Table 4 Studies comparing hydrocortisone and no treatment
Authors | Sample size and setting | Primary diagnosis | Study design and risk of bias | Intervention | Incidence of NOAF | Mortality outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Launey et al. (2019) | n = 261 n = 123 (hydrocortisone) n = 138 (no treatment) Setting: France ICU | Septic shock | Prospective comparative Risk of bias: serious | Hydrocortisone vs no treatment | RDa − 11.9% (95% CI − 23.4% to − 0.5%) RRb 0.58 (95% CI 0.35–0.98) | ICU: NSc Hydrocortisone: 37% No treatment: 24% 28-day: NS Hydrocortisone: 38% No treatment: 26% |
Kane and Hanes (2014) (conference abstract) | n = 109 n = 39 (hydrocortisone) Setting: USA ICU | Septic shock | Retrospective comparative Risk of bias: critical | Hydrocortisone vs no treatment | p = 0.006 Hydrocortisone: 20.5% No treatment: 42.9% | NS |