Chiwon Ahn, Gina Yu, Tae Gun Shin, Youngsuk Cho, Sunghoon Park, Gee Young Suh
{"title":"脓毒性休克患者早期和晚期去甲肾上腺素用药的比较:系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Chiwon Ahn, Gina Yu, Tae Gun Shin, Youngsuk Cho, Sunghoon Park, Gee Young Suh","doi":"10.1016/j.chest.2024.05.042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Vasopressor administration at an appropriate time is crucial, but the optimal timing remains controversial.</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>Does early vs late norepinephrine administration impact the prognosis of septic shock?</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>Searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and KMbase databases. We included studies of adults with sepsis and categorized patients into an early and late norepinephrine group according to specific time points or differences in norepinephrine use protocols. The primary outcome was overall mortality. The secondary outcomes included length of stay in the ICU, days free from ventilator use, days free from renal replacement therapy, days free from vasopressor use, adverse events, and total fluid volume.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve studies (four randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and eight observational studies) comprising 7,281 patients were analyzed. For overall mortality, no significant difference was found between the early norepinephrine group and late norepinephrine group in RCTs (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.41-1.19) or observational studies (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.54-1.29). In the two RCTs without a restrictive fluid strategy that prioritized vasopressors and lower IV fluid volumes, the early norepinephrine group showed significantly lower mortality than the late norepinephrine group (OR, 0.49; 95%, CI, 0.25-0.96). The early norepinephrine group demonstrated more mechanical ventilator-free days in observational studies (mean difference, 4.06; 95% CI, 2.82-5.30). The incidence of pulmonary edema was lower in the early norepinephrine group in the three RCTs that reported this outcome (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.25-0.74). No differences were found in the other secondary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Overall mortality did not differ significantly between early and late norepinephrine administration for septic shock. However, early norepinephrine administration seemed to reduce pulmonary edema incidence, and mortality improvement was observed in studies without fluid restriction interventions, favoring early norepinephrine use.</p>","PeriodicalId":9782,"journal":{"name":"Chest","volume":" ","pages":"1417-1430"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Early and Late Norepinephrine Administration in Patients With Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Chiwon Ahn, Gina Yu, Tae Gun Shin, Youngsuk Cho, Sunghoon Park, Gee Young Suh\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.chest.2024.05.042\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Vasopressor administration at an appropriate time is crucial, but the optimal timing remains controversial.</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>Does early vs late norepinephrine administration impact the prognosis of septic shock?</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>Searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and KMbase databases. We included studies of adults with sepsis and categorized patients into an early and late norepinephrine group according to specific time points or differences in norepinephrine use protocols. The primary outcome was overall mortality. The secondary outcomes included length of stay in the ICU, days free from ventilator use, days free from renal replacement therapy, days free from vasopressor use, adverse events, and total fluid volume.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve studies (four randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and eight observational studies) comprising 7,281 patients were analyzed. For overall mortality, no significant difference was found between the early norepinephrine group and late norepinephrine group in RCTs (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.41-1.19) or observational studies (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.54-1.29). In the two RCTs without a restrictive fluid strategy that prioritized vasopressors and lower IV fluid volumes, the early norepinephrine group showed significantly lower mortality than the late norepinephrine group (OR, 0.49; 95%, CI, 0.25-0.96). The early norepinephrine group demonstrated more mechanical ventilator-free days in observational studies (mean difference, 4.06; 95% CI, 2.82-5.30). The incidence of pulmonary edema was lower in the early norepinephrine group in the three RCTs that reported this outcome (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.25-0.74). No differences were found in the other secondary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Overall mortality did not differ significantly between early and late norepinephrine administration for septic shock. However, early norepinephrine administration seemed to reduce pulmonary edema incidence, and mortality improvement was observed in studies without fluid restriction interventions, favoring early norepinephrine use.