A randomized trial comparing terlipressin and noradrenaline in patients with cirrhosis and septic shock

Hemodynamic profile of cirrhotic patients with sepsis and septic shock: A propensity score matched case-control study

PURPOSE

Our understanding of hemodynamics in cirrhotic patients with sepsis remains limited. Our study aims to investigate differences in hemodynamic profiles using echocardiography between septic patients with and without cirrhosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a single-center, retrospective study of septic patients with echocardiogram within 3 days of ICU admission. We compared baseline characteristics, echocardiographic markers of LV systolic function arterial load between patients with and without cirrhosis. A propensity score-matched case-control model was developed to describe the differences in those echocardiography derived parameters between the groups.

RESULTS

3151 patients with sepsis were included of which 422 (13%) had cirrhosis. In the propensity score matched group with 828 patients, cirrhotic patients had significantly higher left ventricular ejection fraction (64 vs.56%, p < 0.001) and stroke volume (72 vs.48 ml, p < 0.001) along with lower arterial elastance (Ea) (1.35 1vs.20.3, p < 0.001) and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) (851 vs.1209 dynes/s/m-5, p = 0.001). The left ventricular elastance (Ees) (2.83 vs 2.45, p = 0.002) was higher and ventricular-arterial coupling (Ea/Ees) (0.48 vs. 0.86, p < 0.001) lower in cirrhotic compared to non-cirrhotic.

CONCLUSIONS

Septic patients with cirrhosis had higher LVEF with lower Ea and SVR with higher Ees and significantly lower Ea/Ees suggesting vasodilation as the principal driver of the hyperdynamic profile in cirrhosis.

Early Versus Standard Initiation of Terlipressin for Acute Kidney Injury in ACLF: A Randomized Controlled Trial (eTerli Study)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Terlipressin infusion is effective in hepatorenal syndrome (HRS-AKI). However, its efficacy for HRS-AKI resolution in acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) patients has been suboptimal. Progression of AKI is rapid in ACLF. We investigated whether early initiation of terlipressin(eTerli) can improve response rates.

METHODS

Consecutive ACLF patients with stage II/III AKI despite albumin resuscitation (40 g) were randomized to receive terlipressin at 2 mg/24 h plus albumin at 12 h (ET, n = 35) or at 48 h as standard therapy (ST, n = 35). (June 22, 2020 to June 10, 2022). The primary end-point was AKI reversal by day7.

RESULTS

Baseline parameters including AKI stage and ACLF-AARC scores in two arms were comparable. Full AKI response at day 7 was higher in ET [24/35 (68.6%)] than ST arm [11/35 (31.4%; P 0.03]. Day3 AKI response was also higher in ET arm [11/35 (31.4%) vs. 4/35 (11.4%), P 0.04]. Using ST compared to ET [HR 4.3; P 0.026] and day 3 serum creatinine > 1.6 mg/dl [HR 9.1; AUROC-0.866; P < 0.001] predicted HRS-AKI non-response at day 7. ET patients showed greater improvement in ACLF grade, mean arterial pressure, and urine output at day 3, and required lower albumin within 7 days than ET arm (149.1 ± 41.8 g vs. 177.5 ± 40.3 g, P 0.006) and had lower 28-day mortality: 40% vs. 65.7%, P 0.031]. Early use of terlipressin than ST [HR 2.079; P 0.038], baseline HE [HR 2.929; P 0.018], and AKI persistence at day 3 [HR 1.369; P 0.011] predicted 28-day mortality. Fifteen (21.4%) patients had treatment related adverse effects, none was life threatening.

CONCLUSION

In ACLF patients, early initiation of terlipressin for AKI persisting after 12 h of volume expansion with albumin helps in reduced short-term mortality and early AKI reversal with regression of ACLF stage. These results indicate need for change in current practice for terlipressin usage in HRS-AKI.

Beyond the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines: a systematic review of interventions affecting mortality in sepsis

INTRODUCTION

Sepsis-related mortality is decreasing over time after the introduction of "Surviving Sepsis Campaign" Guidelines in 2004. The last Guidelines version collects 93 recommendations, but several interventions supported by randomized evidence of mortality reduction are not included.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a systematic review of all randomized controlled trials reporting a statistically significant mortality reduction in septic patients and compared the identified studies to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines 2021 to highlight discrepancies.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We identified 83 randomized controlled trials (58 interventions) influencing mortality in sepsis. Only 9/58 of these interventions were included in the Guidelines: lactate measurement and lactate-guided hemodynamic management, procalcitonin-guided antibiotics discontinuation, balanced crystalloids as first choice fluids, albumin infusion, avoidance of starches, noradrenaline as first line vasopressor, vasopressin as an adjunctive vasopressor to noradrenaline, neuromuscular blocking agents in moderate-severe sepsis-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome, and corticosteroids use. Only 11/93 Guidelines recommendations were supported by randomized evidence with mortality difference. Five of the interventions with survival benefit in literature (vitamin C, terlipressin, polymyxin B, liberal transfusion strategy and immunoglobulins) were recommended to avoid in the Guidelines, while 44 interventions were not mentioned, including three interventions (esmolol, omega 3, and external warming) with at least two randomized controlled trials with a documented survival benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Several discrepancies exist between the randomized controlled trials with mortality difference in septic patients and the latest Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines. This systematic review can be of help for improving future guidelines and may guide research on specific promising topics.

THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF VASOPRESSORS FOR SEPTIC SHOCK PATIENTS: A SYSTEMIC REVIEW AND NETWORK META-ANALYSIS

ABSTRACT

Background: Septic shock is a distributive shock with decreased systemic vascular resistance and MAP. Septic shock contributes to the most common causes of death in the intensive care unit (ICU). Current guidelines recommend the use of norepinephrine as the first-line vasopressor, whereas adrenergic agonists and vasopressin analogs are also commonly used by physicians. To date, very few studies have synthetically compared the effects of multiple types of vasoactive medications. The aim of this study was to systemically evaluate the efficacy of vasoactive agents both individually and in combination to treat septic shock. Methods: The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched up to May 12, 2022, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. A network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of different types of vasopressors. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was the ICU length of stay. Adverse events are defined as any undesirable outcomes, including myocardial infarction, cardiac arrhythmia, peripheral ischemia, or stroke and cerebrovascular events. Findings: Thirty-three randomized controlled trials comprising 4,966 patients and assessing 8 types of vasoactive treatments were included in the network meta-analysis. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve provided a ranking of vasoactive medications in terms of 28-day all-cause mortality from most effective to least effective: norepinephrine plus dobutamine, epinephrine, vasopressin, terlipressin, norepinephrine, norepinephrine plus vasopressin, dopamine, and dobutamine. Dopamine was associated with a significantly shorter ICU stay than norepinephrine, terlipressin, and vasopressin, whereas other vasoactive medications showed no definite difference in ICU length of stay. Regarding adverse events, norepinephrine was associated with the highest incidences of myocardial infarction and peripheral ischemia. Dopamine was associated with the highest incidence of cardiac arrhythmia. Epinephrine and terlipressin were associated with the highest incidences of myocardial infarction and peripheral ischemia. Interpretation: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that norepinephrine plus dobutamine is associated with a lower risk of 28-day mortality in septic shock patients than other vasoactive medications, and the use of dopamine is associated with a higher risk of 28-day mortality due to septic shock than norepinephrine, terlipressin, and vasopressin.

