Glucocorticosteroids for sepsis: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

被引:95
|
作者
Volbeda, M. [1 ]
Wetterslev, J. [2 ]
Gluud, C. [2 ]
Zijlstra, J. G. [1 ]
van der Horst, I. C. C. [1 ]
Keus, F. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Groningen, Univ Med Ctr Groningen, Dept Crit Care, NL-9700 RB Groningen, Netherlands
[2] Copenhagen Univ Hosp, Rigshosp, Ctr Clin Intervent Res, Copenhagen Trial Unit,Dept 7812, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
关键词
Steroids; Sepsis; Meta-analysis; Trial sequential analysis; COMMUNITY-ACQUIRED PNEUMONIA; LOW-DOSE HYDROCORTISONE; SEPTIC SHOCK PATIENTS; MONITORING BOUNDARIES; CLINICAL-SIGNIFICANCE; STEROID-THERAPY; DOUBLE-BLIND; CORTICOSTEROIDS; DEXAMETHASONE; METHYLPREDNISOLONE;
D O I
10.1007/s00134-015-3899-6
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Glucocorticosteroids (steroids) are widely used for sepsis patients. However, the potential benefits and harms of both high and low dose steroids remain unclear. A systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) might shed light on this clinically important question. A systematic review was conducted according to a published protocol and The Cochrane Handbook methodology including meta-analyses, TSA of randomised clinical trials, and external validity estimation (GRADE). Randomised clinical trials evaluating steroids were included for sepsis patients (systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock) aged > 18 years. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cinahl were searched until 18 February 2015. No language restrictions were applied. Primary outcomes were mortality at longest follow-up and serious adverse events. A total of 35 trials randomising 4682 patients were assessed and reviewed in full text. All trials but two had high risk of bias. No statistically significant effect was found for any dose of steroids versus placebo or no intervention on mortality at maximal follow-up [relative risk (RR) 0.89; TSA adjusted confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.08]. Two trials with low risk of bias also showed no statistically significant difference (random-effects model RR 0.38, 95 % CI 0.06-2.42). Similar results were obtained in subgroups of trials stratified according to high (> 500 mg) or low (a parts per thousand currency sign500 mg) dose hydrocortisone (or equivalent) (RR 0.87; TSA-adjusted CI 0.38-1.99; and RR 0.90; TSA-adjusted CI 0.49-1.67, respectively). There were also no statistically significant effects on serious adverse events other than mortality (RR 1.02; TSA-adjusted CI 0.7-1.48). The effects did not vary according to the degree of sepsis. TSA showed that many more randomised patients are needed before definitive conclusions may be drawn. Evidence to support or negate the use of steroids in any dose in sepsis patients is lacking. The results of ongoing and future well-designed, large randomised clinical trials are needed.
引用
收藏
页码:1220 / 1234
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Different materials for direct pulp capping: systematic review and meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
    Falk Schwendicke
    Fredrik Brouwer
    Anja Schwendicke
    Sebastian Paris
    Clinical Oral Investigations, 2016, 20 : 1121 - 1132
  • [42] Pectoral block versus paravertebral block: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
    Jin, Zhaosheng
    Durrands, Thomas
    Li, Ru
    Gan, Tong Joo
    Lin, Jun
    REGIONAL ANESTHESIA AND PAIN MEDICINE, 2020, 45 (09) : 727 - 732
  • [43] Exercise for patients with major depression: A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
    Krogh J.
    Speyer H.
    Gluud C.
    Nordentoft M.
    Systematic Reviews, 4 (1)
  • [44] Research Note: Trial sequential analysis in systematic reviews with meta-analysis
    Riberholt, Christian Gunge
    Olsen, Markus Harboe
    Gluud, Christian
    JOURNAL OF PHYSIOTHERAPY, 2024, 70 (03) : 243 - 246
  • [45] Corticosteroids in Sepsis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Rochwerg, Bram
    Oczkowski, Simon J.
    Siemieniuk, Reed A. C.
    Agoritsas, Thomas
    Belley-Cote, Emilie
    D'Aragon, Frederick
    Duan, Erick
    English, Shane
    Gossack-Keenan, Kira
    Alghuroba, Mashari
    Szczeklik, Wojciech
    Menon, Kusum
    Alhazzani, Waleed
    Sevransky, Jonathan
    Vandvik, Per Olav
    Annane, Djillali
    Guyatt, Gordon
    CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2018, 46 (09) : 1411 - 1420
  • [46] RESTRICTIVE FLUIDS IN SEPSIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
    Stefanos, Sylvia S.
    Reynolds, Paul
    MacLaren, Robert
    CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2023, 51 (01) : 32 - 32
  • [47] Efficacy and safety of intrathecal diamorphine: a systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis
    Grape, Sina
    El-Boghdadly, Kariem
    Jaques, Cecile
    Albrecht, Eric
    ANAESTHESIA, 2024, 79 (10) : 1081 - 1090
  • [48] Immunomodulatory drugs in sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Robey, R. C.
    Logue, C.
    Caird, C. A.
    Hansel, J.
    Hellyer, T. P.
    Simpson, J.
    Dark, P.
    Mathioudakis, A. G.
    Felton, T.
    ANAESTHESIA, 2024, 79 (08) : 869 - 879
  • [49] Rehabilitation for patients with sepsis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Taito, Shunsuke
    Taito, Mahoko
    Banno, Masahiro
    Tsujimoto, Hiraku
    Kataoka, Yuki
    Tsujimoto, Yasushi
    PLOS ONE, 2018, 13 (07):
  • [50] Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 versus crystalloid or albumin in patients with sepsis: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
    Haase, Nicolai
    Perner, Anders
    Inkeri, Louise
    Siegemund, Martin
    Lauridsen, Bo
    Wetterslev, Mik
    Wetterslev, Jorn
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2013, 346