BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Systematic Reviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Crit Care Med. Dec 9, 2025; 14(4): 111164
Published online Dec 9, 2025. doi: 10.5492/wjccm.v14.i4.111164
Current and emerging therapeutic options for refractory septic shock: A systematic review
Flavio Eduardo Nacul, Murilo Borges Bezerra, Brenno Cardoso Gomes, Fábio Barlem Hohmann, Ricardo Esper Treml, Tulio Caldonazo, Arnaldo Alves da Silva, Rogerio H Passos, Neymar Elias de Oliveira, Grazielle Pangratz Bedretchuk, Joao Manoel Silva Jr
Flavio Eduardo Nacul, Intensive Care Department, Pró-Cardíaco Hospital - Rio de Janeiro, Pró-Cardíaco Hospital, Rio de Janeiro 22280-003, Brazil
Murilo Borges Bezerra, Fábio Barlem Hohmann, Arnaldo Alves da Silva, Intensive Care Department, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo 05652-000, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Brenno Cardoso Gomes, Integrated Sciences Service, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba 80060-240, Paraná, Brazil
Ricardo Esper Treml, Department of Anesthesiology, Stanford Medical School, Palo Alto, CA 94304, United States
Tulio Caldonazo, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University, Jena 07743, Germany
Rogerio H Passos, Intensive Care Department, Adult ICU Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo 05652-000, Brazil
Rogerio H Passos, DaVita Tratamento Renal, Rio de Janeiro 22775-022, Brazil
Neymar Elias de Oliveira, Intensive Care Department, Hospital de Base, Sao Jose do Rio Preto 15090-000, São Paulo, Brazil
Grazielle Pangratz Bedretchuk, Intensive Care Department, Complexo do Hospital do Trabalhador de Curitiba, Curitiba 81050000, Paraná, Brazil
Joao Manoel Silva Jr, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da USP, Sao Paulo 01246903, São Paulo, Brazil
Author contributions: Hohmann FB and Caldonazo T contributed to conceptualization, methodology; de Oliveira NE contributed to data curation, writing- original draft preparation; Nacul FE, Treml RE, da Silva AA, and Passos RH contributed to software, validation, investigation, supervision; Gomes BC, Silva Jr JM, Bedretchuk GP, and Bezerra MB contributed to writing- reviewing and editing.
Conflict-of-interest statement: All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclose.
PRISMA 2009 Checklist statement: The authors have read the PRISMA 2009 Checklist, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the PRISMA 2009 Check-list.
Open Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Brenno Cardoso Gomes, MD, PhD, Integrated Sciences Service, Universidade Federal do Paraná, R. Padre Camargo, 280-Alto da Glória, Curitiba 80060-240, Brazil. brennogomes@ufpr.br
Received: July 7, 2025
Revised: August 5, 2025
Accepted: August 27, 2025
Published online: December 9, 2025
Processing time: 144 Days and 20.5 Hours
Abstract
BACKGROUND

Refractory septic shock is a critical and multifaceted condition that continues to pose significant challenges in critical care.

AIM

To systematically review randomized trials on emerging interventions for refractory septic shock, assessing mortality, vasopressor use, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and organ dysfunction.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL Library, and Web of Science for studies published between 2000 and 2024. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating innovative therapies for refractory septic shock. Variables of interest: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality among patients treated with novel interventions. Secondary outcomes included length of stay in the ICU, total hospital length of stay, and use of vasoactive drugs. Methodological rigor was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

RESULTS

From 850 records, 24 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, evaluating therapies such as methylene blue, vasopressin, terlipressin, and combinations of hydrocortisone, vitamin C, and thiamine. Mortality rates ranged from 28.6% to 56.8%. Methylene blue reduced vasopressor dependency in patients requiring high norepinephrine doses by 1.0 vasopressor-free day, and terlipressin improved renal perfusion by 13.1%. Combination therapies enhanced secondary outcomes, including reductions in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. However, no single intervention consistently demonstrated significant survival benefits.

CONCLUSION

Adjunctive therapies for refractory septic shock may improve hemodynamics and organ function, however, they have not been shown to consistently reduce mortality. Larger trials are needed to confirm these findings. Multimodal approaches targeting inflammation are critical.

Keywords: Refractory septic shock; Vasopressors; Adjunctive therapies; Sepsis; Mortality outcome

Core Tip: This systematic review of 24 randomized controlled trials evaluates novel therapies for refractory septic shock, including methylene blue, vasopressin, terlipressin, and hydrocortisone-vitamin C-thiamine combinations. While these interventions improve hemodynamics and organ function, no consistent mortality reduction was observed. Methylene blue reduced vasopressor dependency, and terlipressin enhanced renal perfusion. Larger, standardized trials are needed to validate findings and guide multimodal treatment strategies.