unexposed groups. In the propensity-matched analysis, we found a lower mortality among acetaminophen-exposed patients compared with acetaminophen-unexposed patients (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.40-0.84; <em>P</em> = .004). Additionally, acetaminophen-exposed patients experienced more days alive and free of mechanical ventilation compared with the acetaminophen-unexposed patients (OR, 2.09 for having 19-28 VFDs vs 0 or 1-18 VFDs; 95% CI, 1.12-3.95; <em>P</em> = .02). We observed no significant association between renal failure and receipt of acetaminophen.</div></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><div>In this propensity-matched retrospective analysis, adults with sepsis who received acetaminophen showed decreased mortality and more days alive and free of mechanical ventilation. This study highlights the potential of acetaminophen as a modulator of outcomes in sepsis and warrants further investigation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":93934,"journal":{"name":"CHEST critical care","volume":"3 1","pages":"Article 100118"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CHEST critical care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949788424000728","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The Ibuprofen in Sepsis Study (ISS) randomized trial found no difference in duration of shock, ARDS, or mortality with ibuprofen treatment for sepsis. However, higher use of acetaminophen, a known hemoprotein reductant with potentially beneficial effects in sepsis, as an antipyretic in the control arm may have masked the clinical benefits from either drug.

Research Question

Does an association exist between administration of acetaminophen and clinical outcomes in adults with sepsis?

Study Design and Methods

We performed a retrospective propensity-matched analysis of the previously reported ISS trial. We created a propensity score for receiving acetaminophen during the first 2 study days using sex, age, presence of shock at enrollment, trial study drug assignment (ibuprofen or placebo), febrile status at enrollment, need for mechanical ventilation, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score at enrollment, and then matched trial participants 1:1 into acetaminophen-exposed and acetaminophen-unexposed groups based on their propensity scores. We tested the association between receipt of acetaminophen with 30-day mortality as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included development of renal failure and ventilator-free days (VFDs).

Results

Of 455 patients in the original trial, 276 patients (61%) were matched into acetaminophen-exposed and acetaminophen-unexposed groups. In the propensity-matched analysis, we found a lower mortality among acetaminophen-exposed patients compared with acetaminophen-unexposed patients (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.40-0.84; P = .004). Additionally, acetaminophen-exposed patients experienced more days alive and free of mechanical ventilation compared with the acetaminophen-unexposed patients (OR, 2.09 for having 19-28 VFDs vs 0 or 1-18 VFDs; 95% CI, 1.12-3.95; P = .02). We observed no significant association between renal failure and receipt of acetaminophen.

Interpretation

In this propensity-matched retrospective analysis, adults with sepsis who received acetaminophen showed decreased mortality and more days alive and free of mechanical ventilation. This study highlights the potential of acetaminophen as a modulator of outcomes in sepsis and warrants further investigation.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CHEST critical care
CHEST critical care Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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