Current use of vasopressors in septic shock

Prehospital Bundle of Care Based on Antibiotic Therapy and Hemodynamic Optimization Is Associated With a 30-Day Mortality Decrease in Patients With Septic Shock

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to investigate the association between the 30-day mortality in patients with septic shock (SS) and a prehospital bundle of care completion, antibiotic therapy administration, and hemodynamic optimization defined as a fluid expansion of at least 10 mL.kg-1.hr-1.

DESIGN

To assess the association between prehospital BUndle of Care (BUC) completion and 30-day mortality, the inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) propensity method was performed.

SETTING

International guidelines recommend early treatment implementation in order to reduce SS mortality. More than one single treatment, a bundle of care, including antibiotic therapy and hemodynamic optimization, is more efficient.

PATIENTS

From May 2016 to March 2021, patients with SS requiring prehospital mobile ICU (mICU) intervention were retrospectively analyzed.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Among the 529 patients with SS requiring action by the mICU enrolled in this study, 354 (67%) were analyzed. Presumed pulmonary, digestive, and urinary infections were the cause of the SS in 49%, 25%, and 13% of the cases, respectively. The overall 30-day mortality was 32%. Seventy-one patients (20%) received prehospital antibiotic therapy and fluid expansion. Log binomial regression weighted with IPTW resulted in a significant association between 30-day mortality and prehospital BUC completion (respiratory rate [RR] of 0.56 [0.33-0.89]; p = 0.02 and adjusted RR 0.52 [0.27-0.93]; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

A prehospital bundle of care, based on antibiotic therapy and hemodynamic optimization, is associated with a 30-day mortality decrease among patients suffering from SS cared for by an mICU.

First-line Vasopressor Use in Septic Shock and Route of Administration: An Epidemiologic Study

RATIONALE

Norepinephrine is a first-line agent for treatment of hypotension in septic shock. However, its frequency of use, and potential barriers to its use are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the frequency of use of norepinephrine in septic shock, to identify potential barriers to its use, and to evaluate trends in use of vasopressors over time.

METHODS

Retrospective population-based cohort study of patients with septic shock in Alberta, Canada between July 1, 2012 and December 31, 2018. The primary outcome was receipt of a first-line vasopressor other than norepinephrine ("non-norepinephrine vasopressor"). Predictors of receiving a non-norepinephrine vasopressor were assessed using a multivariable-adjusted, multilevel logistic regression model with intensive care unit (ICU) as a random effect.

RESULTS

Among 6343 patients with septic shock, the proportion of patients receiving non-norepinephrine vasopressors as first-line treatment decreased steadily from 11.5% in 2012 to 3.0% in 2018. Two factors most strongly associated with their receipt were having peripheral intravenous access only (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 6.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.58-8.26, p<0.001) and year of admission (aOR 0.74 per year after 2012, 95% CI 0.69-0.80, p<0.001). Other factors that had associations after adjustment included admission to a non-teaching hospital (aOR 2.19, 95% CI 1.23-3.89, p=0.007), admission to a coronary care unit (aOR 2.56, 95% CI 1.001-6.54, p=0.05), SOFA score (aOR 0.92 per unit increase, 95% CI 0.88-0.96, p<0.001) and heart rate (aOR 0.92 per 10 beat per minute increase, 95% CI 0.87-0.97, p=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large cohort of patients in Alberta, Canada, we found a steady decrease in use of first-line vasopressors other than norepinephrine in septic shock. The strongest factor associated with their use was the presence of only peripheral venous access, suggesting this may still be considered a barrier to administration of norepinephrine.

Alternatives to norepinephrine in septic shock: Which agents and when?

Vasopressors are the cornerstone of hemodynamic management in patients with septic shock. Norepinephrine is currently recommended as the first-line vasopressor in these patients. In addition to norepinephrine, there are many other potent vasopressors with specific properties and/or advantages that act on vessels through different pathways after activation of specific receptors; these could be of interest in patients with septic shock. Dopamine is no longer recommended in patients with septic shock because its use is associated with a higher rate of cardiac arrhythmias without any benefit in terms of mortality or organ dysfunction. Epinephrine is currently considered as a second-line vasopressor therapy, because of the higher rate of associated metabolic and cardiac adverse effects compared with norepinephrine; however, it may be considered in settings where norepinephrine is unavailable or in patients with refractory septic shock and myocardial dysfunction. Owing to its potential effects on mortality and renal function and its norepinephrine-sparing effect, vasopressin is recommended as second-line vasopressor therapy instead of norepinephrine dose escalation in patients with septic shock and persistent arterial hypotension. However, two synthetic analogs of vasopressin, namely, terlipressin and selepressin, have not yet been employed in the management of patients with septic shock, as their use is associated with a higher rate of digital ischemia. Finally, angiotensin Ⅱ also appears to be a promising vasopressor in patients with septic shock, especially in the most severe cases and/or in patients with acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy. Nevertheless, due to limited evidence and concerns regarding safety (which remains unclear because of potential adverse effects related to its marked vasopressor activity), angiotensin Ⅱ is currently not recommended in patients with septic shock. Further studies are needed to better define the role of these vasopressors in the management of these patients.

Early echocardiography by treating physicians and outcome in the critically ill: An ancillary study from the prospective multicenter trial FROG-ICU

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the association between the use of early echocardiography performed by the treating physician certified in critical care ultrasound and mortality in ICU patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

FROG-ICU was a multi-center cohort designed to investigate the outcome of critically ill patients. Of the 1359 patients admitted to centers where echocardiography was available, 372 patients underwent echocardiography during the initial 3 days.

RESULTS

Of the ICU patients admitted for cardiac disease, 47.4% underwent echocardiography, and those patients had the lowest left ventricular ejection fraction 40 [31-58] % and the lowest cardiac output 4.2 [3.2-5.7] L/min compared to patients admitted for other causes (p < 0.001 for both). One-year mortality was 36.8% and 39.9% in patients with and without echocardiography, respectively [HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.75-1.11)]. This result was confirmed after multivariable Cox regression analysis [HR 0.88 (95% CI 0.71-1.08)]. Subgroup analyses suggest that among patients admitted to ICU for cardiac disease, those managed with echocardiography had a lower risk of one-year mortality [HR 0.65 (95% CI 0.43-0.98)].

CONCLUSIONS

Early echocardiography by treating physicians was not associated with short- or long-term survival in ICU patients. In subgroups, early echocardiography improved survival in ICU patients admitted for cardiac disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01367093.

Predictors of Requirement of Inotrope Among Patients With Early Sepsis: Special Reference to Microcirculatory Parameters

Introduction

The management of septic shock and refractory septic shock is essential in preventing sepsis-related death. The handheld vital microscope is a new modality of investigation for sepsis for microcirculatory assessment. This study aimed to identify predictors of inotrope requirements among patients with early sepsis and impending septic shock with particular reference to sublingual microcirculation assessment parameters.

Methodology

We conducted an observational cross-sectional hospital-based study in central India. The formal sample size was calculated to be 52 patients using a convenient sampling technique. The study was initiated with ethics approval (IHEC-LOP/2019/ MD0090) with consent from the patients. We used the MicroScan (MicroVision Medical, Netherlands) Video Microscope System (No.16A00102) to obtain sidestream dark-field imaging along with the AVA 4.3C software (MicroVision Medical).

Results

Of 51 cases, 60.8% were women, and 39.2% were men, and the study population had a mean age of 41.0 ± 14.9 years. Patients were recruited from medical wards (64.7%) and emergency departments (35.3%). The most common site of infection was gastrointestinal (33.3%), followed by respiratory infections (25.5%) and genitourinary infections (11.8%). The quick sequential organ failure assessment score was 2.0 ± 0.1. Eight patients required inotropes, and six patients died. High respiratory rates and lactate levels were important predictors of inotrope requirements in patients with early sepsis. Sublingual microcirculatory parameters at baseline did not significantly affect the requirement of inotropes consequently.

Conclusions

Sublingual microscopy is a suggested tool for the management of sepsis. However, without clearly defined cut-off values, handheld vital microscopy could not predict fluid responsiveness among patients with early sepsis. Also, it would be difficult to incorporate this technology into regular practice without equipment upgrades and image acquisition software.

