Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Resource Centers
    • mTBI Resource Center
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Benchmarking
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Care Team
      • Legal
      • Operations
      • Quality & Safety
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Compensation
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • Brief19
    • By the Numbers
    • Coding Wizard
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Images in EM
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • Issue Archives
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

Should Prevention Methods for Sepsis Include IV Hydrocortisone?

By Ken Milne, MD | on March 14, 2017 | 0 Comment
Skeptics' Guide to EM
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

There was no statistical difference in developing septic shock within 14 days in the placebo arm versus the hydrocortisone arm (difference, −1.8%; 95% CI; −10.7% to 7.2%; P = .70). There was no statistical differences in mortality at 28, 90, or 180 days. More delirium was noted in the placebo arm versus the hydrocortisone arm. There was no statistical difference in adverse events except more episodes of hyperglycemia in the hydrocortisone arm versus the placebo arm (see Table 1).

You Might Also Like
  • Pearls from Emergency Medicine Literature on Skin Conditions, Sepsis, Chest Pain, and More
  • Opinion: How the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Got Almost Everything Wrong
  • Sepsis Screening Tools for Pediatric Patients and Prophylactic Antibiotics for Near Drowning Questioned
Explore This Issue
ACEP Now: Vol 36 – No 03 – March 2017
Table 1: Key Results of the HYPRESS Trial

(click for larger image)
Table 1: Key Results of the HYPRESS Trial

EBM Commentary

1) Power: One issue with the study is its power to detect a difference. It was designed to detect an absolute difference of 15 percent between the hydrocortisone group and placebo group with a significance level of 0.05 (P value) and power of 0.8. It only found a 1.8 percent difference favoring hydrocortisone that was not statistically significant. Perhaps, a larger sample size would have confirmed this difference. It also assumed 40 percent of the patients in the placebo group would have septic shock, but the observed rate was only 23 percent. As prevalence goes down, the required sample size goes up. In the end, this resulted in an underpowered study.

2) Measurement Bias: Another issue is measurement bias. Progression from severe sepsis to septic shock is not a very precise measure and exists on a continuum. It is somewhat subjective despite being based on quantitative measures.

3) Clinical Versus Statistical Significance: One of the most important problems with this study is the issue of clinical versus statistical significance. Even if the study was properly sized to detect a smaller difference that was statistically significant, it may not be clinically significant. Progression from severe sepsis to septic shock is a disease-oriented outcome, not a patient-oriented outcome like mortality.

This underpowered study failed to detect a statistical difference in a surrogate marker between IV hydrocortisone and placebo in adult patients with severe sepsis.

Bottom Line

The use of IV hydrocortisone cannot be recommended at this time to treat adult patients with severe sepsis in order to prevent septic shock.

Case Resolution

You choose not to start IV hydrocortisone but continue with IV fluids, IV antibiotics, and supplemental oxygen.

Thank you to Dr. Salim Rezaie from REBEL EM for his help with this review. Dr. Rezaie is an emergency physician from San Antonio, Texas.

Pages: 1 2 3 | Single Page

Topics: Blood DisordersClinicalED Critical CareEmergency DepartmentEmergency MedicineEmergency PhysicianHydrocortisoneinfectionPatient CarePractice ManagementpreventionSepsis

Related

  • Florida Emergency Department Adds Medication-Dispensing Kiosk

    November 7, 2025 - 1 Comment
  • Q&A with ACEP President L. Anthony Cirillo

    November 5, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • Let Core Values Help Guide Patient Care

    November 5, 2025 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now: November 2025

Download PDF

Read More

About the Author

Ken Milne, MD

Ken Milne, MD, is chief of emergency medicine and chief of staff at South Huron Hospital, Ontario, Canada. He is on the Best Evidence in Emergency Medicine faculty and is creator of the knowledge translation project the Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine.

View this author's posts »

No Responses to “Should Prevention Methods for Sepsis Include IV Hydrocortisone?”

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*


Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603