Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  28 (2024)
Volume  27 (2023)
Volume  26 (2022)
Volume  25 (2021)
Volume  24 (2020)
Volume  23 (2019)
Volume  22 (2018)
Volume  21 (2017)
Volume  20 (2016)
Volume  19 (2015)
Volume  18 (2014)
Volume  17 (2013)
Volume  16 (2012)
Volume  15 (2011)
Volume  14 (2010)
Volume  13 (2009)
Volume  12 (2008)
Volume  11 (2007)
Volume  10 (2006)
Volume  9 (2005)
Volume  8 (2004)
Related articles

VOLUME 28 , ISSUE 9 ( September, 2024 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Effect of Continuous Infusion vs Bolus Dose of Hydrocortisone in Septic Shock: A Prospective Randomized Study

Rashmi Salhotra, Ajeeb Sharahudeen, Asha Tyagi, Rajesh S Rautela, Rajit Kemprai

Keywords : Blood glucose monitoring, Corticosteroids, Hemodynamic changes, Hydrocortisone, Hyperglycemia, Hypoglycemia, Intensive care units, Randomized controlled trial, Sepsis, Septic shock

Citation Information : Salhotra R, Sharahudeen A, Tyagi A, Rautela RS, Kemprai R. Effect of Continuous Infusion vs Bolus Dose of Hydrocortisone in Septic Shock: A Prospective Randomized Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024; 28 (9):837-841.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24793

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 31-08-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim and background: Corticosteroids are recommended for use in adult patients with septic shock requiring vasopressors for blood pressure maintenance. However, this predisposes them to hyperglycemia, which is associated with a poor outcome. This prospective randomized study compares the effect of continuous infusion with bolus hydrocortisone on blood glucose levels in septic shock. Materials and methods: Forty adult patients with sepsis and septic shock requiring vasopressor support were randomly allocated to either group C (continuous infusion of hydrocortisone 200 mg/day) or group B (intermittent bolus dose of hydrocortisone 50 mg IV 6 hourly). Blood glucose level (primary objective), number of hyperglycemic and hypoglycemic episodes, daily insulin requirement, shock reversal incidence, time to shock reversal, and nursing workload required to maintain blood glucose within the target range (82–180 mg/dL) were compared. Results: The mean blood glucose level was comparable in the two groups (136.5 ± 22.08 mg/dL in group C vs 135.85 ± 19.06 mg/dL in group B; p = 0.921). The number of hyperglycemic and hypoglycemic episodes (p = 1.000 each), insulin requirement/day (p = 1.000), and nursing workload (p = 0.751) were also comparable among groups. Shock reversal was seen in 7/20 (35%) patients in continuous group and 12/20 (60%) patients in bolus group (p = 0.113). Time to shock reversal (p = 0.917) and duration of ICU stay (p = 0.751) were also statistically comparable. Conclusion: Both the regimes of hydrocortisone, continuous infusion, and bolus dose, have comparable effects on blood glucose levels in patients with septic shock. The study was registered prospectively with ctri.nic.in (Ref. No. CTRI/2021/01/030342; registered on 8/1/2021).

