4.7 Article

Intravenous immunoglobulin use in septic shock patients after emergency laparotomy

Journal

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
Volume 71, Issue 2, Pages 158-166

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2015.04.003

Keywords

Bacteremia; Critical care; Immunoglobulins; Mechanical ventilation; Surgery

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (Research on Policy Planning and Evaluation) [H26-Policy-011]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The role of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) as an adjunctive treatment for abdominal sepsis remains controversial. Methods: Mechanically ventilated septic shock patients following emergency laparotomy for perforation of the lower intestinal tract were identified in the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination inpatient database from July 2010 to March 2013. The effect of IVIG use on 28-day mortality was evaluated using propensity score and instrumental variable analyses. Results: Eligible patients (n = 4919) treated at 845 hospitals were divided into IVIG (n = 2085) and control (n = 2834) groups. Propensity score matching created a matched cohort of 1081pairs with and without IVIG treatment. Although significant mortality differences existed between the IVIG and control groups in the unmatched analysis (20.6% vs. 18.3%; difference, 2.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07-4.5), there were no significant differences in the propensity score-matched analysis (20.4% vs. 19.3%; difference, 1.1%; 95% CI, -2.3-4.5). Analysis employing the pattern of hospital IVIG use as an instrumental variable showed that IVIG use was not associated with reduced mortality (difference -2.5; 95% CI, -6.5-1.6). Conclusions: There may be no significant association between IVIG use and mortality in mechanically ventilated septic shock patients after emergency laparotomy. (C) 2015 The British Infection Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available