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.

Programmed, intermittent boluses versus continuous infusion to the sciatic nerve - a non-inferiority randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Trials comparing programmed, intermittent boluses (PIB) and continuous infusion in catheter-based nerve blocks found no analgesic differences. However, as these trials used equal doses of local anesthetic (LA), the time of action of each bolus was not accounted for. Therefore, the dose-sparing benefits of PIB may have been overlooked. We compared the analgesic effect of boluses administered in intervals resembling the time of action of each bolus with continuous infusion. We hypothesized that PIB provided non-inferior analgesia despite consuming less LA.

METHODS

Eighty-one patients undergoing fore- and midfoot surgery receiving a catheter-based sciatic nerve block were randomized to ropivacaine 0.2% as PIB of 10 ml every 8th hour or as continuous infusion, 6 ml h^-1 . All participants could also receive boluses of 10 ml every 4th hour as needed. A non-inferiority randomized controlled design was used. Primary outcome was pain (VAS, 0-100 mm) for 72 h using area under curve (AUC) calculation. We assumed a linear relationship between mean VAS and AUC-VAS and used a non-inferiority margin of VAS = 20 mm, corresponding to AUC-VAS = 1440 mm h.

RESULTS

Mean difference in AUC-VAS was -416 mm h (95% CI -1076 to 244; p = .217) between continuous infusion (mean AUC-VAS 1206 mm h) and PIB (mean AUC-VAS 1621 mm h), establishing non-inferiority. Mean total LA consumption was significantly larger for continuous infusion compared to PIB ((468 ml (95% CI 458 to 478) vs. 136 ml (95% CI 123 to 148); p < 0.0001)).

CONCLUSIONS

PIB provided non-inferior analgesia compared to continuous infusion for 72 postoperative hours despite using significantly less LA.

Effect of target controlled propofol infusion versus intermittent boluses during oesophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol is administered as intermittent boluses to achieve deep sedation to facilitate oesophagogastroduodenoscopy. Target controlled infusion (TCI) can be employed for this purpose.

METHODS

176 adults were randomly allocated into two groups of 88 patients. Control group: Received an initial bolus of propofol 1mg/kg, with repeat boluses of 0.25mg/kg. Intervention group: Received an initial target effect-site concentration of 4mcg/ml, followed by maintenance target effect-site concentration of 2.5mcg/ml, titrated by 0.5mcg/ml from baseline infusion rate as needed. Oxygen saturation, blood pressure and heart rate were evaluated immediately before administering the sedative and at 2.50, 5.00, 7.50 and 10.00 minutes. Oxygen desaturation below 90% in both study groups was recorded. Sedation starting time, stopping time, waking up time and overall duration of time to recovery of participants in each study arm was recorded.

RESULTS

More hypoxic episodes were observed in the intermittent bolus group with statistically significant association between control and the incidence of hypoxia: Chi square test, p=0.037. There were more hypotensive episodes in the TCI group but not achieving statistical significance: Chi square test for association X2(1) = 0.962, p=0.327.The time to recovery between the two groups was comparable, with 18.84 ± 10.76 minutes in the bolus group and 19.72 ± 9.27 minutes in the TCI group; no statistically significant difference was shown: Student's t-test, p=0.0564.

CONCLUSION

TCI of propofol was associated with fewer episodes of hypoxia compared to intermittent bolus administration. Similar hemodynamic profiles and comparable time to recovery were demonstrated by these two sedation techniques.

Evaluation of Hydrocortisone Continuous Infusion Versus Intermittent Boluses in Resolution of Septic Shock

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness of continuous infusion of hydrocortisone versus intermittent boluses in the resolution of septic shock.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed to investigate the effects of low-dose hydrocortisone continuous infusion (200 mg per day) versus intermittent boluses (50 mg every six hours) in septic shock patients who did not respond to fluid resuscitation and vasopressors. The primary outcome was time to resolution of shock, defined by time from the initiation of hydrocortisone to time of vasopressor withdrawal when mean arterial pressure was greater than 65 mm Hg. Hospital length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, 28-day all-cause in-hospital mortality, and hyperglycemia were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 51 patients in the study, 33 received intermittent boluses of hydrocortisone. The median time to resolution of shock in the continuous group was three days, compared with a mean time of two days in the bolus group (P = 0.41). Mean hospital length of stay was 18.7 ± 19.4 days in the continuous group versus 18.6 ± 17.4 days in the bolus group (P = 0.77). Mean ICU length of stay was 10.4 ± 12.5 days in the continuous group versus 11.1 ± 9.2 days in the bolus group (P = 0.31). Thirteen patients (72%) in the continuous group died within 28 days, compared with 20 (60%) in the bolus group (P = 0.76). Five patients (28%) had hyperglycemic episodes after being given hydrocortisone in the continuous infusion group, compared with 20 patients (60%) in the bolus group (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in time to resolution of septic shock between continuous infusion (200 mg per day) and intermittent boluses (50 mg every six hours) of hydrocortisone. There were also no statistically significant differences in overall hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, and 28-day all-cause in-hospital mortality. However, there was a significant difference in the incidence of hyperglycemia between the two groups, with patients in the bolus group experiencing more hyperglycemia than those in the continuous infusion group.