Corticosteroids in septic shock:a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract Background Multiple corticosteroids and treatment regimens have been used as adjuncts in the treatment of septic shock. Qualitative and quantitative differences exist at cellular and tissular levels between the different drugs and their patterns of delivery. The objective of this study was to elucidate any differences between the drugs and their treatment regimens regarding outcomes for corticosteroid use in adult patients with septic shock. Methods Network meta-analysis of the data used for the recently conducted Cochrane review was performed. Studies that included children and were designed to assess respiratory function in pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, as well as cross-over studies, were excluded. Network plots were created for each outcome, and all analyses were conducted using a frequentist approach assuming a random-effects model. Results Complete data from 22 studies and partial data from 1 study were included. Network meta-analysis provided no clear evidence that any intervention or treatment regimen is better than any other across the spectrum of outcomes. There was strong evidence of differential efficacy in only one area: shock reversal. Hydrocortisone boluses and infusions were more likely than methylprednisolone boluses and placebo to result in shock reversal. Conclusions There was no clear evidence that any one corticosteroid drug or treatment regimen is more likely to be effective in reducing mortality or reducing the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding or superinfection in septic shock. Hydrocortisone delivered as a bolus or as an infusion was more likely than placebo and methylprednisolone to result in shock reversal

Corticosteroids for severe sepsis: an evidence-based guide for physicians

Septic shock is characterized by uncontrolled systemic inflammation that contributes to the progression of organ failures and eventually death. There is now ample evidence that the inability of the host to mount an appropriate hypothalamic-pituitary and adrenal axis response plays a major in overwhelming systemic inflammation during infections. Proinflammatory mediators released in the inflamed sites oppose to the anti-inflammatory response, an effect that may be reversed by exogenous corticosteroids. With sepsis, via nongenomic and genomic effects, corticosteroids restore cardiovascular homeostasis, terminate systemic and tissue inflammation, restore organ function, and prevent death. These effects of corticosteroids have been consistently found in animal studies and in most recent frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses. Corticosteroids should be initiated only in patients with sepsis who require 0.5 μg/kg per minute or more of norepinephrine and should be continued for 5 to 7 days except in patients with poor hemodynamic response after 2 days of corticosteroids and with a cortisol increment of more than 250 nmol/L after a standard adrenocorticotropin hormone (ACTH) test. Hydrocortisone should be given at a daily dose of 200 mg and preferably combined to enteral fludrocortisone at a dose of 50 μg. Blood glucose levels should be kept below 150 mg/dL

Corticotherapy for traumatic brain-injured Patients - The Corti-TC trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a main cause of severe prolonged disability of young patients. Hospital acquired pneumonia (HAP) add to the morbidity and mortality of traumatic brain-injured patients. In one study, hydrocortisone for treatment of traumatic-induced corticosteroid insufficiency (CI) in multiple injured patients has prevented HAP, particularly in the sub-group of patients with severe TBI. Fludrocortisone is recommended in severe brain-injured patients suffering from acute subarachnoid hemorrhage. Whether an association of hydrocortisone with fludrocortisone protects from HAP and improves neurological recovery is uncertain. The aim of the current study is to compare corticotherapy to placebo for TBI patients with CI.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The CORTI-TC (Corticotherapy in traumatic brain-injured patients) trial is a multicenter, randomized, placebo controlled, double-blind, two-arms study. Three hundred and seventy six patients hospitalized in Intensive Care Unit with a severe traumatic brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 8) are randomized in the first 24 hours following trauma to hydrocortisone (200 mg.day^-1for 7 days, 100 mg on days 8-9 and 50 mg on day-10) with fludrocortisone (50 μg for 10 days) or double placebo. The treatment is stopped if patients have an appropriate adrenal response. The primary endpoint is HAP on day-28. The endpoint of the ancillary study is the neurological status on 6 and 12 months.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The CORTI-TC trial is the first randomized controlled trial powered to investigate whether hydrocortisone with fludrocortisone in TBI patients with CI prevent HAP and improve long term recovery.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p><a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01093261">NCT01093261</a></p

Thirty years of critical care medicine

Critical care medicine is a relatively young but rapidly evolving specialty. On the occasion of the 30th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, we put together some thoughts from a few of the leaders in critical care who have been actively involved in this field over the years. Looking back over the last 30 years, we reflect on areas in which, despite large amounts of research and technological and scientific advances, no major therapeutic breakthroughs have been made. We then look at the process of care and realize that, here, huge progress has been made. Lastly, we suggest how critical care medicine will continue to evolve for the better over the next 30 years

Serum macrophage migration inhibitory factor reflects adrenal function in the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis of septic patients: an observational study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis modulates the inflammatory response during sepsis. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF), which counteracts the anti-inflammatory activity of glucocorticoid (GC), is one of the mediators of the development of inflammation. An inflammatory imbalance involving GC and MIF might be the cause or result of adrenal insufficiency. Our objective was to clarify the relationship between serum MIF and adrenal function in the HPA axis of sepsis patients using the adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) stimulation test.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An observational study was performed in a university intensive care unit over a two-year period. Of 64 consecutive sepsis patients, 41 were enrolled. The enrolled patients underwent an ACTH stimulation test within 24 h of the diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock. Clinical and laboratory parameters, including serum MIF and cortisol, were measured.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Based on their responses to the ACTH stimulation test, the patients were divided into a normal adrenal response (NAR) group (n = 22) and an adrenal insufficiency (AI) group (n = 19). The AI group had significantly more septic shock patients and higher prothrombin time ratios, serum MIF, and baseline cortisol than did the NAR group (<it>P </it>< 0.05). Serum MIF correlated significantly with the SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) score, prothrombin time ratio, and delta max cortisol, which is maximum increment of serum cortisol concentration after ACTH stimulation test (rs = 0.414, 0.355, and -0.49, respectively, <it>P </it>< 0.05). Serum MIF also correlated significantly with the delta max cortisol/albumin ratio (rs = -0.501, <it>P </it>= 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis identified the threshold serum MIF concentration (19.5 ng/mL, <it>P </it>= 0.01) that segregated patients into the NAR and AI groups.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The inverse correlation between serum MIF and delta max cortisol or the delta max cortisol/albumin ratio suggests that high serum MIF reflects an insufficient adrenal response in the HPA axis. Serum MIF could be a valuable clinical marker of adrenal insufficiency in sepsis patients.</p

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012." DESIGN: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality