Evidence Hub

Early norepinephrine for patients with septic shock: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

Rui Shi, Rayan Braïk, Xavier Monnet, Wan-Jie Gu, G. Ospina-Tascón, C. Permpikul, Maxime Djebbour, Alice Soumare et al.

Critical Care, 2025

4,767 participants · 27 citations

Abstract

The optimal timing for initiating norepinephrine in septic shock is debated. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of early versus delayed norepinephrine initiation on mortality and clinical outcomes in adults with septic shock. A systematic search in Pubmed, EMbase and the Cochrane Library to identify eligible randomized controlled trials, propensity score matching (PSM) and observational studies that compare early norepinephrine initiation with non-early norepinephrine initiation in patients with acute circulatory failure. The primary outcome was mortality in intensive care unit. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit length of stay, fluid volume received at 6 h, norepinephrine dose, mechanical ventilation-free days, renal replacement therapy free days, and time to achieve a targeted mean arterial pressure (MAP). Meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted to calculate odds ratio (OR) or mean difference with 95% confidence interval (95%CI) using random-effect model. Trial sequential analysis was conducted to evaluate the conclusiveness of evidence. Ten studies (two RCT, three PSM and five observational studies) involving 4767 patients were included. Early norepinephrine significantly reduced mortality in RCT (OR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25–0.96; I2 = 45%, p = 0.04), pooled RCT and PSM (OR 0.65, 95%CI 0.42–0.99; I2 = 74%, p = 0.05), and observational studies (OR 0.71, 95%CI 0.54–0.94; I2 = 66%). The trial sequential analysis…

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: 4,767 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