Comparison Between Continuous and Intermittent Administration of Hydrocortisone During Septic Shock: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Hyperglycemia Risk Evaluation of Hydrocortisone Intermittent Boluses versus Continuous Infusion in Septic Shock: A Prospective Randomized Trial

Background

Hydrocortisone showed an important role in reversal of shock when added to standard therapy in managing septic shock. Hyperglycemia is one of the most common side effects associated with corticosteroid treatment.

Aims

This study aimed to evaluate the risk of hyperglycemia of intermittent hydrocortisone boluses versus continuous infusion in septic shock patients.

Settings and Design

This was a prospective randomized controlled study conducted in a tertiary care teaching hospital.

Materials and Methods

One hundred and forty patients with septic shock and who received noradrenaline were enrolled in this randomized study. Group 1 was intermittent bolus hydrocortisone group (n = 70) and Group 2 was continuous infusion group (n = 70). All patients who were admitted with septic shock and who received noradrenaline and hydrocortisone were included in the study. Those patients who had exceeded 200 mg per day of hydrocortisone were excluded from the study. The primary outcome of the study was mean blood glucose.

Statistical Analysis Used

Qualitative variables were compared between the two groups with the Chi-square of the Fisher's exact test and continuous variables were compared using the Student's t-test or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

Results

Out of 112 patients, 54 patients received hydrocortisone as intermittent boluses (48.2%), and 58 patients (51.8%) received continuous infusion. For the primary outcome, no statistically or clinically significant difference was found in the blood glucose estimated marginal mean: 154.44 mg.dL-1 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 144.18-166.88) in the bolus group and 160.2 mg.dL-1 (95% CI: 143.82-176.76) in the infusion group with a mean difference of 05.76 mg.dL-1 (95% CI: -13.86-25.38). For the secondary outcomes of the study, no difference was found between the two groups in hyperglycemic or hypoglycemic events, mortality, length of stay in intensive care unit, and reversal of shock.

Conclusions

The risk of hyperglycemia is almost equal in both intermittent and continuous infusions of hydrocortisone in septic shock patients.

Effects of Glucocorticoid Therapy on Sepsis Depend Both on the Dose of Steroids and on the Severity and Phase of the Animal Sepsis Model

Steroids are currently being used in sepsis, particularly in septic shock. However, clinical trials to date have shown contradictory results. This could be attributed to the different patient endotypes and steroid doses, which have also contributed to the inconclusive results. We investigated the effects of glucocorticoid therapy on sepsis in a polymicrobial sepsis model in a variety of settings, such as steroid dose, severity, and sepsis phase. We used a rat model of fecal slurry polymicrobial sepsis. First, we investigated the optimum dose of steroids in a sepsis model. We administered different doses of dexamethasone after sepsis induction (0.1DEX; 0.1 mg/kg, 0.2DEX; 0.2 mg/kg, 5DEX; 5 mg/kg). Second, we used two different severities of the fecal slurry polymicrobial sepsis rat model to examine the effects of the steroids. A moderate or severe model was defined as a survival rate of approximately 70% and 30%, respectively. Third, we administered steroids in an early (1 h after sepsis induction) or late phase (25 h after sepsis). In all the experiments, we investigated the survival rates. In the determined optimal model and settings, we measured serum lactate, alanine transferase (ALT), creatinine, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10, and arterial blood gas. We evaluated the bacterial burden in the blood and spleen. Endotoxin tolerance of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and splenocytes was also investigated to determine the level of immune suppression 24 h after sepsis by measuring TNF-α production after stimulation with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) in an ex vivo model. Early treatment of 0.2 mg/kg dexamethasone in a severe sepsis model showed the best beneficial effects. In moderate- or late-phase sepsis, there was no survival gain with steroid treatment. DEX0.2 group showed less acute kidney injury manifested by serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen. DEX decreased the levels of cytokines, including IL-6, IL-10, and TNF-α. Colony-forming units were significantly decreased in the blood when administered with dexamethasone. Endotoxin tolerance was not significantly different between the DEX0.2 and control groups. In conclusion, early treatment of 0.2 mg/kg dexamethasone improved the outcomes of rats in a severe sepsis model.

