Hydrocortisone infusion schedules showed no clear mortality difference in septic shock
A review found no statistically significant differences in death or several other outcomes; the evidence does not establish equivalence.
Based on the published abstract. The full paper may contain additional methods, results and limitations.
The 30-second takeaway
The pooled evidence did not show a statistically significant mortality difference between continuous and intermittent hydrocortisone infusion in adults with septic shock. Other reported outcomes also lacked significant differences. The mortality estimate remains uncertain, so these results do not establish that the schedules are equivalent or identify a clearly better approach.
Certainty ranged from very low to moderate. The analysis includes randomized trials and observational cohorts, and the abstract does not specify mortality follow-up periods.
What researchers found
All-cause mortality risk ratio
For continuous infusion; 95% confidence interval: 0.65–1.06 times that risk. Mortality follow-up duration not reported.
Interpreting the mortality result
The risk ratio compares mortality risk between infusion schedules; it does not give an absolute chance of death. Its confidence interval includes both lower and higher mortality with continuous infusion, leaving benefit and harm uncertain.
Other measured outcomes
Other outcomes also showed no statistically significant differences: hospital and intensive care stays, shock reversal, high sodium, low potassium, and time receiving blood pressure support medication. This does not prove equal effects on those outcomes.
The original publication
Continuous versus Intermittent Hydrocortisone for the Treatment of Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Khan AS, Ahmad F, Khan AA et al.
Med Princ Pract · 2026
- PubMed ID
- 41678431
- Record checked
AI-assisted research and writing. This explains one selected publication; it is not a complete review of everything known. Our approach.
One more question, understood.
Keep track of the research you’ve explored.