Review article: Emerging and current management of acute-on-chronic liver failure

BACKGROUND

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a clinically and pathophysiologically distinct condition from acutely decompensated cirrhosis and is characterised by systemic inflammation, extrahepatic organ failure, and high short-term mortality.

AIMS

To provide a narrative review of the diagnostic criteria, prognosis, epidemiology, and general management principles of ACLF. Four specific interventions that are explored in detail are intravenous albumin, extracorporeal liver assist devices, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, and liver transplantation.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Cochrane databases for articles published up to July 2023.

RESULTS

Approximately 35% of hospital inpatients with decompensated cirrhosis have ACLF. There is significant heterogeneity in the criteria used to diagnose ACLF; different definitions identify different phenotypes with varying mortality. Criteria established by the European Association for the Study of the Liver were developed in prospective patient cohorts and are, to-date, the most well validated internationally. Systemic haemodynamic instability, renal dysfunction, coagulopathy, neurological dysfunction, and respiratory failure are key considerations when managing ACLF in the intensive care unit. Apart from liver transplantation, there are no accepted evidence-based treatments for ACLF, but several different approaches are under investigation.

CONCLUSION

The recognition of ACLF as a distinct entity from acutely decompensated cirrhosis has allowed for better patient stratification in clinical settings, facilitating earlier engagement with the intensive care unit and liver transplantation teams. Research priorities over the next decade should focus on exploring novel treatment strategies with a particular focus on which, when, and how patients with ACLF should be treated.

Mechanisms and treatment approaches for ACLF

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a life-threatening syndrome characterized by decompensation of cirrhosis, severe systemic inflammation and organ failures. ACLF is frequently triggered by intra- and/or extrahepatic insults, such as bacterial infections, alcohol-related hepatitis or flares of hepatic viruses. The imbalance between systemic inflammation and immune tolerance causes organ failures through the following mechanisms: (i) direct damage of immune cells/mediators; (ii) worsening of circulatory dysfunction resulting in organ hypoperfusion and (iii) metabolic alterations with prioritization of energetic substrates for inflammation and peripheral organ 'energetic crisis'. Currently, the management of ACLF includes the support of organ failures, the identification and treatment of precipitating factors and expedited assessment for liver transplantation (LT). Early LT should be considered in patients with ACLF grade 3, who are unlikely to recover with the available treatments and have a mortality rate > 70% at 28 days. However, the selection of transplant candidates and their prioritization on the LT waiting list need standardization. Future challenges in the ACLF field include a better understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms leading to inflammation and organ failures, the development of specific treatments for the disease and personalized treatment approaches. Herein, we reviewed the current knowledge and future perspectives on mechanisms and treatment of ACLF.

Effect of different infusion approaches on safety and efficacy of terlipressin: Current controversies

Terlipressin, a synthetic analog of vasopressin, has been widely used to treat acute variceal bleeding, hepatorenal syndrome, and other complications of cirrhosis. However, among different infusion approaches of terlipressin, its safety and efficacy are also heterogeneous. Previous studies have demonstrated that continuous infusion of terlipressin is more effective with a lower incidence of adverse events than intermittent intravenous infusion. This paper aims to review the relevant literature and summarize the data regarding the safety and effectiveness of different infusion approaches of terlipressin to guide clinical practice.

A randomised-controlled trial (TARGET-C) of high vs. low target mean arterial pressure in patients with cirrhosis and septic shock

BACKGROUND & AIMS

A high mean arterial pressure (MAP) target has been associated with improved renal outcomes in patients with cirrhosis, though it has not been studied in critically ill patients with cirrhosis and septic shock (CICs). We compared the efficacy of a high (80-85 mmHg; H-MAP) vs. low (60-65; L-MAP) target MAP strategy in improving 28-day mortality in CICs.

METHODS

We performed open-label 1:1 randomisation of 150 CICs (H-MAP 75; L-MAP 75). The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality and secondary endpoints included reversal of shock, acute kidney injury (AKI) at day 5, the incidence of intradialytic hypotension (IDH), and adverse events. Endothelial markers were analysed in a subset of patients.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics were comparable. On intention-to-treat analysis, 28-day mortality (65% vs. 56%; p = 0.54), reversal of shock (47% vs. 53%; p = 0.41) and AKI development (45% vs. 31%;p = 0.06) were not different between the H-MAP and L-MAP groups, respectively. A lower incidence of IDH (12% vs. 48%; p <0.001) and higher adverse events necessitating protocol discontinuation (24% vs. 11%; p = 0.031) were noted in the H-MAP group. On per-protocol analysis (L-MAP 67; H-MAP 57), a significantly higher reversal of AKI (53% vs. 31%; p = 0.02) and a lower incidence of IDH (4% vs. 53%; p <0.001) were observed in the H-MAP group. Endothelial repair markers such as ADAMTS (2.11 ± 1.13 vs. 1.15 ± 0.48; p = 0.002) and angiopoietin-2 (74.08 ± 53.00 vs. 41.80 ± 15.95; p = 0.016) were higher in the H-MAP group.

CONCLUSIONS

A higher MAP strategy does not confer a survival benefit in CICs, but improves tolerance to dialysis, lactate clearance and renal recovery. Higher adverse events indicate the need for better tools to evaluate target microcirculation pressures in CICs.

IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS

Maintaining an appropriate organ perfusion pressure during sepsis is the ultimate goal of haemodynamic management. A higher mean arterial pressure (MAP) improves renal outcomes in patients with hepatorenal syndrome. Patients with cirrhosis and septic shock have severe circulatory disturbances, low MAP, and poor tissue perfusion. In these patients, targeting higher MAP vs. lower MAP does not confer any survival benefit but is associated with more adverse events. A higher target strategy was associated with better tolerance and lesser episodes of hypotension on dialysis. Patients who could achieve the higher target MAP, without the development of adverse events, had improved renal outcomes and better lactate clearance. Higher MAP was also associated with improvements in markers of endothelial function. A higher target MAP strategy, with close monitoring of adverse events, may be recommended for patients with cirrhosis and septic shock.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

NCT03145168.