Prehospital norepinephrine administration reduces 30-day mortality among septic shock patients

Background

Despite differences in time of sepsis recognition, recent studies support that early initiation of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock (SS) improves outcome without an increase in adverse effects. This study aims to investigate the relationship between 30-day mortality in patients with SS and prehospital norepinephrine infusion in order to reach a mean blood pressure (MAP) > 65 mmHg at the end of the prehospital stage.

Methods

From April 06th, 2016 to December 31th, 2020, patients with SS requiring prehospital Mobile Intensive Care Unit intervention (MICU) were retrospectively analysed. To consider cofounders, the propensity score method was used to assess the relationship between prehospital norepinephrine administration in order to reach a MAP > 65 mmHg at the end of the prehospital stage and 30-day mortality.

Results

Four hundred and seventy-eight patients were retrospectively analysed, among which 309 patients (65%) were male. The mean age was 69 ± 15 years. Pulmonary, digestive, and urinary infections were suspected among 44%, 24% and 17% patients, respectively. One third of patients (n = 143) received prehospital norepinephrine administration with a median dose of 1.0 [0.5–2.0] mg h⁻¹, among which 84 (69%) were alive and 38 (31%) were deceased on day 30 after hospital-admission. 30-day overall mortality was 30%. Cox regression analysis after the propensity score showed a significant association between prehospital norepinephrine administration and 30-day mortality, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.42 [0.25–0.70], p < 10^–3. Multivariate logistic regression of IPTW retrieved a significant decrease of 30-day mortality among the prehospital norepinephrine group: ORa = 0.75 [0.70–0.79], p < 10^–3.

Conclusion

In this study, we report that prehospital norepinephrine infusion in order to reach a MAP > 65 mmHg at the end of the prehospital stage is associated with a decrease in 30-day mortality in patients with SS cared for by a MICU in the prehospital setting. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm that very early norepinephrine infusion decreases septic shock mortality.

Dopamine use and its consequences in the intensive care unit: a cohort study utilizing the Japanese Intensive care PAtient Database

Background

Dopamine is used to treat patients with shock in intensive care units (ICU) throughout the world, despite recent evidence against its use. The aim of this study was to identify the latest practice of dopamine use in Japan and also to explore the consequences of dopamine use in a large Asian population.

Methods

The Japanese Intensive Care PAtient Database (JIPAD), the largest intensive care database in Japan, was utilized. Inclusion criteria included: 1) age 18 years or older, 2) admitted to the ICU for reasons other than procedures, 3) ICU length of stay of 24 h or more, and 4) treatment with either dopamine or noradrenaline within 24 h of admission. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Multivariable regression analysis was performed, followed by a propensity score-matched analysis.

Results

Of the 132,354 case records, 14,594 records from 56 facilities were included in this analysis. Dopamine was administered to 4,653 patients and noradrenaline to 11,844. There was no statistically significant difference in facility characteristics between frequent dopamine users (N = 28) and infrequent users (N = 28). Patients receiving dopamine had more cardiovascular diagnosis codes (70% vs. 42%; p < 0.01), more post-elective surgery status (60% vs. 31%), and lower APACHE III scores compared to patients given noradrenaline alone (70.7 vs. 83.0; p < 0.01). Multivariable analysis showed an odds ratio for in-hospital mortality of 0.86 [95% CI: 0.71–1.04] in the dopamine ≤ 5 μg/kg/min group, 1.46 [95% CI: 1.18–1.82] in the 5–15 μg/kg/min group, and 3.30 [95% CI: 1.19–9.19] in the > 15 μg/kg/min group. In a 1:1 propensity score matching for dopamine use as a vasopressor (570 pairs), both in-hospital mortality and ICU mortality were significantly higher in the dopamine group compared to no dopamine group (22.5% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.038; 13.3% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.018), as well as ICU length of stay (mean 9.3 days vs. 7.4 days, p = 0.004).

Conclusion

Dopamine is still widely used in Japan. The results of this study suggest detrimental effects of dopamine use specifically at a high dose.

Trial registration Retrospectively registered upon approval of the Institutional Review Board and the administration office of JIPAD.

Association Between Vasopressin Rebranding and Utilization in Patients With Septic Shock

OBJECTIVES

Vasopressin is suggested as an adjunct to norepinephrine in patients with septic shock. However, after vasopressin was rebranded in November 2014, its cost exponentially increased. Utilization patterns of vasopressin after its rebranding are unclear. The objective of this study was to determine if there is an association between the rebranding of vasopressin in November 2014 and its utilization in vasopressor-dependent patients with severe sepsis or septic shock.

DESIGN

Retrospective, multicenter, database study between January 2010 and March 2017.

SETTING

Premier Healthcare Database hospitals.

PATIENTS

Adult patients admitted to an ICU with severe sepsis or septic shock, who received at least one vasoactive agent for two or more calendar days were included.

INTERVENTIONS

The proportion of patients who received vasopressin and vasopressin cost was assessed before and after rebranding, and evaluated with segmented regression.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Among 294,733 patients (mean age, 66 ± 15 yr), 27.8% received vasopressin, and ICU mortality was 26.5%. The proportion of patients receiving vasopressin was higher after rebranding (31.2% postrebranding vs 25.8% prerebranding). Before vasopressin rebranding, the quarterly proportion of patients who received vasopressin had an increasing slope (prerebranding slope 0.41% [95% CI, 0.35-0.46%]), with no difference in slope detected after vasopressin rebranding (postrebranding slope, 0.47% [95% CI, 0.29-0.64%]). After vasopressin rebranding, mean vasopressin cost per patient was higher ($527 ± 1,130 vs $77 ± 160), and the quarterly slope of vasopressin cost was higher (change in slope $77.18 [95% CI, $75.73-78.61]). Total vasopressin billed cost postrebranding continually increased by ~$294,276 per quarter from less than $500,000 in Q4 2014 to over $3,000,000 in Q1 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

After vasopressin rebranding, utilization continued to increase quarterly despite a significant increase in vasopressin cost. Vasopressin appeared to have price inelastic demand in septic shock.

[Vasoactive drugs in the treatment of septic shock]

Septic shock is a high mortality complication frequently associated with sepsis. Early initiation of vasopressor treatment, even before completion of initial fluid resuscitation, is a determining factor in prognosis. In this sense, norepinephrine continues to be the drug of first choice, although there is increasing evidence of benefit combining it with other non-adrenergic drugs, such as vasopressin, instead of escalating norepinephrine doses. The pathophysiology of septic shock is multifactorial, and sometimes is associated with a situation of myocardial dysfunction that contributes to hemodynamic instability. It is essential to identify this situation since it worsens the prognosis and may benefit from combined treatment with inotropic drugs. There are novel vasoactive agents under study, more selective than the classic ones that in a next future could help to design more individualized and precise treatments. In the present work, the current knowledge about vasoactive drugs and their use in the management of septic shock is summarized according to the most recent scientific evidence.

Association of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) components with mortality

BACKGROUND

Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) is a practical method to describe and quantify the presence and severity of organ system dysfunctions and failures. Some proposals suggest that SOFA could be employed as an endpoint in trials. To justify this, all SOFA component scores should reflect organ dysfunctions of comparable severity. We aimed to investigate whether the associations of different SOFA components with in-hospital mortality are comparable.

METHODS

We performed a study based on nationwide register data on adult patients admitted to 26 Finnish intensive care units (ICUs) during 2012-2015. We determined the SOFA score as the maximum score in the first 24 hours after ICU admission. We defined organ failure (OF) as an organ-specific SOFA score of three or higher. We evaluated the association of different SOFA component scores with mortality.

RESULTS

Our study population comprised 63,756 ICU patients. Overall hospital mortality was 10.7%. In-hospital mortality was 22.5% for patients with respiratory failure, 34.8% for those with coagulation failure, 40.1% for those with hepatic failure, 14.9% for those with cardiovascular failure, 26.9% for those with neurologic failure and 34.6% for the patients with renal failure. Among patients with comparable total SOFA scores, the risk of death was lower in patients with cardiovascular OF compared with patients with other OFs.

