Low-Dose Hydrocortisone Therapy Attenuates Septic Shock in Adult Patients but Does Not Reduce 28-Day Mortality

What Is the Role of Steroids for Septic Shock in 2021?

Corticosteroids have been used for decades in the adjunctive treatment of severe infections in intensive care. The most frequent scenario in intensive care is in septic shock, where low doses of glucocorticoids appear to restore vascular responsiveness to norepinephrine. There is a strong body of evidence suggesting that hydrocortisone reduces time on vasopressor, and may modulate the immune response. In this review, we explore the current evidence supporting the use of corticosteroids in septic shock, its benefits, and potential harms. In addition to landmark clinical trials, we will also describe new frontiers for the use of corticosteroids in septic shock which should be explored in future studies.

Impact of plasma 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid, a serotonin metabolite, on clinical outcome in septic shock, and its effect on vascular permeability

Septic shock is characterized by dysregulated vascular permeability. We hypothesized that the vascular permeability of endothelial cells (ECs) would be regulated by serotonin via serotonin-Rho-associated kinase (ROCK) signaling. We aimed to determine the impact of 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) on septic shock as a novel biomarker. Plasma 5-HIAA levels and disease severity indices were obtained from 47 patients with sepsis. The association between 5-HIAA levels and severity indices was analyzed. Permeability upon serotonin stimulation was determined using human pulmonary microvascular ECs. 5-HIAA were significantly higher in septic shock patients than in patients without shock or healthy controls (p = 0.004). These elevated levels were correlated with severity indexes (SOFA score [p < 0.001], APACHE II [p < 0.001], and PaO₂:FiO₂ [p = 0.02]), and longitudinally associated with worse clinical outcomes (mechanical ventilation duration [p = 0.009] and ICU duration [p = 0.01]). In the experiment, serotonin increased the permeability of ECs, which was inhibited by the ROCK inhibitor (p < 0.001). Serotonin increases vascular permeability of ECs via ROCK signaling. This suggests a novel mechanism by which serotonin disrupts endothelial barriers via ROCK signaling and causes the pathogenesis of septic shock with a vascular leak. Serotonin serves as a novel biomarker of vascular permeability.

Mutant glucocorticoid receptor binding elements on the interleukin-6 promoter regulate dexamethasone effects

Background

Glucocorticoids (GCs) have been extensively used as essential modulators in clinical infectious and inflammatory diseases. The GC receptor (GR) is a transcription factor belonging to the nuclear receptor family that regulates anti-inflammatory processes and releases pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin (IL)-6.

Results

Five putative GR binding sites and other transcriptional factor binding sites were identified on theIL-6 promoter, and dexamethasone (DEX) was noted to reduce the lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced IL-6 production. Among mutant transcriptional factor binding sites, nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB), activator protein (AP)-1, and specificity protein (Sp)1–2 sites reduced basal and LPS-induced IL-6 promoter activities through various responses. The second GR binding site (GR2) was noted to play a crucial role in both basal and inducible promoter activities in LPS-induced inflammation.

Conclusions

We concluded that selective GR2 modulator might exert agonistic and antagonistic effects and could activate crucial signaling pathways during the LPS-stimulated inflammatory process.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12865-021-00413-z.

Pulsed Ultrasound of the Spleen Prolongs Survival of Rats With Severe Intra-abdominal Sepsis

BACKGROUND

The spleen is an important contributor to the uncontrolled, excessive release of proinflammatory signals during sepsis that leads to the development of tissue injury and diffuse end-organ dysfunction. Therapeutic pulsed ultrasound (pUS) has been shown to inhibit splenic leukocyte release and reduce cytokine production in other inflammatory disease processes. We hypothesized that pUS treatment inhibits spleen-derived inflammatory responses and increases survival duration in rats with severe intra-abdominal sepsis leading to septic shock.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Rats with intra-abdominal sepsis, induced by cecal ligation and incision, underwent abdominal washout, intra-peritoneal administration of cefazolin, and then either no further treatment (control), splenectomy, or pUS of the spleen. Animals were observed for the primary endpoint of survival duration.