Terlipressin in the management of adults with hepatorenal syndrome-acute kidney injury (HRS-AKI)

INTRODUCTION

Kidney is the most common extra-hepatic organ involved in patients with advanced liver cirrhosis and acute-on-chronic liver failure. Hepatorenal syndrome-acute kidney injury (HRS-AKI) accounts for most hospitalizations, and liver transplantation (LT) remains the ultimate and long-term treatment in such patients. However, HRS-AKI, being a functional renal failure, has a fair chance of reversal, and as such, patients who achieve reversal of HRS-AKI have better outcomes post-LT.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we discuss the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and evidence to support the use of terlipressin in HRS-AKI while we also address predictors of response and the associated adverse events. Further, we discuss the role of terlipressin in the context of LT.

EXPERT OPINION

The recommended treatment for HRS-AKI reversal includes a vasoconstrictor in addition to volume expansion with albumin. The three vasoconstrictor regimens generally used to treat HRS-AKI include octreotide plus midodrine, noradrenaline, and terlipressin. Of these, terlipressin is a widely used drug and has been recently approved by US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) for HRS-AKI. Terlipressin is the most effective drug for HRS-AKI reversal and is associated with a decreased need for renal replacement therapy pre- and post-transplant. Furthermore, terlipressin responders have improved transplant-free and post-transplant survival.

Fluid resuscitation in patients with cirrhosis and sepsis: A multidisciplinary perspective

Fluid resuscitation is typically needed in patients with cirrhosis, sepsis and hypotension. However, the complex circulatory changes associated with cirrhosis and the hyperdynamic state, characterised by increased splanchnic blood volume and relative central hypovolemia, complicate fluid administration and monitoring of fluid status. Patients with advanced cirrhosis require larger volumes of fluids to expand central blood volume and improve sepsis-induced organ hypoperfusion than patients without cirrhosis, which comes at the cost of a further increase in non-central blood volume. Monitoring tools and volume targets still need to be defined but echocardiography is promising for bedside assessment of fluid status and responsiveness. Large volumes of saline should be avoided in patients with cirrhosis. Experimental data suggest that independent of volume expansion, albumin is superior to crystalloids at controlling systemic inflammation and preventing acute kidney injury. However, while it is generally accepted that albumin plus antibiotics is superior to antibiotics alone in spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, evidence is lacking in patients with infections other than spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Patients with advanced cirrhosis, sepsis and hypotension are less likely to be fluid responsive than those without cirrhosis and early initiation of vasopressors is recommended. While norepinephrine is the first-line option, the role of terlipressin needs to be clarified in this context.

Management of sepsis in a cirrhotic patient admitted to the intensive care unit: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is a severe medical condition that occurs when the body's immune system overreacts to an infection, leading to life-threatening organ dysfunction. The "Third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3)" defines sepsis as an increase in sequential organ failure assessment score of 2 points or more, with a mortality rate above 10%. Sepsis is a leading cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and patients with underlying conditions such as cirrhosis have a higher risk of poor outcomes. Therefore, it is critical to recognize and manage sepsis promptly by administering fluids, vasopressors, steroids, and antibiotics, and identifying and treating the source of infection.

AIM

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing literature on the management of sepsis in cirrhotic patients admitted to the ICU and compare the management of sepsis between cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients in the ICU.

METHODS

This study is a systematic literature review that followed the PRISMA statement's standardized search method. The search for relevant studies was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Base, and Cochrane, using predefined search terms. One reviewer conducted the initial search, and the eligibility criteria were applied to the titles and abstracts of the retrieved articles. The selected articles were then evaluated based on the research objectives to ensure relevance to the study's aims.

RESULTS

The study findings indicate that cirrhotic patients are more susceptible to infections, resulting in higher mortality rates ranging from 18% to 60%. Early identification of the infection source followed by timely administration of antibiotics, vasopressors, and corticosteroids has been shown to improve patient outcomes. Procalcitonin is a useful biomarker for diagnosing infections in cirrhotic patients. Moreover, presepsin and resistin have been found to be reliable markers of bacterial infection in patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis, with similar diagnostic performance compared to procalcitonin.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the importance of early detection and management of infections in cirrhosis patients to reduce mortality. Therefore, early detection of infection using procalcitonin test and other biomarker as presepsin and resistin, associated with early management with antibiotics, fluids, vasopressors and low dose corticosteroids might reduce the mortality associated with sepsis in cirrhotic patients.

Austrian consensus on the diagnosis and management of portal hypertension in advanced chronic liver disease (Billroth IV)

The Billroth IV consensus was developed during a consensus meeting of the Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (ÖGGH) and the Austrian Society of Interventional Radiology (ÖGIR) held on the 26th of November 2022 in Vienna.Based on international recommendations and considering recent landmark studies, the Billroth IV consensus provides guidance regarding the diagnosis and management of portal hypertension in advanced chronic liver disease.

Critical Care Management of Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure: Certainties and Unknowns

Intensive care unit (ICU) admission is frequently required in patients with decompensated cirrhosis for organ support. This entity, known as acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), is associated with high short-term mortality. ICU management of ACLF is complex, as these patients are prone to develop new organ failures and infectious or bleeding complications. Poor nutritional status, lack of effective liver support systems, and shortage of liver donors are also factors that contribute to increase their mortality. ICU therapy parallels that applied in the general ICU population in some complications but has differential characteristics in others. This review describes the current knowledge on critical care management of patients with ACLF including organ support, prognostic assessment, early liver transplantation, and futility rules. Certainties and knowledge gaps in this area are also discussed.

Emerging concepts in the care of patients with cirrhosis and septic shock

Septic shock impacts approximately 6% of hospitalized patients with cirrhosis and is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Although a number of landmark clinical trials have paved the way for incremental improvements in the diagnosis and management of septic shock in the general population, patients with cirrhosis have largely been excluded from these studies and critical knowledge gaps continue to impact the care of these individuals. In this review, we discuss nuances in the care of patients with cirrhosis and septic shock using a pathophysiology-based approach. We illustrate that septic shock may be challenging to diagnose in this population in the context of factors such as chronic hypotension, impaired lactate metabolism, and concomitant hepatic encephalopathy. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the application of routine interventions such as intravenous fluids, vasopressors, antibiotics, and steroids should be carefully considered among those with decompensated cirrhosis in light of hemodynamic, metabolic, hormonal, and immunologic disturbances. We propose that future research should include and characterize patients with cirrhosis in a systematic manner, and clinical practice guidelines may need to be refined accordingly.

