Mortality among adult patients with sepsis and septic shock in Korea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To evaluate mortality from sepsis and septic shock in Korea during the past 10 years, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods
We searched six databases for studies on mortality from sepsis and septic shock in adult patients. Primary outcomes were 28- or 30-day mortality and in-hospital mortality from sepsis and septic shock. To assess the risk of bias, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Risk of Bias 2 tools. The protocol is registered in PROSPERO (No. CRD42022365739).Results
A total of 61 studies were included. The mortality rates from sepsis and septic shock at 28 or 30 days were 22.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 20.0%-25.6%; I2=89%) and 27.6% (95% CI, 22.3%-33.5%; I2=98%), respectively, according to the Sepsis-3 criteria. Furthermore, in accordance with the Sepsis-3 criteria, the in-hospital mortality rates were 28.1% (95% CI, 25.2%-31.1%; I2=87%) and 34.3% (95% CI, 27.2%-42.2%; I2=97%), respectively.Conclusion
The mortality rates from sepsis and septic shock in Korea are high. In the case of septic shock, the in-hospital mortality rate is approximately 30%.
SUBMITTER: Namgung M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10350360 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Mortality among adult patients with sepsis and septic shock in Korea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Namgung Myeong M Ahn Chiwon C Park Yeonkyung Y Kwak Il-Youp IY Lee Jungguk J Won Moonho M
Clinical and experimental emergency medicine 20230307 2
<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate mortality from sepsis and septic shock in Korea during the past 10 years, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched six databases for studies on mortality from sepsis and septic shock in adult patients. Primary outcomes were 28- or 30-day mortality and in-hospital mortality from sepsis and septic shock. To assess the risk of bias, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Risk of Bias 2 tools. The protocol is registered in PROSPERO ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundLevosimendan is increasingly being used in patients with sepsis or septic shock because of its potential to improve organ function and reduce mortality. We aimed to determine if levosimendan can reduce mortality in patients with sepsis or septic shock via meta-analysis.Evidence sources and study selectionWe comprehensively searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from inception through 1 October 2022. Literature evaluating the efficacy of levosimendan in patients with sepsis or septic shock was included.Data extraction and outcome measurementsTwo reviewers extracted data and assessed study quality. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate an odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and P -values for 28-day mortality (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes included changes in indexes reflecting cardiac function before and after treatment, changes in serum lactate levels in the first 24 h of treatment, and the mean SOFA score during the study period. Safety outcomes included rates of tachyarrhythmias and total adverse reactions encountered with levosimendan.ResultsEleven randomized controlled trials were identified, encompassing a total of 1044 patients. After using levosimendan, there was no statistical difference between groups for 28-day mortality (34.9% and 36.2%; OR: 0.93; 95% CI [0.72-1.2]; P = 0.57; I 2 = 0%; trial sequential analysis-adjusted CI [0.6-1.42]) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, and more adverse reactions seemed to occur in the levosimendan group, although the septic shock patient's heart function and serum lactate level improved.ConclusionThere was no association between the use of levosimendan and 28-day mortality and SOFA scores in patients with septic shock, though there was statistically significant improvement in cardiac function and serum lactate.
| S-EPMC10901220 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSepsis, a life-threatening organ dysfunction induced by infection, is a major public health problem. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency and mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock in China.MethodsWe Searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library from 1 January 1992 to 1 June 2020 for studies that reported on the frequency and mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock conducted in China. Random effects models were performed to estimate the pooled frequency and mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock.ResultsOur search yielded 846 results, of which 29 studies were included in this review. The pooled frequency of sepsis was estimated at 33.6% (95% CI 25.9% to 41.3%, I2 = 99.2%; p < 0.001), and the pooled mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock were 29.0% (95% CI 25.3%-32.8%, I2 = 92.1%; p = 0), 31.1% (95% CI 25.3% to 36.9%, I2 = 85.8%; p < 0.001) and 37.3% (95% CI 28.6%-46.0%, I2 = 93.5%; p < 0.001). There was significant heterogeneity between studies. With a small number of included studies and the changing definition of sepsis, trends in sepsis frequency and mortality were not sufficient for analysis. Epidemiological data on sepsis in the emergency department (ED) are severely lacking, and more research is urgently needed in this area is urgently needed.ConclusionsOur findings indicated that the frequency and mortality of sepsis and septic shock in China were much higher than North America and Europe countries. Based on our results, an extremely high incidence and mortality of sepsis and septic shock in China's mainland requires more healthcare budget support. Epidemiological data on sepsis and septic shock in ED are severely lacking, and more research is urgently needed in this area. Trial registration This systematic review was conducted according to the statement of the preferred reporting items for systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021243325) and the meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P).
