Emanuele Valeriani, Antonio Falletta, Daniele Pastori, Angelo Porfidia, Claudio Maria Mastroianni, Silvia Di Bari, Eleonora Motta, Pasquale Pignatelli, Alessandra Oliva
{"title":"Midregional-proAdrenomedullin as a prognostic tool in sepsis and septic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Emanuele Valeriani, Antonio Falletta, Daniele Pastori, Angelo Porfidia, Claudio Maria Mastroianni, Silvia Di Bari, Eleonora Motta, Pasquale Pignatelli, Alessandra Oliva","doi":"10.1111/eci.14225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Midregional-proAdrenomedullin (MR-proADM) has been recently proposed as a tool in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Our aim was to evaluate the prognostic role of MR-proADM in hospitalized patients with sepsis and septic shock.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>PRISMA guideline was followed. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to June 2023. Primary outcome was mean difference in MR-proADM among survivors and nonsurvivors, secondary outcome mean difference in MR-proADM according to infection severity and type. Risk of bias was evaluated using Newcastle–Ottawa scale for observational studies and Cochrane tool for randomized trials. Pooled mean differences (MD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in a random-effects model.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Twenty-four studies included 6730 adult patients (1208 nonsurvivors and 5522 survivors) and three studies included 195 paediatric patients (30 nonsurvivors and 165 survivors). A total of 10, 4 and 13 studies included, respectively, patients with sepsis (3602 patients), septic shock (386 patients) and a mixed population (2937 patients). Twenty-one studies included patients with different source of infection, three with pneumonia and one with a catheter-related infection. Most studies (<i>n</i> = 12) had a follow-up of 28 days. In adult cohort, pooled mean difference between nonsurvivors and survivors of MR-proADM was 2.55 mmol/L (95% CI: 1.95–3.15) with higher values in patients with septic shock (4.25 mmol/L; 95% CI, 2.23–6.26 mmol/L) than in patients with sepsis (1.77 mmol/L; 95% CI: 1.11–2.44 mmol/L). In paediatric cohort, pooled mean difference was 3.11 mmol/L (95% CI: −0.02-6.24 mmol/L).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Higher values of MR-proADM are detectable in nonsurvivors adult and paediatric-hospitalized patients with sepsis or septic shock.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12013,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Investigation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.14225","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Clinical Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.14225","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
Abstract
Background
Midregional-proAdrenomedullin (MR-proADM) has been recently proposed as a tool in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Our aim was to evaluate the prognostic role of MR-proADM in hospitalized patients with sepsis and septic shock.
Methods
PRISMA guideline was followed. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to June 2023. Primary outcome was mean difference in MR-proADM among survivors and nonsurvivors, secondary outcome mean difference in MR-proADM according to infection severity and type. Risk of bias was evaluated using Newcastle–Ottawa scale for observational studies and Cochrane tool for randomized trials. Pooled mean differences (MD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in a random-effects model.
Results
Twenty-four studies included 6730 adult patients (1208 nonsurvivors and 5522 survivors) and three studies included 195 paediatric patients (30 nonsurvivors and 165 survivors). A total of 10, 4 and 13 studies included, respectively, patients with sepsis (3602 patients), septic shock (386 patients) and a mixed population (2937 patients). Twenty-one studies included patients with different source of infection, three with pneumonia and one with a catheter-related infection. Most studies (n = 12) had a follow-up of 28 days. In adult cohort, pooled mean difference between nonsurvivors and survivors of MR-proADM was 2.55 mmol/L (95% CI: 1.95–3.15) with higher values in patients with septic shock (4.25 mmol/L; 95% CI, 2.23–6.26 mmol/L) than in patients with sepsis (1.77 mmol/L; 95% CI: 1.11–2.44 mmol/L). In paediatric cohort, pooled mean difference was 3.11 mmol/L (95% CI: −0.02-6.24 mmol/L).
Conclusions
Higher values of MR-proADM are detectable in nonsurvivors adult and paediatric-hospitalized patients with sepsis or septic shock.
期刊介绍:
EJCI considers any original contribution from the most sophisticated basic molecular sciences to applied clinical and translational research and evidence-based medicine across a broad range of subspecialties. The EJCI publishes reports of high-quality research that pertain to the genetic, molecular, cellular, or physiological basis of human biology and disease, as well as research that addresses prevalence, diagnosis, course, treatment, and prevention of disease. We are primarily interested in studies directly pertinent to humans, but submission of robust in vitro and animal work is also encouraged. Interdisciplinary work and research using innovative methods and combinations of laboratory, clinical, and epidemiological methodologies and techniques is of great interest to the journal. Several categories of manuscripts (for detailed description see below) are considered: editorials, original articles (also including randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses), reviews (narrative reviews), opinion articles (including debates, perspectives and commentaries); and letters to the Editor.