RESULTS

Survival curves were significantly different for all groups (P < 0.01). Median survival increased from 9.5 h in control rats to 19.8 h in pUS rats and 35.0 h in splenectomy rats (P < 0.01). At 4 h after cecal ligation and incision, the pUS group had decreased splenic contraction and leukocyte count (P = 0.03) compared with control, indicating reduced exodus of splenic leukocytes. In addition, elevation in plasma TNF-α and MCP-1 was significantly attenuated in the pUS group (P < 0.05 versus control). Splenic β₂ adrenergic receptor levels and phosphorylated Akt were significantly more elevated in the pUS group (P < 0.01 versus control).

CONCLUSIONS

pUS significantly prolonged the survival duration of rats with severe intra-abdominal sepsis. This treatment may be an effective, noninvasive therapy that dampens detrimental immune responses during septic shock by activating β₂ adrenergic receptor-Akt phosphorylation in the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway.

The Effectiveness and Safety of Corticosteroids Therapy in Adult Critical Ill Patients With Septic Shock: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroids therapy in adult critical ill patients with septic shock.

METHODS

The PUBMED, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from the inception dates to March 24, 2018. To identify randomized controlled trials that evaluating the role of corticosteroids therapy in adult critical ill patients with septic shock. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The second outcomes included 90-day mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, in-hospital mortality, length of stay in ICU, length of stay in hospital, reversal of shock, and superinfection.

RESULTS

A total of 18 randomized controlled trials involving 8,128 adult critical ill patients with septic shock fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The outcomes of this meta-analysis showed that corticosteroids therapy did not significantly reduce the 28-day mortality [RR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84-1.05; Z = 1.07 (P = 0.285)]. However, corticosteroids therapy was associated with a significantly shorter length of stay in ICU [WMD = -1.55; 95% CI, -2.19 to -0.91; Z = 4.74 (P = 0.000)]. 90-day mortality, ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, length of stay in hospital, reversal of shock, and superinfection had no significant difference between the corticosteroids therapy and placebo therapy (P > 0.05). Similar results were obtained in subgroups of trials stratified according to the dose of corticosteroids (high dose or low does).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this meta-analysis, corticosteroids therapy was associated with a significantly shorter length of stay in ICU among adult critical ill patients with septic shock. The mortality was similar between the corticosteroids therapy and placebo.

Effects and safety of separate low-dose hydrocortisone use in patients with septic shock: A meta-analysis

Objective:

The aim of this study was to explore the effects and safety of low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with septic shock.

Methods:

The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from database inception until 1 August 2018. Two reviewers performed literature selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation independently.

Results:

Twelve randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. The combined results showed that low-dose hydrocortisone use had no survival benefit in patients with septic shock (relative risk = 1.09; 95% confidence interval = 0.88–1.05; P = 0.37). But low-dose hydrocortisone use was useful for shock reverse (relative risk = 1.09; 95% confidence interval = 1.00–1.19; P = 0.04) and in shortening the time of vasopressor support (weighted mean difference = −1.79, 95% confidence interval = −2.05 to −1.52; P < 0.00001). In addition, use of low-dose hydrocortisone was associated with a higher risk of hyperglycemia (relative risk = 1.21; 95% confidence interval = 1.04–1.40; P = 0.01) and hypernatremia (relative risk = 6.34; 95% confidence interval = 1.19–33.81; P = 0.03). There was no significant improvement of intensive care unit mortality (relative risk = 1.11; 95% confidence interval = 0.93–1.33; P = 0.23) or hospital mortality (relative risk = 1.08; 95% confidence interval = 0.94–1.24; P = 0.29), length of intensive care unit (weighted mean difference = −1.84; 95% confidence interval = −5.80 to 2.11; P = 0.36) or length of hospital (weighted mean difference = 0.11; 95% confidence interval = −2.06 to 2.29; P = 0.98), and time of mechanical support (weighted mean difference = −0.69; 95% confidence interval = −1.76 to −0.38; P = 0.20) with the use of low-dose hydrocortisone. There was no significant difference in secondary infection (relative risk = 1.04; 95% confidence interval = 0.91–1.18; P = 0.57), recurrence of shock (relative risk = 1.47; 95% confidence interval = 0.64–3.39; P = 0.36), and gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk = 1.41; 95% confidence interval = 0.89–2.22; P = 0.14) with the use of low-dose hydrocortisone.

