Shengmai Injection as adjunctive therapy in sepsis and septic shock: a retrospective cohort study
In brief
Shengmai injection shortens ICU stay and ventilation time but does not lower 28-day mortality in sepsis
In a propensity-matched retrospective cohort of 436 sepsis patients, adding Shengmai injection reduced ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, fever, and improved SOFA, APACHE II, procalcitonin and lactate levels, yet 28-day mortality was unchanged. The findings suggest physiological benefits without a survival advantage, highlighting the need for randomized trials.
- Journal
- Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology (Q1)
- Published
- 30 July 2026
- Study design
- Randomized controlled trial
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
- Authors
- Ya Li, Xiaohui Chen, Qingmin Li, Lulu Wu, Liyuan Yu, Weihang Peng, et al.
- PMID
- 42598289
- DOI
- 10.3389/fcimb.2026.1870034
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Microbiology (medical) (top studies of the week, 16 August 2026): Shengmai injection adjunctive therapy in sepsis
- Picked for Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine (top studies of the week, 16 August 2026): Shengmai Injection reduces ICU stay in sepsis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sepsis and septic shock constitute critical global health burdens associated with substantial mortality. Shengmai Injection (SMI), a classic traditional Chinese medicine formulation endowed with anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties, has demonstrated efficacy as an adjunctive therapy in critical illness. Nevertheless, high-level clinical evidence supporting its routine application remains limited. This work sought to systematically explore the therapeutic efficacy of adjunctive SMI intervention in patients with sepsis and septic shock. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mass spectrometry was employed to identify chemical constituents of SMI. This multicenter retrospective cohort study enrolled patients meeting Sepsis 3.0 diagnostic criteria for sepsis or septic shock at the Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine from February 2016 to June 2024. After 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) to balance baseline confounders, clinical outcomes were compared between the SMI and control groups. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, ventilation and fever duration, and changes in SOFA score, APACHE II scores, procalcitonin (PCT), lactate, and blood cell counts at days 3-7 post-treatment. A subgroup analysis was further conducted among patients with septic shock. RESULTS: A total of 130 components were identified in SMI. The retrospective study involving 436 enrolled patients (136 in the septic shock subgroup) showed that SMI shortened ICU stay, ventilation duration, and fever duration, and reduced post-treatment SOFA, APACHE II scores, PCT, platelet count, and lactate levels. Cox regression analysis revealed that post-treatment SOFA score (HR = 1.133), PCT (HR = 1.024), lactate (HR = 1.432), and SMI course (HR = 0.830) were independent predictors of 28-day mortality. Subgroup analysis of 72 patients with septic shock demonstrated that SMI reduced invasive ventilation duration, improved post-treatment SOFA and APACHE II scores, and decreased platelet and lactate levels. However, SMI did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality in patients with sepsis or septic shock. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive SMI therapy was associated with certain beneficial physiological effects, including improvements in inflammatory and metabolic markers and organ function, without conferring a significant survival benefit regarding 28-day mortality. Post-treatment PCT and lactate levels serve as powerful prognostic biomarkers for disease progression. Further prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are required to corroborate these observations and consolidate clinical evidence.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.