ArticleCureus2025
An Observational Study to Correlate Peripheral Perfusion Index as a Predictor of Hypotension and Mortality in Sepsis Patients.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Peripheral perfusion-guided versus routine fluid therapy in sepsis: A randomized controlled pilot trial.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2026Article
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
Introduction This observational study explores the Peripheral Perfusion Index (PPI) as a predictor of hypotension and mortality in sepsis. By correlating PPI with clinical outcomes, it assesses its potential for early diagnosis and goal-directed therapy, aiming to improve sepsis management beyond traditional blood pressure-based methods for better patient outcomes. Objectives To evaluate the role of the PPI in the early diagnosis and targeted treatment of septic shock, providing insights for improving clinical management and early intervention. Material and method This prospective study conducted at a tertiary medical centre, a medical college in Bihar, compares septic shock outcomes between Group 1 (the PPI group), with septic shock diagnosed with PPI <1.4; treatment guided by PPI >2, and Group 2 (the control group), diagnosed by traditional shock criteria (systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg or >40 mmHg drop from baseline) with standard bundle treatment. Result PPI-guided therapy significantly improved hemodynamic stabilization, reduced hypotension (28% vs. 50%), decreased mortality (12.5% vs. 31.3%), and shortened ICU stays (5 ± 2 vs. 8 ± 3 days) compared to traditional shock criteria. PPI demonstrated strong predictive value for hypotension (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0.86) and mortality (AUROC 0.89), supporting its clinical utility in sepsis. Conclusion This study confirms PPI's reliability in septic shock management, advocating a shift from mean arterial pressure (MAP)-focused to PPI-guided therapy for better outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.