去甲肾上腺素缺乏对感染性休克患者预后的影响。

Research & reviews. Journal of hospital and clinical pharmacy Pub Date : 2016-05-01 Epub Date: 2016-05-12
Jean M Nappi, Adam Sieg, Tanna B Hassig, Amy E Wahlquist
{"title":"去甲肾上腺素缺乏对感染性休克患者预后的影响。","authors":"Jean M Nappi,&nbsp;Adam Sieg,&nbsp;Tanna B Hassig,&nbsp;Amy E Wahlquist","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>With the previous norepinephrine shortage, alternative agents were required to treat patients with septic shock. This retrospective study evaluated whether the shortage of norepinephrine had an adverse effect on patients admitted to the intensive care unit with a diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective chart review, which compared patients who received norepinephrine versus those who did not. Eligible patients were those ≥ 18 years old who were admitted to an intensive care unit with a diagnosis of sepsis and were initiated on a vasopressor to maintain hemodynamic stability. The specific primary endpoint was whether using norepinephrine versus other vasopressors had an effect on ICU length of stay. Secondary outcomes included mortality, blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, development of renal insufficiency, and vasopressor requirements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 288 patients screened and 214 patients who met the inclusion criteria (norepinephrine group=106 and nonnorepinephrine group=108). After accounting for potential differences in disease severity (APACHE II score), age, weight and gender, there was no difference in ICU length of stay (p=0.4); however, the odds of survival were 5.9 (95% CI: 3.1 to 11.1) times higher for those in the non-norepinephrine group (p<0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on this retrospective analysis, patients that did not receive norepinephrine had a similar ICU LOS but had a higher rate of survival. The norepinephrine shortage did not have an adverse effect on patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":92132,"journal":{"name":"Research & reviews. Journal of hospital and clinical pharmacy","volume":"2 2","pages":"87-91"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5553972/pdf/nihms882306.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of Norepinephrine Shortage on Outcomes in Patients with Septic Shock.\",\"authors\":\"Jean M Nappi,&nbsp;Adam Sieg,&nbsp;Tanna B Hassig,&nbsp;Amy E Wahlquist\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>With the previous norepinephrine shortage, alternative agents were required to treat patients with septic shock. This retrospective study evaluated whether the shortage of norepinephrine had an adverse effect on patients admitted to the intensive care unit with a diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective chart review, which compared patients who received norepinephrine versus those who did not. Eligible patients were those ≥ 18 years old who were admitted to an intensive care unit with a diagnosis of sepsis and were initiated on a vasopressor to maintain hemodynamic stability. The specific primary endpoint was whether using norepinephrine versus other vasopressors had an effect on ICU length of stay. Secondary outcomes included mortality, blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, development of renal insufficiency, and vasopressor requirements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 288 patients screened and 214 patients who met the inclusion criteria (norepinephrine group=106 and nonnorepinephrine group=108). After accounting for potential differences in disease severity (APACHE II score), age, weight and gender, there was no difference in ICU length of stay (p=0.4); however, the odds of survival were 5.9 (95% CI: 3.1 to 11.1) times higher for those in the non-norepinephrine group (p<0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on this retrospective analysis, patients that did not receive norepinephrine had a similar ICU LOS but had a higher rate of survival. The norepinephrine shortage did not have an adverse effect on patient outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":92132,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research & reviews. Journal of hospital and clinical pharmacy\",\"volume\":\"2 2\",\"pages\":\"87-91\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5553972/pdf/nihms882306.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research & reviews. Journal of hospital and clinical pharmacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2016/5/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research & reviews. Journal of hospital and clinical pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/5/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:由于以往去甲肾上腺素短缺,需要替代药物治疗脓毒性休克患者。本回顾性研究评估了去甲肾上腺素的短缺是否对诊断为严重败血症或感染性休克的重症监护病房患者有不良影响。方法:这是一项回顾性的图表回顾,比较了接受去甲肾上腺素治疗和未接受去甲肾上腺素治疗的患者。符合条件的患者是那些年龄≥18岁,诊断为败血症并入住重症监护病房并开始使用血管加压药以维持血流动力学稳定性的患者。具体的主要终点是使用去甲肾上腺素与其他血管加压药物是否对ICU住院时间有影响。次要结局包括死亡率、血压、平均动脉压、肾功能不全的发展和血管加压药物的需求。结果:共筛查患者288例,符合纳入标准的患者214例(去甲肾上腺素组106例,非去甲肾上腺素组108例)。在考虑疾病严重程度(APACHE II评分)、年龄、体重和性别的潜在差异后,ICU住院时间无差异(p=0.4);然而,非去甲肾上腺素组的生存几率是前者的5.9倍(95% CI: 3.1 - 11.1)。结论:基于本回顾性分析,未接受去甲肾上腺素治疗的患者有相似的ICU LOS,但生存率更高。去甲肾上腺素短缺对患者的预后没有不良影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of Norepinephrine Shortage on Outcomes in Patients with Septic Shock.

Purpose: With the previous norepinephrine shortage, alternative agents were required to treat patients with septic shock. This retrospective study evaluated whether the shortage of norepinephrine had an adverse effect on patients admitted to the intensive care unit with a diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock.

Methods: This was a retrospective chart review, which compared patients who received norepinephrine versus those who did not. Eligible patients were those ≥ 18 years old who were admitted to an intensive care unit with a diagnosis of sepsis and were initiated on a vasopressor to maintain hemodynamic stability. The specific primary endpoint was whether using norepinephrine versus other vasopressors had an effect on ICU length of stay. Secondary outcomes included mortality, blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, development of renal insufficiency, and vasopressor requirements.

Results: There were 288 patients screened and 214 patients who met the inclusion criteria (norepinephrine group=106 and nonnorepinephrine group=108). After accounting for potential differences in disease severity (APACHE II score), age, weight and gender, there was no difference in ICU length of stay (p=0.4); however, the odds of survival were 5.9 (95% CI: 3.1 to 11.1) times higher for those in the non-norepinephrine group (p<0.0001).

Conclusion: Based on this retrospective analysis, patients that did not receive norepinephrine had a similar ICU LOS but had a higher rate of survival. The norepinephrine shortage did not have an adverse effect on patient outcomes.

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