Search

Objectives: Although clinicians may use methylene blue (MB) in refractory septic shock, the effect of MB on patient-important outcomes remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the benefits and harms of MB administration in patients with septic shock., Data Sources: We searched six databases (including PubMed, Embase, and Medline) from inception to January 10, 2024., Study Selection: We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of critically ill adults comparing MB with placebo or usual care without MB administration., Data Extraction: Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and data extraction. We pooled data using a random-effects model, assessed the risk of bias using the modified Cochrane tool, and used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to rate certainty of effect estimates., Data Synthesis: We included six RCTs (302 patients). Compared with placebo or no MB administration, MB may reduce short-term mortality (RR [risk ratio] 0.66 [95% CI, 0.47-0.94], low certainty) and hospital length of stay (mean difference [MD] -2.1 d [95% CI, -1.4 to -2.8], low certainty). MB may also reduce duration of vasopressors (MD -31.1 hr [95% CI, -16.5 to -45.6], low certainty), and increase mean arterial pressure at 6 hours (MD 10.2 mm Hg [95% CI, 6.1-14.2], low certainty) compared with no MB administration. The effect of MB on serum methemoglobin concentration was uncertain (MD 0.9% [95% CI, -0.2% to 2.0%], very low certainty). We did not find any differences in adverse events., Conclusions: Among critically ill adults with septic shock, based on low-certainty evidence, MB may reduce short-term mortality, duration of vasopressors, and hospital length of stay, with no evidence of increased adverse events. Rigorous randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of MB in septic shock are needed., Registration: Center for Open Science (https://osf.io/hpy4j)., Competing Interests: Dr. Seely holds patents related to multiorgan variability analysis and has shares in Therapeutic Monitoring Systems. Dr. Cook is supported by a Canada Research Chair in Critical Care Knowledge Translation. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

Evaluating risk for sepsis is complicated due to limited understanding of how social determinants of health (SDoH) influence the occurence of the disease. This scoping review aims to identify gaps and summarize the existing literature on SDoH and the development of sepsis in adults., Data Sources: A literature search using key terms related to sepsis and SDoH was conducted using Medline and PubMed., Study Selection: Studies were screened by title and abstract and then full text in duplicate. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they: 1) evaluated at least one SDoH on the development of sepsis, 2) participants were 18 years or older, and 3) the studies were written in English between January 1970 and January 2022. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, editorials, letters, commentaries, and studies with nonhuman participants were excluded., Data Extraction: Data were extracted in duplicate using a standardized data extraction form. Studies were grouped into five categories according to the SDoH they evaluated (race, socioeconomic status [SES], old age and frailty, health behaviors, and social support). The study characteristics, key outcomes related to incidence of sepsis, mortality, and summary statements were included in tables., Data Synthesis: The search identified 637 abstracts, 20 of which were included after full-text screening. Studies evaluating SES, old age, frailty, and gender demonstrated an association between sepsis incidence and the SDoH. Studies that examined race demonstrated conflicting conclusions as to whether Black or White patients were at increased risk of sepsis. Overall, a major limitation of this analysis was the methodological heterogeneity between studies., Conclusions: There is evidence to suggest that SDoH impacts sepsis incidence, particularly SES, gender, old age, and frailty. Future prospective cohort studies that use standardized methods to collect SDoH data, particularly race-based data, are needed to inform public health efforts to reduce the incidence of sepsis and help clinicians identify the populations most at risk., Competing Interests: The authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

To determine if a set of time-varying biological indicators can be used to: 1) predict the sepsis mortality risk over time and 2) generate mortality risk profiles., Design: Prospective observational study., Setting: Nine Canadian ICUs., Subjects: Three-hundred fifty-six septic patients., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Clinical data and plasma levels of biomarkers were collected longitudinally. We used a complementary log-log model to account for the daily mortality risk of each patient until death in ICU/hospital, discharge, or 28 days after admission. The model, which is a versatile version of the Cox model for gaining longitudinal insights, created a composite indicator (the daily hazard of dying) from the "day 1" and "change" variables of six time-varying biological indicators (cell-free DNA, protein C, platelet count, creatinine, Glasgow Coma Scale score, and lactate) and a set of contextual variables (age, presence of chronic lung disease or previous brain injury, and duration of stay), achieving a high predictive power (conventional area under the curve, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.94). Including change variables avoided misleading inferences about the effects of day 1 variables, signifying the importance of the longitudinal approach. We then generated mortality risk profiles that highlight the relative contributions among the time-varying biological indicators to overall mortality risk. The tool was validated in 28 nonseptic patients from the same ICUs who became septic later and was subject to 10-fold cross-validation, achieving similarly high area under the curve., Conclusions: Using a novel version of the Cox model, we created a prognostic tool for septic patients that yields not only a predicted probability of dying but also a mortality risk profile that reveals how six time-varying biological indicators differentially and longitudinally account for the patient's overall daily mortality risk., Competing Interests: Drs. Liaw, Dwivedi, and Medeiros received support for article research from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Drs. Liaw and Medeiros disclosed government work. Dr. Fox-Robichaud’s institution received funding from CIHR, CIHR/Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Hamilton Academic Hospital Fund. Dr. Dodek’s institution received funding from McMaster University. Dr. Winston received grant support from the Alberta Lung Association and the Canadian Intensive Care Foundation. Dr. Lellouche received compensation for patient inclusions in the study, and he disclosed he is a co-founder, administrator, and consultant of Oxynov, R&D company. Dr. Marshall received patient recruitment fees per CIHR grant, and he received funding from Data Monitoring Committee, Asahi Kasei Pharmaceuticals and Baxter. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)