Corticosteroids for septic shock--a standard of care?

Applications of Steroid in Clinical Practice: A Review

Steroids are perhaps one of the most widely used group of drugs in present day anaesthetic practice, sometimes with indication and sometimes without indications. Because of their diverse effects on various systems of the body, there has been renewed interest in the use of steroids in modern day anaesthetic practice. This paper focuses on the synthesis and functions of steroids and risks associated with their supplementation. This paper also highlights the recent trends, relevance, and consensus issues on the use of steroids as adjunct pharmacological agents in relation to anaesthetic practice and intensive care, along with emphasis on important clinical aspects of perioperative usefulness and supplementation.

Etomidate and mortality in cirrhotic patients with septic shock

BACKGROUND

Clinical effects and outcomes of a single dose etomidate prior to intubation in the intensive care setting is controversial. The aim of this study is to evaluate the association of a single dose effect of etomidate prior to intubation on the mortality of septic cirrhotic patients and the impact of the subsequent use of low dose hydrocortisone.

METHODS

This is a nested-cohort study within a randomized double blind placebo controlled study evaluating the use of low dose hydrocortisone in cirrhotic septic patients. Cirrhotic septic patients ≥ 18 years were included in the study. Patients who received etomidate prior to intubation were compared to those who did not receive etomidate for all cause 28-day mortality as a primary outcome.

RESULTS

Sixty two intubated patients out of the 75 patients randomized in the initial trial were eligible for this study. Twenty three of the 62 intubated patients received etomidate dose prior to intubation. Etomidate use was not associated with all cause 28-day mortality or hospital mortality but was associated with significantly higher ICU mortality (91% vs. 64% for etomidate and controls groups, respectively; p = 0.02). Etomidate patients who received subsequent doses of hydrocortisone required lower doses of vasopressors and had more vasopressor-free days but no improvement in mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In this group of septic cirrhotic patients with very high mortality, etomidate increased ICU mortality. Subsequent use of hydrocortisone appears to have no benefit beyond decreasing vasopressor requirements. The lowest mortality was observed in patients who did not receive etomidate but received hydrocortisone.

Global utilization of low-dose corticosteroids in severe sepsis and septic shock: a report from the PROGRESS registry

INTRODUCTION

The benefits and use of low-dose corticosteroids (LDCs) in severe sepsis and septic shock remain controversial. Surviving sepsis campaign guidelines suggest LDC use for septic shock patients poorly responsive to fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. Their use is suspected to be wide-spread, but paucity of data regarding global practice exists. The purpose of this study was to compare baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients treated or not treated with LDC from the international PROGRESS (PROmoting Global Research Excellence in Severe Sepsis) cohort study of severe sepsis.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in the PROGRESS registry were evaluated for use of vasopressor and LDC (equivalent or lesser potency to hydrocortisone 50 mg six-hourly plus 50 microg 9-alpha-fludrocortisone) for treatment of severe sepsis at any time in intensive care units (ICUs). Baseline characteristics and hospital mortality were analyzed, and logistic regression techniques used to develop propensity score and outcome models adjusted for baseline imbalances between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 8,968 patients with severe sepsis and sufficient data for analysis were studied. A total of 79.8% (7,160/8,968) of patients received vasopressors, and 34.0% (3,051/8,968) of patients received LDC. Regional use of LDC was highest in Europe (51.1%) and lowest in Asia (21.6%). Country use was highest in Brazil (62.9%) and lowest in Malaysia (9.0%). A total of 14.2% of patients on LDC were not receiving any vasopressor therapy. LDC patients were older, had more co-morbidities and higher disease severity scores. Patients receiving LDC spent longer in ICU than patients who did not (median of 12 versus 8 days; P <0.001). Overall hospital mortality rates were greater in the LDC than in the non-LDC group (58.0% versus 43.0%; P <0.001). After adjusting for baseline imbalances, in all mortality models (with vasopressor use), a consistent association remained between LDC and hospital mortality (odds ratios varying from 1.30 to 1.47).

CONCLUSIONS

Widespread use of LDC for the treatment of severe sepsis with significant regional and country variation exists. In this study, 14.2% of patients received LDC despite the absence of evidence of shock. Hospital mortality was higher in the LDC group and remained higher after adjustment for key determinates of mortality.

Etomidate, pharmacological adrenalectomy and the critically ill: a matter of vital importance

Etomidate is a potent suppressant of adrenal steroidogenesis,effectively inducing reversible pharmacological adrenalectomy. Recent evidence suggests that for every five patients with septic shock given etomidate without corticosteroid supplementation, one patient will die as a consequence. Other critically ill patients are also at possible risk, and this risk requires further exploration. Etomidate will also confound investigations into the effects of disease states on adrenal function, and should therefore be avoided. A moratorium on the use of etomidate in critically ill patients outside clinical trials may be prudent until its safety is established.

Evidence-based sepsis therapy: a hospitalist perspective

BACKGROUND

Severe sepsis and septic shock are common and associated with a 30-50% mortality rate. Evidence-based therapies for severe sepsis supported by international critical care and infectious disease societies exist, but are inconsistently employed.

METHODS

The epidemiology and definitions of sepsis syndromes are reviewed; sepsis therapies supported by definitive studies in the field, along with the supporting literature, are summarized and presented from a hospitalist perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

Compelling observational data supports the importance of early, effective antibiotics. Well-designed randomized controlled trials and/or meta-analyses demonstrate the impact of activated protein C, early goal-directed therapy, stress-dose steroids, and intensive insulin in well-defined subgroups of patients. These therapies reduce the absolute mortality risk associated with severe sepsis by 9.5-16%; the corresponding numbers needed to treat to save one life are 6.25-10.5. While major trials are ongoing and the evidence for several sepsis therapies are limited to single trials, the available evidence indicates that appropriate use of these treatments can substantially reduce mortality from severe sepsis.