去甲肾上腺素-肾上腺素与去甲肾上腺素-加压素降低感染性休克死亡率的比较:一项系统综述

K. Tan, Benedictus Benedictus, Christopher William Purnomo
{"title":"去甲肾上腺素-肾上腺素与去甲肾上腺素-加压素降低感染性休克死亡率的比较:一项系统综述","authors":"K. Tan, Benedictus Benedictus, Christopher William Purnomo","doi":"10.20961/soja.v3i1.62121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div class=\"page\" title=\"Page 1\"><div class=\"layoutArea\"><div class=\"column\"><p> </p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Sepsis is a state of organ dysfunction caused by the immune system’s abnormal response to an infection. Septic shock is sepsis complicated by circulatory and metabolic abnormalities, oftentimes resulting in death. Prompt identification and treatment of septic shock is crucial for the survival of patients. The latest international guideline recommends the administration of norepinephrine as the first line vasopressor, with the addition of epinephrine or vasopressin as an aid in achieving the target MAP (Mean Arterial Pressure).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a systematic review of literatures from the databases Pubmed PMC, Science Direct, and Proquest. Systematic reviews on septic shock, norepinephrine, and epinephrine or vasopressin were among the inclusion criterias. This resulted in a total of five systematic reviews to be included in the qualitative synthesis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The five included studies were not in sync as to which vasopressor is best used for the treatment of septic shock patients. One of which did not compare the two combinations within the same category, two of which favored the use of norepinephrine-epinephrine, and the other two favored the use of norepinephrine-vasopressin for the treatment of septic shock patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The existing evidence were insufficient to give a conclusion of the best combination of vasopressors for septic shock patients. More research, specifically randomized controlled trials, needs to be conducted on this topic with well defined administration of combinations of vasopressors as an advancement of this systematic review. The writers also recommend the delay of anymore systematic reviews until the former recommendation has been met.</p></div></div></div>","PeriodicalId":345991,"journal":{"name":"Solo Journal of Anesthesi, Pain and Critical Care (SOJA)","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison Between Norepinephrine-Epinephrine and Norepinephrine-Vasopressin Effectiveness in Reducing Mortality in Septic Shock: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"K. Tan, Benedictus Benedictus, Christopher William Purnomo\",\"doi\":\"10.20961/soja.v3i1.62121\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div class=\\\"page\\\" title=\\\"Page 1\\\"><div class=\\\"layoutArea\\\"><div class=\\\"column\\\"><p> </p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Sepsis is a state of organ dysfunction caused by the immune system’s abnormal response to an infection. Septic shock is sepsis complicated by circulatory and metabolic abnormalities, oftentimes resulting in death. Prompt identification and treatment of septic shock is crucial for the survival of patients. The latest international guideline recommends the administration of norepinephrine as the first line vasopressor, with the addition of epinephrine or vasopressin as an aid in achieving the target MAP (Mean Arterial Pressure).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a systematic review of literatures from the databases Pubmed PMC, Science Direct, and Proquest. Systematic reviews on septic shock, norepinephrine, and epinephrine or vasopressin were among the inclusion criterias. This resulted in a total of five systematic reviews to be included in the qualitative synthesis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The five included studies were not in sync as to which vasopressor is best used for the treatment of septic shock patients. One of which did not compare the two combinations within the same category, two of which favored the use of norepinephrine-epinephrine, and the other two favored the use of norepinephrine-vasopressin for the treatment of septic shock patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The existing evidence were insufficient to give a conclusion of the best combination of vasopressors for septic shock patients. More research, specifically randomized controlled trials, needs to be conducted on this topic with well defined administration of combinations of vasopressors as an advancement of this systematic review. The writers also recommend the delay of anymore systematic reviews until the former recommendation has been met.</p></div></div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":345991,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Solo Journal of Anesthesi, Pain and Critical Care (SOJA)\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Solo Journal of Anesthesi, Pain and Critical Care (SOJA)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20961/soja.v3i1.62121\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Solo Journal of Anesthesi, Pain and Critical Care (SOJA)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20961/soja.v3i1.62121","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:败血症是一种由免疫系统对感染的异常反应引起的器官功能障碍状态。脓毒性休克是脓毒症并发循环和代谢异常,通常导致死亡。及时识别和治疗感染性休克对患者的生存至关重要。最新的国际指南建议将去甲肾上腺素作为一线血管加压剂,并添加肾上腺素或血管加压素,以辅助实现平均动脉压目标。方法:本研究对Pubmed PMC、Science Direct和Proquest数据库中的文献进行系统综述。系统评价脓毒性休克、去甲肾上腺素、肾上腺素或加压素的纳入标准。这导致定性综合中总共包含了五个系统评价。结果:五项纳入的研究在哪种血管加压药最适合用于感染性休克患者的治疗方面并不同步。其中一项没有比较同一类别内的两种组合,其中两种倾向于使用去甲肾上腺素-肾上腺素,另外两种倾向于使用去甲肾上腺素-加压素治疗感染性休克患者。结论:现有证据不足以得出感染性休克患者血管加压药物的最佳组合。更多的研究,特别是随机对照试验,需要在这个主题上进行,并明确血管加压药物的联合给药,作为本系统综述的进展。作者还建议,在满足之前的建议之前,不要再进行系统评价。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison Between Norepinephrine-Epinephrine and Norepinephrine-Vasopressin Effectiveness in Reducing Mortality in Septic Shock: A Systematic Review

 

Background: Sepsis is a state of organ dysfunction caused by the immune system’s abnormal response to an infection. Septic shock is sepsis complicated by circulatory and metabolic abnormalities, oftentimes resulting in death. Prompt identification and treatment of septic shock is crucial for the survival of patients. The latest international guideline recommends the administration of norepinephrine as the first line vasopressor, with the addition of epinephrine or vasopressin as an aid in achieving the target MAP (Mean Arterial Pressure).

Methods: This study is a systematic review of literatures from the databases Pubmed PMC, Science Direct, and Proquest. Systematic reviews on septic shock, norepinephrine, and epinephrine or vasopressin were among the inclusion criterias. This resulted in a total of five systematic reviews to be included in the qualitative synthesis.

Results: The five included studies were not in sync as to which vasopressor is best used for the treatment of septic shock patients. One of which did not compare the two combinations within the same category, two of which favored the use of norepinephrine-epinephrine, and the other two favored the use of norepinephrine-vasopressin for the treatment of septic shock patients.

Conclusion: The existing evidence were insufficient to give a conclusion of the best combination of vasopressors for septic shock patients. More research, specifically randomized controlled trials, needs to be conducted on this topic with well defined administration of combinations of vasopressors as an advancement of this systematic review. The writers also recommend the delay of anymore systematic reviews until the former recommendation has been met.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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