4.6 Article

Early human albumin administration is associated with reduced mortality in septic shock patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: A retrospective study from the MIMIC-III database

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PHYSIOLOGY
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2023.1142329

关键词

septic shock; acute respiratory distress syndrome; human albumin; mortality; critical care; clinical outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that early administration of human albumin can significantly reduce the 28-day mortality in septic shock patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), especially for patients with a SOFA score of ≥10.
Background: Sepsis-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was associated with higher mortality. It is unclear whether albumin supplementation early in the course of ARDS can affect the prognostic outcomes of septic shock (SS) patients with ARDS.Methods: The MIMIC-III database was employed to identify SS patients with ARDS. The effect of early application (<24 h after ICU admission) of human albumin on 28-day mortality in SS patients with ARDS was explored. The propensity score matching was used to minimize the bias between the non-albumin and early albumin treatment groups.Results: The analysis for all eligible patients who received human albumin showed significantly lower 28-hospital mortality rates than the non-albumin group (37% versus 47%, p = 0.018). After propensity matching, the difference between the two groups also significantly (34.8% versus 48.1%, p = 0.031). Moreover, we found that the relationship between albumin use and reduced 28-day mortality was inconsistent across SOFA score subgroups (P-interaction = 0.004, non-adjustment for multiple testing).Conclusion: Early human albumin administration in SS patients with ARDS was independently associated with a reduction of 28-day mortality. Furthermore, the benefit of human albumin treatment appeared to be more pronounced in patients with a SOFA score of= 10.

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