A randomized-controlled trial comparing 20% albumin to plasmalyte in patients with cirrhosis and sepsis-induced hypotension [ALPS trial]

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The choice of resuscitation fluid in patients with cirrhosis and sepsis-induced hypotension is unclear. 5% albumin was superior to normal saline in the FRISC study. We compared the efficacy and safety of 20% albumin, which has greater oncotic properties, to plasmalyte in reversing sepsis-induced hypotension.

METHODS

Critically ill patients with cirrhosis underwent open-label randomization to receive either 20% albumin (0.5-1.0 g/kg over 3 hours; n = 50) or plasmalyte (30 ml/kg over 3 hours, n = 50). The primary endpoint of the study was the attainment of mean arterial pressure (MAP) above 65 mmHg at 3 hours.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were comparable in albumin and plasmalyte groups; arterial lactate (6.16±3.18 mmol/L vs. 6.38±4.77 mmol/L; p = 0.78), MAP (51.4±6.52 mmHg vs. 49.9±4.45 mmHg; p = 0.17) and SOFA score (10.8±2.96 vs. 11.1±4.2; p = 0.68), respectively. Most patients were alcoholics (39%) and had pneumonia (40%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, albumin was superior to plasmalyte in achieving the primary endpoint (62% vs. 22%; p <0.001). A faster decline in arterial lactate (p = 0.03), a reduced need for dialysis (48% vs. 62%; p = 0.16), and a longer time to initiation of dialysis (in hours) (68.13±47.79 vs. 99.7± 63.4; p = 0.06) were seen with albumin. However, the 28-day mortality rate was not different (58% vs. 62%, p = 0.57) and treatment had to be discontinued in 11 (22%) patients in the albumin group due to adverse effects compared to no discontinuations in the plasmalyte group.

CONCLUSION

In patients with cirrhosis and sepsis-induced hypotension, 20% albumin leads to a faster improvement in hemodynamics and lactate clearance than plasmalyte, while 28-day survival was similar. However, patients on 20% albumin need to be closely monitored as it was more often associated with pulmonary complications.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02721238.

LAY SUMMARY

The current randomized-controlled trial performed in critically ill patients with cirrhosis and sepsis-induced hypotension highlights that 20% albumin restores arterial pressure more quickly but causes more pulmonary complications than plasmalyte. The impact on renal functions was also modest. These effects did not result in improvement in survival at 28 days. Plasmalyte is safer and well-tolerated and can be considered for volume resuscitation in patients with cirrhosis and sepsis-induced hypotension.

The pharmacotherapeutic options in patients with catecholamine-resistant vasodilatory shock

INTRODUCTION

Septic and vasoplegic shock are common types of vasodilatory shock (VS) with high mortality. After fluid resuscitation and the use of catecholamine-mediated vasopressors (CMV), vasopressin, angiotensin II, methylene blue (MB) and hydroxocobalamin can be added to maintain blood pressure.

AREAS COVERED

VS treatment utilizes a phased approach with secondary vasopressors added to vasopressor agents to maintain an acceptable mean arterial pressure (MAP). This review covers additional vasopressors and adjunctive therapies used when fluid and catecholamine-mediated vasopressors fail to maintain target MAP.

EXPERT OPINION

Evidence supporting additional vasopressor agents in catecholamine resistant VS is limited to case reports, series, and a few randomized control trials (RCTs) to guide recommendations. Vasopressin is the most common agent added next when MAPs are not adequately supported with CMV. VS patients failing fluids and vasopressors with cardiomyopathy may have cardiotonic agents such as dobutamine or milrinone added before or after vasopressin. Angiotensin II, another class of vasopressor is used in VS to maintain adequate MAP. MB and/or hydoxocobalamin, vitamin C, thiamine and corticosteroids are adjunctive therapies used in refractory VS. More RCTs are needed to confirm the utility of these drugs, at what doses, which combinations and in what order they should be given.

Practice guidance for the use of terlipressin for liver cirrhosis-related complications

BACKGROUND

Liver cirrhosis is a major global health burden worldwide due to its high risk of morbidity and mortality. Role of terlipressin for the management of liver cirrhosis-related complications has been recognized during recent years. This article aims to develop evidence-based clinical practice guidance on the use of terlipressin for liver cirrhosis-related complications.

METHODS

Hepatobiliary Study Group of the Chinese Society of Gastroenterology of the Chinese Medical Association and Hepatology Committee of the Chinese Research Hospital Association have invited gastroenterologists, hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, surgeons, and clinical pharmacists to formulate the clinical practice guidance based on comprehensive literature review and experts' clinical experiences.

RESULTS

Overall, 10 major guidance statements regarding efficacy and safety of terlipressin in liver cirrhosis were proposed. Terlipressin can be beneficial for the management of cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS). However, the evidence regarding the use of terlipressin in cirrhotic patients with ascites, post-paracentesis circulatory dysfunction, and bacterial infections and in those undergoing hepatic resection and liver transplantation remains insufficient. Terlipressin-related adverse events, mainly including gastrointestinal symptoms, electrolyte disturbance, and cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events, should be closely monitored.

CONCLUSION

The current clinical practice guidance supports the use of terlipressin for gastroesophageal variceal bleeding and HRS in liver cirrhosis. High-quality studies are needed to further clarify its potential effects in other liver cirrhosis-related complications.

Evaluation and management of emergencies in the patient with cirrhosis

The approach to and management of critically ill patients is one of the most versatile themes in emergency medicine. Patients with cirrhosis of the liver have characteristics that are inherent to their disease that can condition modification in acute emergency treatment. Pathophysiologic changes that occur in cirrhosis merit the implementation of an analysis as to whether the overall management of a critically ill patient can generally be applied to patients with cirrhosis of the liver or if they should be treated in a special manner. Through a review of the medical literature, the available information was examined, and the evidence found on the special management required by those patients was narratively synthesized, selecting the most representative decompensations within chronic disease that require emergency treatment.

Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: a prospective Greek multicenter study of its epidemiology, microbiology, and outcomes

Background

Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is an ominous complication of decompensated cirrhosis. This study aimed to assess several epidemiological, clinical, microbiological and outcome characteristics in Greek patients with SBP, as no solid representative nationwide data of this type was available.

Methods

During a 3-year period, 77 consecutive patients with SBP (61 male; median age: 67 years; model for end-stage liver disease [MELD] score: 20), diagnosed and followed in 5 tertiary liver units, were prospectively recruited and studied. Various prognostic factors for disease outcome were studied.

