双刃剑:关于类固醇在败血症和感染性休克中的叙事回顾。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Matteo Guarino, Francesco Luppi, Benedetta Perna, Martina Maritati, Carlo Contini, Michele Domenico Spampinato, Roberto De Giorgio
{"title":"双刃剑:关于类固醇在败血症和感染性休克中的叙事回顾。","authors":"Matteo Guarino, Francesco Luppi, Benedetta Perna, Martina Maritati, Carlo Contini, Michele Domenico Spampinato, Roberto De Giorgio","doi":"10.1007/s11739-025-04008-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sepsis and septic shock are life-threatening conditions characterized by a dysregulated host response to infection. Although corticosteroids, particularly hydrocortisone, promote positive effects on hemodynamic stability in septic shock, the efficacy of these drugs remains controversial. In this narrative review, we aimed at appraising the actual role of corticosteroids focusing specifically on septic shock. We conducted a comprehensive search of the recent literature, including randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and current clinical guidelines, to evaluate the role of corticosteroids in the management of septic shock. Studies were evaluated to determine the impact on mortality, hemodynamics, and other clinical outcomes. The studies showed variability in dosing and time of administration as well as patient selection, which highlighted the lack of a standardized treatment approach. While corticosteroids improved short-term hemodynamic outcomes and reduced vasopressor requirement, their effect on long-term survival was minimal. These results led current guidelines to a weak recommendation for hydrocortisone use in septic shock patients with persistent hypotension despite adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. Corticosteroids, e.g. hydrocortisone, can be beneficial in managing septic shock, but their role remains uncertain. Further research is needed to refine treatment protocols and determine the optimal patient selection for corticosteroid therapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A double-edged sword: a narrative review on steroids in sepsis and septic shock.\",\"authors\":\"Matteo Guarino, Francesco Luppi, Benedetta Perna, Martina Maritati, Carlo Contini, Michele Domenico Spampinato, Roberto De Giorgio\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11739-025-04008-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Sepsis and septic shock are life-threatening conditions characterized by a dysregulated host response to infection. Although corticosteroids, particularly hydrocortisone, promote positive effects on hemodynamic stability in septic shock, the efficacy of these drugs remains controversial. In this narrative review, we aimed at appraising the actual role of corticosteroids focusing specifically on septic shock. We conducted a comprehensive search of the recent literature, including randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and current clinical guidelines, to evaluate the role of corticosteroids in the management of septic shock. Studies were evaluated to determine the impact on mortality, hemodynamics, and other clinical outcomes. The studies showed variability in dosing and time of administration as well as patient selection, which highlighted the lack of a standardized treatment approach. While corticosteroids improved short-term hemodynamic outcomes and reduced vasopressor requirement, their effect on long-term survival was minimal. These results led current guidelines to a weak recommendation for hydrocortisone use in septic shock patients with persistent hypotension despite adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. Corticosteroids, e.g. hydrocortisone, can be beneficial in managing septic shock, but their role remains uncertain. Further research is needed to refine treatment protocols and determine the optimal patient selection for corticosteroid therapy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Internal and Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Internal and Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-025-04008-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-025-04008-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

脓毒症和脓毒性休克是危及生命的疾病,其特征是宿主对感染的反应失调。尽管皮质类固醇,特别是氢化可的松,对脓毒性休克的血流动力学稳定性有积极作用,但这些药物的疗效仍存在争议。在这篇叙述性综述中,我们的目的是评估皮质类固醇在感染性休克中的实际作用。我们对最近的文献进行了全面的检索,包括随机对照试验、荟萃分析和当前的临床指南,以评估皮质类固醇在脓毒性休克治疗中的作用。评估研究以确定对死亡率、血流动力学和其他临床结果的影响。这些研究显示了剂量和给药时间以及患者选择的可变性,这突出了缺乏标准化的治疗方法。虽然皮质类固醇改善了短期血流动力学结果并降低了血管加压素的需求,但它们对长期生存的影响很小。这些结果导致目前的指南不推荐氢化可的松用于化脓性休克患者,尽管进行了充分的液体复苏和血管加压治疗,但仍存在持续低血压。皮质类固醇,如氢化可的松,可有利于治疗感染性休克,但其作用仍不确定。需要进一步的研究来完善治疗方案,并确定皮质类固醇治疗的最佳患者选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A double-edged sword: a narrative review on steroids in sepsis and septic shock.

Sepsis and septic shock are life-threatening conditions characterized by a dysregulated host response to infection. Although corticosteroids, particularly hydrocortisone, promote positive effects on hemodynamic stability in septic shock, the efficacy of these drugs remains controversial. In this narrative review, we aimed at appraising the actual role of corticosteroids focusing specifically on septic shock. We conducted a comprehensive search of the recent literature, including randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and current clinical guidelines, to evaluate the role of corticosteroids in the management of septic shock. Studies were evaluated to determine the impact on mortality, hemodynamics, and other clinical outcomes. The studies showed variability in dosing and time of administration as well as patient selection, which highlighted the lack of a standardized treatment approach. While corticosteroids improved short-term hemodynamic outcomes and reduced vasopressor requirement, their effect on long-term survival was minimal. These results led current guidelines to a weak recommendation for hydrocortisone use in septic shock patients with persistent hypotension despite adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. Corticosteroids, e.g. hydrocortisone, can be beneficial in managing septic shock, but their role remains uncertain. Further research is needed to refine treatment protocols and determine the optimal patient selection for corticosteroid therapy.

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
Internal and Emergency Medicine
Internal and Emergency Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
258
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.
×
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