Hyperglycemia Risk Evaluation of Hydrocortisone Intermittent Boluses versus Continuous Infusion in Septic Shock: A Prospective Randomized Trial.

Anesthesia, Essays and Researches Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Epub Date: 2022-12-09 DOI:10.4103/aer.aer_115_22
Ganesh Kumar Ram, Saurav Shekhar, Raj Bahadur Singh, Ravi Anand, Ranjeet Rana De, Nitin Kumar
{"title":"Hyperglycemia Risk Evaluation of Hydrocortisone Intermittent Boluses versus Continuous Infusion in Septic Shock: A Prospective Randomized Trial.","authors":"Ganesh Kumar Ram,&nbsp;Saurav Shekhar,&nbsp;Raj Bahadur Singh,&nbsp;Ravi Anand,&nbsp;Ranjeet Rana De,&nbsp;Nitin Kumar","doi":"10.4103/aer.aer_115_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hydrocortisone showed an important role in reversal of shock when added to standard therapy in managing septic shock. Hyperglycemia is one of the most common side effects associated with corticosteroid treatment.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the risk of hyperglycemia of intermittent hydrocortisone boluses versus continuous infusion in septic shock patients.</p><p><strong>Settings and design: </strong>This was a prospective randomized controlled study conducted in a tertiary care teaching hospital.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>One hundred and forty patients with septic shock and who received noradrenaline were enrolled in this randomized study. Group 1 was intermittent bolus hydrocortisone group (<i>n</i> = 70) and Group 2 was continuous infusion group (<i>n</i> = 70). All patients who were admitted with septic shock and who received noradrenaline and hydrocortisone were included in the study. Those patients who had exceeded 200 mg per day of hydrocortisone were excluded from the study. The primary outcome of the study was mean blood glucose.</p><p><strong>Statistical analysis used: </strong>Qualitative variables were compared between the two groups with the Chi-square of the Fisher's exact test and continuous variables were compared using the Student's <i>t</i>-test or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 112 patients, 54 patients received hydrocortisone as intermittent boluses (48.2%), and 58 patients (51.8%) received continuous infusion. For the primary outcome, no statistically or clinically significant difference was found in the blood glucose estimated marginal mean: 154.44 mg.dL<sup>-1</sup> (95% confidence interval [CI]: 144.18-166.88) in the bolus group and 160.2 mg.dL<sup>-1</sup> (95% CI: 143.82-176.76) in the infusion group with a mean difference of 05.76 mg.dL<sup>-1</sup> (95% CI: -13.86-25.38). For the secondary outcomes of the study, no difference was found between the two groups in hyperglycemic or hypoglycemic events, mortality, length of stay in intensive care unit, and reversal of shock.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The risk of hyperglycemia is almost equal in both intermittent and continuous infusions of hydrocortisone in septic shock patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":7798,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia, Essays and Researches","volume":"16 3","pages":"321-325"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9813985/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia, Essays and Researches","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/aer.aer_115_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Hydrocortisone showed an important role in reversal of shock when added to standard therapy in managing septic shock. Hyperglycemia is one of the most common side effects associated with corticosteroid treatment.

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the risk of hyperglycemia of intermittent hydrocortisone boluses versus continuous infusion in septic shock patients.

Settings and design: This was a prospective randomized controlled study conducted in a tertiary care teaching hospital.

Materials and methods: One hundred and forty patients with septic shock and who received noradrenaline were enrolled in this randomized study. Group 1 was intermittent bolus hydrocortisone group (n = 70) and Group 2 was continuous infusion group (n = 70). All patients who were admitted with septic shock and who received noradrenaline and hydrocortisone were included in the study. Those patients who had exceeded 200 mg per day of hydrocortisone were excluded from the study. The primary outcome of the study was mean blood glucose.

Statistical analysis used: Qualitative variables were compared between the two groups with the Chi-square of the Fisher's exact test and continuous variables were compared using the Student's t-test or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

Results: Out of 112 patients, 54 patients received hydrocortisone as intermittent boluses (48.2%), and 58 patients (51.8%) received continuous infusion. For the primary outcome, no statistically or clinically significant difference was found in the blood glucose estimated marginal mean: 154.44 mg.dL-1 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 144.18-166.88) in the bolus group and 160.2 mg.dL-1 (95% CI: 143.82-176.76) in the infusion group with a mean difference of 05.76 mg.dL-1 (95% CI: -13.86-25.38). For the secondary outcomes of the study, no difference was found between the two groups in hyperglycemic or hypoglycemic events, mortality, length of stay in intensive care unit, and reversal of shock.

Conclusions: The risk of hyperglycemia is almost equal in both intermittent and continuous infusions of hydrocortisone in septic shock patients.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
氢化可的松间歇注射与持续输注治疗败血症休克的高血糖风险评估:一项前瞻性随机试验。
背景:氢化可的松在治疗感染性休克的标准治疗中,在逆转休克方面发挥着重要作用。高血糖是皮质类固醇治疗最常见的副作用之一。目的:本研究旨在评估感染性休克患者间歇性注射氢化可的松与持续输注的高血糖风险。设置和设计:这是一项在三级护理教学医院进行的前瞻性随机对照研究。材料和方法:140名接受去甲肾上腺素治疗的感染性休克患者被纳入这项随机研究。第1组为间歇推注氢化可的松组(n=70),第2组为连续输注组(n=70%)。所有因感染性休克入院并接受去甲肾上腺素和氢化可的松治疗的患者均纳入研究。那些每天服用氢化可的松超过200毫克的患者被排除在研究之外。研究的主要结果是平均血糖。使用统计分析:使用Fisher精确检验的卡方比较两组之间的定性变量,使用Student t检验或Wilcoxon秩和检验比较连续变量。结果:在112名患者中,54名患者接受了氢化可的松的间歇性推注(48.2%),58名患者(51.8%)接受了持续输注。对于主要结果,血糖估计的边际平均值没有发现统计学或临床上的显著差异:推注组为154.44 mg.dL-1(95%置信区间[CI]:144.18-166.88),输注组为160.2 mg.dL-1(95%可信区间:143.82-176.76),平均差异为05.76 mg.dL-1.(95%可信范围:-13.86-25.38)。对于研究的次要结果,两组在高血糖或低血糖事件、死亡率、重症监护室住院时间和休克逆转方面没有差异。结论:感染性休克患者间歇性和连续输注氢化可的松的高血糖风险几乎相等。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A comparison of two prophylactic doses of ephedrine to attenuate the hemodynamic responses in adults receiving propofol in general anesthesia; a South Indian perspective Comparison of hemodynamic stability with continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring and intermittent oscillometric blood pressure monitoring in hospitalized patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis Thoracic epidural analgesia vs. intravenous analgesia in blunt thoracic trauma patients, managed conservatively with noninvasive ventilation (NIV): A prospective observational study Comparison of postoperative analgesic effects of gelfoam soaked with ropivacaine 0.5% and gelfoam soaked with dexamethasone 8 mg with placebo in single-level lumbar laminectomy A Randomised Control Study Comparing C-MAC D-Blade Video Laryngoscope (Hyper Angulated Blade) and Macintosh Laryngoscope for Insertion of a Double-Lumen Tube in Patients Undergoing Elective Thoracotomy.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1