作为脓毒症和脓毒性休克预后工具的中区域肾上腺髓质素:系统综述和荟萃分析

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL European Journal of Clinical Investigation Pub Date : 2024-04-17 DOI:10.1111/eci.14225
Emanuele Valeriani, Antonio Falletta, Daniele Pastori, Angelo Porfidia, Claudio Maria Mastroianni, Silvia Di Bari, Eleonora Motta, Pasquale Pignatelli, Alessandra Oliva
{"title":"作为脓毒症和脓毒性休克预后工具的中区域肾上腺髓质素:系统综述和荟萃分析","authors":"Emanuele Valeriani,&nbsp;Antonio Falletta,&nbsp;Daniele Pastori,&nbsp;Angelo Porfidia,&nbsp;Claudio Maria Mastroianni,&nbsp;Silvia Di Bari,&nbsp;Eleonora Motta,&nbsp;Pasquale Pignatelli,&nbsp;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":"{\"title\":\"Midregional-proAdrenomedullin as a prognostic tool in sepsis and septic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Emanuele Valeriani,&nbsp;Antonio Falletta,&nbsp;Daniele Pastori,&nbsp;Angelo Porfidia,&nbsp;Claudio Maria Mastroianni,&nbsp;Silvia Di Bari,&nbsp;Eleonora Motta,&nbsp;Pasquale Pignatelli,&nbsp;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}","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

摘要

背景最近,有人提出将中区域肾上腺髓质原蛋白(MR-proADM)作为脓毒症和脓毒性休克患者的一种工具。我们的目的是评估 MR-proADM 在脓毒症和脓毒性休克住院患者中的预后作用。检索了截至 2023 年 6 月的 MEDLINE 和 EMBASE。主要结果为存活者和非存活者之间 MR-proADM 的平均差异,次要结果为感染严重程度和类型导致的 MR-proADM 平均差异。采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估观察性研究的偏倚风险,采用科克伦工具评估随机试验的偏倚风险。结果24项研究纳入了6730名成人患者(1208名非幸存者和5522名幸存者),3项研究纳入了195名儿科患者(30名非幸存者和165名幸存者)。共有 10 项、4 项和 13 项研究分别纳入了败血症患者(3602 名)、脓毒性休克患者(386 名)和混合人群(2937 名)。21 项研究纳入了不同感染源的患者,其中 3 项研究纳入了肺炎患者,1 项研究纳入了导管相关感染患者。大多数研究(12 项)的随访时间为 28 天。在成人队列中,非 MR-proADM 存活者和存活者之间的汇总平均值差异为 2.55 mmol/L(95% CI:1.95-3.15),脓毒性休克患者的数值(4.25 mmol/L;95% CI,2.23-6.26 mmol/L)高于败血症患者(1.77 mmol/L;95% CI:1.11-2.44 mmol/L)。结论在脓毒症或脓毒性休克的非存活成人和儿科住院患者中可检测到较高的 MR-proADM 值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Midregional-proAdrenomedullin as a prognostic tool in sepsis and septic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
3.60%
发文量
192
审稿时长
1 months
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.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Catheter‐related deep vein thrombosis: Where are we at and where are we going? Updates and ongoing unmet clinical needs Routine beta‐blocker therapy after acute coronary syndromes: The end of an era? Adipocyte maturation impacts daunorubicin disposition and metabolism Both low and high body iron stores relate to metabolic syndrome in postmenopausal women: Findings from the VIKING Health Study-Shetland (VIKING I).
×
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