Conclusion:

Although there was no effect of low-dose hydrocortisone on survival of patients with septic shock, it is associated with a higher rate of shock reversal and shortening duration of vasopressor support; thus, low-dose hydrocortisone may be an alternative drug in septic shock patients who are refractory to fluid resuscitation and vasopressors.

Are Corticosteroids Beneficial for Sepsis and Septic Shock? Based on Pooling Analysis of 16 Studies

Background: A host of systematic reviews and meta-analyses were carried out to estimate the role of corticosteroids in sepsis and septic shock. Discordant opinions were investigated to determine whether patients who experienced sepsis and septic shock could benefit from corticosteroids treatment. Our purpose is to perform a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses, to explore the role of corticosteroids in the treatment of sepsis and septic shock.

Method: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and LILACS were searched for eligible studies. Two authors individually extracted the relevant data and evaluated the quality of the meta-analysis using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) and ROBIS. The Jadad decision algorithm was implemented to identify the meta-analyses that offered the optimal level of evidence.

Result: Sixteen meta-analyses met the eligibility criteria. None of the studies that reported mortality illustrated a significant improvement on mortality (14-day and 90-day), but a 28-day mortality on a long course of a low dose corticosteroids was described. Only four studies stated that a long course of low-dose corticosteroids had advantageous effect on 28-day mortality. A meta-analysis by Fang et al. was regarded as the highest level of evidence in the Jadad decision algorithm among the meta-analyses that were investigated in this systematic review.

Conclusion: The 28-day mortality was reduced, as well as the mortality in the ICU and hospital and the length of stay in the ICU, using a long course of low-dose corticosteroids. This was demonstrated by a meta-analysis of the current optimal available evidence. Additionally, significant improvements on the adverse events of hyperglycemia and hypernatraemia have been made.

Reevaluating the Role of Corticosteroids in Septic Shock: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

What Is Known and Objective. To reevaluate the benefits and risks of corticosteroid treatment in adult patients with septic shock. Methods. This study was performed based on PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of corticosteroids versus placebo were retrieved from PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central RCTs, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1980 to April 2018. We also conducted a trial sequential analysis to indicate the possibility of type I or II errors and calculate the information size. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE) was applying to assess the certainty of evidence at the primary outcome level. Results. Twenty-one RCTs were identified and analyzed. Patients treated with corticosteroid had a 7% reduction in relative risk in 28-day all-cause mortality compared to controls (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99). However, there were no significant differences for the intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09) or in-hospital mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11). Corticosteroids shortened the length of ICU stay by 1.04 days (RR -1.04, 95% CI -1.72 to -0.36) and the length of hospital stay by 2.49 days (RR -2.49, 95% CI -4.96 to -0.02). Corticosteroids increased the risk of hyperglycemia (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.16) but not gastroduodenal bleeding (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.37) or superinfection (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.15). However, some date on secondary outcomes were unavailable because they were not measured or not reported in the included studies which may cause a lack of power or selective outcome reporting. The information size was calculated at 10044 patients. Trial sequential analysis showed that the meta-analysis was conclusive and the risk of type 2 error was minimal. What Is New and Conclusion. Corticosteroids are likely to be effective in reducing 28-day mortality and attenuating septic shock without increasing the rate of life-threatening complications. TSA showed that the risk of type II error in this meta-analysis was minimal and the result was conclusive.

The controversial role of corticosteroids in septic shock

BACKGROUND

Several clinical trials and literature reviews have been conducted to evaluate the impact of corticosteroids on the physiological markers and clinical outcomes of patients in septic shock. While the findings have been somewhat contradictory, there is evidence of moderate benefit from the administration of low-dose corticosteroids to patients in septic shock. In this review, we discuss recent studies evaluating the impact of corticosteroids on morbidity and mortality in septic shock and explore future directions to fully elucidate when and how the administration of corticosteroid therapies can be beneficial.