| S-EPMC9210671 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe reported mortality for sepsis and septic shock varies between 15% and 59% in international comparison. For Germany, the number of studies is limited. Previous estimations of mortality in Germany are outdated or based on claims data analyses. Various authors discuss whether lacking quality initiatives and treatment standards in Germany could cause higher mortality for sepsis. This contrasts with the internationally well-recognized performance of the German intensive care infrastructure during the COVID-19 pandemic.ObjectivesThe objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to estimate 30-day and 90-day mortality of patients with sepsis and patients with septic shock in Germany and to compare the mortality with that of other industrialized regions (Europe, North America).Material and methodsA systematic literature search included interventional and observational studies published between 2009 and 2020 in PubMed and the Cochrane Library that analyzed adult patients with sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock in Europe and North America. Studies with less than 20 patients were excluded. The 30-day and 90-day mortality for sepsis and septic shock were pooled separately for studies conducted in Germany, Europe (excluding Germany) and North America in a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Mortality over time was analyzed in a linear regression model.ResultsOverall, 134 studies were included. Of these, 15 studies were identified for the estimation of mortality in Germany, covering 10,434 patients, the number of patients per study ranged from 28 to 4183 patients. The 30-day mortality for sepsis was 26.50% (95% confidence interval, CI: 19.86-33.15%) in Germany, 23.85% (95% CI: 20.49-27.21%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 19.58% (95% CI: 14.03-25.14%) in North America. The 30-day mortality for septic shock was 30.48% (95% CI: 29.30-31.67%) in Germany, 34.57% (95% CI: 33.51-35.64%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 33.69% (95% CI: 31.51-35.86%) in North America. The 90-day mortality for septic shock was 38.78% (95% CI: 32.70-44.86%) in Germany, 41.90% (95% CI: 38.88-44.91%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 34.41% (95% CI: 25.66-43.16%) in North America. A comparable decreasing trend in sepsis 30-day mortality was observed in all considered regions since 2009.ConclusionOur analysis does not support the notion that mortality related to sepsis and septic shock in Germany is higher in international comparison. A higher mortality would not be obvious either, since intensive care, for example also during the COVID-19 pandemic, is regarded as exemplary in Germany and the structural quality, such as the number of intensive care beds per 100,000 inhabitants, is high in international comparison. Nevertheless, deficits could also exist outside intensive care medicine. A comparison of international individual studies should take greater account of the structure of healthcare systems, the severity of disease and the limitations resulting from the data sources used.
| S-EPMC7871311 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies on whether or not levosimendan improved the prognosis of patients with sepsis and septic shock have been inconsistent. We aimed to provide an updated analysis of the therapeutic value of levosimendan in adult patients with sepsis and septic shock, in order to provide evidence-based medical evidence for its use.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang Data, and CNKI were searched until August 2018 without language restriction. Randomized controlled studies of levosimendan with either inotropic drugs or placebo for the treatment of sepsis or septic shock were enrolled. The primary outcome was mortality, and cardiac index and serum lactate levels were the secondary outcomes.ResultsA total of 20 randomized controlled studies were included in this meta-analysis, including 1467 patients, with 738 patients in the experimental group (levosimendan group) and 729 patients in the control group (other inotropic drugs or placebo). There were no significant differences in mortality between the levosimendan and control groups (fixed-effect relative risk [RR] = 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.79, 1.03], P = 0.13). Levosimendan increased the cardiac index (VMD [weighted mean difference] = 0.51, 95% CI [0.06, 0.95], P = 0.02); and serum lactate levels were lower (VMD = -1.04, 95% CI [-1.47, -0.60], P < 0.00001).ConclusionsBased on current clinical evidence, levosimendan does not reduce mortality in adult critically ill patients with sepsis and septic shock. Physicians should use levosimendan with caution in patients with sepsis and septic shock.
