Objective:To evaluate the clinical efficacy of Xuebijing combined with ulinastatin in the treatment of severe sepsis patients. Method:The medical literatures (1990 to 2013) were searched from fllowing data sources:Medline

Chinese Biomedical Literature Database

China National Knowledge Infrastructure VIP and Wanfang citation database online version

and randomized controlled trial about Xuebijing combined with ulinastatin in severe sepsis patients were collected. Meta-analysis of included trials was performed using Rev Man 5.2 software. Result:Total of 8 trials involving 735 patients was included. Of the 2 trials had a Jaded score of 3

2 trials had a Jaded score of 2

and 4 trials had a Jaded score of 1.Meta-analysis showed that the time of mechanical ventilation in Xuebijing combined with ulinastatin compare with Xuebijing and ulinastatin alone was respectively [MD=-2.10

95%CI (-2.88

-1.31)

P<0.05]

[MD=-3.92

95%CI (-4.59

-3.25)

P<0.05];the days of ICU were respectively[MD=-2.07

95%CI (-2.98

-1.17)

P<0.05]

[MD=-3.76

95%CI (-4.57

-2.96)

P<0.05];APACHE-Ⅱ was respectively [MD=-2.78

95%CI(-4.85

-0.71)

P<0.05]

[MD=-4.19

95%CI(-5.64

-2.75)

P<0.05];procalcitionin (PCT) was respectively [MD=-0.44

95%CI(-0.54

-0.33)

P<0.05]

[MD=-0.61

95%CI (-0.67

-0.55)

P<0.05];tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) was respectively [MD=-1.38

95%CI(-3.02

-0.25)

P<0.05]

[MD=-5.91

95%CI(-11.02

-0.80)

P<0.05];interleukin 6(IL-6) was respectively [MD=-32.96

95%CI(-48.26

-17.66)

P<0.05]

[MD=-60.42

95%CI (-109.19

-11.65)

P<0.05];lipopolysaccharide (LPS) was respectively [MD=-6.38

95%CI (-9.18

-3.58)

P<0.05]

[MD=-11.08

95%CI (-14.42

-7.75)

P<0.05]. Conclusion:Using Xuebijing combined with ulinastatin can reduce the time of mechanical ventilation

the days of ICU and APACHE-Ⅱ

and decrease the level of proinflammatory cytokines

such as PCT

TNF-α

IL-6 and LPS. The efficacy of Xuebijing combined with ulinastatin in severe sepsis patients should be determined by more high quality RCTs because of small number and poor methodological quality of included studies in this meta-analysis.