CONCLUSIONS

All SOFA components are associated with mortality, but their weights are not comparable. High scores of other organ systems mean a higher risk of death than high cardiovascular scores. The scoring of cardiovascular dysfunction needs to be updated.

Vasopressor Choice and Timing in Vasodilatory Shock

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2022. Other selected articles can be found online at https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2022 . Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from https://link.springer.com/bookseries/8901 .

An international survey of adherence to Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines 2016 regarding fluid resuscitation and vasopressors in the initial management of septic shock

BACKGROUND

Our survey aimed to evaluate adherence to Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) Guidelines 2016 among intensive care practitioners and to identify issues that remain controversial or lack clarity.

METHODS

Members of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) were surveyed using an anonymous web-based survey written by an international group of experts. The primary outcome measure was the rate of adherence to specific recommendations. Secondary outcomes were to describe areas of controversy and lack of data and to associate specific practices with clinician characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall 820 questionnaires were completed. The SCC recommendations 2016 most adhered to were the choice of norepinephrine as first-line vasoactive drug (96.5%), vasopressor prescription based on therapeutic goal rather than dose (83.4%), targeting a specific mean arterial blood pressure during vasopressor use (77.9%), monitoring of blood pressure invasively (62.8%) and adding vasopressin or epinephrine as a second vasoactive agent (83.4%). We identified an internal conflict with regards to parallel versus sequential administration of fluids and vasoactive drugs and regional differences in practice that may be related to drug availabilities.

CONCLUSION

The use of vasopressors and fluid use in septic shock is largely compliant with current guidelines but several controversies should be addressed in future guideline iterations.

Early prediction of hemodynamic interventions in the intensive care unit using machine learning

Background

Timely recognition of hemodynamic instability in critically ill patients enables increased vigilance and early treatment opportunities. We develop the Hemodynamic Stability Index (HSI), which highlights situational awareness of possible hemodynamic instability occurring at the bedside and to prompt assessment for potential hemodynamic interventions.

Methods

We used an ensemble of decision trees to obtain a real-time risk score that predicts the initiation of hemodynamic interventions an hour into the future. We developed the model using the eICU Research Institute (eRI) database, based on adult ICU admissions from 2012 to 2016. A total of 208,375 ICU stays met the inclusion criteria, with 32,896 patients (prevalence = 18%) experiencing at least one instability event where they received one of the interventions during their stay. Predictors included vital signs, laboratory measurements, and ventilation settings.

Results

HSI showed significantly better performance compared to single parameters like systolic blood pressure and shock index (heart rate/systolic blood pressure) and showed good generalization across patient subgroups. HSI AUC was 0.82 and predicted 52% of all hemodynamic interventions with a lead time of 1-h with a specificity of 92%. In addition to predicting future hemodynamic interventions, our model provides confidence intervals and a ranked list of clinical features that contribute to each prediction. Importantly, HSI can use a sparse set of physiologic variables and abstains from making a prediction when the confidence is below an acceptable threshold.

Conclusions

The HSI algorithm provides a single score that summarizes hemodynamic status in real time using multiple physiologic parameters in patient monitors and electronic medical records (EMR). Importantly, HSI is designed for real-world deployment, demonstrating generalizability, strong performance under different data availability conditions, and providing model explanation in the form of feature importance and prediction confidence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03808-x.

Combining fluids and vasopressors: A magic potion?

Early detection and prompt reversal of sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion are key elements while treating patients with septic shock. Fluid administration is widely accepted as the first-line therapy followed by vasopressor use in persistently hypotensive patients or in those with insufficient arterial pressure to ensure adequate tissue perfusion. Recent evidence suggests a beneficial effect of combining fluids with vasopressors in the early phase of sepsis. Compared with fluids alone, combining fluids and vasopressors increases mean systemic pressure and venous return and corrects hypotension better. This approach also limits fluid overload, which is an independent factor of poor outcomes in sepsis. It produces less hemodilution than fluids alone. As a consequence of these effects, combined treatment may improve outcomes in septic shock patients.

Monitoring, management, and outcome of hypotension in Intensive Care Unit patients, an international survey of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine

INTRODUCTION

Hypotension in the ICU is common, yet management is challenging and variable. Insight in management by ICU physicians and nurses may improve patient care and guide future hypotension treatment trials and guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted an international survey among ICU personnel to provide insight in monitoring, management, and perceived consequences of hypotension.

RESULTS

Out of 1464 respondents, 1197 (81.7%) were included (928 physicians (77.5%) and 269 nurses (22.5%)). The majority indicated that hypotension is underdiagnosed (55.4%) and largely preventable (58.8%). Nurses are primarily in charge of monitoring changes in blood pressure, physicians are in charge of hypotension treatment. Balanced crystalloids, dobutamine, norepinephrine, and Trendelenburg position were the most frequently reported fluid, inotrope, vasopressor, and positional maneuver used to treat hypotension. Reported complications believed to be related to hypotension were AKI and myocardial injury. Most ICUs do not have a specific hypotension treatment guideline or protocol (70.6%), but the majority would like to have one in the future (58.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Both physicians and nurses report that hypotension in ICU patients is underdiagnosed, preventable, and believe that hypotension influences morbidity. Hypotension management is generally not protocolized, but the majority of respondents would like to have a specific hypotension management protocol.

Early vesus differed arterial catheterisation in critically ill patients with acute circulatory failure: a multicentre, open-label, pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority controlled trial: the EVERDAC protocol

INTRODUCTION

The use of peripheral indwelling arterial catheter for haemodynamic monitoring is widespread in the intensive care unit and is recommended in patients with shock. However, there is no evidence that the arterial catheter could improve patient's outcome, whereas the burden of morbidity generated is significant (pain, thrombosis, infections). We hypothesise that patients with shock may be managed without an arterial catheter.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The EVERDAC study is an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority clinical trial, comparing a less invasive intervention (ie, no arterial catheter insertion until felt absolutely needed, according to predefined safety criteria) or usual care (ie, systematic arterial catheter insertion in the early hours of shock). 1010 patients will be randomised with a 1:1 ratio in two groups according to the strategy. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality by 28 days after inclusion. A health economic analysis will be carried out.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the Ethics Committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes Île de France V, registration number 61606 CAT 2, 19 july 2018) and patients will be included after informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03680963.

Management of sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department

Early management of sepsis and septic shock is crucial for patients' prognosis. As the Emergency Department (ED) is the place where the first medical contact for septic patients is likely to occur, emergency physicians play an essential role in the early phases of patient management, which consists of accurate initial diagnosis, resuscitation, and early antibiotic treatment. Since the issuing of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines in 2016, several studies have been published on different aspects of sepsis management, adding a substantial amount of new information on the pathophysiology and treatment of sepsis and septic shock. In light of this emerging evidence, the present narrative review provides a comprehensive account of the recent advances in septic patient management in the ED.

Hemodynamic Monitoring in Sepsis-A Conceptual Framework of Macro- and Microcirculatory Alterations

Circulatory failure in sepsis is common and places a considerable burden on healthcare systems. It is associated with an increased likelihood of mortality, and timely recognition is a prerequisite to ensure optimum results. While there is consensus that aggressive source control, adequate antimicrobial therapy and hemodynamic management constitute crucial determinants of outcome, discussion remains about the best way to achieve each of these core principles. Sound cardiovascular support rests on tailored fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. To this end, an overarching framework to improve cardiovascular dynamics has been a recurring theme in modern critical care. The object of this review is to examine the nature of one such framework that acknowledges the growing importance of adaptive hemodynamic support combining macro- and microhemodynamic variables to produce adequate tissue perfusion.

Initial fluid resuscitation (30 mL/kg) in patients with septic shock: More or less?

OBJECTIVES

The 2018 Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) recommends rapid administration of 30 mL/kg crystalloid fluids for hypotension or lactate ≥4 mmol/L in patients with septic shock; however, there is limited evidence to support this recommendation. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between initial fluid resuscitation doses and prognosis in patients with septic shock.