Results

Thirty-eight patients had alcohol-related cirrhosis, 17 viral hepatitis, 6 non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, 6 autoimmune liver diseases, and 10 cryptogenic cirrhosis. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was present in 23 (29.9%), whereas 10 (13%) had portal vein thrombosis. The first SBP episode at baseline was community-acquired in 53 (68.8%), while in 24 (31.1%) was hospital-acquired, with predominant symptoms abdominal pain and encephalopathy. A positive ascitic culture was documented in 36% of patients in the initial episode, with almost equal gram (+) and gram (-) pathogens, including 3 multidrug-resistant pathogens. Significant factors for 6-month survival were: higher MELD score, previous b-blocker use, lower serum albumin, higher lactate on admission and need for vasopressors, while factors for 12-month survival were MELD score and lactate. For overall survival, higher MELD score and lactate along with HCC presence were negative predictive factors.

Conclusions

MELD score, lactate, albumin, HCC and treatment with vasopressors were predictive of survival in SBP patients. In hospital-acquired SBP the prevalence of difficult-to-treat pathogens was higher.

Effects of Terlipressin on Management of Hypotensive Brain-Dead Patients Who are Potential Organ Donors: A Retrospective Study

Background: Administration of terlipressin can reverse hypotension in potential organ donors with norepinephrine-resistance. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of terlipressin on the hemodynamics, liver function, and renal function of hypotensive brain-dead patients who were potential organ donors.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted by using the ICU database of one hospital. 18 patients in a total of 294 brain-dead cases were enrolled and administered terlipressin intravenously. All physiological parameters of recruited patients were obtained at baseline, 24 and 72 h after administration, and immediately before organ procurement.

Results: Terlipressin induced significant increases in mean arterial pressure (MAP) from 69.56 ± 10.68 mm Hg (baseline) to 101.82 ± 19.27 mm Hg (immediately before organ procurement) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) from 89.78 ± 8.53 mm Hg (baseline) to 133.42 ± 26.11 mm Hg (immediately before organ procurement) in all patients. The increases in MAP were accompanied by significant decreases in heart rate (HR) from 113.56 ± 28.43 bpm (baseline) to 83.89 ± 11.70 bpm (immediately before organ procurement), which resulted in the decrease of norepinephrine dose over time from 0.8 ± 0.2 μg/kg/min (baseline) to 0.09 ± 0.02 μg/kg/min (immediately before organ procurement). There were no changes in central venous pressure, liver function including aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and bilirubin. Renal function, assessed by serum creatinine (SCr), urine output (UOP), creatinine clearance rate (CCr), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), improved significantly.

Conclusion: Our analysis of brain-dead patients with hypotension indicates that administration of terlipressin can significantly increases MAP, SBP, UOP, CCr, and eGFR, while decreases HR and Scr. Terlipressin appears to help maintain hemodynamic stability, reduce vasoactive support, and improve renal function.

Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in Cirrhosis

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a syndrome that develops in patients with acutely decompensated chronic liver disease. It is characterised by high 28-day mortality, the presence of one or more organ failures (OFs) and a variable but severe grade of systemic inflammation. Despite the peculiarity of each one, every definition proposed for ACLF recognizes it as a proper clinical entity. In this paper, we provide an overview of the diagnostic criteria proposed by the different scientific societies and the clinical characteristics of the syndrome. Established and experimental treatments are also described. Among the former, the most relevant are directed to support organ failures, treat precipitating factors and carry out early assessment for liver transplantation (LT). Further studies are needed to better clarify pathophysiology of the syndrome and discover new therapies.

Treatment of Severe Acute on Chronic Liver Failure: Management of Organ Failures, Investigational Therapeutics, and the Role of Liver Transplantation

Acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a unique syndrome that afflicts patients with chronic liver disease and results in high short-term mortality, in the setting of organ system failures. Given this prognosis, there is an urgent need to understand risk factors for this condition, for appropriate medical management of organ failures, and for selection criteria for patients who may benefit from liver transplantation (LT). Although several definitions exist to identify ACLF, all of them are designed to identify patients with uniquely high mortality. Currently, management of severe ACLF relies on best supportive care for specific organ failures. Thromboelastography should guide the evaluation of coagulation pathways and hyperfibrinolysis in ACLF; prophylactic blood product transfusions and thrombopoetin agonists are not recommended. Combination therapy with terlipressin and albumin has been shown to be efficacious in the management of the hepatorenal syndrome but should be administered with caution in patients with ACLF-3. Recent data have characterized the role of beta-blockers and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement in the management of ACLF. Investigational therapies such as extracorporeal liver support and hepatocyte stem cell therapies have shown promise; larger scale studies may better define the subpopulations of patients with ACLF mostly likely to benefit from these evolving therapeutics. Regarding LT in ACLF, data suggest that even patients with 3 or more organ system failures may have a 1-year survival >80%. However, further efforts are needed to understand the predictors of post-LT survival to facilitate LT criteria for this condition.

Critically Ill COVID-19 Patient with Chronic Liver Disease - Insights into a Comprehensive Liver Intensive Care

The novel coronavirus-related coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been relentless in disrupting and overwhelming healthcare the world over. Clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with chronic comorbidities, especially in those with metabolic syndrome, are well documented. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis patients are a special sub-group, among whom the management of COVID-19 is challenging. Understanding the pathophysiology of COVID-19 in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension improves our identification of at-risk patients for disease progression that will further help compartmentalize generalized and specialized treatment options in this special patient group. In this exhaustive review, we critically review the impact of COVID-19 on the liver and in chronic liver disease and cirrhosis patients. We further discuss common features associated with the pathophysiology of COVID-19 and cirrhosis, based on the renin-angiotensin system and deliberate current literature on guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 and extrapolate the same to the cirrhosis population to provide a concise and stepwise, evidence-based management for cirrhosis patients with severe and critical COVID-19. There are no specific management guidelines for cirrhosis patients with COVID-19 and current recommendations for treatment are as per guidelines for general population. Nevertheless, specific issues like avoiding corticosteroids in decompensated patients with variceal bleeding, suspected sepsis, high grade hepatic encephalopathy and acute kidney injury, use of early mechanical ventilation strategies in those with severe ascites and hepatopulmonary syndrome, avoidance of remdesivir in advanced liver disease, and application of liver-specific severity scores for prognostication and identification of futility need to be highlighted.

