MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Timing of Vasopressor Therapy in Patients with Septic Shock: Assessing Clinical Outcomes and Implication

2024· review· en· W4394923071 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hany A Zaki, Mohamed Elgassim, Eman E. Shaban, Amina Ahmed, Thamir Hashim, Mazin Sharafeldien Elsayed Mohamed, Amro Abdelrahman, Kaleem Basharat, Mohammed Abdurabu, Ahmed Shaban

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQatar National Library
KeywordsOpen peer reviewSeptic shockPlant biologyMedicineIntensive care medicineAnesthesiologyShock (circulatory)Meta-analysisPhysiologyAnesthesiaInternal medicineSepsisBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Septic shock, is associated with a high mortality rate and increased expenses. Currently, the first-line therapy for septic shock entails administering resuscitation fluids followed by infusing vasopressors when the blood pressure goal is not achieved. The recommended first-line vasopressor is norepinephrine, followed by vasopressin, epinephrine, angiotensin II, and dopamine. There is still a controversy on when each vasopressor should be administered. Therefore, we conducted this review to determine the impact and implications of vasopressor timing in septic shock patients. Methods PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were comprehensively searched for potential studies until October 2023. The methodological quality and bias assessment of valid records was examined with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and Cochrane’s risk of bias tool. Additionally, all the meta-analyses were performed with Review Manager software. Results Twelve articles were eligible for review and analysis. Pooled analyses of data from 7 of these studies demonstrated lower incidence of mortality and shorter duration to achieve target mean arterial pressure in the early vs. late epinephrine groups (OR:0.44; 95%CI: 0.35–0.55; p<0.00001 and MD:-1.17; 95%CI:-2.00– -0.34; p=0.0006). However, the length of ICU stay didn’t differ between the early and late norepinephrine group (MD:0.55; 95%CI: -0.52–1.62; p=0.31). The subgroup analyses show that early vasopressin is associated with a decreased mortality than late administration (OR:0.60; 95%CI:0.41–0.90; p=0.01). Similarly, the pooled analysis has shown that early concomitant administration of vasopressin and norepinephrine is associated with a shorter duration to achieve target MAP than norepinephrine alone (MD:-3.15; 95%CI:-4.40– -1.90;p<0.00001). Conclusion Early administration of norepinephrine has a mortality benefit and improves the duration taken to attain and sustain the goal MAP. Furthermore, early vasopressin possesses the potential to lower the fatality rate in individuals experiencing septic shock. However, further research is required to validate this finding.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.034
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.515
GPT teacher head0.576
Teacher spread0.061 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000ResearchSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207