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chest\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1417-1430\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chest\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2024.05.042\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chest","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2024.05.042","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:适时使用血管加压素至关重要,但最佳时机仍存在争议:研究问题:早用与晚用去甲肾上腺素(NE)是否会影响脓毒性休克的预后?在 PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane Library 和 KMBASE 上进行了检索。我们纳入了有关成人脓毒症患者的研究,并根据特定的时间点或去甲肾上腺素使用方案的差异将患者分为早期和晚期去甲肾上腺素组。主要结果是总死亡率。次要结果包括重症监护室的住院时间、无需使用呼吸机的天数、无需肾脏替代治疗的天数、无需使用血管加压素的天数、不良事件和总液体量:共分析了 12 项研究(4 项随机对照试验 [RCT]、8 项观察性研究),涉及 7281 名患者。就总死亡率而言,在随机对照试验(赔率[OR],0.70;95% 置信区间[CI],0.41-1.19)或观察性研究(赔率,0.83;95% 置信区间[CI],0.54-1.29)中,早期NE组与晚期NE组之间无明显差异。在两项未采用限制性输液策略(优先使用血管加压药和减少静脉输液量)的研究中,早期 NE 组的死亡率明显低于晚期 NE 组(OR 为 0.49,95% 置信区间 [CI],0.25-0.96)。在观察性研究中,早期 NE 组的无机械呼吸机天数更多(MD,4.06;95% CI,2.82-5.30)。在报告肺水肿结果的三项研究中,早期 NE 组的肺水肿发生率较低(OR 0.43;95% CI,0.25-0.74)。其他次要结果未发现差异:脓毒性休克早期和晚期使用 NE 治疗的总死亡率差异不大。然而,早期使用 NE 似乎可降低肺水肿的发生率,而且在未采取液体限制干预措施的研究中也观察到死亡率有所改善,这有利于早期使用 NE。
Comparison of Early and Late Norepinephrine Administration in Patients With Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Background: Vasopressor administration at an appropriate time is crucial, but the optimal timing remains controversial.
Research question: Does early vs late norepinephrine administration impact the prognosis of septic shock?
Study design and methods: Searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and KMbase databases. We included studies of adults with sepsis and categorized patients into an early and late norepinephrine group according to specific time points or differences in norepinephrine use protocols. The primary outcome was overall mortality. The secondary outcomes included length of stay in the ICU, days free from ventilator use, days free from renal replacement therapy, days free from vasopressor use, adverse events, and total fluid volume.
Results: Twelve studies (four randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and eight observational studies) comprising 7,281 patients were analyzed. For overall mortality, no significant difference was found between the early norepinephrine group and late norepinephrine group in RCTs (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.41-1.19) or observational studies (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.54-1.29). In the two RCTs without a restrictive fluid strategy that prioritized vasopressors and lower IV fluid volumes, the early norepinephrine group showed significantly lower mortality than the late norepinephrine group (OR, 0.49; 95%, CI, 0.25-0.96). The early norepinephrine group demonstrated more mechanical ventilator-free days in observational studies (mean difference, 4.06; 95% CI, 2.82-5.30). The incidence of pulmonary edema was lower in the early norepinephrine group in the three RCTs that reported this outcome (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.25-0.74). No differences were found in the other secondary outcomes.
Interpretation: Overall mortality did not differ significantly between early and late norepinephrine administration for septic shock. However, early norepinephrine administration seemed to reduce pulmonary edema incidence, and mortality improvement was observed in studies without fluid restriction interventions, favoring early norepinephrine use.
期刊介绍:
At CHEST, our mission is to revolutionize patient care through the collaboration of multidisciplinary clinicians in the fields of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. We achieve this by publishing cutting-edge clinical research that addresses current challenges and brings forth future advancements. To enhance understanding in a rapidly evolving field, CHEST also features review articles, commentaries, and facilitates discussions on emerging controversies. We place great emphasis on scientific rigor, employing a rigorous peer review process, and ensuring all accepted content is published online within two weeks.