The Effect of Propofol and Dexmedetomidine Sedation on Norepinephrine Requirements in Septic Shock Patients: A Crossover Trial

Dexmedetomidine to Reduce Vasopressor Resistance in Refractory Septic Shock: α2 Agonist Dexmedetomidine for REfractory Septic Shock (ADRESS): A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial

OBJECTIVES

Increasing evidence has suggested the benefits of dexmedetomidine in patients with sepsis. Dexmedetomidine may increase vasopressor sensitivity, which may be of interest in the setting of refractory septic shock. The α2 Agonist Dexmedetomidine for REfractory Septic Shock (ADRESS) pilot study aimed to evaluate the effect of dexmedetomidine on the vasopressor response in patients with refractory septic shock.

DESIGN

This study was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind pilot trial.

SETTING

The study was conducted in 5 ICUs in France.

PATIENTS

Inclusion criteria were septic shock (Sepsis-3 definition) and norepinephrine requirement greater than or equal to 0.25 µg/kg/min (0.5 µg/kg/min of norepinephrine tartrate) with persistent circulatory failure (defined by lactate > 2 mmol/L, oliguria, or skin mottling) and invasive mechanical ventilation.

INTERVENTIONS

The arterial pressure response to phenylephrine was measured before starting the treatment (0 hr), at 6 hours (primary outcome), and 12 hours. In the treatment arm, dexmedetomidine was given at a fixed dose of 1 µg/kg/hr.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Inclusions were stopped early because of higher mortality in the dexmedetomidine arm. Thirty-two patients of the 36 planned were included. Response to phenylephrine at 6 hours was lower in the dexmedetomidine group than in the placebo group (1.26 ± 0.23 vs. 1.45 ± 0.26; p = 0.048), although this difference was also observed at baseline (p = 0.029). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of cumulative norepinephrine dose, lactatemia, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, fluid balance, ventilation-free days, or occurrence of bradycardia. Mortality on day 3 was higher in the dexmedetomidine group than in the placebo group, with a difference that diminished and was no longer significant on 30 and 90 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in the dexmedetomidine arm had a significantly lower response to phenylephrine at all study times including baseline, which might have contributed to higher early mortality in the dexmedetomidine arm and preclude to conclude on dexmedetomidine efficacy in refractory septic shock. However, heart rate was not decreased in the dexmedetomidine arm.

Dexmedetomidine Improves Microcirculatory Alterations in Patients With Initial Resuscitated Septic Shock

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02270281. Registered October 16, 2014.

Dexmedetomidine improves clinical outcomes in sepsis-induced myocardial injury: a retrospective cohort study

Background

The efficacy of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in treating sepsis-induced myocardial injury (SIMI) remains unclear. In this study, we explored the relationship between DEX use and clinical outcomes of patients with SIMI, focusing on the dosage and treatment duration.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort analysis, we identified patients with SIMI from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) database and categorized them into the DEX and non-DEX groups based on intensive care unit treatment. The baseline bias was reduced through propensity score matching (PSM). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, whereas the secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and mortality rates at 7 days, 90 days, and 1 year. The association between DEX use and in-hospital mortality was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards models.

Results

After PSM, 373 patients in the DEX group were matched with 579 patients in the non-DEX group to achieve a balanced distribution of the covariates. The Cox regression model demonstrated a significant reduction in the 28-day mortality associated with DEX use, yielding a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47-0.78, P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality also significantly decreased (HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.33-0.57, P < 0.001). Lower mortality rates were observed at 7 days, 90 days, and 1 year. DEX doses >0.4 μg/kg/h, particularly in the range of 0.400-0.612 μg/kg/h, total doses >3.113 mg during hospitalization, and treatment durations exceeding 72 h were associated with improved mortality risk at all intervals. Regarding DEX efficacy at 28 days, our subgroup analyses indicated a significant interaction between the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and invasive mechanical ventilation.

Conclusion

DEX administration was associated with improved in-hospital mortality and reduced mortality rates at 7 days, 28 days, 90 days, and 1 year in patients with SIMI. These findings require validation in future studies.

The Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Inflammatory Factors and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Septic Shock: A Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Dexmedetomidine is a sedative-analgesic that is widely used in sepsis. However, its effect on septic shock remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate dexmedetomidine's effect on inflammatory biomarkers in septic shock.

METHODS

The present study was a randomized controlled clinical trial. Patients with inclusion criteria were randomly allocated into either the dexmedetomidine (n = 24) or morphine + midazolam group (n = 24). The primary outcome was changes in inflammatory factors, including IL-1, IL-6, TNF-α, ESR, and CRP. The serum levels of inflammatory factors were measured at baseline and the end of the intervention. Secondary outcomes included the change in norepinephrine dose, vital signs, and SOFA scores.

FINDINGS

Of the 48 subjects, 52.08% were male. After intervention, IL-1, IL-6, and TNF-α levels significantly differed between the 2 groups (p = 0.011 and p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Heart rate and systolic blood pressure decreased over time, but the two groups had no significant difference (p-value > 0.05). In addition, there was no significant difference in norepinephrine dose and SOFA score between the 2 groups (p-value > 0.05).

IMPLICATIONS

Sedation with dexmedetomidine can attenuate the inflammatory factors in septic shock. Also, dexmedetomidine did not worsen the hemodynamic parameters in septic shock patients.

Combining O2 High Flow Nasal or Non-Invasive Ventilation with Cooperative Sedation to Avoid Intubation in Early Diffuse Severe Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Especially in Immunocompromised or COVID Patients?

This overview addresses the pathophysiology of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS; conventional vs. COVID), the use of oxygen high flow (HFN) vs. noninvasive ventilation (NIV; conventional vs. helmet) and a multi-modal approach to avoid endotracheal intubation ("intubation"): low normal temperature, cooperative sedation, normalized systemic and microcirculation, anti-inflammation, reduced lung water, upright position, lowered intra-abdominal pressure. Increased ventilatory muscle activity ("respiratory drive") is observed in early ARDS, at variance with ventilatory fatigue observed in decompensated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This increased drive leads to impending then overt ventilatory failure. Therefore, muscle relaxation presents little rationale and should be replaced by lowering the excessive respiratory drive, increased work of breathing, continued or increased labored breathing, self-induced lung injury (SILI), i.e. preserving spontaneous breathing. As CMV is a lifesaver in the setting of failure but does not heal the lung, side-effects of intubation, controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV), paralysis and deep sedation are to be avoided. Additionally, critical care resources shortage requires practice changes. Therefore, NIV should be routine when addressing immune-compromised patients. The SARS-CoV2 pandemics extended this approach to most patients, which are immune-compromised: elderly, obese, diabetic, etc. The early COVID is a pulmonary vascular endothelial inflammatory disease requiring lower positive-end-expiratory pressure than the typical pulmonary alveolar epithelial inflammatory diffuse ARDS. This leads one to reassess a) the technique of NIV b) the sedation regimen facilitating continuous and extended NIV to avoid intubation. Autonomic, circulatory, respiratory, ventilatory physiology is hierarchized under HFN/NIV and cooperative sedation (dexmedetomidine, clonidine). A prospective randomized pilot trial, then a larger trial are required to ascertain our working hypotheses.

Effect of dexmedetomidine constant rate infusion on the analgesic duration of peripheral nerve blocks in dogs: a randomized clinical study

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a constant rate infusion of dexmedetomidine could prolong the analgesic effect of peripheral nerve blocks. Twenty client-owned dogs were enrolled and randomly divided into 2 groups. The DEX group received dexmedetomidine infusion at 1 mcg kg-1 h-1, and the NaCl group received an equivalent volume infusion of saline. Infusions were started after securing vascular access and continued for 10 min, after which intravenous (IV) methadone at 0.2 mg kg-1 and propofol to effect were administered. All animals were maintained with isoflurane in 70% oxygen. Sciatic, saphenous and obturator nerve blocks were performed using 0.1 mL kg-1 0.5% ropivacaine/block. Intraoperative fentanyl was administered if the heart rate and/or mean arterial pressure (MAP) increased > 15% from the previous measurement, and vasopressors were administered if MAP was ≤ 70 mmHg. Postoperative pain was assessed every hour using the Glasgow Composite Pain Scale (GCPS) until the first rescue analgesia administration. Postoperative rescue analgesia (methadone (0.2 mg kg-1 IV) and carprofen (2 mg kg-1 IV)) was administered if the pain score was higher than 6/24 or 5/20. Duration of analgesia was defined as the time between the nerve block procedure and initial postoperative rescue analgesia. Ambulation, proprioception, and skin sensitivity were evaluated to assess the duration of the motor and sensory block. A Student T and chi-square test were used to compare groups for duration of postoperative analgesia and intraoperative fentanyl and vasopressor use, respectively (p values ≤ 0.5 considered significant). A greater number of dogs in the NaCl group required fentanyl (5/10 p = 0.03) and vasopressors (8/10, p = 0.02) than did those in the DEX group (0/10 and 2/10, respectively). The duration of postoperative analgesia was significantly longer (604 ± 130 min) in the DEX group than in the NaCl group (400 ± 81 min, p = 0.0005).Dexmedetomidine infusion at 1 mcg kg-1 h-1 delays the time to first administration of rescue analgesia and reduces intraoperative analgesic and vasopressor requirements during Tibial Tuberosity Advancement surgery.

Evaluation of the efficacy of silymarin and dexmedetomidine on kidney and lung tissue in the treatment of sepsis in rats with cecal perforation

Sepsis is a systemic inflammatory response syndrome that develops in the host against microorganisms. This response develops away from the primary infection site and results in end-organ damage. The present study aimed to investigate the protective and therapeutic effects on lung and kidney tissue of silymarin (S) and dexmedetomidine (DEX) applied 1 h before and after sepsis induced by the cecal ligation and puncture (CLP) method in rats. A total of 62 rats was randomly divided into eight groups: i) Control (n=6); ii) cecal perforation (CLP; n=8); iii) S + CLP (n=8; S + CLP; S administered 1 h before CPL); iv) CLP + S (n=8; S administered 1 h after CLP); v) DEX + CLP (n=8; D + CLP; DEX administered 1 h before CLP); vi) CLP + D (n=8; DEX administered 1 h after CLP); vii) SD + CLP (n=8; S and DEX administered 1 h before CLP) and viii) CLP + SD (n=8; S and DEX administered 1 h after CLP). After the cecum filled with stool, it was tied with 3/0 silk under the ileocecal valve and the anterior surface of the cecum was punctured twice with an 18-gauge needle. A total of 100 mg/kg silymarin and 100 µg/kg DEX were administered intraperitoneally to the treatment groups. Lung and kidney tissue samples were collected to evaluate biochemical and histopathological parameters. In the histopathological examination, all parameters indicating kidney injury; interstitial edema, peritubular capillary dilatation, vacuolization, ablation of tubular epithelium from the basement membrane, loss of brush border in the proximal tubule epithelium, cell swelling and nuclear defragmentation; were increased in the CLP compared with the control group. Silymarin administration increased kidney damage, including ablation of tubular epithelium from the basement membrane, compared with that in the CLP group. DEX significantly reduced kidney damage compared with the CLP and silymarin groups. The co-administration of DEX + silymarin decreased kidney damage, although it was not as effective as DEX-alone. To conclude, intraperitoneal DEX ameliorated injury in CLP rats. DEX + silymarin partially ameliorated injury but silymarin administration increased damage. As a result, silymarin has a negative effects with this dosage and DEX has a protective effect. In the present study, it was determined that using the two drugs together had a greater therapeutic effect than silymarin and no differences in the effects were not observed any when the application times of the agents were changed.

Ciprofol as compared to propofol for sedation and general anesthesia: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Propofol is the most commonly used hypnotic agent used during sedation and general anesthesia (GA) practice, offering faster recovery compared to benzodiazepines. However, cardiovascular impact of propofol and pain at injection are commonly encountered side effects. Ciprofol is a novel disubstituted phenol derivative, and there is growing evidence regarding its clinical use.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search (updated on 23 July 2023) to evaluate safety and efficacy of ciprofol in comparison to propofol in patients undergoing procedures under sedation or GA. We focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only, extrapolating data on onset and offset, and on the side effects and the pain at injection.

RESULTS

The search revealed 14 RCTs, all conducted in China. Eight RCTs studied patients undergoing sedation, and six focused on GA. Bolus of ciprofol for sedation or induction of GA varied from 0.2 to 0.5 mg/kg. In four studies using ciprofol for maintenance of GA, it was 0.8-2.4 mg/kg/h. Ciprofol pharmacokinetics seemed characterized by slower onset and offset as compared to propofol. Pain during injection was less frequent in the ciprofol group in all the 13 studies reporting it. Eight studies reported "adverse events" as a pooled outcome, and in five cases, the incidence was higher in the propofol group, not different in the remaining ones. Occurrence of hypotension was the most commonly investigated side effects, and it seemed less frequent with ciprofol.

CONCLUSION

Ciprofol for sedation or GA may be safer than propofol, though its pharmacokinetics may be less advantageous.

Prevalence and prognosis of hyperdynamic left ventricular systolic function in septic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The prevalence of hyperdynamic left ventricular (LV) systolic function in septic patients and its impact on mortality remain controversial. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigated the prevalence and association of hyperdynamic LV systolic function with mortality in patients with sepsis.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. Primary outcomes were the prevalence of hyperdynamic LV systolic function in adult septic patients and the associated short-term mortality as compared to normal LV systolic function. Hyperdynamic LV systolic function was defined using LV ejection fraction (LVEF) of 70% as cutoff. Secondary outcomes were heart rate, LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and E/e' ratio.

RESULTS

Four studies were included, and the pooled prevalence of hyperdynamic LV systolic function was 18.2% ([95% confidence interval (CI) 12.5, 25.8]; I2 = 7.0%, P < 0.0001). Hyperdynamic LV systolic function was associated with higher mortality: odds ratio of 2.37 [95%CI 1.47, 3.80]; I2 = 79%, P < 0.01. No difference was found in E/e' (P = 0.43) between normal and hyperdynamic LV systolic function, while higher values of heart rate (mean difference: 6.14 beats/min [95%CI 3.59, 8.69]; I2 = 51%, P < 0.0001) and LVEDD (mean difference: - 0.21 cm [95%CI - 0.33, - 0.09]; I2 = 73%, P < 0.001) were detected in patients with hyperdynamic LV systolic function.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of hyperdynamic LV systolic function is not negligible in septic patients. Such a finding is associated with significantly higher short-term mortality as compared to normal LV systolic function.

The "CHEOPS" bundle for the management of Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction in critically ill patients: an experts' opinion

The impact of left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction (DD) on the outcome of patients with heart failure was established over three decades ago. Nevertheless, the relevance of LVDD for critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit has seen growing interest recently, and LVDD is associated with poor prognosis. Whilst an assessment of LV diastolic function is desirable in critically ill patients, treatment options for LVDD are very limited, and pharmacological possibilities to rapidly optimize diastolic function have not been found yet. Hence, a proactive approach might have a substantial role in improving the outcomes of these patients. Recalling historical Egyptian parallelism suggesting that Doppler echocardiography has been the "Rosetta stone" to decipher the study of LV diastolic function, we developed a potentially useful acronym for physicians at the bedside to optimize the management of critically ill patients with LVDD with the application of the bundle. We summarized the bundle under the acronym of the famous ancient Egyptian pharaoh CHEOPS: Chest Ultrasound, combining information from echocardiography and lung ultrasound; HEmodynamics assessment, with careful evaluation of heart rate and rhythm, as well as afterload and vasoactive drugs; OPtimization of mechanical ventilation and pulmonary circulation, considering the effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on both right and left heart function; Stabilization, with cautious fluid administration and prompt fluid removal whenever judged safe and valuable. Notably, the CHEOPS bundle represents experts' opinion and are not targeted at the initial resuscitation phase but rather for the optimization and subsequent period of critical illness.

