The association of arterial partial oxygen pressure with mortality in critically ill sepsis patients: a nationwide observational cohort study

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background Although several trials were conducted to optimize the oxygenation range in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, no studies have yet reached a universal recommendation on the optimal a partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO 2 ) range in patients with sepsis. Our aim was to evaluate whether a relatively high arterial oxygen tension is associated with longer survival in sepsis patients compared with conservative arterial oxygen tension. Methods From the Korean Sepsis Alliance nationwide registry, patients treated with liberal PaO 2 (PaO 2 ≥ 80 mm Hg) were 1:1 matched with those treated with conservative PaO 2 (PaO 2 < 80 mm Hg) over the first three days after ICU admission according to the propensity score. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Results The median values of PaO 2 over the first three ICU days in 1211 liberal and 1211 conservative PaO 2 groups were, respectively, 107.2 (92.0–134.0) and 84.4 (71.2–112.0) in day 1110.0 (93.4–132.0) and 80.0 (71.0–100.0) in day 2, and 106.0 (91.9–127.4) and 78.0 (69.0–94.5) in day 3 (all p -values < 0.001). The liberal PaO 2 group showed a lower likelihood of death at day 28 (14.9%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65–0.96; p -value = 0.017). ICU (HR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.67–0.96; p -value = 0.019) and hospital mortalities (HR, 0.84; 95% CI 0.73–0.97; p -value = 0.020) were lower in the liberal PaO 2 group. On ICU days 2 ( p -value = 0.007) and 3 ( p -value < 0.001), but not ICU day 1, hyperoxia was associated with better prognosis compared with conservative oxygenation., with the lowest 28-day mortality, especially at PaO 2 of around 100 mm Hg. Conclusions In critically ill patients with sepsis, higher PaO 2 (≥ 80 mm Hg) during the first three ICU days was associated with a lower 28-day mortality compared with conservative PaO 2 .

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.