METHODS

A literature review was performed using the Mesh database of PubMed with the term "septic shock" and subheadings "therapeutic use", "drug therapy", "pharmacology", and "therapy" followed by the addition of "steroid". Filters were added to restrict the search to 18+ age, English and human studies, and articles published within the last 10 years. One hundred sixty-five articles were examined and twenty-five were deemed relevant to this review.

RESULTS

The twenty-five articles reviewed here provide conflicting evidence as to the usefulness of corticosteroid treatments during septic shock. Several showed improved physiological outcomes, including rates of organ failure, need for life supporting interventions, adverse effects, inflammatory markers, and perfusion during the course of septic shock, as well as decreased mortality for a statistically significant number of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There remains a need for improved therapy for patients in septic shock. Corticosteroids have shown some potential in improving mortality rates and clinical markers. Additional studies are needed to determine the optimal role of corticosteroids in septic shock.

What have we learned from network meta-analyses applied to critical care?

It is widely accepted in modern medicine that medical decisions must be supported by scientific evidence. Identifying the best intervention when several options are available constitute a great challenge for every clinician. Traditional meta-analysis (TMA) allows summarizing evidence from studies that compare the same two interventions for one event (head to head studies or direct comparisons). Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a relatively new procedure that allows to compare multiple interventions for one event, even when non-head to head studies have been conducted (indirect evidence). Other advantages of NMA include increasing the accuracy of the results and ranking all the interventions according to their effectiveness. These features are of paramount importance as: 1) they summarize information from events (e.g. diseases or outcomes) that has more than two possible interventions (e.g. treatments or procedures); 2) they strengthen the level of guideline recommendations; and 3) they identify new hypotheses based on indirect comparison. As this is a narrative review, all manuscripts have been selected from PubMed according to our best knowledge with the aim to illustrate different features, options or applications of NMA in critical care. First, we provide a description of the usefulness, interpretation, assumptions and main plots related to NMAs. Second, we analyzed some examples of NMAs related to critical care medicine. Third, we include a pragmatic approach about how results from NMAs can improve the clinical practice as well an R script with a database to conduct an NMAs and reproduce figures and tables that have been shown here. As a conclusion, NMA is an established, robust, objective and reproducible statistic technique that has been applied to several critical care areas. Clinical practice guidelines have started to include NMA evidence to support their recommendations. In future years, it seems highly probable that this technique will increase it applicability in almost all areas of critical care medicine.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 and published in the Journal of JSICM, [2017; Volume 24 (supplement 2)] 10.3918/jsicm.24S0001 and Journal of Japanese Association for Acute Medicine [2017; Volume 28, (supplement 1)] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jja2.2017.28.issue-S1/issuetoc.This abridged English edition of the J-SSCG 2016 was produced with permission from the Japanese Association of Acute Medicine and the Japanese Society for Intensive Care Medicine.

METHODS

Members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ) and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two-thirds (> 66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members.

RESULTS

A total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J-SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation, and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta-analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty-seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for five CQs.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese-specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non-specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016)

Background and Purpose

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 in Japanese. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version.

Methods

Members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ), and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two-thirds (>66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members.

Results

A total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J-SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta-analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for 5 CQs.

Conclusions

Based on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese-specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non-specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals.

Treatment of Acute Kidney Injury Complicating Septic Shock with EMiC2 High-cutoff Hemofilter: Case Series

Introduction:

Extracorporeal blood purification therapies have been proposed to improve outcomes of patients with severe sepsis, with or without accompanying acute kidney injury (AKI), by removal of excessive inflammatory mediators.

Materials and Methods:

We report our experience with EMiC2 high-cutoff continuous venovenous hemofiltration/hemodialysis (HCO-CVVH/HD) in seven patients with AKI complicating septic shock.