Niche Roles for Dexmedetomidine in the Intensive Care Unit

OBJECTIVE

Review dexmedetomidine use in critically ill patients for niche indications including sleep, delirium, alcohol withdrawal, sepsis, and immunomodulation.

DATA SOURCES

Literature was sought using PubMed (February 2012-November 2022). Search terms included dexmedetomidine AND (hypnotics OR sedatives OR sleep OR delirium OR immunomodulation OR sepsis OR alcohol withdrawal).

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant studies conducted in humans ≥18 years published in English were included. Exclusion criteria included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and studies evaluating oral dexmedetomidine or other alpha-2 agonists.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 231 articles were retrieved. After removal of duplicates, title and abstract screening, and application of inclusion criteria, 35 articles were included. Across the clinical conditions included in this review, varying clinical outcomes were seen. Dexmedetomidine may improve morbidity outcomes in delirium, sleep, and alcohol withdrawal syndrome. Due to limited human studies and poor quality of evidence, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the role of dexmedetomidine in immunomodulation or sepsis.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

This review presents data for potential niche roles of dexmedetomidine aside from sedation in critically ill patients. This may serve as a guide for sedation selection in critically ill patients who may also benefit from the pleiotropic effects of dexmedetomidine due to a clinical condition discussed in this review.

CONCLUSION

While further studies are needed, dexmedetomidine may provide benefit in other indications in critically ill patients including delirium, sleep, and alcohol withdrawal. Given the poor quality of evidence of dexmedetomidine use in immunomodulation and sepsis, no conclusions can be drawn.

The efficacy of dexmedetomidine for septic shock: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of dexmedetomidine was elusive for septic shock. This meta-analysis aimed to explore the efficacy of dexmedetomidine for septic shock.

METHODS

PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases have been searched through October 2022 and we included randomized controlled trials reporting the effect of dexmedetomidine in patients with septic shock.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with control group for septic shock, dexmedetomidine treatment was able to substantially decrease Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (mean difference [MD] = -0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.14 to -0.84; P < .00001) and duration of mechanical ventilation (MD = -0.90; 95% CI = -1.27 to -0.54; P < .00001), but showed no obvious influence on morality at 28 days (odds ratio = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.38 to 1.66; P = 054), hospital mortality (odds ratio = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.35 to 1.24; P = .20) or intensive care unit length of stay (MD = -1.47; 95% CI = -4.60 to 1.66; P = .36).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine administration may help treat patients with septic shock.

Effects of dexmedetomidine in non-operating room anesthesia in adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an α2-adrenergic receptor agonist used for its sedative, analgesic, and anxiolytic effects. Non-Operating Room Anesthesia (NORA) is a modality of anesthesia that can be done under general anesthesia or procedural sedation or/and analgesia. In this particular setting, a level-2 sedation, such as the one provided by DEX, is beneficial. We aimed to study the effects and safety of DEX in the different NORA settings in the adult population.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Interventions using DEX only or DEX associated with other sedative agents, in adults (18 years old or more), were included. Procedures outside the NORA setting and/or without a control group without DEX were excluded. MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, LILACS, and SciELO were searched. The primary outcome was time until full recovery. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic and respiratory complications and other adverse events, among others.

RESULTS

A total of 97 studies were included with a total of 6,706 participants. The meta-analysis demonstrated that DEX had a higher time until full recovery (95% CI = [0.34, 3.13] minutes, a higher incidence of hypotension (OR = 1.95 [1.25, 3.05], p = 0.003, I2 = 39%) and bradycardia (OR = 3.60 [2.29, 5.67], p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%), and a lower incidence of desaturation (OR = 0.40 [0.25, 0.66], p = 0.0003, I² = 60%).

CONCLUSION

DEX in NORA procedures in adults was associated with a lower incidence of amnesia and respiratory effects but had a long time to recovery and more hemodynamic complications.

Splanchnic sympathetic nerve denervation improves bacterial clearance and clinical recovery in established ovine Gram-negative bacteremia

BACKGROUND

The autonomic nervous system can modulate the innate immune responses to bacterial infections via the splanchnic sympathetic nerves. Here, we aimed to determine the effects of bilateral splanchnic sympathetic nerve denervation on blood pressure, plasma cytokines, blood bacterial counts and the clinical state in sheep with established bacteremia.

METHODS

Conscious Merino ewes received an intravenous infusion of Escherichia coli for 30 h (1 × 109 colony forming units/mL/h) to induce bacteremia. At 24 h, sheep were randomized to have bilaterally surgically implanted snares pulled to induce splanchnic denervation (N = 10), or not pulled (sham; N = 9).

RESULTS

Splanchnic denervation did not affect mean arterial pressure (84 ± 3 vs. 84 ± 4 mmHg, mean ± SEM; PGroup = 0.7) compared with sham treatment at 30-h of bacteremia. Splanchnic denervation increased the plasma levels of the pro-inflammatory cytokine interleukin-6 (9.2 ± 2.5 vs. 3.8 ± 0.3 ng/mL, PGroup = 0.031) at 25-h and reduced blood bacterial counts (2.31 ± 0.45 vs. 3.45 ± 0.11 log10 [CFU/mL + 1], PGroup = 0.027) at 26-h compared with sham treatment. Plasma interleukin-6 and blood bacterial counts returned to sham levels by 30-h. There were no differences in the number of bacteria present within the liver (PGroup = 0.3). However, there was a sustained improvement in clinical status, characterized by reduced respiratory rate (PGroup = 0.024) and increased cumulative water consumption (PGroup = 0.008) in splanchnic denervation compared with sham treatment.

CONCLUSION

In experimental Gram-negative bacteremia, interrupting splanchnic sympathetic nerve activity increased plasma interleukin-6, accelerated bacterial clearance, and improved clinical state without inducing hypotension. These findings suggest that splanchnic neural manipulation is a potential target for pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions.

Inferior vena cava distensibility from subcostal and trans-hepatic imaging using both M-mode or artificial intelligence: a prospective study on mechanically ventilated patients

BACKGROUND

Variation of inferior vena cava (IVC) is used to predict fluid-responsiveness, but the IVC visualization with standard sagittal approach (SC, subcostal) cannot be always achieved. In such cases, coronal trans-hepatic (TH) window may offer an alternative, but the interchangeability of IVC measurements in SC and TH is not fully established. Furthermore, artificial intelligence (AI) with automated border detection may be of clinical value but it needs validation.

METHODS

Prospective observational validation study in mechanically ventilated patients with pressure-controlled mode. Primary outcome was the IVC distensibility (IVC-DI) in SC and TH imaging, with measurements taken both in M-Mode or with AI software. We calculated mean bias, limits of agreement (LoA), and intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficient.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients were included. Feasibility rate was 87.9% and 81.8% for SC and TH visualization, respectively. Comparing imaging from the same anatomical site acquired with different modalities (M-Mode vs AI), we found the following IVC-DI differences: (1) SC: mean bias - 3.1%, LoA [- 20.1; 13.9], ICC = 0.65; (2) TH: mean bias - 2.0%, LoA [- 19.3; 15.4], ICC = 0.65. When comparing the results obtained from the same modality but from different sites (SC vs TH), IVC-DI differences were: (3) M-Mode: mean bias 1.1%, LoA [- 6.9; 9.1], ICC = 0.54; (4) AI: mean bias 2.0%, LoA [- 25.7; 29.7], ICC = 0.32.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients mechanically ventilated, AI software shows good accuracy (modest overestimation) and moderate correlation as compared to M-mode assessment of IVC-DI, both for SC and TH windows. However, precision seems suboptimal with wide LoA. The comparison of M-Mode or AI between different sites yields similar results but with weaker correlation. Trial registration Reference protocol: 53/2022/PO, approved on 21/03/2022.

