OUTCOMES OF PEDIATRIC FLUID-REFRACTORY SEPTIC SHOCK ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT VASOACTIVE STRATEGIES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE SHOCK Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-08 DOI:10.1097/SHK.0000000000002427
Luca Marchetto, Lorenzo Zanetto, Rosanna I Comoretto, Davide Padrin, Kusum Menon, Angela Amigoni, Marco Daverio
{"title":"OUTCOMES OF PEDIATRIC FLUID-REFRACTORY SEPTIC SHOCK ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT VASOACTIVE STRATEGIES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.","authors":"Luca Marchetto, Lorenzo Zanetto, Rosanna I Comoretto, Davide Padrin, Kusum Menon, Angela Amigoni, Marco Daverio","doi":"10.1097/SHK.0000000000002427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Background: Hemodynamic support using vasoactive agents is a mainstay in the management of patients with pediatric fluid-refractory septic shock (FRSS). However, evidence supporting the appropriate choice of vasoactive agent is limited. This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of different first-line vasoactive strategies on mortality in pediatric FRSS. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov , and the ISRCTN registry were searched up until December 2023. Randomized controlled trials and observational cohort studies reporting vasoactive agent-specific outcomes of children with FRSS were included. Mortality was assessed as primary outcome in studies on patients receiving dopamine, epinephrine, or norepinephrine as first-line. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Prevalence ratio (PR) estimates were calculated between two drugs when was available in the same study. Findings: Of the 26,284 identified articles, 13 were included, for a total of 997 children. Twelve studies included 748 patients receiving a single vasoactive agent. Of these, 361 received dopamine, 271 epinephrine, and 116 norepinephrine. Overall pooled mortality for patients receiving a single vasoactive was 12% (95% CI 6%-21%) of which 11% (95% CI 3%-36%) for patients receiving dopamine, 17% (95% CI 6%-37%) for epinephrine, and 7% (95% CI 1%-48%) for norepinephrine. Four first-line dopamine (176 patients) and first-line epinephrine (142 patients): dopamine showed a tendency toward higher mortality (PR 1.38, 95% CI 0.81-2.38) and a significant higher need for mechanical ventilation (PR 1.12, 95% CI 1.02-1.22). Interpretation: Among children with FRSS receiving a single vasoactive agent, norepinephrine was associated with the lowest mortality rate. Comparing dopamine and epinephrine, patients receiving epinephrine needed less mechanical ventilation and showed a trend for lower mortality rate. Further research is needed to better delineate the first-line vasoactive agent in this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":21667,"journal":{"name":"SHOCK","volume":" ","pages":"599-611"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SHOCK","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SHK.0000000000002427","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Hemodynamic support using vasoactive agents is a mainstay in the management of patients with pediatric fluid-refractory septic shock (FRSS). However, evidence supporting the appropriate choice of vasoactive agent is limited. This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of different first-line vasoactive strategies on mortality in pediatric FRSS. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov , and the ISRCTN registry were searched up until December 2023. Randomized controlled trials and observational cohort studies reporting vasoactive agent-specific outcomes of children with FRSS were included. Mortality was assessed as primary outcome in studies on patients receiving dopamine, epinephrine, or norepinephrine as first-line. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Prevalence ratio (PR) estimates were calculated between two drugs when was available in the same study. Findings: Of the 26,284 identified articles, 13 were included, for a total of 997 children. Twelve studies included 748 patients receiving a single vasoactive agent. Of these, 361 received dopamine, 271 epinephrine, and 116 norepinephrine. Overall pooled mortality for patients receiving a single vasoactive was 12% (95% CI 6%-21%) of which 11% (95% CI 3%-36%) for patients receiving dopamine, 17% (95% CI 6%-37%) for epinephrine, and 7% (95% CI 1%-48%) for norepinephrine. Four first-line dopamine (176 patients) and first-line epinephrine (142 patients): dopamine showed a tendency toward higher mortality (PR 1.38, 95% CI 0.81-2.38) and a significant higher need for mechanical ventilation (PR 1.12, 95% CI 1.02-1.22). Interpretation: Among children with FRSS receiving a single vasoactive agent, norepinephrine was associated with the lowest mortality rate. Comparing dopamine and epinephrine, patients receiving epinephrine needed less mechanical ventilation and showed a trend for lower mortality rate. Further research is needed to better delineate the first-line vasoactive agent in this population.