Results:

The median treatment duration was 71 h, and the procedure was well tolerated. Trough serum albumin level of 20 g/L was observed after 2 h of treatment and none of the patients required albumin supplement. The hospital mortality rate was 29%, which appeared more favorable than the predicted mortality of 60%–78% based on disease severity scores. Circulating levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha improved over time.

Conclusion:

This case series shows that HCO-CVVH/CVVHD using EMiC2 hemofilter may provide good cytokine modulation, when used along with good quality standard sepsis therapy. A further large-scale prospective randomized controlled trial is recommended.

Controversies in Corticosteroid use for Sepsis

BACKGROUND

Severe sepsis and septic shock are potentially deadly conditions managed in the emergency department (ED). Management centers on source control, fluid resuscitation, broad-spectrum antimicrobials, and vasopressors as needed. The use of corticosteroids is controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the evidence behind corticosteroid therapy in patients with septic shock.

DISCUSSION

Septic shock is associated with severe mortality and morbidity. Cytokine release produces a systemic inflammatory state. Vasopressor-resistant septic shock warrants consideration of the disease state and other pathologies such as adrenal insufficiency. Many studies and meta-analyses have been conducted evaluating corticosteroid therapy for this population. High-dose corticosteroid therapy is associated with increased harm, but physiologic-dose corticosteroids may decrease the need for vasopressors. Mortality benefit is controversial, with much of the literature demonstrating no effect. The risk of superinfection is not suggested by the majority of studies. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign advises consideration of corticosteroids in patients with vasopressor and fluid-resistant septic shock. Patients with vasopressor-resistant septic shock with no contraindications to corticosteroids may benefit from hydrocortisone 100 mg intravenously (i.v.) every 8 h or 50 mg i.v. every 6 h. Fludrocortisone is not recommended at this time.

CONCLUSIONS

Septic shock is associated with higher mortality, specifically for patients with vasopressor and fluid-refractory shock. The use of physiologic-dose steroids can reduce vasopressor requirements and improve time of shock resolution. Current literature suggests corticosteroids do not improve mortality, but further studies are required.

Single versus combined immunoregulatory approach using PD-1 and CTLA-4 modulators in controlling sepsis

INTRODUCTION

Sepsis is a disease process characterized by an extreme inflammatory response followed by a period of severe immunosuppression. In recent years, there has been improved survival in the initial immune response during systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and compensatory anti-inflammatory response, yet is mostly unchanged with 18-30% mortality during the later stage of sepsis despite numerous Phase 3 clinical trials. Areas covered: This review article presents a critical evaluation of the most promising newer studies aimed at improving the immunosuppressive stage of sepsis. Administration of DHEA/AED/AET show promise in improving survival. Blockade of signaling pathways for PD-1/PD-L1/CTLA-4, and partial blockade of TREM-1 signaling, and modification to sTREM-1 and the JAK/STAT pathway are promising methods of restoring host immune response and improving survival. While there has been significant progress, currently no findings have been translated into effective clinical interventions. Expert commentary: Clinical success by immunomodulation with individual immune mediator is encouraging and should progress to evaluating combined methods of immunoregulation. Since most of the animal studies do not reproduce human sepsis, development of better animal models and moving toward human studies for intervention will lead to the most beneficial findings in translational science.

Timing, method and discontinuation of hydrocortisone administration for septic shock patients

AIM

To characterize the prescribing patterns for hydrocortisone for patients with septic shock and perform an exploratory analysis in order to identify the variables associated with better outcomes.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included 59 patients with septic shock who received stress-dose hydrocortisone. It was performed at 2 critical care units in academic hospitals from June 1^st, 2015, to July 31^st, 2016. Demographic data, comorbidities, medical management details, adverse effects related to corticosteroids, and outcomes were collected after the critical care physician indicated initiation of hydrocortisone. Univariate comparison between continuous and bolus administration of hydrocortisone was performed, including multivariate analysis, as well as Kaplan-Meier analysis to compare the proportion of shock reversal at 7 d after presentation. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves determined the best cut-off criteria for initiation of hydrocortisone associated with the highest probability of shock reversal. We addressed the effects of the taper strategy for discontinuation of hydrocortisone, noting risk of shock relapse and adverse effects.