Multiple uses of dexmedetomidine in small animals: a mini review

Dexmedetomidine is an alpha-2 adrenergic agonist, which use had an exponential increase in human and veterinary medicine in the last 10 years. The aim of this mini review is to summarize the various uses of dexmedetomidine underlining its new applications and capabilities in the small animals' clinical activity. While this drug was born as sedative in veterinary medicine, some studies demonstrated to be effective as an analgesic both in single administration and in continuous infusion. Recent studies have also shown the role of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant during locoregional anesthesia, increasing the duration of the sensitive block and consequently decreasing the demand for systemic analgesics. The various analgesic properties make dexmedetomidine an interesting drug for opioid-free analgesia. Some studies highlighted a potential neuroprotective, cardioprotective and vasculoprotective role of dexmedetomidine, thus conferring it a place in critical care medicine, such as trauma and septic patients. Dexmedetomidine has demonstrated to be a multitasking molecule and it is ready to face new challenges.

Assessment of the inferior vena cava collapsibility from subcostal and trans-hepatic imaging using both M-mode or artificial intelligence: a prospective study on healthy volunteers

PURPOSE

Assessment of the inferior vena cava (IVC) respiratory variation may be clinically useful for the estimation of fluid-responsiveness and venous congestion; however, imaging from subcostal (SC, sagittal) region is not always feasible. It is unclear if coronal trans-hepatic (TH) IVC imaging provides interchangeable results. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) with automated border tracking may be helpful as part of point-of-care ultrasound but it needs validation.

METHODS

Prospective observational study conducted in spontaneously breathing healthy volunteers with assessment of IVC collapsibility (IVCc) in SC and TH imaging, with measures taken in M-mode or with AI software. We calculated mean bias and limits of agreement (LoA), and the intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficient with their 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Sixty volunteers were included; IVC was not visualized in five of them (n = 2, both SC and TH windows, 3.3%; n = 3 in TH approach, 5%). Compared with M-mode, AI showed good accuracy both for SC (IVCc: bias - 0.7%, LoA [- 24.9; 23.6]) and TH approach (IVCc: bias 3.7%, LoA [- 14.9; 22.3]). The ICC coefficients showed moderate reliability: 0.57 [0.36; 0.73] in SC, and 0.72 [0.55; 0.83] in TH. Comparing anatomical sites (SC vs TH), results produced by M-mode were not interchangeable (IVCc: bias 13.9%, LoA [- 18.1; 45.8]). When this evaluation was performed with AI, such difference became smaller: IVCc bias 7.7%, LoA [- 19.2; 34.6]. The correlation between SC and TH assessments was poor for M-mode (ICC = 0.08 [- 0.18; 0.34]) while moderate for AI (ICC = 0.69 [0.52; 0.81]).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of AI shows good accuracy when compared with the traditional M-mode IVC assessment, both for SC and TH imaging. Although AI reduces differences between sagittal and coronal IVC measurements, results from these sites are not interchangeable.

Dexmedetomidine only regimen for long-term sedation is associated with reduced vasopressor requirements in septic shock patients: A retrospective cohort study from MIMIC-IV database

Background

Previous studies have shown that dexmedetomidine (DEX) may be associated with reduced vasopressor requirements in septic shock patients, however, long-term DEX-only sedation in reducing vasopressor requirements is still controversial.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted among patients with septic shock on mechanical ventilation using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) database. The primary outcome was the ratio of norepinephrine equivalent dose to mean arterial pressure (NEq/MAP) in the first 72 h after DEX or other sedatives for sedation. The secondary outcomes were key organ function parameters, 28-day mortality, and 90-day mortality. Univariate, propensity score matching (PSM), and generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) analyses were performed.

Results

DEX was associated with decreased NEq/MAP in the first 72 h (difference = 0.05, 95% CI = -0.02-0.08, p = 0.002) after adjusting for confounders in the GLMM analysis. The DEX group was also associated with a lower heart rate, cardiac output (CO), lactate level, aspartate transaminase (AST) level, and higher PaO2/FiO2 ratio (p < 0.0125). Moreover, DEX only sedation was associated with reduced 90-day mortality (OR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.37-0.94, p = 0.030).

Conclusion

DEX may be associated with decreased vasopressor requirements, improved AST and PaO2/FiO2 levels, and reduced 90-day mortality in patients with septic shock, which warrants further study.

Multimodal strategy to counteract vasodilation in septic shock

Early initiation of a multimodal treatment strategy in the management of vasopressors during septic shock has been advocated to reduce delays in restoring adequate organ perfusion and to mitigate side effects associated with the administration of high-dose catecholamines. We provide a review that summarises the pathophysiology of vasodilation, the physiologic response to the vascular response, and the different drugs used in this situation, focusing on the need to combine early different vasopressors. Fluid loading being insufficient for counteracting vasoplegia, norepinephrine is usually the first-line vasopressor used to restore hemodynamics. Norepinephrine sparing is discussed in further detail through the concomitant use of adrenergic, vasopressinergic, and renin-angiotensin systems and the optimisation of endothelial reactivity with methylene blue. A blueprint for the construction of new studies is outlined to address the question of vasopressor selection and timing in septic shock.

Balanced Salt Solutions for Critically Ill Patients: Nonplused and Back to Basics

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this article is to summarize the results of major randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing clinical outcomes of critically ill patients treated with normal saline (NS) or balanced salt solutions (BSSs), address discordant results of these studies, and provide direction for future investigations.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed (2011 to January 2022) with bibliographies of retrieved articles searched for additional articles.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

RCTs comparing NS and BSSs in critically ill adult patients.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Recently published large RCTs comparing NS with BSSs in heterogeneous populations of intensive care unit patients did not find significant differences in mortality, despite positive findings in some end points in prior RCTs. However, there were a number of methodologic issues common to the RCTs including: varying study designs and end points, clinician discretion for the majority or all treatments other than the primary intervention fluid, heterogeneous patients with varying levels of acuity, and lack of power to investigate potential subgroup differences. In addition, there were problematic issues related to blinding and use of nonstudy fluids.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Intravenous fluids are a mainstay of supportive care for critically ill patients. Similar to the so-called crystalloid-colloid debate, there has been a long-standing debate among critical care clinicians and researchers concerning the preferred crystalloid solution, NS versus one of the available BSSs.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the recent publication of large multicenter RCTs, the preferred resuscitation fluid, NS or a BSS, for critically ill patients is still open for debate, although the available investigations do provide some direction for clinicians and for future investigations.

Association between dexmedetomidine administration and outcomes in critically ill patients with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between dexmedetomidine administration and outcomes in critically ill patients with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury (SA-AKI).

DESIGN

A single-center, retrospective, cohort study.

SETTING

Intensive care unit (ICU).

PATIENTS

A total of 2192 critically ill patients with SA-AKI were included in the analysis, which identified from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-IV) database between 2008 and 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was recovery of renal function. In-hospital mortality, vasopressor requirements, length of ICU and hospital stay were considered secondary outcomes. The Cox proportional hazards, logistic regression, and linear regression models were used to assess the association between dexmedetomidine and outcomes. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to match patients receiving dexmedetomidine to those without treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

After PSM, 719 matched patient pairs were derived from patients who received dexmedetomidine and those who did not. The administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with a higher rate of renal recovery [61.8% vs. 55.8%, hazard ratio (HR) 1.35; P = 0.01], reduced in-hospital mortality [28.3% vs. 41.3%, HR 0.56; P < 0.001], and prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay [15.8d vs 12.6d, HR 2.34; P < 0.001] and hospital stay [23.7d vs 19.7d, HR 4.47; P < 0.001]. No significant difference was found in vasopressor requirements in patients with SA-AKI. Nevertheless, results illustrated that dose receiving between 0.30 and 1.00 μg/kg/h and duration using under 48 h of dexmedetomidine was associated with improvements in renal function recovery in SA-AKI patients.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine administration was associated with improvements in renal function recovery and in-hospital survival in critically ill patients with SA-AKI. The results need to be verified in further randomized controlled trials.

What Is the Role of Dexmedetomidine in Modern Anesthesia and Critical Care?