METHODS

This was a multicenter prospective observational study of adult patients with septic shock who were admitted to four intensive care units (ICUs) in a total of three Jiangsu Province teaching hospitals over a 3-year span from May 8, 2018, to June 15, 2021. Each enrolled patients with septic shock was categorized into the low-volume (below 20 mL/kg fluid), medium-volume (20-30 mL/kg fluid) or high-volume (above 30 mL/kg fluid) fluid group according to the initial infusion dose given for fluid resuscitation. Various demographic attributes and other variables were collected from medical records. Logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier curve analysis were used to determine the relationship between initial fluid resuscitation doses and patient outcomes.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 302 patients who presented to the ICU were diagnosed with septic shock. The 28-day mortality was highest in the high-volume group (48.3%) and lowest in the medium-volume group (26.3%, P < 0.05). Patients who completed 30 mL/kg initial fluid resuscitation in the first 1-2 h had the lowest 28-day mortality rate (22.8%, P < 0.05). Logistic regression showed that a medium initial fluid volume dose was an independent protective factor, with the odds ratio (OR) indicating significantly decreased mortality (OR, 0.507; 95% confidence interval, 0.310-0.828; P = 0.007; P < 0.05). A Kaplan-Meier curve stratified by initial fluid resuscitation dose was constructed for the probability of 28-day mortality. The medium-volume fluid group showed a significantly lower 28-day mortality rate than the high-volume group or the low-volume group (log-rank test, P = 0.0016).

CONCLUSION

In septic shock patients, an initial fluid resuscitation rate of 20-30 mL/kg within the first hour may be associated with reduced 28-day mortality; however, this result needs to be confirmed by further high-quality randomized controlled clinical trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR-OOC-17013223. Registered 2 November 2017, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=22674.

Norepinephrine potentiates the efficacy of volume expansion on mean systemic pressure in septic shock

Background

Through venous contraction, norepinephrine (NE) increases stressed blood volume and mean systemic pressure (Pms) and exerts a “fluid-like” effect. When both fluid and NE are administered, Pms may not only result from the sum of the effects of both drugs. Indeed, norepinephrine may enhance the effects of volume expansion: because fluid dilutes into a more constricted, smaller, venous network, fluid may increase Pms to a larger extent at a higher than at a lower dose of NE. We tested this hypothesis, by mimicking the effects of fluid by passive leg raising (PLR).

Methods

In 30 septic shock patients, norepinephrine was decreased to reach a predefined target of mean arterial pressure (65–70 mmHg by default, 80–85 mmHg in previously hypertensive patients). We measured the PLR-induced increase in Pms (heart–lung interactions method) under high and low doses of norepinephrine. Preload responsiveness was defined by a PLR-induced increase in cardiac index ≥ 10%.

Results

Norepinephrine was decreased from 0.32 [0.18–0.62] to 0.26 [0.13–0.50] µg/kg/min (p < 0.0001). This significantly decreased the mean arterial pressure by 10 [7–20]% and Pms by 9 [4–19]%. The increase in Pms (∆Pms) induced by PLR was 13 [9–19]% at the higher dose of norepinephrine and 11 [6–16]% at the lower dose (p < 0.0001). Pms reached during PLR at the high dose of NE was higher than expected by the sum of Pms at baseline at low dose, ∆Pms induced by changing the norepinephrine dose and ∆Pms induced by PLR at low dose of NE (35.6 [11.2] mmHg vs. 33.6 [10.9] mmHg, respectively, p < 0.01). The number of preload responders was 8 (27%) at the high dose of NE and 15 (50%) at the low dose.

Conclusions

Norepinephrine enhances the Pms increase induced by PLR. These results suggest that a bolus of fluid of the same volume has a greater haemodynamic effect at a high dose than at a low dose of norepinephrine during septic shock.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03711-5.

Risk factor identification and predictive models for central line requirements for patients on vasopressors

Vasopressors are ubiquitous in intensive care units. While central venous catheters are the preferred route of infusion, recent evidence suggests peripheral administration may be safe for short, single-agent courses. Here, we identify risk factors and develop a predictive model for patient central venous catheter requirement using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care, a single-centre dataset of patients admitted to an intensive care unit between 2008 and 2019. Using prior literature, a composite endpoint of prolonged single-agent courses (>24 hours) or multi-agent courses of any duration was used to identify likely central venous catheter requirement. From a cohort of 69,619 intensive care unit stays, there were 17,053 vasopressor courses involving one or more vasopressors that met study inclusion criteria. In total, 3807 (22.3%) vasopressor courses involved a single vasopressor for less than six hours, 7952 (46.6%) courses for less than 24 hours and 5757 (33.8%) involved multiple vasopressors of any duration. Of these, 3047 (80.0%) less than six-hour and 6423 (80.8%) less than 24-hour single vasopressor courses used a central venous catheter. Logistic regression models identified associations between the composite endpoint and intubation (odds ratio (OR) 2.36, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 2.16 to 2.58), cardiac diagnosis (OR 0.72, CI 0.65 to 0.80), renal impairment (OR 1.61, CI 1.50 to 1.74), older age (OR 1.002, Cl 1.000 to 1.005) and vital signs in the hour before initiation (heart rate, OR 1.006, CI 1.003 to 1.009; oxygen saturation, OR 0.996, CI 0.993 to 0.999). A logistic regression model predicting the composite endpoint had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (standard deviation) of 0.747 (0.013) and an accuracy of 0.691 (0.012). This retrospective study reveals a high prevalence of short vasopressor courses in intensive care unit settings, a majority of which were administered using central venous catheters. We identify several important risk factors that may help guide clinicians deciding between peripheral and central venous catheter administration, and present a predictive model that may inform future prospective trials.

Acute kidney injury

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is defined by a sudden loss of excretory kidney function. AKI is part of a range of conditions summarized as acute kidney diseases and disorders (AKD), in which slow deterioration of kidney function or persistent kidney dysfunction is associated with an irreversible loss of kidney cells and nephrons, which can lead to chronic kidney disease (CKD). New biomarkers to identify injury before function loss await clinical implementation. AKI and AKD are a global concern. In low-income and middle-income countries, infections and hypovolaemic shock are the predominant causes of AKI. In high-income countries, AKI mostly occurs in elderly patients who are in hospital, and is related to sepsis, drugs or invasive procedures. Infection and trauma-related AKI and AKD are frequent in all regions. The large spectrum of AKI implies diverse pathophysiological mechanisms. AKI management in critical care settings is challenging, including appropriate volume control, nephrotoxic drug management, and the timing and type of kidney support. Fluid and electrolyte management are essential. As AKI can be lethal, kidney replacement therapy is frequently required. AKI has a poor prognosis in critically ill patients. Long-term consequences of AKI and AKD include CKD and cardiovascular morbidity. Thus, prevention and early detection of AKI are essential.

Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System and Immunomodulation: A State-of-the-Art Review

The renin–angiotensin system (RAS) has long been described in the field of cardiovascular physiology as the main player in blood pressure homeostasis. However, other effects have since been described, and include proliferation, fibrosis, and inflammation. To illustrate the immunomodulatory properties of the RAS, we chose three distinct fields in which RAS may play a critical role and be the subject of specific treatments. In oncology, RAS hyperactivation has been associated with tumor migration, survival, cell proliferation, and angiogenesis; preliminary data showed promise of the benefit of RAS blockers in patients treated for certain types of cancer. In intensive care medicine, vasoplegic shock has been associated with severe macro- and microcirculatory imbalance. A relative insufficiency in angiotensin II (AngII) was associated to lethal outcomes and synthetic AngII has been suggested as a specific treatment in these cases. Finally, in solid organ transplantation, both AngI and AngII have been associated with increased rejection events, with a regional specificity in the RAS activity. These elements emphasize the complexity of the direct and indirect interactions of RAS with immunomodulatory pathways and warrant further research in the field.

