4.6 Article

Low-dose steroids in adult septic shock: results of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 38, 期 12, 页码 1946-1954

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-012-2720-z

关键词

Surviving Sepsis Campaign; Low-dose steroids; Sepsis mortality

资金

  1. Eli Lilly Co.
  2. Edwards Lifesciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) developed guidelines and treatment bundles for the administration of steroids in adult septic shock. However, it is not clear how this has affected clinical practice or patient outcome. The SSC has developed an extensive database to assess the overall effect of its guidelines on clinical practice and patient outcome. This analysis focuses on one particular element of the SSC's management bundle, namely, the administration of low-dose steroids in adult septic shock. This analysis was conducted on data submitted from January 2005 through March 2010 including 27,836 subjects at 218 sites. A total of 17,847 (of the total 27,836) patients in the database required vasopressor therapy despite fluid resuscitation and therefore met the eligibility criteria for receiving low-dose steroids. A total of 8,992 patients (50.4 %) received low-dose steroids for their septic shock. Patients in Europe (59.4 %) and South America (51.9 %) were more likely to be prescribed low-dose steroids compared to their counterparts in North America (46.2 %, p < 0.001). The adjusted hospital mortality was significantly higher (OR 1.18, 95 % CI 1.09-1.23, p < 0.001) in patients who received low-dose steroids compared to those who did not. There was still an association with increased adjusted hospital mortality with low-dose steroids even if they were prescribed within 8 h (OR 1.23, 95 % CI 1.13-1.34, p < 0.001). Steroids were commonly administered in the treatment of septic shock in this subset analysis of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign database. However, this was associated with an increase in adjusted hospital mortality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据