Dexmedetomidine's unique sedative properties have led to its widespread use. Dexmedetomidine has a beneficial pharmacologic profile including analgesic sparing effects, anxiolysis, sympatholysis, organ-protective effects against ischemic and hypoxic injury, and sedation which parallels natural sleep. An understanding of predictable side effects, effects of age-related physiologic changes, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of dexmedetomidine is crucial to maximize its safe administration in adults and children. This review focuses on the growing body of literature examining advances in applications of dexmedetomidine in children and adults.

Effects of dexmedetomidine on hemodynamic, oxygenation, microcirculation, and inflammatory markers in a porcine model of sepsis

PURPOSE

To determine whether dexmedetomidine aggravates hemodynamic, metabolic variables, inflammatory markers, and microcirculation in experimental septic shock.

METHODS

Twenty-four pigs randomized into: Sham group (n = 8), received saline; Shock group (n = 8), received an intravenous infusion of Escherichia coli O55 (3 × 109 cells/mL, 0.75 mL/kg, 1 hour); Dex-Shock group (n = 8), received bacteria and intravenous dexmedetomidine (bolus 0.5 mcg/kg followed by 0.7 mcg/kg/h). Fluid therapy and/ornorepinephrine were administered to maintain a mean arterial pressure > 65 mmHg. Hemodynamic, metabolic, oxygenation, inflammatory markers, and microcirculation were assessed at baseline, at the end of bacterial infusion, and after 60, 120, 180, and 240 minutes.

RESULTS

Compared to Shock group, Dex-Shock group presented a significantly increased oxygen extraction ratio at T180 (23.1 ± 9.7 vs. 32.5 ± 9.2%, P = 0.0220), decreased central venous pressure at T120 (11.6 ± 1 vs. 9.61 ± 1.2 mmHg, P = 0.0214), mixed-venous oxygen saturation at T180 (72.9 ± 9.6 vs. 63.5 ± 9.2%, P = 0.026), and increased plasma lactate (3.7 ± 0.5 vs. 5.5 ± 1 mmol/L, P = 0.003). Despite the Dex-Shock group having a better sublingual vessel density at T240 (12.5 ± 0.4 vs. 14.4 ± 0.3 mL/m2; P = 0.0003), sublingual blood flow was not different from that in the Shock group (2.4 ± 0.2 vs. 2.4 ± 0.1 mL/kg, P = 0.4418).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine did not worsen the hemodynamic, metabolic, inflammatory, or sublingual blood flow disorders resulting from septic shock. Despite inducing a better sublingual vessel density, dexmedetomidine initially and transitorily increased the mismatch between oxygen supply and demand.

Dexmedetomidine to reduce vasopressor resistance in refractory septic shock: Protocol for a double-blind randomized controlled pilot trial (ADRESS Pilot study)

Introduction

Refractory septic shock (RSS) is characterized by high vasopressor requirements, as a consequence of vasopressor resistance, which may be caused or enhanced by sympathetic hyperactivation. Experimental models and clinical trials show a reduction in vasopressor requirements and improved microcirculation compared to conventional sedation. Dexmedetomidine did not reduce mortality in clinical trials, but few septic shock patients were enrolled. This pilot trial aims to evaluate vasopressor re-sensitization with dexmedetomidine and assess the effect size, in order to design a larger trial.

Methods

This is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, comparing dexmedetomidine versus placebo in RSS patients with norepinephrine dose ≥0.5μg/kg/min. The primary outcome is blood pressure response to phenylephrine challenge, 6 hours after completion of a first challenge, after study treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes include feasibility and safety outcomes (bradycardia), mortality, vasopressor requirements, heart rate variability, plasma and urine catecholamines levels. The sample size is estimated at 32 patients to show a 20% improvement in blood pressure response to phenylephrine. Randomization (1:1) will be stratified by center, sedation type and presence of liver cirrhosis. Blood pressure and ECG will be continuously recorded for the first 24 h, enabling high-quality data collection for the primary and secondary endpoints. The study was approved by the ethics committee “Sud-Est VI” (2019-000726-22) and patients will be included after informed consent.

Discussion

The present study will be the first randomized trial to specifically address the hemodynamic effects of dexmedetomidine in patients with septic shock. We implement a high-quality process for data acquisition and recording in the first 24 h, ensuring maximal quality for the evaluation of both efficacy and safety outcomes, as well as transparency of results. The results of the study will be used to elaborate a full-scale randomized controlled trial with mortality as primary outcome in RSS patients.

Trial registration

Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03953677). Registered 16 May 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03953677.

Effect of intraoperative dexmedetomidine on hepatic ischemia-reperfusion injury in pediatric living-related liver transplantation: A propensity score matching analysis

Background

Hepatic ischemia-reperfusion injury (HIRI) is largely unavoidable during liver transplantation (LT). Dexmedetomidine (DEX), an α2-adrenergic agonist, exerts a variety of organ-protective effects in pediatric populations. However, evidence remains relatively limited about its hepatoprotective effects in pediatric living-related LT.

Methods

A total of 121 pediatric patients undergoing living-related LT from June 2015 to December 2018 in our hospital were enrolled. They were classified into DEX or non-DEX groups according to whether an infusion of DEX was initiated from incision to the end of surgery. Primary outcomes were postoperative liver graft function and the severity of HIRI. Multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching (PSM) analyses were performed to identify any association.

Results

A 1:1 matching yielded 35 well-balanced pairs. Before matching, no significant difference was found in baseline characteristics between groups except for warm ischemia time, which was longer in the non-DEX group (44 [38–50] vs. 40 [37–44] min, p = 0.017). After matching, the postoperative peak lactic dehydrogenase levels decreased significantly in the DEX group than in the non-DEX group (622 [516–909] vs. 970 [648–1,490] IU/L, p = 0.002). Although there was no statistical significance, a tendency toward a decrease in moderate-to-extreme HIRI rate was noted in the DEX group compared to the non-DEX group (68.6% vs. 82.9%, p = 0.163). Patients in the DEX group also received a significantly larger dosage of epinephrine as postreperfusion syndrome (PRS) treatment (0.28 [0.17–0.32] vs. 0.17 [0.06–0.30] µg/kg, p = 0.010). However, there were no significant differences between groups in PRS and acute kidney injury incidences, mechanical ventilation duration, intensive care unit, and hospital lengths of stay. Multivariate analysis revealed a larger graft-to-recipient weight ratio (odds ratio [OR] 2.657, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.132–6.239, p = 0.025) and intraoperative DEX administration (OR 0.333, 95% CI, 0.130–0.851, p = 0.022) to be independent predictors of moderate-to-extreme HIRI.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that intraoperative DEX could potentially decrease the risk of HIRI but was associated with a significant increase in epinephrine requirement for PRS in pediatric living-related LT. Further studies, including randomized controlled studies, are warranted to provide more robust evidence.

The Role of miRNAs in Dexmedetomidine's Neuroprotective Effects against Brain Disorders

There are limited neuroprotective strategies for various central nervous system conditions in which fast and sustained management is essential. Neuroprotection-based therapeutics have become an intensively researched topic in the neuroscience field, with multiple novel promising agents, from natural products to mesenchymal stem cells, homing peptides, and nanoparticles-mediated agents, all aiming to significantly provide neuroprotection in experimental and clinical studies. Dexmedetomidine (DEX), an α2 agonist commonly used as an anesthetic adjuvant for sedation and as an opioid-sparing medication, stands out in this context due to its well-established neuroprotective effects. Emerging evidence from preclinical and clinical studies suggested that DEX could be used to protect against cerebral ischemia, traumatic brain injury (TBI), spinal cord injury, neurodegenerative diseases, and postoperative cognitive disorders. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) regulate gene expression at a post-transcriptional level, inhibiting the translation of mRNA into functional proteins. In vivo and in vitro studies deciphered brain-related miRNAs and dysregulated miRNA profiles after several brain disorders, including TBI, ischemic stroke, Alzheimer's disease, and multiple sclerosis, providing emerging new perspectives in neuroprotective therapy by modulating these miRNAs. Experimental studies revealed that some of the neuroprotective effects of DEX are mediated by various miRNAs, counteracting multiple mechanisms in several disease models, such as lipopolysaccharides induced neuroinflammation, β-amyloid induced dysfunction, brain ischemic-reperfusion injury, and anesthesia-induced neurotoxicity models. This review aims to outline the neuroprotective mechanisms of DEX in brain disorders by modulating miRNAs. We address the neuroprotective effects of DEX by targeting miRNAs in modulating ischemic brain injury, ameliorating the neurotoxicity of anesthetics, reducing postoperative cognitive dysfunction, and improving the effects of neurodegenerative diseases.

