Corticosteroids in critically ill patients: A narrative review.

Corticosteroids have been utilized in modern medicine for decades. Many indications have been investigated across various treatment settings with both benefit and harm observed. Given the instability of critically ill patients, the increased risk of corticosteroid-related complications, and the pervasive comorbidities, patients who receive corticosteroids must be carefully managed. Common critical care disease states in which corticosteroids have been studied and are routinely utilized include acute respiratory distress syndrome, adrenal insufficiency, angioedema, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, community-acquired pneumonia, coronavirus disease 2019, septic shock, and spinal cord injury. Benefits of corticosteroids include an improvement in disease state-specific outcomes, decreased hospital length of stay, decreased mechanical ventilatory support, and decreased mortality. The harm of corticosteroids is well documented through adverse effects that include, but are not limited to, hyperglycemia, tachycardia, hypertension, agitation, delirium, anxiety, immunosuppression, gastrointestinal bleeding, fluid retention, and muscle weakness. Furthermore, corticosteroids are associated with increased health care costs through adverse effects as well as drug acquisition and administration costs. Given the assortment of agents, dosing, benefits, risks, and utilization in the critical care setting, there may be difficulty with identifying the appropriate places for use of corticosteroids in therapy. There currently exists no comprehensive report detailing the use of corticosteroids in the aforementioned disease states within the critical care setting. This narrative review sets out to describe these in detail.

Hydrocortisone versus vasopressin for the management of adult patients with septic shock refractory to norepinephrine: A multicenter retrospective study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Significant practice variation exists when selecting between hydrocortisone and vasopressin as second line agents in patients with septic shock in need of escalating doses of norepinephrine. The goal of this study was to assess differences in clinical outcomes between these two agents. DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective, observational study. SETTING: Ten Ascension Health hospitals. PATIENTS: Adult patients with presumed septic shock receiving norepinephrine prior to study drug initiation between December 2015 and August 2021. INTERVENTION: Vasopressin (0.03-0.04 units/min) or hydrocortisone (200-300 mg/day). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 768 patients were included with a median (interquartile range) SOFA score of 10 (8-13), norepinephrine dose of 0.3 mcg/kg/min (0.1-0.5 mcg/kg/min), and lactate of 3.8 mmol/L (2.4-7.0 mmol/L) at initiation of the study drug. A significant difference in 28-day mortality was noted favoring hydrocortisone as an adjunct to norepinephrine after controlling for potential confounding factors (OR 0.46 [95% CI, 0.32-0.66]); similar results were seen following propensity score matching. Compared to vasopressin, hydrocortisone initiation was also associated with a higher rate of hemodynamic responsiveness (91.9% vs. 68.2%, p < 0.01), improved resolution of shock (68.8% vs. 31.5%, p < 0.01), and reduced recurrence of shock within 72 h (8.7% vs. 20.7%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of hydrocortisone to norepinephrine was associated with a lower 28-day mortality in patients with septic shock, compared to the addition of vasopressin.