RESUMO
Background: The 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines recommend the use of hydrocortisone in patients who remain hemodynamically unstable despite adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. Fludrocortisone has been used concomitantly with hydrocortisone in some studies without a clearly defined role or known clinical benefit. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of fludrocortisone added to hydrocortisone on shock-free days for septic shock. Methods: A single-center, retrospective propensity score-weighted study was conducted to compare hydrocortisone versus hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone for septic shock. Adults admitted to the medical intensive care unit (ICU) from 2015 to 2020 were included in the study. All patients received ≥200 mg/day hydrocortisone for at least 24 h ± fludrocortisone initiated within 72 h of vasopressors. The primary outcome was shock-free days by day 14. The secondary outcomes included duration of shock, change in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, hospital and ICU length of stay, and all-cause inhospital mortality. Results: A total of 228 patients met inclusion criteria with 212 patients retained after propensity score weighting. There was no difference between groups in 14-day shock-free days (6.3 vs. 6.1 days; P = 0.781). Furthermore, no significant differences were observed for the secondary outcomes of ICU/hospital length of stay, duration of shock, change in SOFA score, and all-cause inhospital mortality. Conclusion: The addition of fludrocortisone to hydrocortisone in septic shock did not increase shock-free days by day 14. These results suggest that the use of hydrocortisone alone may be an adequate adjunctive therapy in septic shock. A prospective randomized controlled trial is needed to confirm results.
RESUMO
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of the injectable opioid drug shortage on analgesia and sedation management in the medical intensive care unit (MICU). Methods: A single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted of mechanically ventilated patients during the injectable opioid shortage. Outcomes were compared between a cohort of patients during the intravenous (IV) opioid shortage (01/01/18-03/31/18) and a control cohort (01/01/17-03/31/17). Total IV opioids and alternative sedative administration were assessed. Richmond Agitation Sedation Score (RASS) and Clinical Pain Observation Score (CPOT) assessments were also evaluated. The primary outcome was percentage of RASS within goal. Secondary outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, hospital/ICU length of stay, and mortality. Results: One hundred patients were included (50 patients per cohort). In the shortage cohort, 23.2% fewer IV opioids were used (40 501.8 vs 52 713.8 oral morphine equivalents [OME]). No statistical differences were found in percentage of patients within goal RASS between the shortage and control (median 63.7% vs 74.8%; P = .094) or CPOT (median 49.7% vs 47.7%; P = .575). More patients received enteral opioids and propofol on day 1 in the shortage cohort when compared to the control (22% vs 4%; P = .007 and 76% vs 56%; P = .035) but there were no differences in benzodiazepine, dexmedetomidine, or antipsychotic use. No differences in mechanical ventilation, hospital/ICU length of stay, or mortality were found. Conclusions: Use of less IV opioids during the injectable opioid shortage did not affect achievement of goal RASS and CPOT scores or increase prescribing of sedative medications such as benzodiazepines in the MICU.