Medication and Fluid Management of Pediatric Sepsis and Septic Shock

Sepsis is a life-threatening response to infection that contributes significantly to neonatal and pediatric morbidity and mortality worldwide. The key tenets of care include early recognition of potential sepsis, rapid intervention with appropriate fluids to restore adequate tissue perfusion, and empiric antibiotics to cover likely pathogens. Vasoactive/inotropic agents are recommended if tissue perfusion and hemodynamics are inadequate following initial fluid resuscitation. Several adjunctive therapies have been suggested with theoretical benefit, though definitive recommendations are not yet supported by research reports. This review focuses on the recommendations for medication and fluid management of pediatric sepsis and septic shock, highlighting issues related to antibiotic choices and antimicrobial stewardship, selection of intravenous fluids for resuscitation, and selection and use of vasoactive/inotropic medications. Controversy remains regarding resuscitation fluid volume and type, antibiotic choices depending upon infectious risks in the patient's community, and adjunctive therapies such as vitamin C, corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, and methylene blue. We include best practice recommendations based on international guidelines, a review of primary literature, and a discussion of ongoing clinical trials and the nuances of therapeutic choices.

Predictive ability of severity scores and outcomes for mortality in kidney transplant recipients with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to the intensive care unit: results from a Brazilian single-center cohort study

Abstract Background: the predictive ability of severity scores for mortality in patients admitted to intensive care units is not well-known among kidney transplanted (KT) patients, especially those diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the predictive ability of severity scores for mortality in KT recipients. Methods: 51 KT recipients with COVID-19 diagnosis were enrolled. The performance of the SOFA, SAPS 3, and APACHE IV tools in predicting mortality after COVID-19 was compared by the area under the ROC curve (AUC-ROC) and univariate Cox regression analysis was performed. Results: The 90-day cumulative incidence of death was 63.4%. Only APACHE IV score differed between survivors and nonsurvivors: 91.2±18.3 vs. 106.5±26.3, P = 0.03. The AUC- ROC of APACHE IV for predicting death was 0.706 (P = 0.04) and 0.656 (P = 0.06) at 7 and 90 days, respectively. Receiving a kidney from a deceased donor (HR = 3.16; P = 0.03), troponin levels at admission (HR for each ng/mL = 1.001; P = 0.03), APACHE IV score (HR for each 1 point = 1.02; P = 0.01), mechanical ventilation (MV) requirement (HR = 3.04; P = 0.002) and vasopressor use on the first day after ICU admission (HR = 3.85; P < 0.001) were associated with the 90-day mortality in the univariate analysis. Conclusion: KT recipients had high mortality, which was associated with type of donor, troponin levels, early use of vasopressors, and MV requirement. The other traditional severity scores investigated could not predict mortality.

Characteristics of circulatory failure after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a prospective cohort study

Background

Circulatory failure after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) as part of the postcardiac arrest syndrome (PCAS) is believed to be caused by an initial myocardial depression that later subsides into a superimposed vasodilatation. However, the relative contribution of myocardial dysfunction and systemic inflammation has not been established. Our objective was to describe the macrocirculatory and microcirculatory failure in PCAS in more detail.

Methods

We included 42 comatose patients after OHCA where circulatory variables were invasively monitored from admission until day 5. We measured the development in cardiac power output (CPO), stroke work (SW), aortic elastance, microcirculatory metabolism, inflammatory and cardiac biomarkers and need for vasoactive medications. We used survival analysis and Cox regression to assess time to norepinephrine discontinuation and negative fluid balance, stratified by inflammatory and cardiac biomarkers.

Results

CPO, SW and oxygen delivery increased during the first 48 hours. Although the estimated afterload fell, the blood pressure was kept above 65 mmHg with a diminishing need for norepinephrine, indicating a gradually re-established macrocirculatory homoeostasis. Time to norepinephrine discontinuation was longer for patients with higher pro-brain natriuretic peptide concentration (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.96), while inflammatory biomarkers and other cardiac biomarkers did not predict the duration of vasoactive pressure support. Markers of microcirculatory distress, such as lactate and venous-to-arterial carbon dioxide difference, were normalised within 24 hours.

Conclusion

The circulatory failure was initially characterised by reduced CPO and SW, however, microcirculatory and macrocirculatory homoeostasis was restored within 48 hours. We found that biomarkers indicating acute heart failure, and not inflammation, predicted longer circulatory support with norepinephrine. Taken together, this indicates an early and resolving, rather than a late and emerging vasodilatation.

Trial registration

NCT02648061.

Current practice and evolving concepts in septic shock resuscitation

Clinical and pathophysiological understanding of septic shock has progressed exponentially in the previous decades, translating into a steady decrease in septic shock-related morbidity and mortality. Even though large randomized, controlled trials have addressed fundamental aspects of septic shock resuscitation, many questions still exist. In this review, we will describe the current standards of septic shock resuscitation, but the emphasis will be placed on evolving concepts in different domains such as clinical resuscitation targets, adequate use of fluids and vasoactive drugs, refractory shock, and the use of extracorporeal therapies. Multiple research opportunities remain open, and collaborative endeavors should be performed to fill in these gaps.

Hemodynamic and respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine sedation in critically ill Covid-19 patients: A retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Dexmedetomidine has been suggested to be a promising sedative for patients with Covid-19 infection (CV19). However, use of dexmedetomidine is limited by its heart rate (HR) and arterial blood pressure lowering effects. Moreover, CV19 is associated with cardiac manifestations including bradyarrythmias. The hemodynamic effects of dexmedetomidine have not been previously studied in CV19 patients. We evaluated the effects of dexmedetomidine on hemodynamic and respiratory parameters of CV19 patients.

METHODS

In this single center study, all CV19 patients receiving dexmedetomidine for sedation during a one year period were included. Our primary outcomes included changes in HR, mean arterial pressure (MAP), respiratory rate (RR), partial oxygen pressure of arterial blood/fraction of inspired oxygen-ratio (PF-ratio), and Richmond Agitation and Sedation Score (RASS) during dexmedetomidine administration.

RESULTS

We identified 39 patients with a mean (SD) age of 58.3 (12.7) years. After initiation of dexmedetomidine, HR decreased by 16.9 (3.3) beats/min (95% CI 9.5-22.4; p < 0.001). During the 12-hour follow-up period, HR decrease was significant at 2 to 12 h. Incident bradycardia (<45/min) was reported in 12 (30.8%) patients and it was associated with lower plasma C-reactive protein, Pro-calcitonin, and troponin T levels. There was no change in MAP compared to baseline. Dexmedetomidine administration was associated with improvement of PF-ratio (p < 0.001) and with decrease of RASS (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine is an effective sedative for CV19 patients and may improve their oxygenation. However, dexmedetomidine administration is associated with marked decline in HR and with a high incidence of bradycardia in patients with CV19.

Is the Sympathetic System Detrimental in the Setting of Septic Shock, with Antihypertensive Agents as a Counterintuitive Approach? A Clinical Proposition

Mortality in the setting of septic shock varies between 20% and 100%. Refractory septic shock leads to early circulatory failure and carries the worst prognosis. The pathophysiology is poorly understood despite studies of the microcirculatory defects and the immuno-paralysis. The acute circulatory distress is treated with volume expansion, administration of vasopressors (usually noradrenaline: NA), and inotropes. Ventilation and anti-infectious strategy shall not be discussed here. When circulation is considered, the literature is segregated between interventions directed to the systemic circulation vs. interventions directed to the micro-circulation. Our thesis is that, after stabilization of the acute cardioventilatory distress, the prolonged sympathetic hyperactivity is detrimental in the setting of septic shock. Our hypothesis is that the sympathetic hyperactivity observed in septic shock being normalized towards baseline activity will improve the microcirculation by recoupling the capillaries and the systemic circulation. Therefore, counterintuitively, antihypertensive agents such as beta-blockers or alpha-2 adrenergic agonists (clonidine, dexmedetomidine) are useful. They would reduce the noradrenaline requirements. Adjuncts (vitamins, steroids, NO donors/inhibitors, etc.) proposed to normalize the sepsis-evoked vasodilation are not reviewed. This itemized approach (systemic vs. microcirculation) requires physiological and epidemiological studies to look for reduced mortality.