| S-EPMC6511414 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Procalcitonin (PCT) algorithms for antibiotic treatment decisions have been studied in adult patients from primary care, emergency department, and intensive care unit (ICU) settings, suggesting that procalcitonin-guided therapy may reduce antibiotic exposure without increasing the mortality rate. However, information on the efficacy and safety of this approach in the most vulnerable population of critically ill patients with severe sepsis and septic shock is missing.Two reviewers independently performed a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, BioMed Central, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov and http://www.ISRCTN.org. Eligible studies had to be randomized controlled clinical trials or cohort studies which compare procalcitonin-guided therapy with standard care in severe sepsis patients and report at least one of the following outcomes: hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, duration of antimicrobial therapy, length of stay in the intensive care unit or length of hospital stay. Disagreements about inclusion of studies and judgment of bias were solved by consensus.Finally seven studies comprising a total of 1,075 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock were included in the meta-analysis. Both hospital mortality (RR [relative risk]: 0.91, 95%CI [confidence interval]: 0.61; 1.36) and 28-day mortality (RR: 1.02, 95%CI: 0.85; 1.23) were not different between procalcitonin-guided therapy and standard treatment groups. Duration of antimicrobial therapy was significantly reduced in favor of procalcitonin-guided therapy (HR [hazard ratio]: 1.27, 95%CI: 1.01; 1.53). Combined estimates of the length of stay in the ICU and in hospital did not differ between groups.Procalcitonin-guided therapy is a helpful approach to guide antibiotic therapy and surgical interventions without a beneficial effect on mortality. The major benefit of PCT-guided therapy consists of a shorter duration of antibiotic treatment compared to standard care. Trials are needed to investigate the effect of PCT-guided therapy on mortality, length of ICU and in-hospital stay in severe sepsis patients.
| S-EPMC4056085 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundIn septic patients, hyperoxia may help with its bactericidal effects, but it may cause systemic impairments. The role of hyperoxia and the appropriate oxygen target in these patients is unknown. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the available literature.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search screening PubMed and Cochrane Library. Studies on adult patients with sepsis or septic shock and admitted to ICU addressing the topic of hyperoxia were included and described.ResultsWe included 12 studies, for a total of 15.782 included patients. Five studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or analyses from RCTs, three were prospective observational studies, and four were retrospective observational studies. The definition of hyperoxia was heterogeneous across the included studies. Mortality was the most frequent outcome: six studies showed an increased rate or risk of mortality with hyperoxia, three found no differences, and one a protective effect of hyperoxia. At the critical appraisal assessment stage, no major methodological flaws were detected, except for a single-center, pilot study, with a lack of adjustment for confounders and imbalance between the groups.ConclusionThe optimum range of oxygen level able to minimize risks and provide benefits in patients with sepsis or septic shock seems still unknown. Clinical equipoise between hyperoxia and normoxia is uncertain as conflicting evidence exists. Further studies should aim at identifying the best range of oxygenation and its optimal duration, investigating how effects of different levels of oxygen may vary according to identified pathogens, source of infection, and prescribed antibiotics in critically ill patients with sepsis and septic shock.
| S-EPMC10245526 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, up to January 10, 2023.Study selectionWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing corticosteroids with placebo or standard care with sepsis.Data extractionThe critical outcomes of interest included mortality, shock reversal, length of stay in the ICU, and adverse events.Data analysisWe performed both a pairwise and dose-response meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of different corticosteroid doses on outcomes. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to assess certainty in pooled estimates.Data synthesisWe included 45 RCTs involving 9563 patients. Corticosteroids probably reduce short-term mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99; moderate certainty) and increase shock reversal at 7 days (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.11-1.38; high certainty). Corticosteroids may have no important effect on duration of ICU stay (mean difference, -0.6 fewer days; 95% CI, 1.48 fewer to 0.27 more; low certainty); however, probably increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.18; moderate certainty) and hypernatremia (RR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.32-2.03; moderate certainty) and may increase the risk of neuromuscular weakness (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.45; low certainty). The dose-response analysis showed a reduction in mortality with corticosteroids with optimal dosing of approximately 260 mg/d of hydrocortisone (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98) or equivalent.ConclusionsWe found that corticosteroids may reduce mortality and increase shock reversal but they may also increase the risk of hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, and neuromuscular weakness. The dose-response analysis indicates optimal dosing is around 260 mg/d of hydrocortisone or equivalent.