RESULTS

All-cause 30-d mortality was 42%. Hydrocortisone was administered as a continuous infusion in 54.2% of patients; time to reversal of shock was 49 h longer in patients who were given a bolus administration [59 h (range, 47.5-90.5) vs 108 h (range, 63.2-189); P = 0.001]. The maximal dose of norepinephrine after initiation of hydrocortisone was lower in patients on continuous infusion [0.19 μg/kg per minute (range, 0.11-0.28 μg)] compared with patients who were given bolus [0.34 μg/kg per minute (range, 0.16-0.49); P = 0.004]. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a higher proportion of shock reversal at 7 d in patients with continuous infusion compared to those given bolus (83% vs 63%; P = 0.004). There was a good correlation between time to initiation of hydrocortisone and time to reversal of shock (r = 0.80; P < 0.0001); ROC curve analysis revealed that the best criteria for prediction of shock reversal was a time to initiation of hydrocortisone of ≤ 13 h after administration of norepinephrine, with an area under the curve of 0.81 (P < 0.001). The maximal dose of norepinephrine at initiation of hydrocortisone with the highest association with shock reversal was ≤ 0.28 μg/kg per minute, with an area under the curve of 0.75 (P = 0.0002). On a logistic regression model, hydrocortisone taper was not associated with a lower risk of shock relapse (RR = 1.29; P = 0.17) but was related to a higher probability of hyperglycemia [odds ratio (OR), 5.3; P = 0.04] and hypokalemia (OR = 10.6; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Continuous infusion of hydrocortisone could hasten the resolution of septic shock compared to bolus administration. Earlier initiation corresponds with a higher probability of shock reversal. Tapering strategy is unnecessary.

Practical Considerations in Sepsis Resuscitation

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is a common condition managed in the emergency department, and the majority of patients respond to resuscitation measures, including antibiotics and i.v. fluids. However, a proportion of patients will fail to respond to standard treatment.

OBJECTIVE

This review elucidates practical considerations for management of sepsis in patients who fail to respond to standard treatment.

DISCUSSION

Early goal-directed therapy revolutionized sepsis management. However, there is a paucity of literature that provides a well-defined treatment algorithm for patients who fail to improve with therapy. Refractory shock can be defined as continued patient hemodynamic instability (mean arterial pressure, ≤ 65 mm Hg, lactate ≥ 4 mmol/L, altered mental status) after adequate fluid loading (at least 30 mL/kg i.v.), the use of two vasopressors (with one as norepinephrine), and provision of antibiotics. When a lack of improvement is evident in the early stages of resuscitation, systematically considering source control, appropriate volume resuscitation, adequate antimicrobial coverage, vasopressor selection, presence of metabolic pathology, and complications of resuscitation, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and respiratory failure, allow emergency physicians to address the entire clinical scenario.

CONCLUSIONS

The care of sepsis has experienced many changes in recent years. Care of the patient with sepsis who is not responding appropriately to initial resuscitation is troublesome for emergency physicians. This review provides practical considerations for resuscitation of the patient with septic shock. When a septic patient is refractory to standard therapy, systematically evaluating the patient and clinical course may lead to improved outcomes.

Sepsis and septic shock

For more than two decades, sepsis was defined as a microbial infection that produces fever (or hypothermia), tachycardia, tachypnoea and blood leukocyte changes. Sepsis is now increasingly being considered a dysregulated systemic inflammatory and immune response to microbial invasion that produces organ injury for which mortality rates are declining to 15-25%. Septic shock remains defined as sepsis with hyperlactataemia and concurrent hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy, with in-hospital mortality rates approaching 30-50%. With earlier recognition and more compliance to best practices, sepsis has become less of an immediate life-threatening disorder and more of a long-term chronic critical illness, often associated with prolonged inflammation, immune suppression, organ injury and lean tissue wasting. Furthermore, patients who survive sepsis have continuing risk of mortality after discharge, as well as long-term cognitive and functional deficits. Earlier recognition and improved implementation of best practices have reduced in-hospital mortality, but results from the use of immunomodulatory agents to date have been disappointing. Similarly, no biomarker can definitely diagnose sepsis or predict its clinical outcome. Because of its complexity, improvements in sepsis outcomes are likely to continue to be slow and incremental.