Corticosteroids for Treating Sepsis in Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

Corticosteroids are a common option used in sepsis treatment. However, the efficacy and potential risk of corticosteroids in septic patients have not been well assessed. This review was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched from inception to March 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of corticosteroids on patients with sepsis were included. The quality of outcomes in the included articles was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. The data were pooled by using risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD). The random-effects model was used to evaluate the pooled MD or RR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Fifty RCTs that included 12,304 patients with sepsis were identified. Corticosteroids were not associated with the mortality in 28-day (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87–1.02; evidence rank, moderate) and long-term mortality (>60 days) (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88–1.05) in patients with sepsis (evidence rank, low). However, corticosteroids may exert a significant effect on the mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU) (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.83–0.97), in-hospital (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.82–0.99; evidence rank, moderate) in patients with sepsis or septic shock (evidence rank, low). Furthermore, corticosteroids probably achieved a tiny reduction in the length of hospital stay and ICU. Corticosteroids were associated with a higher risk of hypernatremia and hyperglycemia; furthermore, they appear to have no significant effect on superinfection and gastroduodenal bleeding.

Conclusions

Corticosteroids had no significant effect on the 28-day and long-term mortality; however, they decreased the ICU and hospital mortality. The findings suggest that the clinical corticosteroids may be an effective therapy for patients with sepsis during the short time.

Systematic Review Registration

https://inplasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/INPLASY-Protocol-1074-4.pdf

Y-site physical compatibility of hydrocortisone continuous infusions with admixtures used in critically ill patients

PURPOSE

Critically ill patients with septic shock often receive multiple intravenous medications, necessitating either the placement of separate lines for medication administration or administration of medications concurrently through a Y-site connector only where compatibility has been demonstrated. The purpose of this study was to examine the physical compatibility of hydrocortisone infusions and select intravenous medications through a simulated Y site.

METHODS

The medications tested for simulated Y-site physical compatibility with hydrocortisone included acetaminophen, albumin, cefepime, ciprofloxacin, cisatracurium, doripenem, epinephrine, esomeprazole, ibuprofen, levofloxacin, levothyroxine, meropenem, and norepinephrine. Hydrocortisone in solution with 0.9% sodium chloride injection was combined with an equivalent volume of solutions of each test drug at maximum or commercially available concentrations used clinically in intensive care units, as appropriate. The samples were evaluated using turbidimetric measurements and examined visually against light and dark backgrounds to determine physical compatibility. Observations and analyses were completed over a one-hour period at 15-minute intervals beginning immediately after mixing. Each test was performed in triplicate.

RESULTS

All study medications demonstrated visual and/or turbidimetric physical compatibility when combined with hydrocortisone in a simulated Y-site infusion. No medications demonstrated a visual physical incompatibility when combined with hydrocortisone.

CONCLUSION

Acetaminophen, albumin, cefepime, ciprofloxacin, cisatracurium, doripenem, epinephrine, esomeprazole, ibuprofen, levofloxacin, levothyroxine, meropenem, and norepinephrine exhibited physical compatibility with hydrocortisone via Y-site infusion.

Hyperglycemia Risk Evaluation of Hydrocortisone Intermittent Boluses vs Continuous Infusion in Septic Shock: A Retrospective Study

Introduction

Hydrocortisone showed to be effective in reducing the time until reversal of shock when added to standard therapy in managing septic shock. Hyperglycemia is one of the common adverse effects associated with corticosteroid treatment. However, the difference in hyperglycemia risk with different methods of hydrocortisone administration is not clear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the risk of hyperglycemia of intermittent hydrocortisone boluses vs continuous infusion in septic shock patients.

Materials and methods

This was a retrospective observational study. Data were collected from the electronic medical records of eligible patients admitted to intensive care units. All patients admitted with septic shock who received noradrenaline and hydrocortisone were included. Only patients who exceeded 200 mg/day of hydrocortisone were excluded. The primary outcome was mean blood glucose.

Results

A total of 108 patients (with 3,021 blood glucose readings) were included in the final analysis. Seventy-six patients received hydrocortisone as intermittent boluses (70.3%), and 32 patients (29.7%) received continuous infusion. For the primary outcome, no statistically or clinically significant difference was found in the blood glucose estimated marginal mean: 8.58 mmol/L (95% confidence interval [CI]; 8.01-9.16) in the bolus group and 8.9 mmol/L (95% CI; 7.99-9.82) in the infusion group with a mean difference of 0.32 mmol/L (95% CI; -0.77 to 1.41). For secondary outcomes, no difference was found between the two groups in mortality, length of stay, reversal of shock, or hypoglycemic events.

Conclusion

Intermittent boluses of hydrocortisone were not associated with a higher risk of hyperglycemia than continuous infusion in septic shock patients.

How to cite this article

Mitwally H, Saad MO, Mahmoud S, Mohamed A. Hyperglycemia Risk Evaluation of Hydrocortisone Intermittent Boluses vs Continuous Infusion in Septic Shock: A Retrospective Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(1):29-33.

