MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Practice Patterns in the Initiation of Secondary Vasopressors and Adjunctive Corticosteroids during Septic Shock in the United States

2021· article· en· W3162836313 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsNorepinephrineSeptic shockIntensive care unitShock (circulatory)Adjunctive treatmentIntensive care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale A central component of septic shock treatment is the infusion of vasopressors, most commonly starting with norepinephrine. However, the optimal approach and practice patterns for initiating adjunctive vasopressors and corticosteroids are unknown. Objectives To characterize practice pattern variation in the norepinephrine dose at which secondary vasopressors and adjunctive corticosteroids are initiated and to identify factors associated with a treatment strategy favoring secondary vasopressors compared with factors associated with a treatment strategy favoring adjunctive corticosteroids among patients with septic shock on norepinephrine. Methods We used a multicenter intensive care unit (ICU) database to identify patients with septic shock who were started on norepinephrine followed by an additional vasopressor or corticosteroids. We used multilevel models to determine the hospital risk-adjusted norepinephrine dose at which additional vasopressors and corticosteroids were started, the percentage of variation in the norepinephrine dose at the time of adjunctive treatment associated with the hospital of admission, and the factors associated with choosing an “additional-vasopressor-first” strategy versus a “corticosteroid-first” strategy. Results Among 4,401 patients with septic shock on norepinephrine, 1,940 (44.0%) were started on adjuncts (1,357 received an additional-vasopressor-first strategy, and 583 received a corticosteroid-first strategy). The hospital risk-adjusted norepinephrine dose at which vasopressors were initiated ranged from 6.4 μg/min (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.9–7.0 μg/min) to 92.6 μg/min (95% CI, 72.8–113.0 μg/min). The hospital risk-adjusted norepinephrine dose at which corticosteroids were initiated ranged from 3.0 μg/min (95% CI, 2.4–3.8 μg/min) to 32.7 μg/min (95% CI, 24.9–43.0 μg/min). Of the variation in the norepinephrine dose at which additional vasopressors were initiated, 25.1% (intraclass correlation coefficient 95% CI, 24.8–25.5%) was explained by the hospital site after adjusting for all hospital- and patient-level covariates. The hospital of admission was strongly associated with receiving an additional-vasopressor-first strategy over a corticosteroid-first strategy (median odds ratio, 3.28 [95% CI, 2.81–3.83]). Conclusions Practice patterns for adjunctive therapies to norepinephrine during septic shock are variable and are determined in large part by the hospital of admission. These results inform several future studies seeking to improve septic shock management.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.133
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207