Early Versus Delayed Norepinephrine Initiation in Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Observational Studies. [Review]
No Thumbnail Available
All Authors
Manafa, CC.
Ekor, OE.
Akinboboye, AC.
Okobi, OE.
Ojukwu, G.
Ugbo, OO.
Mochu, MU.
Isikwei, E.
Hernandez Borges, S.
Diaz-Miret, M.
LTHT Author
Ojukwu, Gift
LTHT Department
Drs Rotation
GP Trainee
GP Trainee
Non Medic
Publication Date
2025
Item Type
Journal Article
Review
Review
Language
Subject
SEPTIC SHOCK , NOREPINEPHRINE , INTENSIVE CARE UNITS , SURVIVAL
Subject Headings
Abstract
Septic shock remains a major cause of illness and death worldwide despite improvements in critical care, and the optimal timing for starting norepinephrine continues to generate debate. This review assessed whether administering norepinephrine within the first hour of recognizing shock or upon ICU admission provides meaningful advantages compared with delayed initiation. A broad search of major databases from 2010 to May 2025 identified randomized trials and observational studies examining early versus later administration. Twenty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria, and nine were eligible for meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that early norepinephrine was associated with a modest but statistically non-significant reduction in mortality (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.76-1.06; p = 0.18). Observational studies, however, demonstrated a clearer survival benefit, with early initiation linked to a significant decrease in deaths (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.60-0.94). Moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 65.6%) likely reflected variation in study design, patient severity, and differences in defining early treatment. Overall, the evidence suggests that early norepinephrine may help stabilize hemodynamics more quickly and could improve clinical outcomes, though current randomized data remain limited. Further high-quality research is needed to better define the magnitude of benefit and guide consistent practice. Copyright © 2025, Manafa et al.
Journal
Cureus