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

Position Paper on the Reporting of Norepinephrine Formulations in Critical Care from the Society of Critical Care Medicine and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Joint Task Force

OBJECTIVES

To provide guidance on the reporting of norepinephrine formulation labeling, reporting in publications, and use in clinical practice.

DESIGN

Review and task force position statements with necessary guidance.

SETTING

A series of group conference calls were conducted from August 2023 to October 2023, along with a review of the available evidence and scope of the problem.

SUBJECTS

A task force of multinational and multidisciplinary critical care experts assembled by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

INTERVENTIONS

The implications of a variation in norepinephrine labeled as conjugated salt (i.e., bitartrate or tartrate) or base drug in terms of effective concentration of norepinephrine were examined, and guidance was provided.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

There were significant implications for clinical care, dose calculations for enrollment in clinical trials, and results of datasets reporting maximal norepinephrine equivalents. These differences were especially important in the setting of collaborative efforts across countries with reported differences.

CONCLUSIONS

A joint task force position statement was created outlining the scope of norepinephrine-dose formulation variations, and implications for research, patient safety, and clinical care. The task force advocated for a uniform norepinephrine-base formulation for global use, and offered advice aimed at appropriate stakeholders.

International pharmacy survey of peripheral vasopressor infusions in critical care (INFUSE)

PURPOSE

The primary objective was to determine the proportion of hospitals that administered norepinephrine peripheral vasopressor infusions (PVIs) in critically ill adult patients. Secondary objectives were to describe how norepinephrine is used such as the maximum duration, infusion rate and concentration, and to determine the most common first-line PVI used by country.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An international multi-centre cross-sectional survey study was conducted in adult intensive care units in Australia, US, UK, Canada, and Saudi Arabia.

RESULTS

Critical care pharmacists from 132 institutions responded to the survey. Norepinephrine PVIs were utilised in 86% of institutions (n = 113/132). The median maximum duration of norepinephrine PVIs was 24 h (IQR 24-24) (n = 57/113). The most common maximum norepinephrine PVI rate was between 11 and 20 μg/min (n = 16/113). The most common maximum norepinephrine PVI concentration was 16 μg/mL (n = 60/113). Half of the institutions had a preference to administer another PVI over norepinephrine as a first-line agent (n = 66/132). The most common alternative PVI used by country was: US (phenylephrine 41%, n = 37/90), Canada (dopamine 31%, n = 5/16), UK (metaraminol 82%, n = 9/11), and Australia (metaraminol 89%, n = 8/9).

CONCLUSIONS

There is variability in clinical practice regarding PVI administration in critically ill adult patients dependent on drug availability and local institutional recommendations.

Optimizing Vasopressin Use and Initiation Timing in Septic Shock: A Narrative Review

TOPIC IMPORTANCE

This review discusses the rationale for vasopressin use, summarizes the results of clinical trials evaluating vasopressin, and focuses on the timing of vasopressin initiation to provide clinicians guidance for optimal adjunctive vasopressin initiation in patients with septic shock.

REVIEW FINDINGS

Patients with septic shock require vasoactive agents to restore adequate tissue perfusion. After norepinephrine, vasopressin is the suggested second-line adjunctive agent in patients with persistent inadequate mean arterial pressure. Vasopressin use in practice is heterogeneous likely because of inconsistent clinical trial findings, the lack of specific recommendations for when it should be used, and the high drug acquisition cost. Despite these limitations, vasopressin has demonstrated price inelastic demand, and its use in the United States has continued to increase. However, questions remain regarding optimal vasopressin use in patients with septic shock, particularly regarding patient selection and the timing of vasopressin initiation.

SUMMARY

Experimental studies evaluating the initiation timing of vasopressin in patients with septic shock are limited, and recent observational studies have revealed an association between vasopressin initiation at lower norepinephrine-equivalent doses or lower lactate concentrations and lower mortality.

Vasopressin in Sepsis and Other Shock States: State of the Art

This review of the use of vasopressin aims to be comprehensive and highly practical, based on the available scientific evidence and our extensive clinical experience with the drug. It summarizes controversies about vasopressin use in septic shock and other vasodilatory states. Vasopressin is a natural hormone with powerful vasoconstrictive effects and is responsible for the regulation of plasma osmolality by maintaining fluid homeostasis. Septic shock is defined by the need for vasopressors to correct hypotension and lactic acidosis secondary to infection, with a high mortality rate. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend vasopressin as a second-line vasopressor, added to norepinephrine. However, these guidelines do not address specific debates surrounding the use of vasopressin in real-world clinical practice.

Refractory septic shock and alternative wordings: A systematic review of literature

BACKGROUND

We reviewed the different studies using the terms "refractory septic shock" and/or "catecholamine resistance" and/or "high dose norepinephrine" so as to highlight the heterogeneity of the definitions used by authors addressing such concepts.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted assessing the papers reporting data on refractory septic shock. We used keywords as exact phrases and subject headings according to database syntax.

RESULTS

Of 276 papers initially reviewed, we included 8 studies - 3 randomized controlled trials, 3 prospective studies and 2 retrospective studies, representing a total of 562 patients with septic shock. Catecholamine resistance was generally defined as "a decreased vascular responsiveness to catecholamine independently of the administered norepinephrine dose". Refractory septic shock was broadly defined as "a clinical condition characterized by persistent hyperdynamic shock even though adequate fluid resuscitation (individualized doses) and high doses of norepinephrine (≥ 1 μg/kg/min)". Reported "high doses" of norepinephrine were often ≥1 μg/kg/min. However, wide variability was found throughout the literature on the use of these terms.