The Use of Dexmedetomidine in the Emergency Department: A Cohort Study

Introduction

Management of sedation, analgesia, and anxiolysis are cornerstone therapies in the emergency department (ED). Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a central alpha-2 agonist, is increasingly being used, and intensive care unit (ICU) data demonstrate improved outcomes in patients with respiratory failure. However, there is a lack of ED-based data. We therefore sought to: 1) characterize ED DEX use; 2) describe the incidence of adverse events; and 3) explore factors associated with adverse events among patients receiving DEX in the ED.

Methods

This was a single-center, retrospective, cohort study of consecutive ED patients administered DEX (January 1, 2017–July 1, 2019) at an academic, tertiary care ED with an annual census of ~90,000 patient visits. All included patients (n= 103) were analyzed for characterization of DEX use in the ED. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse events, bradycardia and hypotension. Secondary clinical outcomes included ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days, and hospital mortality. To examine for variables associated with adverse events, we used a multivariable logistic regression model.

Results

We report on 103 patients. Dexmedetomidine was most commonly given for acute respiratory failure, including sedation for mechanical ventilation (28.9%) and facilitation of non-invasive ventilation (17.4%). Fifty-four (52.4%) patients experienced the composite adverse event, with hypotension occurring in 41 patients (39.8%) and bradycardia occurring in 18 patients (17.5%). Dexmedetomidine was stopped secondary to an adverse event in eight patients (7.8%). Duration of DEX use in the ED was associated with an increase adverse event risk (adjusted odds ratio, 1.004; 95% confidence interval, 1.001, 1.008).

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine is most commonly administered in the ED for patients with acute respiratory failure. Adverse events are relatively common, yet DEX is discontinued comparatively infrequently due to adverse events. Our results suggest that DEX could be a viable option for analgesia, anxiolysis, and sedation in ED patients.

The autonomic nervous system in septic shock and its role as a future therapeutic target: a narrative review

The autonomic nervous system (ANS) regulates the cardiovascular system. A growing body of experimental and clinical evidence confirms significant dysfunction of this regulation during sepsis and septic shock. Clinical guidelines do not currently include any evaluation of ANS function during the resuscitation phase of septic shock despite the fact that the severity and persistence of ANS dysfunction are correlated with worse clinical outcomes. In the critical care setting, the clinical use of ANS-related hemodynamic indices is currently limited to preliminary investigations trying to predict and anticipate imminent clinical deterioration. In this review, we discuss the evidence supporting the concept that, in septic shock, restoration of ANS-mediated control of the cardiovascular system or alleviation of the clinical consequences induced by its dysfunction (e.g., excessive tachycardia, etc.), may be an important therapeutic goal, in combination with traditional resuscitation targets. Recent studies, which have used standard and advanced monitoring methods and mathematical models to investigate the ANS-mediated mechanisms of physiological regulation, have shown the feasibility and importance of monitoring ANS hemodynamic indices at the bedside, based on the acquisition of simple signals, such as heart rate and arterial blood pressure fluctuations. During the early phase of septic shock, experimental and/or clinical studies have shown the efficacy of negative-chronotropic agents (i.e., beta-blockers or ivabradine) in controlling persistent tachycardia despite adequate resuscitation. Central α-2 agonists have been shown to prevent peripheral adrenergic receptor desensitization by reducing catecholamine exposure. Whether these new therapeutic approaches can safely improve clinical outcomes remains to be confirmed in larger clinical trials. New technological solutions are now available to non-invasively modulate ANS outflow, such as transcutaneous vagal stimulation, with initial pre-clinical studies showing promising results and paving the way for ANS modulation to be considered as a new potential therapeutic target in patients with septic shock.

Sedation in the Intensive Care Unit

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This narrative review illustrates literature over the last 5 years relating to sedation delivery to mechanically ventilated adult patients in intensive care units.

RECENT FINDINGS

There has been an increase in dexmedetomidine-related publications but although systematic reviews suggest dexmedetomidine reduces delirium, agitation, and length of stay, clinical trials have not supported these findings. It is likely to be useful for the managing patients with persisting agitation. Guidelines continue to recommend lightly sedating patients but considerable variation remains in clinical practice and in research trials. Protocols with no sedative infusions and morphine boluses as needed are feasible and safe, while educational interventions can decrease sedation-related adverse events.

SUMMARY

Research trials have mainly focused on individual drugs rather than practice. Given evidence is slow to translate into practice; work is needed to understand and respond to the concerns of clinicians regarding deep sedation and agitation.

Dexmedetomidine Induced Polyuria in the Intensive Care Unit

Dexmedetomidine is an α2-adrenergic used as an adjunct therapy for sedation in the intensive care unit. While it is known to cause polyuria exclusively in perioperative conditions, not many cases are known in the intensive care unit, thus making the diagnosis challenging. We present the case of a 61-year-old male who had developed polyuria secondary to central diabetes insipidus after receiving dexmedetomidine intravenous infusion in the medical ICU. Increased awareness of this uncommon side effect of dexmedetomidine will help clinicians recognize and address it early.

Fluid Resuscitation for Refractory Hypotension

Hypotension is a common occurrence, especially in anesthetized patients and in critical patients suffering from hypovolemia due to shock and sepsis. Hypotension can also occur in normovolemic animals, anesthetized or conscious, under conditions of vasodilation or decreased cardiac function. The main consequence of hypotension is decreased organ perfusion and tissue injury/dysfunction. In the human literature there is no consensus on what is the threshold value for hypotension, and ranges from < 80 to < 100 mmHg for systolic blood pressure and from < 50 to < 70 mmHg for mean arterial blood pressure have been referenced for intraoperative hypotension. In veterinary medicine, similar values are referenced, despite marked differences in normal arterial blood pressure between species and with respect to humans. Therapeutic intervention involves fluid therapy to normalize volemia and use of sympathomimetics to enhance cardiac function and regulate peripheral vascular resistance. Despite these therapeutic measures, there is a subset of patients that are seemingly refractory and exhibit persistent hypotension. This review covers the physiological aspects that govern arterial blood pressure control and blood flow to tissues/organs, the pathophysiological mechanisms involved in hypotension and refractory hypotension, and therapeutic considerations and expectations that include proper interpretation of cardiovascular parameters, fluid recommendations and therapy rates, use of sympathomimetics and vasopressors, and newer approaches derived from the human literature.

Emerging benefits and drawbacks of α2 -adrenoceptor agonists in the management of sepsis and critical illness

Agonists of α₂ -adrenoceptors are increasingly being used for the provision of comfort, sedation and the management of delirium in critically ill patients, with and without sepsis. In this context, increased sympathetic and inflammatory activity are common pathophysiological features linked to multi-organ dysfunction, particularly in patients with sepsis or those undergoing cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass. Experimental and clinical studies support the notion that the α₂ -adrenoceptor agonists, dexmedetomidine and clonidine, mitigate sympathetic and inflammatory overactivity in sepsis and cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass. These effects can protect vital organs, including the cardiovascular system, kidneys, heart and brain. We review the pharmacodynamic mechanisms by which α₂ -adrenoceptor agonists might mitigate multi-organ dysfunction arising from pathophysiological conditions associated with excessive inflammatory and adrenergic stress in experimental studies. We also outline recent clinical trials that have examined the use of dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients with and without sepsis and in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Clinical Practice: Should we Radically Alter our Sedation of Critical Care Patients, Especially Given the COVID-19 Pandemics?