Influence of innate immune activation on endocrine and metabolic pathways in infancy

Prematurity is the leading cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality worldwide. Premature infants often require extended hospital stays, with increased risk of developing infection compared with term infants. A picture is emerging of wide-ranging deleterious consequences resulting from innate immune system activation in the newborn infant. Those who survive infection have been exposed to a stimulus that can impose long-lasting alterations into later life. In this review, we discuss sepsis-driven alterations in integrated neuroendocrine and metabolic pathways and highlight current knowledge gaps in respect of neonatal sepsis. We review established biomarkers for sepsis and extend the discussion to examine emerging findings from human and animal models of neonatal sepsis that propose novel biomarkers for early identification of sepsis. Future research in this area is required to establish a greater understanding of the distinct neonatal signature of early and late-stage infection, to improve diagnosis, curtail inappropriate antibiotic use, and promote precision medicine through a biomarker-guided empirical and adjunctive treatment approach for neonatal sepsis. There is an unmet clinical need to decrease sepsis-induced morbidity in neonates, to limit and prevent adverse consequences in later life and decrease mortality.

Trends of vasopressor use in intensive care units in Colombia

Introduction: Vasopressors are essential in the management of various types of shock. Objective: To establish the trend of vasopressors use in the intensive care units (ICU) in a population of patients affiliated with the Colombian Health System, 2010-2017. Methods: Observational trial using a population database of patients hospitalized in eleven ICUs in various cities in Colombia. The drugs dispensed to hospitalized patients over 18 years old, from January 2010 until December 2017 were considered. A review and analysis of the vasopressors dispensed per month was conducted, taking into account sociodemographic and pharmacological variables (vasopressor used and daily doses defined per 100/beds/day (DBD). Results: 81,348 dispensations of vasopressors, equivalent to 26,414 treatments in 19,186 patients receiving care in 11 hospitals from 7 cities were reviewed. The mean age of patients was 66.3±18.1 years and 52.6 % were males. Of the total number of treatments recorded, 17,658 (66.8 %) were with just one vasopressor. Norepinephrine was the most frequently prescribed drug (75.9 % of the prescriptions dispensed; 60.5 DBD), followed by adrenaline (26.6 %; 41.6 DBD), dopamine (19.4%), dobutamine (16.0 %), vasopressin (8.5 %) and phenylephrine (0.9 %). The use of norepinephrine increased from 2010 to 2017 (+6.19 DBD), whilst the use of other drugs decreased, particularly the use of adrenaline (-60.6 DBD) and dopamine (-10.8 DBD). Conclusions: Norepinephrine is the most widely used vasopressor showing a growing trend in terms of its use during the study period, which is supported by evidence in favor of its effectiveness and safety in patients with shock.

Evaluation of Vasopressor Exposure and Mortality in Patients With Septic Shock

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to: 1) determine the association between vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 6 hours and first 24 hours after the onset of septic shock and 30-day in-hospital mortality; 2) determine whether the effect of vasopressor dosing intensity varies by fluid resuscitation volume; and 3) determine whether the effect of vasopressor dosing intensity varies by dosing titration pattern.

DESIGN

Multicenter prospective cohort study between September 2017 and February 2018. Vasopressor dosing intensity was defined as the total vasopressor dose infused across all vasopressors in norepinephrine equivalents.

SETTING

Thirty-three hospital sites in the United States (n = 32) and Jordan (n = 1).

PATIENTS

Consecutive adults requiring admission to the ICU with septic shock treated with greater than or equal to 1 vasopressor within 24 hours of shock onset.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Out of 1,639 patients screened, 616 were included. Norepinephrine (93%) was the most common vasopressor. Patients received a median of 3,400 mL (interquartile range, 1,851-5,338 mL) during the 24 hours after shock diagnosis. The median vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 24 hours of shock onset was 8.5 μg/min norepinephrine equivalents (3.4-18.1 μg/min norepinephrine equivalents). In the first 6 hours, increasing vasopressor dosing intensity was associated with increased odds ratio of 30-day in-hospital mortality, with the strength of association dependent on concomitant fluid administration. Over the entire 24 hour period, every 10 μg/min increase in vasopressor dosing intensity was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.16-1.53), and this association did not vary with the amount of fluid administration. Compared to an early high/late low vasopressor dosing strategy, an early low/late high or sustained high vasopressor dosing strategy was associated with higher mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 24 hours after septic shock was associated with increased mortality. This association varied with the amount of early fluid administration and the timing of vasopressor titration.

Practice Patterns in the Initiation of Secondary Vasopressors and Adjunctive Corticosteroids during Septic Shock in the US

RATIONALE

A central component of septic shock treatment is the infusion of vasopressors, most commonly starting with norepinephrine. However, the optimal approach and practice patterns to initiating adjunctive vasopressors and corticosteroids are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To characterize practice pattern variation in the norepinephrine dose at which secondary vasopressors and adjunctive corticosteroids are initiated and to identify factors associated with a treatment strategy favoring secondary vasopressors to a treatment strategy favoring adjunctive corticosteroids among patients with septic shock on norepinephrine.

METHODS

We used a multicenter ICU database to identify patients with septic shock who were started on norepinephrine followed by an additional vasopressor or corticosteroids. We used multi-level models to determine the hospital risk-adjusted norepinephrine dose at which additional vasopressors and corticosteroids were started, the percentage of variation in norepinephrine dose at the time of adjunctive treatment associated with hospital of admission, and the factors associated with choosing an 'additional vasopressor first' strategy vs. a 'corticosteroid first' strategy.

RESULTS

Among 4,401 patients with septic shock on norepinephrine, 1940 (44.0%) were started on adjuncts (1357 received an 'additional vasopressor first' strategy and 583 received a "corticosteroid first strategy). The hospital risk-adjusted norepinephrine dose at which vasopressors were initiated ranged 6.4 mcg/min (95% CI 5.9-7.0 mcg/min) to 92.6 mcg/min (95% CI 72.8-113.0 mcg/min). The hospital risk-adjusted norepinephrine dose at which corticosteroids was initiated ranged 3.0 mcg/min (95% CI 2.4-3.8 mcg/min) to 32.7 mcg/min (95% CI 24.9-43.0 mcg/min). 25.1% (intraclass correlation coefficient 95% CI 24.8%, 25.5%) of the variation in norepinephrine dose at which additional vasopressors were initiated was explained by hospital site after adjusting for all hospital- and patient-level covariates. Hospital of admission was strongly associated with receiving an 'additional vasopressor first' over a 'corticosteroids first' strategy (median odds ratio 3.28 (95% CI 2.81-3.83)).

CONCLUSIONS

Practice patterns for adjunctive therapies to norepinephrine during septic shock are variable and are determined in large part by hospital of admission. These results inform several future studies seeking to improve septic shock management.

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Fluid Resuscitation and Vasopressor Therapy Research Priorities in Adult Patients

OBJECTIVE

Expand upon the priorities of fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy research priorities identified by a group of experts assigned by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

DATA SOURCES

Original article, literature search.

STUDY SELECTION

Several members of the original task force with expertise specific to the area of fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy.

DATA EXTRACTION

None.

DATA SYNTHESIS

None.

CONCLUSION

In the second of a series of manuscripts subsequent to the original article, members with expertise in the subjects expound upon the three identified priorities related to fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapies. This analysis summarizes what is known and what were identified as ongoing and future research.

Vasopressor Responsiveness Beyond Arterial Pressure: A Conceptual Systematic Review Using Venous Return Physiology

ABSTRACT

We performed a systematic review to investigate the effects of vasopressor-induced hemodynamic changes in adults with shock. We applied a physiological approach using the interacting domains of intravascular volume, heart pump performance, and vascular resistance to structure the interpretation of responses to vasopressors. We hypothesized that incorporating changes in determinants of cardiac output and vascular resistance better reflect the vasopressor responsiveness beyond mean arterial pressure alone.We identified 28 studies including 678 subjects in Pubmed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases.All studies demonstrated significant increases in mean arterial pressure (MAP) and systemic vascular resistance during vasopressor infusion. The calculated mean systemic filling pressure analogue increased (16 ± 3.3 mmHg to 18 ± 3.4 mmHg; P = 0.02) by vasopressors with variable effects on central venous pressure and the pump efficiency of the heart leading to heterogenous changes in cardiac output. Changes in the pressure gradient for venous return and cardiac output, scaled by the change in MAP, were positively correlated (r2 = 0.88, P < 0.001). Changes in the mean systemic filling pressure analogue and heart pump efficiency were negatively correlated (r2 = 0.57, P < 0.001) while no correlation was found between changes in MAP and heart pump efficiency.We conclude that hemodynamic changes induced by vasopressor therapy are inadequately represented by the change in MAP alone despite its common use as a clinical endpoint. The more comprehensive analysis applied in this review illustrates how vasopressor administration may be optimized.

