Abrupt Discontinuation Versus Down-Titration of Vasopressin in Patients Recovering from Septic Shock

Hemodynamic Management with Vasopressin for Cardiovascular Surgery

Background and Objectives: Vasopressin increases blood pressure through aquaporin-2-mediated water retention and is useful for managing hemodynamics after surgery. However, even after decades of study, clear clinical guidelines on doses and ideal use cases after cardiovascular surgery remain unclear. Here, the existing literature is synthesized on vasopressin use for cardiac surgeries and coupled with real-world clinical experience to outline a clearer clinical path for vasopressin use. Materials and Methods: Literature from 1966 to the present was searched, and information on surgical outcomes for cardiovascular surgery was extracted. Clinicians from the University of Tsukuba with extensive vasopressin experience in pediatric cardiovascular patients were consulted for general use guidelines. Results: Vasopressin response after cardiovascular surgery is multifaceted, and low-power trials, plus conflicting study reports, generally render it as a secondary choice behind norepinephrine. Clinical experience indicates that low doses of 0.2-0.3 mU/kg/min with constant blood pressure and oxygen monitoring for response are required. Although sole use is not recommended, vasopressin may aid in controlling hemodynamics when given with other volemic or osmolal drugs. Conclusions: Vasopressin may work in a select population of first-line non-responders, but relevant response factors remain unanalyzed and clear guidelines for use remain unestablished. Future, large-scale studies are needed to delineate temporal and demographic characteristics that affect response to vasopressin for the purpose of managing post-surgical capillary leakage and hemodynamics.

A Clinical Review of Vasopressors in Emergency Medicine

BACKGROUND

Vasopressor medications raise blood pressure through vasoconstriction and are essential in reversing the hypotension seen in many critically ill patients. Previously, vasopressor administration was largely limited to continuous infusions through central venous access.

OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW

This review addresses the clinical use of vasopressors in various shock states, including practical considerations and innovations in vasopressor administration. The focus is on the clinical administration of vasopressors across a range of shock states, including hypovolemic, distributive, cardiogenic, and obstructive shock.

DISCUSSION

Criteria for starting vasopressors are not clearly defined, though early use may be beneficial. A number of physiologic factors affect the body's response to vasopressors, such as acidosis and adrenal insufficiency. Peripheral and push-dose administration of vasopressors are becoming more common. Distributive shock is characterized by inappropriate vasodilation and vasopressors play a crucial role in maintaining adequate blood pressure. The use of vasopressors is more controversial in hypovolemic shock, as the preferred treatment is correction of the volume deficit. Evidence for vasopressors is limited in cardiogenic shock. For obstructive shock, vasopressors can temporize a patient's blood pressure until definitive therapy can reverse the underlying cause.

CONCLUSION

Across the categories of shock states, norepinephrine has wide applicability and is a reasonable first-line agent for shock of uncertain etiology. Keeping a broad differential when hypotension is refractory to vasopressors may help to identify adjunctive treatments in physiologic states that impair vasopressor effectiveness. Peripheral administration of vasopressors is safe and facilitates early administration, which may help to improve outcomes in some shock states.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities 2023

OBJECTIVES

To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome, and pathophysiology of sepsis and septic shock.

DESIGN

Shortly after publication of the most recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines, the Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, convened virtually and iteratively developed the article and recommendations, which represents an update from the 2018 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities.

METHODS

Each task force member submitted five research questions on any sepsis-related subject. Committee members then independently ranked their top three priorities from the list generated. The highest rated clinical and basic science questions were developed into the current article.

RESULTS

A total of 81 questions were submitted. After merging similar questions, there were 34 clinical and ten basic science research questions submitted for voting. The five top clinical priorities were as follows: 1) what is the best strategy for screening and identification of patients with sepsis, and can predictive modeling assist in real-time recognition of sepsis? 2) what causes organ injury and dysfunction in sepsis, how should it be defined, and how can it be detected? 3) how should fluid resuscitation be individualized initially and beyond? 4) what is the best vasopressor approach for treating the different phases of septic shock? and 5) can a personalized/precision medicine approach identify optimal therapies to improve patient outcomes? The five top basic science priorities were as follows: 1) How can we improve animal models so that they more closely resemble sepsis in humans? 2) What outcome variables maximize correlations between human sepsis and animal models and are therefore most appropriate to use in both? 3) How does sepsis affect the brain, and how do sepsis-induced brain alterations contribute to organ dysfunction? How does sepsis affect interactions between neural, endocrine, and immune systems? 4) How does the microbiome affect sepsis pathobiology? 5) How do genetics and epigenetics influence the development of sepsis, the course of sepsis and the response to treatments for sepsis?

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge advances in multiple clinical domains have been incorporated in progressive iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, allowing for evidence-based recommendations for short- and long-term management of sepsis. However, the strength of existing evidence is modest with significant knowledge gaps and mortality from sepsis remains high. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

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.

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.

Influence of Timing and Catecholamine Requirements on Vasopressin Responsiveness in Critically ill Patients with Septic Shock

Introduction: Despite its widespread use, there is a paucity of data to guide the optimal use of arginine vasopressin (AVP) in critically ill patients with septic shock. Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort study conducted in critically ill adults sought to evaluate the role of catecholamine requirements and timing on responsiveness to AVP. Responsiveness was defined as both a decrease in ≥ 50% of catecholamine requirements and no decrease in mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 4 hours post-AVP initiation. Primary outcomes of interest included the proportion of patients who started AVP within 4 hours after starting catecholamine therapy, as well as baseline norepinephrine (NE) equivalents (< 15, 15-39, or ≥ 40 mcg/min). Multivariate analyses and logistic regression were performed to identify other factors associated with AVP responsiveness. Results: There were 300 patients included in this study, with 74 patients being responders and 226 being non-responders. There was no significant difference in the number of patients who received AVP within 4 hours from catecholamine initiation between responders and non-responders (35% vs. 42%, P = 0.29). There were more patients in the non-responder group requiring ≥ 40 mcg/min of NE equivalents at AVP initiation (30% vs. 16%, P = 0.023). Stress dose steroid use was less common in responders (35% vs. 52%, P = 0.011), which was consistent with logistic regression analysis (OR 0.56, 95% 0.32-0.98, P = 0.044). Clinical outcomes between responders and non-responders were similar, apart from ICU (5.4% vs. 19.5%) and hospital (5.4% vs. 20.4%) mortality being lower in responders (P = 0.0032 and P = 0.0002, respectively). Conclusion: Shorter times to AVP initiation was not associated with responsiveness at 4 hours post-catecholamine initiation, although non-responders tended to require higher doses of NE equivalents at time of AVP initiation. Concomitant corticosteroids were associated with a lower likelihood of AVP responsiveness.