DISCUSSION

Marked inconsistencies were identified in the usage of the terms for refractory septic shock. There is a pressing need to determine consensus definitions so as to establish a common language in the medical literature and to harmonize future studies.

Machine-learning-derived sepsis bundle of care

PURPOSE

Compliance to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines is limited. This is known to be associated with increased mortality. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to identify among the SCC guidelines the optimal bundle of recommendations that minimize 28-day mortality.

METHODS

We used a training cohort to identify, using a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator penalized machine learning model, this bundle. Patients with sepsis/septic shock admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) were extracted from two US databases, the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV (MIMIC-IV) database (training and internal validation cohorts) and the eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD) (external validation cohort). In the validation cohorts, we defined a bundle group that includes patients who were treated with at least all the recommendations selected in our bundle and a no-bundle group that includes patients in whom at least one recommendation from our bundle was omitted.

RESULTS

All-cause 28-day mortality was the primary outcome measure. A total of 42,735 patients were included. Six recommendations (antimicrobials, balanced crystalloid, insulin therapy, corticosteroids, vasopressin, and bicarbonate therapy) were identified from the training cohort to be included in our bundle. In the propensity score-(PS)-matched internal validation cohort, the bundle group was associated with a lower mortality (OR 0.41 [0.33-0.53]; p < 0.001) compared to the no-bundle group. This was confirmed in the PS-matched external validation cohort (OR 0.75 [0.60-0.94]; p 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Our bundle of six recommendations is associated with a dramatic reduction in mortality in sepsis and septic shock. This bundle needs to be evaluated prospectively.

Therapeutic Dilemmas in Mixed Septic-Cardiogenic Shock

Sepsis is an increasing cause of decompensation in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced or preserved ejection fraction. Sepsis and decompensated heart failure results in a mixed septic-cardiogenic shock that poses several therapeutic dilemmas: Rapid fluid resuscitation is the cornerstone of sepsis management, while loop diuretics are the main stay of decompensated heart failure treatment. Whether inotropic therapy with dobutamine or inodilators improves microvascular alterations remains unsettled in sepsis. When to resume loop diuretic therapy in patients with sepsis and decompensated heart failure is unclear. In the absence of relevant guidelines, we review vasopressor therapy, the timing and volume of fluid resuscitation, and the need for inotropic therapy in patients who, with sepsis and decompensated heart failure, present with a mixed septic-cardiogenic shock.

Combination of norepinephrine with phenylephrine versus norepinephrine with vasopressin in critically ill patients with septic shock: A retrospective study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the outcomes of patients with septic shock treated with a combination of norepinephrine with phenylephrine compared to norepinephrine with vasopressin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study including adults admitted between 2002 and 2017 with septic shock according to the Sepsis 3 criteria. We compared outcomes of patients treated with norepinephrine with phenylephrine to those treated with norepinephrine with vasopressin. Multivariate analysis was carried out to evaluate the association of norepinephrine with phenylephrine compared to norepinephrine with vasopressin with in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

During the study period, 158 patients with septic shock were treated with norepinephrine with phenylephrine and 129 with norepinephrine with vasopressin. Crude in-hospital mortality was not different between the two groups [91/158 (57.6%) versus 80/129 (62.5%), p = 0.40]. There was also no difference in ICU length of stay or hospital length of stay. Multivariate analysis demonstrated no significant association of norepinephrine with phenylephrine with in-hospital mortality compared to norepinephrine with vasopressin (OR 0.62 (95% confidence interval 0.31, 1.23, p = 0.17).

CONCLUSION

Phenylephrine used as a second-line vasoactive agent combined with norepinephrine may be a reasonable option compared to vasopressin. However, this finding needs to be validated in a randomized controlled trial.

Early administration of dobutamine in the treatment of septic shock patients with tumor-a retrospective comparative cohort study

Background

Studies have found that dobutamine may be beneficial to protect organs function in patients with septic shock, but there is still a lack of relevant research in septic shock patients with tumor. The study sought to explore the role of the early administration of dobutamine in the treatment of septic shock patients with tumors.

Methods

We retrospectively collected the data of tumor patients who developed septic shock at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center between June 2008 and November 2021. All the patients were divided into the following 3 groups: (I) the early administration group (<3 days, n=15); (II) the late administration group (≥3 days, n=22); and (III) the non-administration group (n=85). The primary observation indicator was 28-day mortality, and the secondary observation indicators included the shock reversal rate, the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and the duration of mechanical ventilation. There was no statistical difference in the basic data of the three groups.

Results

The early administration group had a significant decrease in 28-day mortality compared to the late and non-administration groups (log-rank P=0.018). The comparison between the groups showed that the 28-day mortality of the early administration group was significantly lower than that of the non-administration group [20.0% vs. 58.8%, P=0.013, hazard ratios (HRs) =0.248, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 0.077-0.796]. There was no statistically significant difference in 28-day mortality between the late administration group and the non-administration group (63.6% vs. 58.8%, P=0.682, HR =0.983, 95% CI: 0.543-1.778). Additionally, the early administration group had a significantly increased shock reversal rate (P=0.014), shortened length of stay in the ICU (P<0.001), and reduced duration of mechanical ventilation (P=0.049).

Conclusions

Early use of dobutamine may be beneficial to reduce the in-hospital mortality of septic shock patients with tumor, but the sample size of this study was small, which still needs to be confirmed by a multi-center randomized controlled clinical study.