Circadian rhythms and the HPA axis: A systems view

The circadian timing system comprises a network of time-keeping clocks distributed across a living host whose responsibility is to allocate resources and distribute functions temporally to optimize fitness. The molecular structures generating these rhythms have evolved to accommodate the rotation of the earth in an attempt to primarily match the light/dark periods during the 24-hr day. To maintain synchrony of timing across and within tissues, information from the central clock, located in the suprachiasmatic nucleus, is conveyed using systemic signals. Leading among those signals are endocrine hormones, and while the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis through the release of glucocorticoids is a major pacesetter. Interestingly, the fundamental units at the molecular and physiological scales that generate local and systemic signals share critical structural properties. These properties enable time-keeping systems to generate rhythmic signals and allow them to adopt specific properties as they interact with each other and the external environment. The purpose of this review is to provide a broad overview of these structures, discuss their functional characteristics, and describe some of their fundamental properties as these related to health and disease. This article is categorized under: Immune System Diseases > Computational Models Immune System Diseases > Biomedical Engineering.

Circadian Disruption in Critical Illness

Circadian rhythms play a vital role in metabolic, hormonal, and immunologic function and are often disrupted in patients in the ICU. Circadian rhythms modulate the molecular machinery that responds to injury and illness which can impact recovery. Potential factors contributing to the alteration in circadian rhythmicity in intensive care unit (ICU) patients include abnormal lighting, noise, altered feeding schedules, extensive patient care interactions and medications. These alterations in circadian rhythms in ICU patients may affect outcomes and therefore, normalization of circadian rhythmicity in critically ill patients may be an important part of ICU care.

Corticosteroids for treating sepsis in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Sepsis occurs when an infection is complicated by organ failure. Sepsis may be complicated by impaired corticosteroid metabolism. Thus, providing corticosteroids may benefit patients. The original review was published in 2004 and was updated in 2010 and 2015 prior to this update.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of corticosteroids on death in children and adults with sepsis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and the WHO Clinical Trials Search Portal, on 25 July 2019. In addition, we conducted reference checking and citation searching, and contacted study authors, to identify additional studies as needed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of corticosteroids versus placebo or usual care (antimicrobials, fluid replacement, and vasopressor therapy as needed) in children and adults with sepsis. We also included RCTs of continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus of corticosteroids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All review authors screened and selected studies for inclusion. One review author extracted data, which was checked by the others, and by the lead author of the primary study when possible. We obtained unpublished data from the authors of some trials. We assessed the methodological quality of trials and applied GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Review authors did not contribute to assessment of eligibility and risk of bias, nor to data extraction, for trials they had participated in.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 61 trials (12,192 participants), of which six included only children, two included children and adults, and the remaining trials included only adults. Nine studies are ongoing and will be considered in future versions of this review. We judged 19 trials as being at low risk of bias. Corticosteroids versus placebo or usual care Compared to placebo or usual care, corticosteroids probably slightly reduce 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.99; 11,233 participants; 50 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids may result in little to no difference in long-term mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.03; 6236 participants; 7 studies; low-certainty evidence) and probably slightly reduce hospital mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99; 8183 participants; 26 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids reduced length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay for all participants (mean difference (MD) -1.07 days, 95% CI -1.95 to -0.19; 7612 participants; 21 studies; high-certainty evidence) and resulted in a large reduction in length of hospital stay for all participants (MD -1.63 days, 95% CI -2.93 to -0.33; 8795 participants; 22 studies; high-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids increase the risk of muscle weakness (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.44; 6145 participants; 6 studies; high-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids probably do not increase the risk of superinfection (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.19; 5356 participants; 25 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids increase the risk of hypernatraemia (high-certainty evidence) and probably increase the risk of hyperglycaemia (moderate-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that there is probably little or no difference in gastroduodenal bleeding, stroke, or cardiac events, and low-certainty evidence suggests that corticosteroids may result in little to no difference in neuropsychiatric events. Continuous infusion of corticosteroids versus intermittent bolus We are uncertain about the effects of continuous infusion of corticosteroids compared with intermittent bolus administration. Three studies reported data for this comparison, and the certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids probably reduce 28-day and hospital mortality among patients with sepsis. Corticosteroids result in large reductions in ICU and hospital length of stay (high-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in the risk of major complications; however, corticosteroids increase the risk of muscle weakness and hypernatraemia, and probably increase the risk of hyperglycaemia. The effects of continuous versus intermittent bolus administration of corticosteroids are uncertain.