Evidence Hub

Association of magnesium sulfate use with mortality in critically ill patients with sepsis: a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study

Wan-Jie Gu, Xiang-Jie Duan, Xiao-Zhu Liu, Yun Cen, Li-Yuan Tao, J. Lyu, Hai-Yan Yin

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2023

999 participants · 44 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Trials have demonstrated lower rates of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients receiving magnesium supplementation, but they have yielded conflicting results regarding mortality.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study based on the MIMIC-IV (Medical Information Mart in Intensive Care-IV) database. Adult critically ill patients with sepsis were included in the analysis. The exposure was magnesium sulfate use during ICU stay. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted at a 1:1 ratio. Multivariable analyses were used to adjust for confounders.

RESULTS

The pre-matched and propensity score-matched cohorts included 10 999 and 6052 patients, respectively. In the PSM analysis, 28-day all-cause mortality rate was 20.2% (611/3026) in the magnesium sulfate use group and 25.0% (757/3026) in the no use group. Magnesium sulfate use was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.79; P<0.001). Lower mortality was observed regardless of baseline serum magnesium status: for hypomagnesaemia, HR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45-0.93; P=0.020; for normomagnesaemia, HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.80; P<0.001. Magnesium sulfate use was also associated with lower ICU mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42-0.64; P<0.001), lower in-hospital mortality (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.77; P<0.001), and renal replacement therapy (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87; P=0.002). A…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 999 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free