Vasopressor and inotrope treatment for septic shock: An umbrella review of reviews

Andrea Cortegiani, Yigal Helviz, Andrea Cortegiani, Sharon Einav, Mariachiara Ippolito

Risultato della ricerca: Articlepeer review

Abstract

Purpose: To review the characteristics, findings and quality of systematic reviews (SRs) on the effect of any vasopressor/inotrope on outcomes in adult patients with sepsis compared with either no treatment, another vasopressor or inotrope or fluids. Materials and methods: We systematically searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed and Embase (January 1993–March 2021). Descriptive statistics were used. Results: Among the 28 SRs identified, mortality was the primary outcome in most (26/28) and mortality was usually (23/28) studied using randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Fifteen SRs focused exclusively on patients with sepsis or septic shock. Sepsis and septic shock were always grouped for the analysis. Publication bias was consistently low when studied. The most consistent findings were a survival advantage with norepinephrine versus dopamine, which disappeared in analyses restricted to 28-day mortality, and more arrhythmias with dopamine. However, these analyses were dominated by a single study. Only 2 SRs were judged to be of moderate-high quality. Lack of blinding and attrition bias may have affected the outcomes. Conclusions: The quality of SRs on the effect of vasopressors/inotropes on the outcomes of adult patients with sepsis can be improved, but high-quality, multicenter, RCTs should be preferred to additional SRs on this topic.
Lingua originaleEnglish
pagine (da-a)65-71
Numero di pagine7
RivistaJournal of Critical Care
Volume65
Stato di pubblicazionePublished - 2021

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • ???subjectarea.asjc.2700.2706???

Fingerprint

Entra nei temi di ricerca di 'Vasopressor and inotrope treatment for septic shock: An umbrella review of reviews'. Insieme formano una fingerprint unica.

Cita questo