Vasopressor-Sparing Strategies in Patients with Shock: A Scoping-Review and an Evidence-Based Strategy Proposition

Despite the abundant literature on vasopressor therapy, few studies have focused on vasopressor-sparing strategies in patients with shock. We performed a scoping-review of the published studies evaluating vasopressor-sparing strategies by analyzing the results from randomized controlled trials conducted in patients with shock, with a focus on vasopressor doses and/or duration reduction. We analyzed 143 studies, mainly performed in septic shock. Our analysis demonstrated that several pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies are associated with a decrease in the duration of vasopressor therapy. These strategies are as follows: implementing a weaning strategy, vasopressin use, systemic glucocorticoid administration, beta-blockers, and normothermia. On the contrary, early goal directed therapies, including fluid therapy, oral vasopressors, vitamin C, and renal replacement therapy, are not associated with an increase in vasopressor-free days. Based on these results, we proposed an evidence-based vasopressor management strategy.

Intensive care management of acute-on-chronic liver failure

The syndrome of acute-on-chronic liver failure combines deterioration of liver function in a patient with chronic liver disease, with the development of extrahepatic organ failure and high short-term mortality. Its successful management demands a rapid and coherent response to the development of dysfunction and failure of multiple organ systems in an intensive care unit setting. This response recognises the features that distinguish it from other critical illness and addresses the complex interplay between the precipitating insult, the many organ systems involved and the disordered physiology of underlying chronic liver disease. An evidence base is building to support the approaches currently adopted and outcomes for patients with this condition are improving, but mortality remains unacceptably high. Herein, we review practical considerations in critical care management, as well as discussing key knowledge gaps and areas of controversy that require further focussed research.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure: Where do we stand?

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is defined by the rapid development of organ(s) failure(s) associated with high rates of early (28-day) mortality in patients with cirrhosis. ACLF has been categorized into three grades of increasing severity according to the nature and number of organ failures. In patients with grade 3 ACLF, 28-day mortality is >70%. While the definition of ACLF has been endorsed by European scientific societies, North American and Asian Pacific associations have proposed alternative definitions. A prognostic score called the CLIF-C ACLF score provides a more precise assessment of the prognosis of patients with ACLF. Although bacterial infections and variceal bleeding are common precipitating factors, no precipitating factor can be identified in almost 60% of patients with ACLF. There is increasing evidence that cirrhosis is a condition characterized by a systemic inflammatory state and occult infections or translocation of bacteria or bacterial products from the lumen of the GUT to the systemic circulation which could play a role in the development of ACLF. Simple and readily available variables to predict the occurrence of ACLF in patients with cirrhosis have been identified and high-risk patients need careful management. Whether prolonged administration of statins, rifaximin or albumin can prevent ACLF requires further study. Patients with organ(s) failure(s) may needed to be admitted to the ICU and there should be no hesitation in admitting patients with cirrhosis to the ICU. No benefit to survival was observed with albumin dialysis and rescue transplantation is the best option in the most severe patients. One-year post-transplant survival rates exceeding 70%-75% have been reported, including in patients with grade 3 ACLF but these patients were highly selected. Criteria have been proposed to define futile transplantation (too ill to be transplanted), but these criteria need to be refined to include age, comorbidities and frailty in addition to markers of disease severity.

Norepinephrine in Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Introduction

Most experts recommend norepinephrine as the first-line agent in septic shock. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness and safety of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Epistemonikos, as well as MEDLINE from 1966 till August 2019. Screening of full texts, evaluation for eligibility, and data extraction were done by four independent reviewers. We estimated risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) using a random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary outcomes included the number of participants who achieved the target mean arterial pressure (MAP), time to achieve the target MAP, and number of participants with all-cause 28-day mortality. The secondary outcomes included the length of stay in the intensive care unit, length of hospital stay, incidence of arrhythmia and myocardial infarction, vasopressor-free days, and number of participants with all-cause 90-day mortality.

Results

We identified 11 randomized controlled trials with a total of 4,803 participants. There was no difference in the number of participants who achieved the target MAP between those patients receiving norepinephrine and other vasopressors (RR 1.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 6.54; P = 0.640; I² = 94%; two trials, 116 participants). There was no significant difference in time to achieve the target MAP (MD −0.05; 95%, CI, −0.32 to 0.21; P = 0.690; I² = 26%; two trials, 1763 participants) and all-cause 28-day mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.02; P = 0.160; I² = 0%; seven trials, 4,139 participants). Regarding the secondary outcome, norepinephrine may significantly reduce the incidence of arrhythmia as compared to other vasopressors (RR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.97; P = 0.030; I² = 64%; six trials, 3974 participants). There was no difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction (RR 1.28; 95% CI, 0.79 to 2.09), vasopressor-free day (RR 0.46; 95% CI, −1.82 to 2.74) and all-cause 90-day mortality (RR 1.08; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.21) between norepinephrine and vasopressors.

Conclusion

In minimizing the occurrence of an arrhythmia, norepinephrine is superior to other vasopressors, making it safe to be used in septic shock. However, there was insufficient evidence concerning mortality and achievement of the target MAP outcomes.

Terlipressin has stood the test of time: Clinical overview in 2020 and future perspectives

Vasoactive drugs form the mainstay of therapy for two of the most important complications of liver disease: hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) and acute variceal bleed (AVB). With cumulative evidence supporting the use in cirrhosis, terlipressin has been recommended for the management of HRS and AVB. However, owing to the safety concerns, terlipressin was not approved by food and drug administration (FDA) until now. In this review, we discuss the pharmacology and the major practice-changing studies on the safety and efficacy of terlipressin in patients with cirrhosis particularly focusing on existing indications like AVB and HRS and reviewing new data on the expanding indications in liver disease. The references for this review were identified from PUBMED with MeSH terms such as "terlipressin," "hepatorenal syndrome," "varices, esophagal and gastric," "ascites" and "cirrhosis." Terlipressin, a synthetic analogue of vasopressin, was introduced in 1975 to overcome the adverse effects of vasopressin. Terlipressin is an effective drug for HRS reversal in patients with liver cirrhosis and acute-on-chronic liver failure. There is documented mortality benefit with terlipressin therapy in HRS and AVB. Adverse effects are common with terlipressin and need to be monitored strictly. There is some evidence to support the use of this drug in refractory ascites, hepatic hydrothorax, paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction and perioperatively during liver transplantation. However, terlipressin is not yet recommended for such indications. In conclusion, terlipressin has stood the test of time with expanding indications and clear prerequisites for clinical use. Our review warrants a fresh perspective on the efficacy and safety of terlipressin.

