This is something that is starting to emerge and should be studied. I'm questioning whether or not I should use it as a sedative for a RSI style intubation.
I finally got around to critically examining the Annane article side by side with the Strung piece.
This was my review:
Review of Annane Trial:
-Randomized; blinded; similar groups, treated equally; results were analyzed in an intention to treat manner. Good study.
-Primary end point: death at 28 days: 10% RR in the non-responders; 6% RR for all patients.
-NNT: 7 and 8 respectively
Was it proof positive to give steroids? Still controversial. Sepsis campaign: Grade C recommendation large scale randomized trails still needed to be done.
So, along (finally) comes the CORTICUS group (Sprung et al)
-Randomized, blinded, well-balanced, intention to treat analysis
-No difference in primary end point of death at 28 days.
-Secondary end point benefit: time until shock was reversed was shorter among patients who received hydrocortisone regardless of their responder/non-responder status.
-Also found a downside: superinfection
WHAT NOW? Show of hands whos going to give steroids TOMORROW?
POSITION: In my opinion, Sprung paper adds little to change our practice
Why wont Sprung et al have a significant impact?
-Underpowered: 35% change of uncovering a 10% relative risk reduction so 13 times out of 20, this study would fail to uncover a significant, positive result even it is really there a Type II error!
-Dissimilar populations: Patients in the Annane study were sicker based on higher SAPS II scores, higher death rate in placebo group, all patients required mechanical ventilation
-Time to treatment: Annane: < 8 hours; Sprung: up to 72 hours!
-Antibiotics retrospective pharmacy review assessing adequate coverage: > 90% for Annane vs. 72 78% for Sprung
-Steroid regimen: Hyrdocort + Fludro for Annane; Hydro only for Sprung (and this is weird, too, because although some sources claim this is okay because hydro provides adequate mineralo, it's not like there's actually a human study to prove it! Why didn't CORTICUS just use the same damn regimen?!?
-Steroid duration: -7 days (Annane) vs. 11 days (Sprung) - this might matter for the whole superinfection theory.
-Is superinfection really, truly a factor? Sprung et al is the only modern trial that showed an increase in superinfections in contrast to the Annane trial, a metanalysis by a different group, and even the ARDS Network trials.
To decide if superinfection is really related to the steroids, a dedicated arm of a future trial should exist, not a makeshift guesstimate of whether each new infection is due to the steroids
Conclusion I:
We still await a randomized trial with relevant end points, adequate power, considered and appropriate inclusion criteria, and one that standardizes for the use of etomidate.
Conclusion II:
In the mean time, for your adequately fluid resuscitated, intubated, septic patients still requiring pressors to maintain SBP > 90mmhg after one hour, give hydrocortisone. This conclusion is actually supported by both parties. (I"m actually going to give fludrocortisone, too.)
Conclusion III: The cortisol stim test really has no real utility. Don't stop the steroids until you have a better test to prove that your patient isn't experiencing some degree of adrenal insufficiency.