Quantifying the effects of prior acetyl-salicylic acid on sepsis-related deaths: An individual patient data meta-analysis using propensity matching

50Citations
Citations of this article
62Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective: The primary objective was to conduct a meta-analysis on published observational cohort data describing the association between acetyl-salicylic acid (aspirin) use prior to the onset of sepsis and mortality in hospitalized patients. Study Selection: Studies that reported mortality in patients on aspirin with sepsis with a comparison group of patients with sepsis not on prior aspirin therapy were included. Data Sources: Fifteen studies described hospital-based cohorts (n = 17,065), whereas one was a large insurance-based database (n = 683,421). Individual-level patient data were incorporated from all selected studies. Data Extraction: Propensity analyses with 1:1 propensity score matching at the study level were performed, using the most consistently available covariates judged to be associated with aspirin. Meta-analyses were performed to estimate the pooled average treatment effect of aspirin on sepsis-related mortality. Data Synthesis: Use of aspirin was associated with a 7% (95% CI, 2-12%; p = 0.005) reduction in the risk of death as shown by meta-analysis with considerable statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 61.6%). Conclusions: These results are consistent with effects ranging from a 2% to 12% reduction in mortality risk in patients taking aspirin prior to sepsis onset. This association anticipates results of defnitive studies of the use of low-dose aspirin as a strategy for reduction of deaths in patients with sepsis.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Trauer, J., Muhi, S., McBryde, E. S., Al Harbi, S. A., Arabi, Y. M., Boyle, A. J., … Eisen, D. P. (2017). Quantifying the effects of prior acetyl-salicylic acid on sepsis-related deaths: An individual patient data meta-analysis using propensity matching. Critical Care Medicine, 45(11), 1871–1879. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000002654

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free