Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias · 2024
Restrictive calcium replacement in septic shock: a multicenter before-after intervention study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ko Ryoung-Eun, Jeong Daun, Baek Sumin, Ryang Chung Chi, Young Suh Gee, Ahn Joonghyun, Kim Jinseo, Yeon Hwang Sung, Tak Lee Gun, Eun Park Jong, Gun Shin Tae, Hwan Jo You, Korean Shock Society (KoSS) Investigators
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To study the impact of a restrictive calcium replacement protocol in comparison with a liberal one in patients with septic shock.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Multicenter retrospective before-after study that estimated the impact of implementing a restrictive calcium replacement protocol in patients with septic shock. Patients admitted to an intensive care unit between May 2019 and April 2021 were assigned to liberal calcium replacement, and those admitted between May 2021 and April 2022 were assigned to a restrictive protocol. The primary outcome measure was 28-day mortality. Patients were matched with propensity scores.
RESULTS: A total of 644 patients were included; liberal replacement was used in 453 patients and the restrictive replacement in 191. We paired 553 patients according to propensity scores, 386 in the liberal group and 167 in the restrictive group. Mortality did not differ significantly between the groups at 28 days (35.3% vs 32.3%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.72-1.29) or after resolution of septic shock (81.5% vs 83.8%; hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.09). Nor did scores on the Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment scale differ (2.1 vs 2.6; P = 0.20).
CONCLUSION: The implementation of a restrictive calcium replacement protocol in patients with septic shock was not associated with a decrease in 28-day mortality in comparison with use of a liberal protocol. However, we were able to reduce calcium replacement without adverse effects.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Multicenter retrospective before-after study that estimated the impact of implementing a restrictive calcium replacement protocol in patients with septic shock. Patients admitted to an intensive care unit between May 2019 and April 2021 were assigned to liberal calcium replacement, and those admitted between May 2021 and April 2022 were assigned to a restrictive protocol. The primary outcome measure was 28-day mortality. Patients were matched with propensity scores.
RESULTS: A total of 644 patients were included; liberal replacement was used in 453 patients and the restrictive replacement in 191. We paired 553 patients according to propensity scores, 386 in the liberal group and 167 in the restrictive group. Mortality did not differ significantly between the groups at 28 days (35.3% vs 32.3%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.72-1.29) or after resolution of septic shock (81.5% vs 83.8%; hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.09). Nor did scores on the Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment scale differ (2.1 vs 2.6; P = 0.20).
CONCLUSION: The implementation of a restrictive calcium replacement protocol in patients with septic shock was not associated with a decrease in 28-day mortality in comparison with use of a liberal protocol. However, we were able to reduce calcium replacement without adverse effects.