Evidence Hub

Impact of intravenous vitamin C as a monotherapy on mortality risk in critically ill patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis

Kuo-Chuan Hung, Min-Hsiang Chuang, Jen-Yin Chen, Chih-Wei Hsu, C. Chiu, Ying-Jen Chang, Chia-Wei Lee, I-Wen Chen et al.

Frontiers in Nutrition, 2023

1,712 participants · 18 citations

Abstract

Background This meta-analysis aimed at investigating the pooled evidence regarding the effects of intravenous vitamin C (IVVC) on mortality rate in critically ill patients. Methods Databases including Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October, 2022 to identify RCTs. The primary outcome was the risk of overall mortality. Subgroup analyses were performed based on IVVC dosage (i.e., cut-off value: 100 mg/kg/day or 10000 mg/day). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to examine the robustness of evidence. Results A total of 12 trials including 1,712 patients were analyzed. Although meta-analysis demonstrated a lower risk of mortality in patients with IVVC treatment compared to those without [risk ratio (RR): 0.76, 95% CI: 0.6 to 0.97, p = 0.02, I2 = 36%, 1,711 patients), TSA suggested the need for more studies for verification. Moreover, subgroup analyses revealed a reduced mortality risk associated with a low IVVC dosage (RR = 0.72, p = 0.03, 546 patients), while no beneficial effect was noted with high IVVC dosage (RR = 0.74, p = 0.13, I2 = 60%, 1,165 patients). The durations of vasopressor [mean difference (MD): −37.75 h, 404 patients) and mechanical ventilation (MD: −47.29 h, 388 patients) use were shorter in the IVVC group than those in the controls, while there was no significant difference in other prognostic outcomes (e.g., length of stay in intensive care unit/hospital) between the two groups. Conclusion Although intravenous…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,712 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