ArticleP & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management2017
Evaluation of Hydrocortisone Continuous Infusion Versus Intermittent Boluses in Resolution of Septic Shock.
Article in P & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Continuous versus Intermittent Hydrocortisone for the Treatment of Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2026Pooled it
- Impact and Beneficial Critical Points of Clinical Outcome in Corticosteroid Management of Adult Patients With Sepsis: Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Pooled it
- Continuous vs. intermittent infusion of corticosteroids in septic shock: a GRADE-based systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Review
- Influence of hydrocortisone infusion method on the clinical outcome of patients with septic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of intensive medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Amiodarone Administration in Patients with New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Septic Shock.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Effect of Continuous Infusion vs Bolus Dose of Hydrocortisone in Septic Shock: A Prospective Randomized Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024Article
- Navigating the Landscape of Hydrocortisone Administration in Septic Shock: Current Concepts and Future Directions.Cureus · 2023Review
- Effect of heart rate control with amiodarone infusion on hemodynamic and clinical outcomes in septic shock patients with tachycardia: a prospective, single-arm clinical study.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 2021Article
- Hyperglycemia Risk Evaluation of Hydrocortisone Intermittent Boluses vs Continuous Infusion in Septic Shock: A Retrospective Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2021Article
- Corticosteroids for Septic Shock: Another Chapter in the Saga.Hospital pharmacy · 2020Article
- Circadian Disruption in Critical Illness.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Review
- Hyperglycemia Risk Evaluation of Hydrocortisone Intermittent Boluses versus Continuous Infusion in Septic Shock: A Prospective Randomized Trial.Anesthesia, essays and researchesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the effectiveness of continuous infusion of hydrocortisone versus intermittent boluses in the resolution of septic shock.
methodsA retrospective chart review was performed to investigate the effects of low-dose hydrocortisone continuous infusion (200 mg per day) versus intermittent boluses (50 mg every six hours) in septic shock patients who did not respond to fluid resuscitation and vasopressors. The primary outcome was time to resolution of shock, defined by time from the initiation of hydrocortisone to time of vasopressor withdrawal when mean arterial pressure was greater than 65 mm Hg. Hospital length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, 28-day all-cause in-hospital mortality, and hyperglycemia were secondary outcomes.
resultsOf the 51 patients in the study, 33 received intermittent boluses of hydrocortisone. The median time to resolution of shock in the continuous group was three days, compared with a mean time of two days in the bolus group (
conclusionThere was no significant difference in time to resolution of septic shock between continuous infusion (200 mg per day) and intermittent boluses (50 mg every six hours) of hydrocortisone. There were also no statistically significant differences in overall hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, and 28-day all-cause in-hospital mortality. However, there was a significant difference in the incidence of hyperglycemia between the two groups, with patients in the bolus group experiencing more hyperglycemia than those in the continuous infusion group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28381918PMC5358683W2991103789What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.