Skip to main content

Table 4 Studies comparing hydrocortisone and no treatment

From: Treatment strategies for new onset atrial fibrillation in patients treated on an intensive care unit: a systematic scoping review

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
  1. Risk difference
  2. Relative risk
  3. Statistically not significant