Comparative Effectiveness of Less vs. More Frequent Hydrocortisone Dosing in Septic Shock.

IF 2.7 Q4 Medicine
Critical care explorations Pub Date : 2025-09-15 eCollection Date: 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1097/CCE.0000000000001316
Alan Hao, Tianshi David Wu, Keegan Collins, Danielle Guffey, Rebecca Kessinger, Meghna Vallabh, Ali Omranian
{"title":"Comparative Effectiveness of Less vs. More Frequent Hydrocortisone Dosing in Septic Shock.","authors":"Alan Hao, Tianshi David Wu, Keegan Collins, Danielle Guffey, Rebecca Kessinger, Meghna Vallabh, Ali Omranian","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000001316","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Guidelines recommend hydrocortisone as an adjunctive treatment in septic shock, but the optimal dosing regimen is unknown. A national shortage of hydrocortisone in 2023 prompted a change in institutional practice for hydrocortisone administration from 50 mg every 6 hours to 100 mg every 12 hours in an effort to reduce waste and conserve vials, creating an opportunity to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of these two regimens. The primary efficacy outcome was time to shock resolution, and secondary outcomes evaluated in this study were mortality, renal replacement therapy (RRT), medication costs, and maximum vasopressor dose attained.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Single-center, retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>ICUs in a quaternary academic medical center.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Adult patients admitted to an ICU with septic shock, defined by mean arterial pressure less than 65 mm Hg despite adequate fluid resuscitation and need for vasopressor infusion, who were treated with hydrocortisone for shock between October 24, 2022, and October 12, 2023.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Treatment with hydrocortisone 50 mg every 6 hours or 100 mg every 12 hours.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>One hundred thirty-eight patients were included in this retrospective chart review from October 24, 2022, to October 12, 2023. Data for 61 patients in the 50 mg every 6 hours group and 77 patients in the 100 mg every 12 hours group were collected and analyzed. In adjusted competing risk models, hydrocortisone regimen was not associated with differences in time to shock resolution (sub-hazard ratio [sub-HR] 0.95 [95% CI, 0.59-1.54]), ICU mortality (sub-HR 1.59; 95% CI, 0.89-2.84), in-hospital mortality (1.35; 95% CI, 0.81-2.26), or time to RRT (sub-HR 1.01; 95% CI, 0.45-2.31). In addition, the hydrocortisone dose regimen was not associated with differences in maximum vasopressor dose attained (mean difference in norepinephrine equivalent, 0.16 µg/kg/min; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.58 µg/kg/min). The less frequent dosing resulted in cost savings of $446.10 (95% CI, 253.95-638.25) per patient treated with the more intensive but less frequent hydrocortisone dosing regimen.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A less frequent hydrocortisone dosing regimen was not associated with differences in time to shock resolution. Studies of the comparative effectiveness of different corticosteroid dosing regimens for septic shock are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":93957,"journal":{"name":"Critical care explorations","volume":"7 9","pages":"e1316"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12440467/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical care explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000001316","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Guidelines recommend hydrocortisone as an adjunctive treatment in septic shock, but the optimal dosing regimen is unknown. A national shortage of hydrocortisone in 2023 prompted a change in institutional practice for hydrocortisone administration from 50 mg every 6 hours to 100 mg every 12 hours in an effort to reduce waste and conserve vials, creating an opportunity to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of these two regimens. The primary efficacy outcome was time to shock resolution, and secondary outcomes evaluated in this study were mortality, renal replacement therapy (RRT), medication costs, and maximum vasopressor dose attained.

Design: Single-center, retrospective cohort study.

Setting: ICUs in a quaternary academic medical center.

Patients: Adult patients admitted to an ICU with septic shock, defined by mean arterial pressure less than 65 mm Hg despite adequate fluid resuscitation and need for vasopressor infusion, who were treated with hydrocortisone for shock between October 24, 2022, and October 12, 2023.

Interventions: Treatment with hydrocortisone 50 mg every 6 hours or 100 mg every 12 hours.

Measurements and main results: One hundred thirty-eight patients were included in this retrospective chart review from October 24, 2022, to October 12, 2023. Data for 61 patients in the 50 mg every 6 hours group and 77 patients in the 100 mg every 12 hours group were collected and analyzed. In adjusted competing risk models, hydrocortisone regimen was not associated with differences in time to shock resolution (sub-hazard ratio [sub-HR] 0.95 [95% CI, 0.59-1.54]), ICU mortality (sub-HR 1.59; 95% CI, 0.89-2.84), in-hospital mortality (1.35; 95% CI, 0.81-2.26), or time to RRT (sub-HR 1.01; 95% CI, 0.45-2.31). In addition, the hydrocortisone dose regimen was not associated with differences in maximum vasopressor dose attained (mean difference in norepinephrine equivalent, 0.16 µg/kg/min; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.58 µg/kg/min). The less frequent dosing resulted in cost savings of $446.10 (95% CI, 253.95-638.25) per patient treated with the more intensive but less frequent hydrocortisone dosing regimen.

Conclusions: A less frequent hydrocortisone dosing regimen was not associated with differences in time to shock resolution. Studies of the comparative effectiveness of different corticosteroid dosing regimens for septic shock are needed.

Abstract Image

少用氢化可的松与多用氢化可的松治疗感染性休克的疗效比较。
目的:指南推荐氢化可的松作为感染性休克的辅助治疗,但最佳给药方案尚不清楚。2023年全国氢化可的松短缺促使机构实践将氢化可的松给药从每6小时50毫克改为每12小时100毫克,以减少浪费和保存小瓶,从而为评估这两种方案的比较有效性创造了机会。主要疗效指标是休克消退时间,本研究评估的次要指标是死亡率、肾脏替代治疗(RRT)、药物费用和获得的最大血管加压剂剂量。设计:单中心、回顾性队列研究。环境:第四学术医疗中心的icu。患者:在2022年10月24日至2023年10月12日期间接受氢化可的松治疗休克的ICU收治的感染性休克成年患者,定义为平均动脉压低于65 mm Hg,尽管有充分的液体复苏和血管加压剂输注。干预措施:氢化可的松每6小时50毫克或每12小时100毫克。测量和主要结果:从2022年10月24日至2023年10月12日,138例患者被纳入回顾性图表回顾。收集并分析了每6小时50mg组的61例患者和每12小时100mg组的77例患者的数据。在调整后的竞争风险模型中,氢化可的松方案与休克消退时间(亚危险比[亚hr] 0.95 [95% CI, 0.59-1.54])、ICU死亡率(亚危险比1.59;95% CI, 0.89-2.84)、住院死亡率(亚危险比1.35;95% CI, 0.81-2.26)或到达RRT时间(亚危险比1.01;95% CI, 0.45-2.31)的差异无关。此外,氢化可的松剂量方案与获得的最大血管加压剂剂量的差异无关(去甲肾上腺素当量的平均差异,0.16µg/kg/min; 95% CI, -0.26至0.58µg/kg/min)。较低频率的给药可使每位患者节省446.10美元(95% CI, 253.95-638.25)的成本,这些患者接受较强化但较低频率的氢化可的松给药方案治疗。结论:较少的氢化可的松给药方案与休克缓解时间的差异无关。需要研究不同皮质类固醇给药方案对感染性休克的比较效果。
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
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信