Vasopressin in septic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Reports that septic shock incidence is rising and mortality rates declining may be confounded by improving recognition of sepsis and changing coding practices. We compared trends in septic shock incidence and mortality in academic hospitals using clinical vs claims data.

Background Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses that obtain “raw” data from studies rather than summary data typically adopt a “two-stage” approach to analysis whereby IPD within trials generate summary measures, which are combined using standard meta-analytical methods. Recently, a range of “one-stage” approaches which combine all individual participant data in a single meta-analysis have been suggested as providing a more powerful and flexible approach. However, they are more complex to implement and require statistical support. This study uses a dataset to compare “two-stage” and “one-stage” models of varying complexity, to ascertain whether results obtained from the approaches differ in a clinically meaningful way. Methods and Findings We included data from 24 randomised controlled trials, evaluating antiplatelet agents, for the prevention of pre-eclampsia in pregnancy. We performed two-stage and one-stage IPD meta-analyses to estimate overall treatment effect and to explore potential treatment interactions whereby particular types of women and their babies might benefit differentially from receiving antiplatelets. Two-stage and one-stage approaches gave similar results, showing a benefit of using anti-platelets (Relative risk 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97). Neither approach suggested that any particular type of women benefited more or less from antiplatelets. There were no material differences in results between different types of one-stage model. Conclusions For these data, two-stage and one-stage approaches to analysis produce similar results. Although one-stage models offer a flexible environment for exploring model structure and are useful where across study patterns relating to types of participant, intervention and outcome mask similar relationships within trials, the additional insights provided by their usage may not outweigh the costs of statistical support for routine application in syntheses of randomised controlled trials. Researchers considering undertaking an IPD meta-analysis should not necessarily be deterred by a perceived need for sophisticated statistical methods when combining information from large randomised trials.

Long-term outcomes after acute kidney injury (AKI) are poorly described. We hypothesized that one single episode of minimal (stage 1) AKI is associated with reduced long-term survival compared with no AKI after recovery from critical illness. A prospective cohort of 2,010 intensive care unit (ICU) patients admitted to the ICU between years 2000 and 2009 at a provincial tertiary care hospital. Development of AKI was determined according to the KDIGO classification and mortality up to 10 years after ICU admission was recorded. Of the 1,844 eligible patients, 18.4% had AKI stage 1, 12.1% had stage 2, 26.5% had stage 3, and 43.0% had no AKI. The 28-day, 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year survival rates were 67.1%, 51.8%, 44.1%, and 36.3% in patients with mild AKI, which was significantly worse compared with the critically ill patients with no AKI at any time (P < 0.01). The unadjusted 10-year mortality hazard ratio was 1.53 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.0) for 28-day survivors with stage 1 AKI compared with critically ill patients with no AKI. Adjusted 10-year mortality risk was 1.26 (1.0-1.6). After propensity matching stage 1 AKI with no AKI patients, mild AKI was still significantly associated with decreased 10-year survival (P = 0.036). Patients with one episode of mild AKI have significantly lower long-term survival rates than critically ill patients with no AKI. Close medical follow-up of these patients may be warranted and mechanistic research is required to understand how AKI influences long-term events.