Norepinephrine in Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

被引:16
|
作者
Ruslan, Muhammad Azfar [1 ,2 ]
Baharuddin, Kamarul Aryffin [1 ,3 ]
Noor, Norhayati Mohd [4 ]
Yazid, Mohd Boniami [1 ,3 ]
Noh, Abu Yazid Md [1 ,3 ]
Rahman, Andey [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sains Malaysia, Sch Med Sci, Dept Emergency Med, Kubang Kerian 16150, Kelantan, Malaysia
[2] Hosp Tanah Merah, Dept Emergency Med, Tanah Merah, Kelantan, Malaysia
[3] Hosp Univ Sains Malaysia, Dept Emergency Med, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia
[4] Univ Sains Malaysia, Dept Family Med, Sch Med Sci, Kubang Kerian, Malaysia
关键词
MANAGEMENT; DOPAMINE; SEPSIS; EPINEPHRINE; VASOPRESSIN; EFFICACY; NORADRENALINE; PHENYLEPHRINE; HEMODYNAMICS; TERLIPRESSIN;
D O I
10.5811/westjem.2020.10.47825
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Introduction: Most experts recommend norepinephrine as the first-line agent in septic shock. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness and safety of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Epistemonikos, as well as MEDLINE from 1966 till August 2019. Screening of full texts, evaluation for eligibility, and data extraction were done by four independent reviewers. We estimated risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) using a random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary outcomes included the number of participants who achieved the target mean arterial pressure (MAP), time to achieve the target MAP, and number of participants with all-cause 28-day mortality. The secondary outcomes included the length of stay in the intensive care unit, length of hospital stay, incidence of arrhythmia and myocardial infarction, vasopressor-free days, and number of participants with all-cause 90-day mortality. Results: We identified 11 randomized controlled trials with a total of 4,803 participants. There was no difference in the number of participants who achieved the target MAP between those patients receiving norepinephrine and other vasopressors (RR 1.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 6.54; P = 0.640; I-2 = 94%; two trials, 116 participants). There was no significant difference in time to achieve the target MAP (MD -0.05; 95%, CI, -0.32 to 0.21; P = 0.690; I-2 = 26%; two trials, 1763 participants) and all-cause 28-day mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.02; P = 0.160; I-2 = 0%; seven trials, 4,139 participants). Regarding the secondary outcome, norepinephrine may significantly reduce the incidence of arrhythmia as compared to other vasopressors (RR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.97; P = 0.030; I-2 = 64%; six trials, 3974 participants). There was no difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction (RR 1.28; 95% CI, 0.79 to 2.09), vasopressor-free day (RR 0.46; 95% CI, -1.82 to 2.74) and all-cause 90-day mortality (RR 1.08; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.21) between norepinephrine and vasopressors. Conclusion: In minimizing the occurrence of an arrhythmia, norepinephrine is superior to other vasopressors, making it safe to be used in septic shock. However, there was insufficient evidence concerning mortality and achievement of the target MAP outcomes.
引用
收藏
页码:196 / 203
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Terlipressin Versus Norepinephrine for Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Huang, Po
    Guo, Yuhong
    Li, Bo
    Liu, Qingquan
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY, 2019, 10
  • [2] Timing of norepinephrine initiation in patients with septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Li, Yuting
    Li, Hongxiang
    Zhang, Dong
    [J]. CRITICAL CARE, 2020, 24 (01)
  • [3] Timing of norepinephrine initiation in patients with septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Yuting Li
    Hongxiang Li
    Dong Zhang
    [J]. Critical Care, 24
  • [4] Is norepinephrine more effective than other vasopressors for septic shock? A systematic review and meta-analysis
    F Zhou
    Z Peng
    W Zhang
    J Bishop
    Q Song
    [J]. Critical Care, 17 (Suppl 2):
  • [5] Dopamine versus norepinephrine in septic shock: a meta-analysis
    S Shenoy
    A Ganesh
    A Rishi
    V Doshi
    S Lankala
    J Molnar
    S Kogilwaimath
    [J]. Critical Care, 15 (Suppl 1):
  • [6] Corticosteroids in septic shock: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
    Ben Gibbison
    José A. López-López
    Julian P. T. Higgins
    Tom Miller
    Gianni D. Angelini
    Stafford L. Lightman
    Djillali Annane
    [J]. Critical Care, 21
  • [7] Vasopressors in septic shock: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
    Zhou, Feihu
    Mao, Zhi
    Zeng, Xiantao
    Kang, Hongjun
    Liu, Hui
    Pan, Liang
    Hou, Peter C.
    [J]. THERAPEUTICS AND CLINICAL RISK MANAGEMENT, 2015, 11 : 1047 - 1059
  • [8] Corticosteroids in septic shock: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
    Gibbison, Ben
    Lopez-Lopez, Jose A.
    Higgins, Julian P. T.
    Miller, Tom
    Angelini, Gianni D.
    Lightman, Stafford L.
    Annane, Djillali
    [J]. CRITICAL CARE, 2017, 21
  • [9] Methylene Blue in Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Fernando, Shannon M.
    Tran, Alexandre
    Soliman, Karim
    Flynn, Barbara
    Oommen, Thomas
    Wenzhe, Li
    Adhikari, Neill K. J.
    Kanji, Salmaan
    Seely, Andrew J. E.
    Fox-Robichaud, Alison E.
    Wax, Randy S.
    Cook, Deborah J.
    Lamontagne, Francois
    Rochwerg, Bram
    [J]. CRITICAL CARE EXPLORATIONS, 2024, 6 (07)
  • [10] Hydrocortisone with fludrocortisone for septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Yamamoto, Ryo
    Nahara, Isao
    Toyosaki, Mitsunobu
    Fukuda, Tatsuma
    Masuda, Yoshiki
    Fujishima, Seitaro
    [J]. ACUTE MEDICINE & SURGERY, 2020, 7 (01):