PDF Share
  1. Dugar S, Choudhary C, Duggal A. Sepsis and septic shock: Guideline-based management. Cleve Clin J Med 2020;87(1):53–64. DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.18143.
  2. Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, Shackelford KA, Tsoi D, Kievlan DR, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990–2017: Analysis for the global burden of disease study. Lancet 2020;395(10219):200–211. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32989-7.
  3. Khan P, Divatia JV. Severe sepsis bundles. Indian J Crit Care Med 2010;14(1):8–13. DOI: 10.4103/0972-5229.63028.
  4. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, Antonelli M, Coopersmith CM, French C, et al. Executive summary: Surviving sepsis campaign: International Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. Crit Care Med 2021;49(11):1974–1982. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y.
  5. Tamez-Pérez HE, Quintanilla-Flores DL, Rodríguez-Gutiérrez R, González-González JG, Tamez-Peña AL. Steroid hyperglycemia: Prevalence, early detection and therapeutic recommendations: A narrative review. World J Diabetes 2015;6(8):1073–1081. DOI: 10.4239/wjd.v6.i8.1073.
  6. Loisa P, Parviainen I, Tenhunen J, Hovilehto S, Ruokonen E. Effect of mode of hydrocortisone administration on glycemic control in patients with septic shock: A prospective randomized trial. Crit Care 2007;11(1):1–9. DOI: 10.1186/cc5696.
  7. Venkatesh B, Finfer S, Cohen J, Rajbhandari D, Arabi Y, Bellomo R, et al. Adjunctive glucocorticoid therapy in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med 2018;378(9):797–808. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1705835.
  8. Keh D, Trips E, Marx G, Wirtz SP, Abduljawwad E, Bercker S, et al. Effect of hydrocortisone on development of shock among patients with severe sepsis the HYPRESS randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016;316(17):1775–1785. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.14799.
  9. Tilouche N, Jaoued O, Ali HBS, Gharbi R, Fekih Hassen M, Elatrous S. Comparison between continuous and intermittent administration of hydrocortisone during septic shock: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Shock 2019;52(5):481–486. DOI: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000001316.
  10. Hyvernat H, Barel R, Gentilhomme A, Césari-Giordani JF, Freche A, Kaidomar M, et al. Effects of increasing hydrocortisone to 300 mg per day in the treatment of septic shock: A pilot study. Shock 2016;46(5):498–505. DOI: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000000665.
  11. Juneja D, Gopal PB, Satapathy RR, Raya R, Madgundi VV. Role of steroids in septic shock: Assessment of knowledge, attitudes and practices among intensivists practising in Hyderabad. Indian J Crit Care Med 2009;13(3):143–147. DOI: 10.4103/0972-5229.58539.
  12. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour C, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA 2016;315(8):801–810. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287.
  13. Finfer S, Chittock DR, Su SY, Blair D, Foster D, Dhingra V, et al. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 2009;360(13):1283–1297. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810625.
  14. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: International guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Crit Care Med 2017;45(3):486–552. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6.
  15. Lemieux SM, Levine AR. Low-dose corticosteroids in septic shock: Has the pendulum shifted? Am J Heal Syst Pharm 2019;76(8):493–500. DOI: 10.1093/ajhp/zxz017.
  16. Long B, Koyfman A. Controversies in corticosteroid use for sepsis. J Emerg Med 2017;53(5):653–661. DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2017.05.024.
  17. Goodman S, Sprung CL. The International Sepsis Forum's controversies in sepsis: Corticosteroids should be used to treat septic shock. Crit Care 2002;6(5):381–383. DOI: 10.1186/cc1537.
  18. Gordon AC, Mason AJ, Thirunavukkarasu N, Perkins GD, Cecconi M, Cepkova M, et al. Effect of early vasopressin vs norepinephrine on kidney failure in patients with septic shock: The VANISH randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016;316(5):509–518. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.10485.
  19. Annane D, Renault A, Brun-Buisson C, Megarbane B, Quenot J-P, Siami S, et al. Hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone for adults with septic shock. N Engl J Med 2018;378(9):809–818. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1705716.
  20. Ibarra-Estrada MA, Chávez-Peña Q, Reynoso-Estrella CI, Rios-Zermeño J, Aguilera-González PE, García-Soto MA, et al. Timing, method and discontinuation of hydrocortisone administration for septic shock patients. World J Crit Care Med 2017;6(1):65–73. DOI: 10.5492/wjccm.v6.i1.65.
  21. Hoang H, Wang S, Islam S, Hanna A, Axelrad A, Brathwaite C. Evaluation of hydrocortisone continuous infusion versus intermittent boluses in resolution of septic shock. PT 2017;42(4):252–255. PMID: 28381918.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.