The effect of hydrocortisone versus hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone on duration of shock: A propensity score-weighted analysis.

Kayla E John, Megan M Kirkpatrick, Priyanka H Aytoda, Jessica L Elefritz, Marilly Palettas, Brittany N Rosales, Claire V Murphy, Bruce A Doepker
{"title":"The effect of hydrocortisone versus hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone on duration of shock: A propensity score-weighted analysis.","authors":"Kayla E John, Megan M Kirkpatrick, Priyanka H Aytoda, Jessica L Elefritz, Marilly Palettas, Brittany N Rosales, Claire V Murphy, Bruce A Doepker","doi":"10.4103/ijciis.ijciis_66_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines recommend the use of hydrocortisone in patients who remain hemodynamically unstable despite adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. Fludrocortisone has been used concomitantly with hydrocortisone in some studies without a clearly defined role or known clinical benefit. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of fludrocortisone added to hydrocortisone on shock-free days for septic shock.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-center, retrospective propensity score-weighted study was conducted to compare hydrocortisone versus hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone for septic shock. Adults admitted to the medical intensive care unit (ICU) from 2015 to 2020 were included in the study. All patients received ≥200 mg/day hydrocortisone for at least 24 h ± fludrocortisone initiated within 72 h of vasopressors. The primary outcome was shock-free days by day 14. The secondary outcomes included duration of shock, change in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, hospital and ICU length of stay, and all-cause inhospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 228 patients met inclusion criteria with 212 patients retained after propensity score weighting. There was no difference between groups in 14-day shock-free days (6.3 vs. 6.1 days; <i>P</i> = 0.781). Furthermore, no significant differences were observed for the secondary outcomes of ICU/hospital length of stay, duration of shock, change in SOFA score, and all-cause inhospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The addition of fludrocortisone to hydrocortisone in septic shock did not increase shock-free days by day 14. These results suggest that the use of hydrocortisone alone may be an adequate adjunctive therapy in septic shock. A prospective randomized controlled trial is needed to confirm results.</p>","PeriodicalId":13938,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science","volume":"14 2","pages":"79-85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11245135/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijciis.ijciis_66_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines recommend the use of hydrocortisone in patients who remain hemodynamically unstable despite adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. Fludrocortisone has been used concomitantly with hydrocortisone in some studies without a clearly defined role or known clinical benefit. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of fludrocortisone added to hydrocortisone on shock-free days for septic shock.

Methods: A single-center, retrospective propensity score-weighted study was conducted to compare hydrocortisone versus hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone for septic shock. Adults admitted to the medical intensive care unit (ICU) from 2015 to 2020 were included in the study. All patients received ≥200 mg/day hydrocortisone for at least 24 h ± fludrocortisone initiated within 72 h of vasopressors. The primary outcome was shock-free days by day 14. The secondary outcomes included duration of shock, change in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, hospital and ICU length of stay, and all-cause inhospital mortality.

Results: A total of 228 patients met inclusion criteria with 212 patients retained after propensity score weighting. There was no difference between groups in 14-day shock-free days (6.3 vs. 6.1 days; P = 0.781). Furthermore, no significant differences were observed for the secondary outcomes of ICU/hospital length of stay, duration of shock, change in SOFA score, and all-cause inhospital mortality.

Conclusion: The addition of fludrocortisone to hydrocortisone in septic shock did not increase shock-free days by day 14. These results suggest that the use of hydrocortisone alone may be an adequate adjunctive therapy in septic shock. A prospective randomized controlled trial is needed to confirm results.

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
氢化可的松与氢化可的松加氟氢可的松对休克持续时间的影响:倾向得分加权分析。
背景:2021 年《败血症生存运动指南》建议,在进行充分液体复苏和血管加压疗法后血流动力学仍不稳定的患者中使用氢化可的松。在一些研究中,氟氢可的松与氢化可的松同时使用,但没有明确的作用或已知的临床益处。本研究旨在评估氟氢可的松与氢化可的松并用对脓毒性休克无休克天数的影响:方法:我们进行了一项单中心、回顾性倾向得分加权研究,以比较氢化可的松与氢化可的松加氟多可的松治疗脓毒性休克的效果。研究纳入了2015年至2020年入住内科重症监护室(ICU)的成人患者。所有患者均在使用血管加压药后 72 小时内开始接受氢化可的松治疗(氟氢可的松),每天至少 24 小时,剂量≥200 毫克。主要结果是第 14 天前无休克天数。次要结果包括休克持续时间、序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分变化、住院时间和重症监护室住院时间以及全因住院死亡率:共有 228 名患者符合纳入标准,其中 212 名患者经过倾向评分加权后被保留下来。各组 14 天无休克天数无差异(6.3 天 vs. 6.1 天;P = 0.781)。此外,在ICU/住院时间、休克持续时间、SOFA评分变化和全因住院死亡率等次要结果方面也未观察到明显差异:结论:脓毒性休克患者在氢化可的松基础上加用氟氢可的松并不能增加第 14 天的无休克天数。这些结果表明,单独使用氢化可的松可能是治疗脓毒性休克的适当辅助疗法。需要进行前瞻性随机对照试验来确认结果。
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
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: IJCIIS encourages research, education and dissemination of knowledge in the field of Critical Illness and Injury Science across the world thus promoting translational research by striking a synergy between basic science, clinical medicine and public health. The Journal intends to bring together scientists and academicians in the emergency intensive care and promote translational synergy between Laboratory Science, Clinical Medicine and Public Health. The Journal invites Original Articles, Clinical Investigations, Epidemiological Analysis, Data Protocols, Case Reports, Clinical Photographs, review articles and special commentaries. Students, Residents, Academicians, Public Health experts and scientists are all encouraged to be a part of this initiative by contributing, reviewing and promoting scientific works and science.
期刊最新文献
Effect of temperature and duration of cardiopulmonary bypass on cerebral saturation. Prospective observational study to measure the incidence of chest pain and its association with perioperative factors among parturients undergoing lower segment cesarean section with subarachnoid blocks. Response to: "Before attributing basilar artery aneurysm and pericardial tamponade to leptospirosis, alternative causes must be ruled out". Assessment of quality of life in follow-up patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: A prospective, observational study from a tertiary care center. Association of obesity and mortality in patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: A retrospective cohort study.
×
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