Low-dose corticosteroid treatment and mortality in refractory abdominal septic shock after emergency laparotomy

BACKGROUND

The role of low-dose corticosteroid as an adjunctive treatment for abdominal septic shock remains controversial.

METHODS

We identified refractory septic shock patients who required noradrenaline and at least one of other vasopressor/inotropic (dopamine, dobutamine or vasopressin) following emergency open laparotomy for perforation of the lower intestinal tract between July 2010 and March 2013 using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination inpatient database. In-hospital mortality was compared between the low-dose corticosteroid and control groups.

RESULTS

There were 2164 eligible patients (155 in the corticosteroid group, 2009 in the control group). We observed no significant difference between the groups in terms of in-hospital mortality in the unadjusted analysis [corticosteroid vs. control groups, 19.4 and 25.1 %, respectively; difference, -5.7 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI), -12.8 to 1.3]; however, a significant difference in in-hospital mortality was evident in the propensity score-weighted analysis (17.6 and 25.0 %, respectively; difference, -7.4 %; 95 % CI -9.9 to -5.0). An instrumental variable analysis with the hospital low-dose corticosteroid prescription proportion showed that receipt of low-dose corticosteroid was significantly associated with reduction in in-hospital mortality (differences, -13.5 %; 95 % CI -24.6 to -2.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose corticosteroid administration may be associated with reduced in-hospital mortality in patients with refractory septic shock following emergency laparotomy for lower intestinal perforation.

Septic Shock: Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment

IMPORTANCE

Septic shock is a clinical emergency that occurs in more than 230,000 US patients each year. OBSERVATIONS AND ADVANCES: In the setting of suspected or documented infection, septic shock is typically defined in a clinical setting by low systolic (≤90 mm Hg) or mean arterial blood pressure (≤65 mm Hg) accompanied by signs of hypoperfusion (eg, oliguria, hyperlactemia, poor peripheral perfusion, or altered mental status). Focused ultrasonography is recommended for the prompt recognition of complicating physiology (eg, hypovolemia or cardiogenic shock), while invasive hemodynamic monitoring is recommended only for select patients. In septic shock, 3 randomized clinical trials demonstrate that protocolized care offers little advantage compared with management without a protocol. Hydroxyethyl starch is no longer recommended, and debate continues about the role of various crystalloid solutions and albumin.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The prompt diagnosis of septic shock begins with obtainment of medical history and performance of a physical examination for signs and symptoms of infection and may require focused ultrasonography to recognize more complex physiologic manifestations of shock. Clinicians should understand the importance of prompt administration of intravenous fluids and vasoactive medications aimed at restoring adequate circulation, and the limitations of protocol-based therapy, as guided by recent evidence.

Use of quality assessment tools in systematic reviews was varied and inconsistent

OBJECTIVES

To assess the use of quality assessment tools among a cross-section of systematic reviews (SRs) and to further evaluate whether quality was used as a parameter in the decision to include primary studies within subsequent meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched PubMed for SRs (interventional, observational, and diagnostic) published in Core Clinical Journals between January 1 and March 31, 2014.

RESULTS

Three hundred nine SRs were identified. Quality assessment was undertaken in 222 (71.8%) with isolated use of the Cochrane risk of bias tool (26.1%, n = 58) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (15.3%, n = 34) most common. A threshold level of primary study quality for subsequent meta-analysis was used in 12.9% (40 of 309) of reviews. Overall, fifty-four combinations of quality assessment tools were identified with a similar preponderance of tools used among observational and interventional reviews. Multiple tools were used in 11.7% (n = 36) of SRs overall.