| S-EPMC10798738 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesMethylene blue exerts its vasopressor properties by inhibiting nitric oxide-mediated vasodilation. Recent studies have advocated the use of methylene blue as a rescue therapy for patients with septic shock. The primary aim was to investigate the effect of methylene blue on the mean arterial pressure among adult patients with septic shock.MethodsDatabases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from their inception date until October 2023. Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT) comparing methylene blue and placebo in adults with septic shock were included.ResultsOur systematic review included 5 studies (n = 257) for data analysis. As compared to the placebo, our pooled analysis showed that methylene blue significantly increased mean arterial pressure (MD: 1.34 mmHg, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.53, p = 0.03, level of evidence: very low). Patients who were given methylene blue were associated with statistically lower mortality rate (OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.88, p = 0.02, level of evidence: low), reduced serum lactate levels (MD: -0.76 mmoL.L-1, 95% CI -1.22 to -0.31, p = 0.0009, level of evidence: low), reduced length of hospital stay (MD: -1.94 days, 95% CI -3.79 to -0.08, p = 0.04, level of evidence: low), and increased PaO2/FiO2 (MD: 34.78, 95% CI 8.94 to 60.61, p = 0.008, level of evidence: low).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis demonstrated that methylene blue administration was associated with an increased in mean arterial pressure and PaO2/FiO2 ratio, along with a reduction in mortality rates, serum lactate levels, and length of hospital stay. However, substantial degree of heterogeneity and inadequate number of studies with low level of evidence warrant future adequately powered RCTs to affirm our results.
| S-EPMC11754512 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo identify the most useful tissue perfusion parameter for initial resuscitation in sepsis/septic shock adults using a network meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched major databases until December 2022 for randomized trials comparing four tissue perfusion parameters or against usual care. The primary outcome was short-term mortality up to 90 days. The Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis web application was used to assess the quality of evidence.ResultsSeventeen trials were identified. Lactate-guided therapy (risk ratios, 0.59; 95% confidence intervals [0.45-0.76]; high certainty) and capillary refill time-guided therapy (risk ratios, 0.53; 95% confidence intervals [0.33-0.86]; high certainty) were significantly associated with lower short-term mortality compared with usual care, whereas central venous oxygen saturation-guided therapy (risk ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence intervals [1.16-1.94]; moderate certainty) increased the risk of short-term mortality compared with lactate-guided therapy.ConclusionsLactate or capillary refill time-guided initial resuscitation for sepsis/septic shock patients may decrease short-term mortality. More research is essential to personalize and optimize treatment strategies for septic shock resuscitation.
| S-EPMC10750303 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective To explore the clinical effects of albumin supplements on the basis of crystalloid solution in patients with sepsis or septic shock. Methods The online databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were comprehensively searched from inception to June 28, 2021, with the keywords including “albumin,” “sepsis,” or “septic shock.” Retrospective cohort (RC) and randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included for analysis. Two authors independently searched and analyzed the literature. The in-hospital mortality at 7 days and 28 days, duration of mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, length of ICU stay, and length of hospital stay were compared between patients with albumin supplements and crystalloid solution and those with crystalloid alone. Results A total of 10 studies with 6463 patients were eventually included for meta-analysis. The in-hospital mortality of patients at 7 days (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.81–1.23) and 28 days (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.91–1.13) did not show a significant difference between the two groups of patients. Also, the pooled results demonstrated no significant differences in duration of mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.29, 95% CI: −0.05–0.63), renal replacement therapy (WMD = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.98–1.35), length of ICU stay (WMD = −0.07, 95% CI: −0.62–0.48), and length of hospital stay (WMD = −0.09, 95% CI: −0.70–0.52) between patients receiving albumin plus crystalloid solution and those with crystalloid solution alone. Conclusion Albumin supplements on the basis of crystalloid solution did not improve the 7-day and 28-dayin-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis or septic shock compared with those with crystalloid solution alone.
| S-EPMC9576387 | biostudies-literature