Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39005974›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of critical illness and injury science

The effect of hydrocortisone versus hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone on duration of shock: A propensity score-weighted analysis.

Kayla E John, Megan M Kirkpatrick, Priyanka H Aytoda, Jessica L Elefritz, Marilly Palettas, Brittany N Rosales, Claire V Murphy, Bruce A Doepker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of critical illness and injury science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Mineralocorticoid magic? Evaluating fludrocortisone in septic shock.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Kayla E JohnDepartment of Pharmacy, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Medical Center, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Megan M KirkpatrickDepartment of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Priyanka H AytodaDepartment of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Jessica L ElefritzDepartment of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Marilly PalettasDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Center for Biostatistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Brittany N RosalesDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Claire V MurphyDepartment of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Bruce A DoepkerDepartment of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines recommend the use of hydrocortisone in patients who remain hemodynamically unstable despite adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. Fludrocortisone has been used concomitantly with hydrocortisone in some studies without a clearly defined role or known clinical benefit. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of fludrocortisone added to hydrocortisone on shock-free days for septic shock. Methods: A single-center, retrospective propensity score-weighted study was conducted to compare hydrocortisone versus hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone for septic shock. Adults admitted to the medical intensive care unit (ICU) from 2015 to 2020 were included in the study. All patients received ≥200 mg/day hydrocortisone for at least 24 h ± fludrocortisone initiated within 72 h of vasopressors. The primary outcome was shock-free days by day 14. The secondary outcomes included duration of shock, change in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, hospital and ICU length of stay, and all-cause inhospital mortality. Results: A total of 228 patients met inclusion criteria with 212 patients retained after propensity score weighting. There was no difference between groups in 14-day shock-free days (6.3 vs. 6.1 days; Conclusion: The addition of fludrocortisone to hydrocortisone in septic shock did not increase shock-free days by day 14. These results suggest that the use of hydrocortisone alone may be an adequate adjunctive therapy in septic shock. A prospective randomized controlled trial is needed to confirm results.

Indexed as

Corticosteroidglucocorticoidmineralocorticoidseptic shocksteroid

Identifiers

PMID39005974
PMCPMC11245135

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.