The surviving sepsis campaign: fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy research priorities in adult patients

OBJECTIVE

To expand upon the priorities of fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy research priorities identified by a group of experts assigned by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

DATA SOURCES

Original paper and literature search.

STUDY SELECTION

Several members of the original task force with expertise specific to the area of fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy.

DATA EXTRACTION

None.

DATA SYNTHESIS

None.

CONCLUSION

In the second of a series of manuscripts subsequent to the original paper, members with expertise in the subjects expound upon the three identified priorities related to fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapies. This analysis summarizes what is known and what were identified as ongoing and future research.

USER Protocol as a Guide to Resuscitation of the Patient with Septic Shock in the Emergency Department

Introduction

Sepsis is a disease that is still associated with high mortality, in which timely interventions are related to better results.

Objective

To determine if there is a difference in in-hospital mortality, fluid balances, norepinephrine initiation and recovery time of blood pressure, when comparing the resuscitation of the patient who is admitted to the emergency room in septic shock by applying the ultrasound protocol (USER) versus the standard of care.

Patients and Methods

This is a prospective, cohort study conducted in the emergency room of a highly complex hospital of patients with septic shock.

Results

83 patients recruited in total. The groups were comparable in demographics, mean baseline blood pressure, disease severity given by the SOFA value, and arterial lactate. A statistically significant difference was documented in the fluid balances at 4 hours, median 1325mL (IQR:451–2455mL) in Group C versus 900mL (IQR:440–1292) in Group U (p=0.048) and at 6 hours, median 1658mL (IQR:610–2925mL) versus 1107mL (IQR:600–1500mL), p=0.026, as well as in the total fluid balance of hospital stay, median 14,564mL (IQR:8660–18,705mL) versus 8660mL (IQR:5309–16,974mL), p=0.049. On the other hand, in the USER Group, the mean blood pressure ≥ 65mmHg was achieved in 97.4% of the patients 4 hours after the start of the protocol versus 50% in Group C (p=<0.001). Mortality with the use of the protocol compared with conventional therapy was (56.4% vs 61.36%, p=0.647).

Conclusion

The use of the USER protocol in patients with septic shock in the emergency room showed lower fluid balances at 4 and 6 hours, and of the total hospital stay, as well as earlier initiation of norepinephrine and statistically significant faster improvement in blood pressure. Although a statistically significant difference was not found in the days of ICU stay, hospitalization and in-hospital mortality, a trend was observed in the reduction of these parameters.

Left ventricular-arterial coupling as a predictor of stroke volume response to norepinephrine in septic shock - a prospective cohort study

Background

Left ventricular-arterial coupling (VAC), defined as the ratio of arterial elastance (Ea) to left ventricular end-systolic elastance (Ees), is a key determinant of cardiovascular performance. This study aims to evaluate whether left VAC can predict stroke volume (SV) response to norepinephrine (NE) in septic shock patients.

Methods

This was a prospective cohort study conducted in an intensive care unit of a tertiary teaching hospital in China. We recruited septic shock patients who had persistent hypotension despite fluid resuscitation and required NE to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) > 65 mmHg. Those patients in whom the target MAP was not reached after NE infusion were ineligible. Echocardiographic variables were measured before (baseline) and after NE infusion. SV responder was defined by a ≥ 15% increase in SV after NE infusion.

Results

Of 34 septic shock patients included, 19 (56%) were SV responders. Before NE infusion, SV responders had a lower Ees (1.13 ± 0.24 mmHg/mL versus 1.50 ± 0.46 mmHg/mL, P = 0.005) and a higher Ea/Ees ratio (1.47 ± 0.40 versus 1.02 ± 0.30, P = 0.001) than non-responders, and Ea in SV responders was comparable to that in non-responders (1.62 ± 0.36 mmHg/mL versus 1.43 ± 0.28 mmHg/mL, P = 0.092). NE significantly increased Ea and Ees in both groups. The Ea/Ees ratio was normalized by NE administration in SV responders but unchanged in non-responders. The baseline Ea/Ees ratio was positively correlated with NE-induced SV increases (r = 0.688, P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis indicated that the baseline Ea/Ees ratio was a predictor of SV increases induced by NE (odd ratio 0.008, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.000 to 0.293), with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.816 (95% CI: 0.646 to 0.927).

Conclusions

The left VAC has the ability to predict SV response to NE infusion in septic shock patients.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR1900024031, Registered 23 June 2019 - Retrospectively registered, http://www.chictr.org.cn/edit.aspx?pid=40359&htm=4.

Current use of inotropes in circulatory shock

BACKGROUND

Treatment decisions on critically ill patients with circulatory shock lack consensus. In an international survey, we aimed to evaluate the indications, current practice, and therapeutic goals of inotrope therapy in the treatment of patients with circulatory shock.

METHODS

From November 2016 to April 2017, an anonymous web-based survey on the use of cardiovascular drugs was accessible to members of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). A total of 14 questions focused on the profile of respondents, the triggering factors, first-line choice, dosing, timing, targets, additional treatment strategy, and suggested effect of inotropes. In addition, a group of 42 international ESICM experts was asked to formulate recommendations for the use of inotropes based on 11 questions.

RESULTS

A total of 839 physicians from 82 countries responded. Dobutamine was the first-line inotrope in critically ill patients with acute heart failure for 84% of respondents. Two-thirds of respondents (66%) stated to use inotropes when there were persistent clinical signs of hypoperfusion or persistent hyperlactatemia despite a supposed adequate use of fluids and vasopressors, with (44%) or without (22%) the context of low left ventricular ejection fraction. Nearly half (44%) of respondents stated an adequate cardiac output as target for inotropic treatment. The experts agreed on 11 strong recommendations, all of which were based on excellent (> 90%) or good (81-90%) agreement. Recommendations include the indications for inotropes (septic and cardiogenic shock), the choice of drugs (dobutamine, not dopamine), the triggers (low cardiac output and clinical signs of hypoperfusion) and targets (adequate cardiac output) and stopping criteria (adverse effects and clinical improvement).

CONCLUSION

Inotrope use in critically ill patients is quite heterogeneous as self-reported by individual caregivers. Eleven strong recommendations on the indications, choice, triggers and targets for the use of inotropes are given by international experts. Future studies should focus on consistent indications for inotrope use and implementation into a guideline for circulatory shock that encompasses individualized targets and outcomes.

Balanced Salt Solution for Metabolic Acidosis in ICU

How to cite this article: Samal S, Mishra SB. Balanced Salt Solution for Metabolic Acidosis in ICU. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(2):236.

Hypernatremia and moderate-to-severe hyponatremia are independent predictors of mortality in septic patients at emergency department presentation: A sub-group analysis of the need-speed trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Early risk stratification of septic patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) is challenging. The aim of the study was to evaluate the prognostic role of plasmatic sodium level (_PNa⁺) derangements at ED presentation in septic patients.

METHODS

According to _PNa⁺ at ED presentation patients were divided in eunatremic (136-145 mEq/L), hypernatremic (>145 mEq/L) and hyponatremic (<136 mEq/L). Hyponatremic patients were subsequently divided in mild (130-135 mEq/L), moderate (125-129 mEq/L) and severe (<125 mEq/L). 7 and 30-day mortality was evaluated according to _PNa⁺ derangements and the degree of hyponatremia. The same analysis was then performed only in respiratory tract infection-related (RTI-r) sepsis patients.