CONCLUSION

We found that quality assessment tools were used in a majority of SRs; however, a threshold level of quality for meta-analysis was stipulated in just 12.9% (n = 40). This cross-sectional analysis provides further evidence of the need for more active or intuitive editorial processes to enhance the reporting of SRs.

Single-dose etomidate does not increase mortality in patients with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies

BACKGROUND

The effect of single-dose etomidate on mortality in patients with sepsis remains controversial. We systematically reviewed the literature to investigate whether a single dose of etomidate for rapid sequence intubation increased mortality in patients with sepsis.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies regarding the effect of single-dose etomidate on mortality in adults with sepsis. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The Mantel-Haenszel method with random-effects modeling was used to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies (two RCTs and 16 observational studies) in 5,552 patients were included. Pooled analysis suggested that single-dose etomidate was not associated with increased mortality in patients with sepsis in both the RCTs (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.84-1.72; P = .31; I(2) = 0%) and the observational studies (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.97-1.13; P = .23; I(2) = 25%). When only adjusted RRs were pooled in five observational studies, RR for mortality was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.79-1.39; P = .748; I(2) = 71.3%). These findings also were consistent across all subgroup analyses for observational studies. Single-dose etomidate increased the risk of adrenal insufficiency in patients with sepsis (eight studies; RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.22-1.64; P < .00001).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence indicates that single-dose etomidate does not increase mortality in patients with sepsis. However, this finding largely relies on data from observational studies and is potentially subject to selection bias; hence, high-quality and adequately powered RCTs are warranted.

Hydrocortisone fails to abolish NF-κB1 protein nuclear translocation in deletion allele carriers of the NFKB1 promoter polymorphism (-94ins/delATTG) and is associated with increased 30-day mortality in septic shock

Background

Previous investigations and meta-analyses on the effect of glucocorticoids on mortality in septic shock revealed mixed results. This heterogeneity might be evoked by genetic variations. Such candidate is a promoter polymorphism (-94ins/delATTG) of the gene encoding the ubiquitous transcription-factor nuclear-factor-κB (NF-κB) which binds to recognition elements in the promoter of several genes encoding for the innate immune-system. In turn, hydrocortisone inhibits NF-κB nuclear translocation and thus transcription of key immune-response regulators. Accordingly, we tested the hypotheses that hydrocortisone has a NFKB1 genotype dependent effect on 1) NF-κB1 nuclear translocation evoked by lipopolysaccharide (LPS) in monocytes in vitro, and 2) mortality in septic shock.

Methods

Monocytes of volunteers with the homozygous insertion (II; n = 5) or deletion (DD; n = 6) NFKB1 genotype were incubated with 10 µgml^-1 LPS ± hydrocortisone (10^-5M), and NF-κB1 nuclear translocation was assessed (immunofluorescence). Furthermore, we analyzed 30-day-mortality in 160 patients with septic shock stratified for both genotype and hydrocortisone therapy.

Results

Hydrocortisone inhibited LPS induced nuclear translocation of NF-κB1 in II (25%±11;p = 0.0001) but not in DD genotypes (51%±15;p = n.s.). Onehundredandfour of 160 patients with septic shock received hydrocortisone, at the discretion of the intensivist. NFKB1 deletion allele carriers (ID/DD) receiving hydrocortisone had a much greater 30-day-mortality (57.6%) than II genotypes (24.4%; HR:3.18, 95%-CI:1.61-6.28;p = 0.001). In contrast, 30-day mortality was 22.2% in ID/DD and 25.0% in II genotypes without hydrocortisone therapy. Results were similar when using propensity score matching to account for possible bias in the intensivists' decision to administer hydrocortisone.

Conclusion

Hydrocortisone fails to inhibit LPS induced nuclear NF-κB1 translocation in deletion allele carriers of the NFKB1 promoter polymorphism (-94ins/delATTG). In septic shock, hydrocortisone treatment is associated with markedly increased 30-day-mortality only in such carriers. Accordingly, previous heterogeneous results regarding the benefit of hydrocortisone in septic shock may be reconciled by genetic variation of the NFKB1 promoter polymorphism.