Non-catecholamine vasopressors in the treatment of adult patients with septic shock-evidence from meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Norepinephrine (NE) has currently been the first-choice vasopressor in treating septic shock despite generally insufficient for patients with refractory septic shock. The aim of this update meta-analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of a combination of non-catecholamine vasopressors (vasopressin/pituitrin/terlipressin/selepressin/angiotensin II) and NE versus NE in managing adult septic shock patients.

METHODS

We conducted this study of literatures published from the inception to April 30, 2020, using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases without language restriction. Randomized controlled trials comparing NE with non-catecholamine vasopressors among adult septic shock patients were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled effects of relative risk (RR) or standard mean difference (SMD) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies covering 4380 participants were finally enrolled. The combined analysis of non-catecholamine vasopressors resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in 90-day/ICU/hospital mortality except for a decreased in 28-day mortality (n = 4217; RR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.86-0.99; P = 0.02). This favorable result was subsequently verified by the subgroup analyses of low risk of bias studies (RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.84 to 0.98; P = 0.02) and catecholamine-resistant refractory shock patients group (RR, 0.84; 95% CI = 0.70-1.00; P = 0.048). The pooled analysis of non-catecholamine vasopressors showed a 14% higher success rate of shock reversal at 6 h, a 29% decreased risk of continuous renal replacement therapy, but a 51% increased risk of hyponatremia and a 2.43 times higher risk of digital ischemia. Besides, the pooled data showed that non-catecholamine vasopressors decreased heart rate (HR) (SMD, - 0.43; 95% CI - 0.66 - - 0.19; P < 0.001), serum creatinine (- 0.15; 95% CI - 0.29 - - 0.01; P = 0.04), and the length of mechanical ventilation (MV) (- 0.19; 95% CI - 0.31 - - 0.07; P < 0.01, but there was no significant difference in other parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Current pooled results suggest that the addition of NE to non-catecholamine vasopressors was associated with a marginally significant reduction in 28-day mortality. Moreover, they were able to shorten the length of MV, improved renal function, decreased HR, and increased the 6-h shock reversal success rate at the expense of increased the risk of hyponatremia and digital ischemia.

Update on diagnosis and management of sepsis in cirrhosis: Current advances

Sepsis and septic shock are catastrophic disease entities that portend high mortality in patients with cirrhosis. In cirrhosis, hemodynamic perturbations, immune dysregulation, and persistent systemic inflammation with altered gut microbiota in the background of portal hypertension enhance the risk of infections and resistance to antimicrobials. Patients with cirrhosis develop recurrent life-threatening infections that progress to multiple organ failure. The definition, pathophysiology, and treatment options for sepsis have been ever evolving. In this exhaustive review, we discuss novel advances in the understanding of sepsis, describe current and future biomarkers and scoring systems for sepsis, and delineate newer modalities and adjuvant therapies for the treatment of sepsis from existing literature to extrapolate the same concerning the management of sepsis in cirrhosis. We also provide insights into the role of gut microbiota in initiation and progression of sepsis and finally, propose a treatment algorithm for management of sepsis in patients with cirrhosis.

Clinical Efficiency of Vasopressin or Its Analogs in Comparison With Catecholamines Alone on Patients With Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Vasopressin is an efficient remedy for septic shock patients as its great capacity in promoting hemodynamic stabilization. The aim of current systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the clinical efficiency of vasopressin or its analogs with sole catecholamines on patients with septic shock.

METHODS

A systematic search of Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed online databases was performed up to 30 Oct 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing use of vasopressin or its analogs (e.g., terlipressin, selepressin) with administration of catecholamines alone.

RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs with 4,225 patients in the current study. Compared with solely use of catecholamines, administration of vasopressin or its analogs was not associated with reduced 28-day or 30-day mortality among patients with septic shock [RR=0.94 (95% CI, 0.87-1.01), P=0.08, I2 = 0%]. The result of primary endpoint remained unchanged after conducting sensitivity analysis. Despite a significantly higher risk of digital ischemia in patients receiving vasopressin or its analogs [RR=2.65 (95% CI, 1.26-5.56), P < 0.01, I2 = 48%], there was no statistical significance in the pooled estimate for other secondary outcomes, including total adverse events, arrhythmia, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiac arrest, acute mesenteric ischemia, ICU/hospital length of stay, and mechanical ventilation (MV) duration.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of vasopressin or its analogs was not associated with reduced 28-day or 30-day mortality among patients with septic shock, while an increased incidence of digital ischemia should be noted in patients receiving agonists for vasopressin receptors.

Pathophysiology and Prevention of Paracentesis-induced Circulatory Dysfunction: A Concise Review

Annually, 10% of cirrhotic patients with ascites develop refractory ascites for which large-volume paracentesis (LVP) is a frequently used therapeutic procedure. LVP, although a safe method, is associated with circulatory dysfunction in a significant percentage of patients, which is termed paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction (PICD). PICD results in faster reaccumulation of ascites, hyponatremia, renal impairment, and shorter survival. PICD is diagnosed through laboratory results, with increases of >50% of baseline plasma renin activity to a value ≥4 ng/mL/h on the fifth to sixth day after paracentesis. In this review, we discuss the pathophysiology and prevention of PICD.

Terlipressin for the treatment of septic shock in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Catecholamines are the first-line vasopressors used in patients with septic shock. However, the search for novel drug candidates is still of great importance due to the development of adrenergic hyposensitivity accompanied by a decrease in catecholamine activity. Terlipressin (TP) is a synthetic vasopressin analogue used in the management of patients with septic shock. In the current study, we aimed to compare the effects of TP and catecholamine infusion in treating septic shock patients.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by searching articles published in PUBMED, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials between inception and July 2018. We only selected randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of TP and catecholamine in adult patients with septic shock. The primary outcome was overall mortality. The secondary outcomes were the ICU length of stay, haemodynamic changes, tissue perfusion, renal function, and adverse events.

Results

A total of 9 studies with 850 participants were included in the analysis. Overall, no significant difference in mortality was observed between the TP and catecholamine groups (risk ratio(RR), 0.85 (0.70 to 1.03); P = 0.09). In patients < 60 years old, the mortality rate was lower in the TP group than in the catecholamine group (RR, 0.66 (0.50 to 0.86); P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the ICU length of stay (mean difference, MD), − 0.28 days; 95% confidence interval (CI), − 1.25 to 0.69; P = 0.58). Additionally, TP improved renal function. The creatinine level was decreased in patients who received TP therapy compared to catecholamine-treated participants (standard mean difference, SMD), − 0.65; 95% CI, − 1.09 to − 0.22; P = 0.003). No significant difference was found regarding the total adverse events (Odds Ratio(OR), 1.48(0.51 to 4.24); P = 0.47), whereas peripheral ischaemia was more common in the TP group (OR, 8.65(1.48 to 50.59); P = 0.02).