RESULTS

879 septic patients were included in this analysis, 40.3% had hyponatremia, 5.7% hypernatremia. Hypernatremia showed higher mortality rates at both endpoints compared to eunatremia and hyponatremia (p<0.0001 for both). Eunatremia and mild hyponatremia were compared vs. moderate-to-severe hyponatremia showing a significant difference in terms of 7 and 30-day survival (p = 0.004 and p = 0.007, respectively). The Cox proportional model identified as independent predictors of 7 and 30-day mortality moderate-to-severe hyponatremia (HR 4.89[2.38-10.03] and 1.79[1.07-3.01], respectively) and hypernatremia (HR 3.52[1.58-7.82] and 2.14[1.17-3.92], respectively). The same analysis was performed in patients with respiratory tract infection-related sepsis (n = 549), with similar results.

CONCLUSION

Both hypernatremia and moderate-to-severe hyponatremia at ED presentation independently predict mortality in septic patients, allowing early risk stratification and suggesting more aggressive therapeutic strategies.

Major publications in the critical care pharmacotherapy literature: 2019

PURPOSE

To summarize selected meta-analyses and trials related to critical care pharmacotherapy published in 2019.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Critical Care Pharmacotherapy Literature Update (CCPLU) Group screened 36 journals monthly for impactful articles and reviewed 113 articles during 2019 according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria.

RESULTS

Articles with a 1A grade, including three clinical practice guidelines, six meta-analyses, and five original research trials are reviewed here from those included in the monthly CCPLU. Clinical practice guidelines on the use of polymyxins and antiarrhythmic drugs in cardiac arrest as well as meta-analyses on antipsychotic use in delirium, stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), and vasoactive medications in septic shock and cardiac arrest were summarized. Original research trials evaluated delirium, sedation, neuromuscular blockade, SUP, anticoagulation reversal, and hemostasis.

CONCLUSION

This clinical review and expert opinion provides summary and perspectives of clinical practice impact on influential critical care pharmacotherapy publications in 2019.

Pragmatic Recommendations for the Management of COVID-19 Patients with Shock in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

As some patients infected with the novel coronavirus progress to critical illness, a subset will eventually develop shock. High-quality data on management of these patients are scarce, and further investigation will provide valuable information in the context of the pandemic. A group of experts identify a set of pragmatic recommendations for the care of patients with SARS-CoV-2 and shock in resource-limited environments. We define shock as life-threatening circulatory failure that results in inadequate tissue perfusion and cellular dysoxia/hypoxia, and suggest that it can be operationalized via clinical observations. We suggest a thorough evaluation for other potential causes of shock and suggest against indiscriminate testing for coinfections. We suggest the use of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) as a simple bedside prognostic score for COVID-19 patients and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) to evaluate the etiology of shock. Regarding fluid therapy for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with shock in low-middle-income countries, we favor balanced crystalloids and recommend using a conservative fluid strategy for resuscitation. Where available and not prohibited by cost, we recommend using norepinephrine, given its safety profile. We favor avoiding the routine use of central venous or arterial catheters, where availability and costs are strong considerations. We also recommend using low-dose corticosteroids in patients with refractory shock. In addressing targets of resuscitation, we recommend the use of simple bedside parameters such as capillary refill time and suggest that POCUS be used to assess the need for further fluid resuscitation, if available.

Septic Cardiomyopathy: From Basics to Management Choices

Septic cardiomyopathy (SCM) is increasingly recognized as a potential complication of septic shock; it is understood to be a reversible left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The presence of SCM in septic shock, in previous studies, infer a poorer prognosis as it significantly increases the mortality rate of patients to 70%-90% and its incidence varies from 18% to 40% of septic shock patients. The pathogenesis is unclear, but believed to be a combination of bacterial toxins, cytokines, nitric oxide, and cardiac mitochondrial dysfunction, that depresses intrinsic cardiac contractility. The presence of SCM can be diagnosed in patients using a bedside transthoracic echocardiogram which typically shows left ventricular ejection fraction <45% and right ventricular dilatation. For management, levosimendan provides a good hemodynamic response without increasing cardiac oxygen demand when compared to dobutamine, while more invasive techniques such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and intra-aortic balloon pulsation are being explored as well as potential rescue strategies for patients with severe SCM.

Management of pharmaceutical and recreational drug poisoning

BACKGROUND

Poisoning is one of the leading causes of admission to the emergency department and intensive care unit. A large number of epidemiological changes have occurred over the last years such as the exponential growth of new synthetic psychoactive substances. Major progress has also been made in analytical screening and assays, enabling the clinicians to rapidly obtain a definite diagnosis.

METHODS

A committee composed of 30 experts from five scientific societies, the Société de Réanimation de Langue Française (SRLF), the Société Française de Médecine d'Urgence (SFMU), the Société de Toxicologie Clinique (STC), the Société Française de Toxicologie Analytique (SFTA) and the Groupe Francophone de Réanimation et d'Urgences Pédiatriques (GFRUP) evaluated eight fields: (1) severity assessment and initial triage; (2) diagnostic approach and role of toxicological analyses; (3) supportive care; (4) decontamination; (5) elimination enhancement; (6) place of antidotes; (7) specificities related to recreational drug poisoning; and (8) characteristics of cardiotoxicant poisoning. Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Analysis of the literature and formulation of recommendations were then conducted according to the GRADE® methodology.

RESULTS

The SRLF-SFMU guideline panel provided 41 statements concerning the management of pharmaceutical and recreational drug poisoning. Ethanol and chemical poisoning were excluded from the scope of these recommendations. After two rounds of discussion and various amendments, a strong consensus was reached for all recommendations. Six of these recommendations had a high level of evidence (GRADE 1±) and six had a low level of evidence (GRADE 2±). Twenty-nine recommendations were in the form of expert opinion recommendations due to the low evidences in the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The experts reached a substantial consensus for several strong recommendations for optimal management of pharmaceutical and recreational drug poisoning, mainly regarding the conditions and effectiveness of naloxone and N-acetylcystein as antidotes to treat opioid and acetaminophen poisoning, respectively.

Évaluation hémodynamique précoce par échocardiographie ciblée des patients en sepsis ou choc septique (Sepsis-3) au service d’urgence

Introduction : L’identification du profil hémodynamique des patients septiques au service d’urgence (SU) pourrait permettre d’adapter individuellement les recommandations de la Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC). L’objectif de cette étude était de décrire le profil hémodynamique précoce par échocardiographie ciblée chez les patients en sepsis et leur impact thérapeutique.

Méthode : Étude prospective monocentrique incluant les patients septiques (score qSOFA [quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment] ≥ 2) sur une période de 30 mois. L’échocardiographie était réalisée par des médecins urgentistes de niveau échographie clinique en médecine d’urgence 1 afin de déterminer le profil hémodynamique (hypovolémie, vasoplégie avec hyperkinésie, insuffisance ventriculaire ou profil « normal ») dès le sepsis identifié au SU. L’impact thérapeutique était défini par le nombre de patients pour lesquels l’échocardiographie modifiait le traitement de la SSC.

Résultats : Quatre-vingt-un patients (44 sepsis, 37 chocs septiques) ont été étudiés (âge moyen : 70 ± 15 ans ; hommes [n = 47, 58 %] ; SOFA = 5,3 ± 2,9 ; lactates = 4,6 ± 4,2 mmol/l ; admission en réanimation [n = 30, 37 %] ; mortalité j28 [n = 28, 35 %]) après un remplissage vasculaire médian de 500 ml (écart interquartile : 250–1 500 ml). Les profils hémodynamiques dominants étaient l’hypovolémie (n = 54, 66 %), parfois associée à une vasoplégie (n = 26, 32 %) et l’insuffisance ventriculaire (n = 21, 26 %). L’impact thérapeutique concernait 21 patients (26 %), dont un arrêt précoce du remplissage vasculaire après un volume de 850 ± 740 ml chez huit patients.

Conclusion : La dysfonction ventriculaire précoce est présente chez plus de 20 % des patients septiques. L’impact pronostique d’une évaluation échocardiographique dès l’identification du sepsis au SU reste à déterminer.

