Association of medical care capacity and the patient mortality of septic shock: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals with higher septic shock case volume demonstrated lower hospital mortality. We conducted this study to investigate whether this phenomenon was only caused by the increase in the number of admissions or the need to improve the medical care capacity in septic shock at the same time. METHODS: Seven-hundred and eighty-seven hospitals from China collected in a survey from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021. Medical care capacity for septic shock was explored by patients with septic shock in intensive care units (ICU) divided into beds, intensivists, and nurses respectively. MAIN RESULTS: The proportion of ICU patients with septic shock was negatively associated with the patient mortality of septic shock (Estimate [95%CI], -0.2532 [-0.5038, -0.0026]) (p-value 0.048). The ratios of patients with septic shock to beds, intensivists, and nurses were negatively associated with mortality of septic shock (Estimate [95%CI], -0.370 [-0.591, -0.150], -0.136 [-0.241, -0.031], and -0.774 [-1.158, -0.389]) (p-value 0.001, 0.011 and < 0.001). Severe pneumonia, the most common infection that caused a septic shock, correlated positively with its mortality (Estimate [95%CI], 0.1002 [0.0617, 0.1387]) (p-value < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals with higher medical care capacity for septic shock were associated with lower hospital mortality.

Use of dexmedetomidine in patients with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is widely used in patients with sepsis. However, its effect on septic patients remains controversial. The objective of this study was to summarize all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining dexmedetomidine use in sepsis patients. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis included RCTs comparing dexmedetomidine with other sedatives in adult sepsis patients. We generated pooled relative risks (RRs) and standardized mean differences and performed trial sequential analysis and a cumulative meta-analysis. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes were the length of the intensive care unit stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, number of ventilation-free days, incidence of total adverse event, incidence of delirium, and levels of interleukin 6, tumor necrosis factor alpha, and alanine aminotransferase. RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs that enrolled 1929 patients. Compared with other sedatives, dexmedetomidine decreased the all-cause mortality (RR 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.69, 0.99]) and inflammatory response (interleukin 6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha levels at 24 h: standardized mean difference (SMD) - 2.15; 95% CI [- 3.25, - 1.05] and SMD - 1.07, 95% CI [- 1.92, - 0.22], respectively). Trial sequential analysis showed that it is not up to required information size. The overall risk adverse events was similar between dexmedetomidine and the other sedatives (RR 1.27, 95% CI [0.69, 2.36]), but dexmedetomidine increased the risk of arrhythmias (RR 1.43, 95% CI [0.59, 3.51]). Length of intensive care unit stay (SMD - 0.22; 95% CI [- 0.85, - 0.41]), duration of mechanical ventilation (SMD 0.12; 95% CI [- 1.10, 1.35]), incidence of delirium (RR 0.98; 95% CI [0.72, 1.33]), and levels of alanine aminotransferase and creatinine at 24 h were not significantly reduced. CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine in sepsis patients could significantly reduce mortality compared with benzodiazepines but not with propofol. In addition, dexmedetomidine can significantly decrease inflammatory response in patients with sepsis compared with other sedatives. Dexmedetomidine might lead to an increased incidence of arrhythmias, but its safety profile did not show significant differences in the incidence of total adverse events. Future RCTs are needed to determine the sepsis patient population that would benefit most from dexmedetomidine and its optimal dosing regimen.