Blood Pressure Targets for Adults with Vasodilatory Shock - An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.

NEJM evidence Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-18 DOI:10.1056/EVIDoa2400359
Federico Angriman, Neda Momenzade, Neill K J Adhikari, Paul R Mouncey, Pierre Asfar, Christopher J Yarnell, Sean Wei Xiang Ong, Ruxandra Pinto, James C Doidge, Manu Shankar-Hari, Michael O Harhay, Marie-Hélène Masse, David A Harrison, Kathryn M Rowan, Fan Li, Francis Carter, Felix Camirand-Lemyre, François Lamontagne
{"title":"Blood Pressure Targets for Adults with Vasodilatory Shock - An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Federico Angriman, Neda Momenzade, Neill K J Adhikari, Paul R Mouncey, Pierre Asfar, Christopher J Yarnell, Sean Wei Xiang Ong, Ruxandra Pinto, James C Doidge, Manu Shankar-Hari, Michael O Harhay, Marie-Hélène Masse, David A Harrison, Kathryn M Rowan, Fan Li, Francis Carter, Felix Camirand-Lemyre, François Lamontagne","doi":"10.1056/EVIDoa2400359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We sought to estimate whether a lower mean arterial blood pressure target, compared with a higher mean arterial blood pressure target, reduced 90-day all-cause mortality among critically ill adult patients with vasodilatory shock.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of distinct thresholds of mean arterial blood pressure to guide vasopressor support among critically ill adults identified in a systematic literature search. The main exposure was a lower mean arterial pressure target compared with a higher mean arterial pressure target (including usual care). The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. We used a Bayesian random effects log-binomial model to estimate risk ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between 2010 and 2019, 3352 patients were randomly assigned in three trials (SEPSISPAM, OVATION pilot trial, and 65-Trial) across 103 hospitals from the United Kingdom, France, and Canada. When compared with a higher mean arterial blood pressure target or usual care, the risk ratio for 90-day all-cause mortality associated with a lower blood pressure target was 0.93 (95% CrI, 0.76 to 1.07; low certainty, posterior probability of benefit 87%). Results were consistent across multiple secondary and sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for prognostically important baseline covariates and alternative modeling techniques. Multiple approaches to evaluate the heterogeneity of treatment effect did not identify any subgroups that may potentially benefit from higher mean arterial blood pressure targets.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Targeting a lower mean arterial blood pressure for vasopressor therapy in critically ill patients with vasodilatory shock possibly reduced 90-day all-cause mortality. However, the certainty of evidence is low, and this analysis does not exclude the possibility that lower targets may cause harm overall.</p>","PeriodicalId":74256,"journal":{"name":"NEJM evidence","volume":" ","pages":"EVIDoa2400359"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NEJM evidence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1056/EVIDoa2400359","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: We sought to estimate whether a lower mean arterial blood pressure target, compared with a higher mean arterial blood pressure target, reduced 90-day all-cause mortality among critically ill adult patients with vasodilatory shock.

Methods: We conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of distinct thresholds of mean arterial blood pressure to guide vasopressor support among critically ill adults identified in a systematic literature search. The main exposure was a lower mean arterial pressure target compared with a higher mean arterial pressure target (including usual care). The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. We used a Bayesian random effects log-binomial model to estimate risk ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrIs).

Results: Between 2010 and 2019, 3352 patients were randomly assigned in three trials (SEPSISPAM, OVATION pilot trial, and 65-Trial) across 103 hospitals from the United Kingdom, France, and Canada. When compared with a higher mean arterial blood pressure target or usual care, the risk ratio for 90-day all-cause mortality associated with a lower blood pressure target was 0.93 (95% CrI, 0.76 to 1.07; low certainty, posterior probability of benefit 87%). Results were consistent across multiple secondary and sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for prognostically important baseline covariates and alternative modeling techniques. Multiple approaches to evaluate the heterogeneity of treatment effect did not identify any subgroups that may potentially benefit from higher mean arterial blood pressure targets.

Conclusions: Targeting a lower mean arterial blood pressure for vasopressor therapy in critically ill patients with vasodilatory shock possibly reduced 90-day all-cause mortality. However, the certainty of evidence is low, and this analysis does not exclude the possibility that lower targets may cause harm overall.

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
成人血管舒张性休克患者的血压目标 - 单个患者数据的 Meta 分析。
背景:我们试图估算与较高的平均动脉血压目标值相比,较低的平均动脉血压目标值是否能降低血管舒张性休克成人重症患者的 90 天全因死亡率:我们对随机对照试验的单个患者数据进行了荟萃分析,这些试验评估了不同的平均动脉血压阈值在指导成人重症患者血管加压支持方面的效果。与较高的平均动脉压目标值(包括常规护理)相比,主要暴露于较低的平均动脉压目标值。主要结果是 90 天全因死亡率。我们采用贝叶斯随机效应对数二叉模型来估计风险比和 95% 可信区间 (CrIs):2010年至2019年期间,英国、法国和加拿大的103家医院在三项试验(SEPSISPAM、OVATION试验和65试验)中随机分配了3352名患者。与较高的平均动脉血压目标值或常规护理相比,与较低的血压目标值相关的 90 天全因死亡率风险比为 0.93(95% CrI,0.76 至 1.07;低确定性,获益的后验概率为 87%)。多项二次分析和敏感性分析的结果一致,包括调整预后重要的基线协变量和替代建模技术。评估治疗效果异质性的多种方法均未发现可能从较高平均动脉血压目标中获益的亚组:结论:对血管舒张性休克的重症患者进行血管加压治疗时,以较低的平均动脉血压为目标可能会降低 90 天的全因死亡率。然而,证据的确定性较低,本分析并不排除较低的目标值可能会对整体造成伤害。
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
Blood Pressure Targets for Adults with Vasodilatory Shock - An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis. BNC210, an α7 Nicotinic Receptor Modulator, in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. A Meta-Analysis of Levofloxacin for Contacts of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis. Treating Patients, Not P Values. A 50-Year-Old Man with Left-Sided Weakness and Difficulty Speaking Clearly.
×
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