Vasopressor-Sparing Action of Methylene Blue in Severe Sepsis and Shock: A Narrative Review

Shock is a serious acute circulatory failure leading to inadequate oxygen delivery to the cells. Its treatment is mainly based on circulating fluid optimization, and vasopressors to provide an adequate mean arterial pressure and microcirculatory flow. Norepinephrine is the drug of choice, but high dosages may be responsible for several side effects, including increased myocardial oxygen consumption, dysrhythmias, and peripheral and organ ischemia. Moreover, some patients are “non-responders” to first-line norepinephrine treatment. Hence, other drugs have been proposed to reach and maintain the hemodynamic target. In general, they are described as catecholamine-sparing agents. Among others, the most used are vasopressin, corticosteroids, and angiotensin II. Methylene blue (MB) represents a further option, even though its use is still a topic of controversy. This review article tries to summarize what is known and unknown about the actions of MB in patients in shock. It reduces excessive production of nitric oxide via blockade of guanylate cyclase in shock states. At present, it appears the MB provides positive results in septic shock, if administered early. Further randomized controlled trials are warranted regarding its use to provide more precise indications to physicians involved in the treatment of such patients.

Vasopressor Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit

After fluid administration for vasodilatory shock, vasopressors are commonly infused. Causes of vasodilatory shock include septic shock, post-cardiovascular surgery, post-acute myocardial infarction, postsurgery, other causes of an intense systemic inflammatory response, and drug -associated anaphylaxis. Therapeutic vasopressors are hormones that activate receptors-adrenergic: α1, α2, β1, β2; angiotensin II: AG1, AG2; vasopressin: AVPR1a, AVPR1B, AVPR2; dopamine: DA1, DA2. Vasopressor choice and dose vary widely because of patient and physician practice heterogeneity. Vasopressor adverse effects are excessive vasoconstriction causing organ ischemia/infarction, hyperglycemia, hyperlactatemia, tachycardia, and tachyarrhythmias. To date, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) of vasopressors has shown a decreased 28-day mortality rate. There is a need for evidence regarding alternative vasopressors as first-line vasopressors. We emphasize that vasopressors should be administered simultaneously with fluid replacement to prevent and decrease duration of hypotension in shock with vasodilation. Norepinephrine is the first-choice vasopressor in septic and vasodilatory shock. Interventions that decrease norepinephrine dose (vasopressin, angiotensin II) have not decreased 28-day mortality significantly. In patients not responsive to norepinephrine, vasopressin or epinephrine may be added. Angiotensin II may be useful for rapid resuscitation of profoundly hypotensive patients. Inotropic agent(s) (e.g., dobutamine) may be needed if vasopressors decrease ventricular contractility. Dopamine has fallen to almost no-use recommendation because of adverse effects; angiotensin II is available clinically; there are potent vasopressors with scant literature (e.g., methylene blue); and the novel V1a agonist selepressin missed on its pivotal RCT primary outcome. In pediatric septic shock, vasopressors, epinephrine, and norepinephrine are recommended equally because there is no clear evidence that supports the use of one vasoactive agent. Dopamine is recommended when epinephrine or norepinephrine is not available. New strategies include perhaps patients will be started on several vasopressors with complementary mechanisms of action, patients may be selected for particular vasopressors according to predictive biomarkers, and novel vasopressors may emerge with fewer adverse effects.

Timing of norepinephrine initiation in patients with septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The effect of the timing of norepinephrine initiation on clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock is uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of early and late start of norepinephrine support on clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock.

Methods

We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies from inception to the 1st of March 2020. We included studies involving adult patients (> 18 years) with septic shock. All authors reported our primary outcome of short-term mortality and clearly comparing early versus late norepinephrine initiation with clinically relevant secondary outcomes (ICU length of stay, time to achieved target mean arterial pressure (≥ 65 mmHg), and volume of intravenous fluids within 6 h). Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Five studies including 929 patients were included. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis showed that the short-term mortality of the early group was lower than that of the late group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.61; P < 0.00001; χ² = 3.74; I² = 0%). Secondary outcomes demonstrated that the time to achieved target MAP of the early group was shorter than that of the late group (mean difference = − 1.39; 95% CI, − 1.81 to − 0.96; P < 0.00001; χ² = 1.03; I² = 0%). The volume of intravenous fluids within 6 h of the early group was less than that of the late group (mean difference = − 0.50; 95% CI, − 0.68 to − 0.32; P < 0.00001; χ² = 33.76; I² = 94%). There was no statistically significant difference in the ICU length of stay between the two groups (mean difference = − 0.11; 95% CI, − 1.27 to 1.05; P = 0.86; χ² = 0.85; I² = 0%).

Conclusions

Early initiation of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock was associated with decreased short-term mortality, shorter time to achieved target MAP, and less volume of intravenous fluids within 6 h. There was no significant difference in ICU length of stay between early and late groups. Further large-scale RCTs are still required to confirm these results.

Timing of norepinephrine initiation in patients with septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effect of the timing of norepinephrine initiation on clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock is uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of early and late start of norepinephrine support on clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies from inception to the 1st of March 2020. We included studies involving adult patients (> 18 years) with septic shock. All authors reported our primary outcome of short-term mortality and clearly comparing early versus late norepinephrine initiation with clinically relevant secondary outcomes (ICU length of stay, time to achieved target mean arterial pressure (≥ 65 mmHg), and volume of intravenous fluids within 6 h). Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Five studies including 929 patients were included. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis showed that the short-term mortality of the early group was lower than that of the late group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.61; P < 0.00001; χ² = 3.74; I² = 0%). Secondary outcomes demonstrated that the time to achieved target MAP of the early group was shorter than that of the late group (mean difference = - 1.39; 95% CI, - 1.81 to - 0.96; P < 0.00001; χ² = 1.03; I² = 0%). The volume of intravenous fluids within 6 h of the early group was less than that of the late group (mean difference = - 0.50; 95% CI, - 0.68 to - 0.32; P < 0.00001; χ² = 33.76; I² = 94%). There was no statistically significant difference in the ICU length of stay between the two groups (mean difference = - 0.11; 95% CI, - 1.27 to 1.05; P = 0.86; χ² = 0.85; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Early initiation of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock was associated with decreased short-term mortality, shorter time to achieved target MAP, and less volume of intravenous fluids within 6 h. There was no significant difference in ICU length of stay between early and late groups. Further large-scale RCTs are still required to confirm these results.

Vasopressors in septic shock: which, when, and how much?

In addition to fluid resuscitation, the vasopressor therapy is a fundamental treatment of septic shock-induced hypotension as it aims at correcting the vascular tone depression and then at improving organ perfusion pressure. Experts’ recommendations currently position norepinephrine (NE) as the first-line vasopressor in septic shock. Vasopressin and its analogues are only second-line vasopressors as strong recent evidence suggests no benefit of their early administration in spite of promising preliminary data. Early administration of NE may allow achieving the initial mean arterial pressure (MAP) target faster and reducing the risk of fluid overload. The diastolic arterial pressure (DAP) as a marker of vascular tone, helps identifying the patients who need NE urgently. Available data suggest a MAP of 65 mmHg as the initial target but a more individualized approach is often required depending on several factors such as history of chronic hypertension or value of central venous pressure (CVP). In cases of refractory hypotension, increasing NE up to doses ≥1 µg/kg/min could be an option. However, current experts’ guidelines suggest to combine NE with other vasopressors such as vasopressin, with the intent to rising the MAP to target or to decrease the NE dosage.

Roles of angiotensin II as vasopressor in vasodilatory shock

Shock is an acute condition of circulatory failure resulting in life-threatening organ dysfunction, high morbidity and high mortality. Current management includes fluid and catecholamine therapy to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure and organ perfusion. Norepinephrine is recommended as first-line vasopressor, but other agents are available. Angiotensin II is an alternative potent vasoconstrictor without chronotropic or inotropic properties. Several studies, including a large randomized controlled trial have demonstrated its ability to increase blood pressure with catecholamine-sparing effects. Angiotensin II was consequently approved by the US FDA in 2017 and the EU in 2019 as an add-on vasopressor in vasodilatory shock. This review aims to discuss its basic pharmacology, clinical efficacy, safety and future perspectives.