The high number of patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus requiring care for ARDS puts sedation in the critical care unit (CCU) to the edge. Depth of sedation has evolved over the last 40 years (no-sedation, deep sedation, daily emergence, minimal sedation, etc.). Most guidelines now recommend determining the depth of sedation and minimizing the use of benzodiazepines and opioids. The broader use of alpha-2 adrenergic agonists ('alpha-2 agonists') led to sedation regimens beginning at admission to the CCU that contrast with hypnotics+opioids ("conventional" sedation), with major consequences for cognition, ventilation and circulatory performance. The same doses of alpha-2 agonists used for 'cooperative' sedation (ataraxia, analgognosia) elicit no respiratory depression but modify the autonomic nervous system (cardiac parasympathetic activation, attenuation of excessive cardiac and vasomotor sympathetic activity). Alpha-2 agonists should be selected only in patients who benefit from their effects ('personalized' indications, as opposed to a 'one size fits all' approach). Then, titration to effect is required, especially in the setting of systemic hypotension and/or hypovolemia. Since no general guidelines exist for the use of alpha-2 agonists for CCU sedation, our clinical experience is summarized for the benefit of physicians in clinical situations in which a recommendation might never exist (refractory delirium tremens; unstable, hypovolemic, hypotensive patients, etc.). Because the physiology of alpha-2 receptors and the pharmacology of alpha-2 agonists lead to personalized indications, some details are offered. Since interactions between conventional sedatives and alpha-2 agonists have received little attention, these interactions are addressed. Within the existing guidelines for CCU sedation, this article could facilitate the use of alpha-2 agonists as effective and safe sedation while awaiting large, multicentre trials and more evidence-based medicine.

Optimal Sedation and Pain Management: A Patient- and Symptom-Oriented Paradigm

In the critically ill patient, optimal pain and sedation management remains the cornerstone of achieving comfort, safety, and to facilitate complex life support interventions. Pain relief, using multimodal analgesia, is an integral component of any orchestrated approach to achieve clinically appropriate goals in critically ill patients. Sedative management, however, remains a significant challenge. Subsequent studies including most recent randomized trials have failed to provide strong evidence in favor of a sedative agent, a mode of sedation or ancillary protocols such as sedative interruption and sedative minimization. In addition, clinical practice guidelines, despite a comprehensive evaluation of relevant literature, have limitations when applied to individual patients. These limitations have been most apparent during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. As such, there is a need for a mindset shift to a practical and achievable sedation strategy, driven by patients' characteristics and individual patient needs, rather than one cocktail for all patients. In this review, we present key principles to achieve patient-and symptom-oriented optimal analgesia and sedation in the critically ill patients. Sedative intensity should be proportionate to care complexity with due consideration to an individual patient's modifiers. The use of multimodal analgesics, sedatives, and antipsychotics agents-that are easily titratable-reduces the overall quantum of sedatives and opioids, and reduces the risk of adverse events while maximizing clinical benefits. In addition, critical considerations regarding the choice of sedative agents should be given to factors such as age, medical versus operative diagnosis, and cardiovascular status. Specific populations such as trauma, neurological injury, and pregnancy should also be taken into account to maximize efficacy and reduce adverse events.

Clinical and economic impact of the use of dexmedetomidine for sedation in the intensive care unit compared to propofol

Background Despite the advantages of dexmedetomidine (DEX) over propofol (PRO) including minimal respiratory depression and the potential for preventing and/or treating intensive care unit (ICU) delirium, PRO has been the preferred agent due to its lower cost. However, the acquisition cost of DEX has considerably decreased as a generic version of DEX has recently become available. Objective To evaluate clinical and economic outcomes of DEX-based sedation compared to PRO in the ICU. Setting A retrospective cohort study of 86 ICU patients who received either DEX or PRO for a period ≥ 12 h. Method Patients were matched by age, sex, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcome measure Clinical outcomes included the duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and requirements of concomitant sedatives and opioids. Economic outcomes included the ICU and hospital costs as well as the cost of sedatives or combined sedatives and opioids per patient. Results There were no significant differences in ICU and hospital LOS and time on MV in both groups (median ICU LOS 7 [DEX] vs. 9 [PRO] days, p = 0.07; median hospital LOS 12 [DEX] vs. 14 [PRO] days, p = 0.261; median time of MV 144 [DEX] vs. 158 [PRO] hours, p = 0.176). DEX-based sedation compared to PRO was associated with similar ICU and hospital costs (US$ 67,561 vs. 78,429, p = 0.39; US$ 71,923 vs. 71,084, p = 0.1). Conclusion The clinical outcomes and economic impact associated with DEX- and PRO-based sedation were similar.

The effect of dexmedetomidine on vasopressor requirements in patients with septic shock: a subgroup analysis of the Sedation Practice in Intensive Care Evaluation [SPICE III] Trial

BACKGROUND

Septic shock is associated with decreased vasopressor responsiveness. Experimental data suggest that central alpha2-agonists like dexmedetomidine (DEX) increase vasopressor responsiveness and reduce catecholamine requirements in septic shock. However, DEX may also cause hypotension and bradycardia. Thus, it remains unclear whether DEX is hemodynamically safe or helpful in this setting.

METHODS

In this post hoc subgroup analysis of the Sedation Practice in Intensive Care Evaluation (SPICE III) trial, an international randomized trial comparing early sedation with dexmedetomidine to usual care in critically patients receiving mechanical ventilation, we studied patients with septic shock admitted to two tertiary ICUs in Australia and Switzerland. The primary outcome was vasopressor requirements in the first 48 h after randomization, expressed as noradrenaline equivalent dose (NEq [μg/kg/min] = noradrenaline + adrenaline + vasopressin/0.4).

RESULTS

Between November 2013 and February 2018, 417 patients were recruited into the SPICE III trial at both sites. Eighty-three patients with septic shock were included in this subgroup analysis. Of these, 44 (53%) received DEX and 39 (47%) usual care. Vasopressor requirements in the first 48 h were similar between the two groups. Median NEq dose was 0.03 [0.01, 0.07] μg/kg/min in the DEX group and 0.04 [0.01, 0.16] μg/kg/min in the usual care group (p = 0.17). However, patients in the DEX group had a lower NEq/MAP ratio, indicating lower vasopressor requirements to maintain the target MAP. Moreover, on adjusted multivariable analysis, higher dexmedetomidine dose was associated with a lower NEq/MAP ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients with septic shock, patients in the DEX group received similar vasopressor doses in the first 48 h compared to the usual care group. On multivariable adjusted analysis, dexmedetomidine appeared to be associated with lower vasopressor requirements to maintain the target MAP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The SPICE III trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01728558 ).

Hemodynamic Effects of Dexmedetomidine in Adults With Reduced Ejection Fraction Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) can cause hypotension complicating its use in critically ill patients with labile hemodynamics secondary to an underlying disease state such as heart failure. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of DEX on mean arterial pressure (MAP) in nonsurgical patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS

This retrospective single-center cohort study evaluated patients who received DEX in the cardiac care and medical intensive care units at a large academic hospital. The primary end point was the change in MAP within 6 hours following DEX initiation.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients with HFrEF diagnosis were compared 1:1 to a control group without HFrEF. Both groups experienced a decrease in MAP over the study period. Patients with HFrEF had a greater absolute percentage reduction in MAP 1 hour following DEX initiation compared to the control group (-9.6% vs -5.2%; P < .01). When accounting for the combined effect of DEX initiation and HFrEF diagnosis on the primary end point, patients with HFrEF did not have a significant difference in MAP compared to the control group over the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Within 6 hours following DEX initiation, both groups experienced a decrease in MAP. The effect of DEX on MAP over the composite time period was not found to be significantly different in the HFrEF group compared to the non-HFrEF group. However, patients with HFrEF experienced a greater reduction in MAP in the first hour following DEX initiation compared to the non-HFrEF group. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the effect of DEX on patients with acute decompensated HFrEF compared to patients with compensated HFrEF.