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
不同血管活性策略对小儿液体难治性脓毒性休克的疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:使用血管活性药物进行血流动力学支持是治疗小儿难治性败血症休克(FRSS)患者的主要方法。然而,支持适当选择血管活性药物的证据却很有限。本研究旨在对不同一线血管活性策略对小儿难治性败血症休克死亡率的影响进行系统回顾和荟萃分析:方法:检索了截至 2023 年 12 月的 MEDLINE、EMBASE、Scopus、CINAHL、Web of Science、Cochrane Library、ClinicalTrials.gov 和 ISRCTN 注册表。研究纳入了报告 FRSS 儿童血管活性剂特异性结果的随机对照试验和观察性队列研究。在关于一线接受多巴胺、肾上腺素或去甲肾上腺素治疗的患者的研究中,死亡率是主要评估结果。进行了随机效应荟萃分析。如果同一研究中存在两种药物,则计算两种药物之间的患病率比值(PR):在26,284篇已确定的文章中,有13篇被纳入,共计997名儿童。12 项研究纳入了 748 名接受单一血管活性药物治疗的患者。其中,361 人接受了多巴胺治疗,271 人接受了肾上腺素治疗,116 人接受了去甲肾上腺素治疗。接受单一血管活性药物治疗的患者总死亡率为 12% (95% CI 6-21%),其中接受多巴胺治疗的患者死亡率为 11% (95% CI 3-36%),接受肾上腺素治疗的患者死亡率为 17% (95% CI 6-37%),接受去甲肾上腺素治疗的患者死亡率为 7% (95% CI 1-48%)。在接受单一血管活性药物治疗的 FRSS 患儿中,去甲肾上腺素的死亡率最低。对比多巴胺和肾上腺素,接受肾上腺素治疗的患者所需的 MV 更少,死亡率也呈下降趋势。需要进一步研究,以更好地确定此类人群的一线血管活性药物。
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
SHOCK
SHOCK 医学-外科
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
3.20%
发文量
199
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: SHOCK®: Injury, Inflammation, and Sepsis: Laboratory and Clinical Approaches includes studies of novel therapeutic approaches, such as immunomodulation, gene therapy, nutrition, and others. The mission of the Journal is to foster and promote multidisciplinary studies, both experimental and clinical in nature, that critically examine the etiology, mechanisms and novel therapeutics of shock-related pathophysiological conditions. Its purpose is to excel as a vehicle for timely publication in the areas of basic and clinical studies of shock, trauma, sepsis, inflammation, ischemia, and related pathobiological states, with particular emphasis on the biologic mechanisms that determine the response to such injury. Making such information available will ultimately facilitate improved care of the traumatized or septic individual.
期刊最新文献
Respiratory variation of velocity time integral and peak velocity of left ventricular outflow tract for predicting hypotension after induction of general anesthesia in elderly patients. Circ_0068655 silencing ameliorates hypoxia-induced human cardiomyocyte injury by regulating apoptotic and inflammatory responses. Inhibiting SIRT2 Attenuates Sepsis-Induced Acute Kidney Injury via FOXO1 Acetylation-Mediated Autophagy Activation. Understanding Hemodynamic Incoherence: Mechanisms, Phenotypes, and Implications for Treatment. Fibrinogen-Like Protein 2 Protects the Aggravation of Hypertriglyceridemia on the Severity of Hypertriglyceridemia Acute Pancreatitis by Regulating Macrophages.
×
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