Conclusion

The use of TP was associated with reduced mortality in septic shock patients less than 60 years old. TP may also improve renal function and cause more peripheral ischaemia. PROSPERO registry: CRD42016035872.

Canadian Critical Care Society clinical practice guideline: The use of vasopressin and vasopressin analogues in critically ill adults with distributive shock

PURPOSE

Hemodynamic management of adults with distributive shock often includes the use of catecholamine-based vasoconstricting medications. It is unclear whether adding vasopressin or vasopressin analogues to catecholamine therapy is beneficial in the management of patients with distributive shock. The purpose of this guideline was to develop an evidence-based recommendation regarding the addition of vasopressin to catecholamine vasopressors in the management of adults with distributive shock.

METHODS

We summarized the evidence informing this recommendation by updating a recently published meta-analysis. Then, a multidisciplinary panel from the Canadian Critical Care Society developed the recommendation using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

RESULTS

The updated systematic review identified 25 randomized controlled trials including a total of 3,737 patients with distributive shock. Compared with catecholamine therapy alone, the addition of vasopressin or its analogues was associated with a reduced risk of mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 0.99; low certainty), reduced risk of atrial fibrillation (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.88; high certainty), and increased risk of digital ischemia (RR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.24 to 5.25; moderate certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

After considering certainty in the evidence, values and preferences, cost, and other factors, the expert guideline panel suggests using vasopressin or vasopressin analogues in addition to catecholamines over catecholamine vasopressors alone for the management of distributive shock (conditional recommendation, low certainty evidence).

Terlipressin Is Superior to Noradrenaline in the Management of Acute Kidney Injury in Acute on Chronic Liver Failure

Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) carries a high short-term mortality in patients with cirrhosis and acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF). Terlipressin and noradrenaline are routinely used in cirrhosis with HRS and have been found to be equally effective. There are no data comparing the efficacy of terlipressin with noradrenaline in ACLF patients with HRS. In an open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT), consecutive patients with ACLF diagnosed with HRS acute kidney injury (AKI) were randomized to albumin with infusion of terlipressin (2-12 mg/day; n = 60) or noradrenaline (0.5-3.0 mg/h; n = 60). Response to treatment, course of AKI, and outcome were studied. Baseline characteristics, including AKI stage and sepsis-related HRS-AKI, were comparable between groups. Compared to noradrenaline, terlipressin achieved greater day 4 (26.1% vs. 11.7%; P = 0.03) and day 7 (41.7% vs. 20%; P = 0.01) response. Reversal of HRS was also better with terlipressin (40% vs. 16.7%; P = 0.004), with a significant reduction in the requirement of renal replacement therapy (RRT; 56.6% vs. 80%; P = 0.006) and improved 28-day survival (48.3% vs. 20%; P = 0.001). Adverse events limiting use of drugs were higher with terlipressin than noradrenaline (23.3% vs. 8.3%; P = 0.02), but were reversible. On multivariate analysis, high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD; odds ratio [OR], 1.10; confidence interval [CI] = 1.009-1.20; P = 0.03) and noradrenaline compared to terlipressin (OR, 3.05; CI = 1.27-7.33; P = 0.01) predicted nonresponse to therapy. Use of noradrenaline compared to terlipressin was also predictive of higher mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.08; CI = 1.32-3.30; P = 0.002). Conclusion: AKI in ACLF carries a high mortality. Infusion of terlipressin gives earlier and higher response than noradrenaline, with improved survival in ACLF patients with HRS-AKI.

Terlipressin Versus Norepinephrine for Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: The meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of terlipressin compared with norepinephrine for septic shock.

Materials and Methods: The relevant studies from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase were searched by two independent investigators. A variety of keywords were used to search the studies. Stata software (version 11.0, Stata Corp LP, College Station, TX, USA) was used for statistical analysis.

Results: A total of six studies were identified and incorporated into the meta-analysis. The results showed that there was no difference for 28-day mortality (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = [0.85,1.15], P = 0.849), AE (RR = 2.54, 95% CI = [0.58,11.08], P = 0.214), and MAP (SMD = -0.10, 95% CI = [-0.35,0.14], P = 0.405), OI, urinary output, Scr, total bilirubin, ALT, and AST between TP group and NE group. While TP could decrease HR at 24 and 48 h compared with NE.

Conclusions: Current results suggest that terlipressin showed no added survival benefit for septic shock when compared with norepinephrine, while terlipressin could decrease heart rate in the late phase of septic shock compared with norepinephrine without further liver and kidney injury.

Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019128743). Available online at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42019128743.

Sepsis in Patients With Cirrhosis Awaiting Liver Transplantation: New Trends and Management

Bacterial infections are more frequent and severe in patients with advanced liver disease and, therefore, in liver transplant candidates. The increased risk of infection in these patients parallels the severity of the immune dysfunction associated with cirrhosis, which is related to systemic inflammation and progressive immunodeficiency. Other factors contribute to this risk, such as genetic polymorphisms, proton pump inhibitor overuse, the numerous invasive procedures and hospitalizations these patients go through, or the immunosuppressive effects of malnutrition or alcohol abuse. Bacterial infections have a great impact on disease progression and significantly increase mortality rates before and after liver transplantation. Mechanisms leading to organ failure in sepsis are associated not only with the hemodynamic derangement but also with an excessive inflammatory response triggered by infection. Furthermore, prophylactic and empirical antibiotic treatment strategies in patients with cirrhosis are being modified according to the growing prevalence of multidrug-resistant bacteria in the past decade. Also, new criteria have been introduced for the diagnosis of sepsis and septic shock. These new definitions have been validated in patients with cirrhosis and show a better accuracy to predict in-hospital mortality than previous criteria based on systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Accurate prophylaxis and early identification and treatment of bacterial infections are key to reducing the burden of sepsis in patients with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line vasopressors for the treatment of septic shock

PURPOSE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of escalating doses of norepinephrine or norepinephrine plus the adjunctive use of vasopressin or angiotensin II as a second-line vasopressor for septic shock.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Decision tree analysis was performed to compare costs and outcomes associated with norepinephrine monotherapy or the two adjunctive second-line vasopressors. Short- and long-term outcomes modeled included ICU survival and lifetime quality-adjusted-life-years (QALY) gained. Costs were modeled from a payer's perspective, with a willingness-to-pay threshold set at $100,000/unit gained. One-way (tornado diagrams) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Adjunctive vasopressin was the most cost-effective therapy, and dominated both norepinephrine monotherapy and adjunctive angiotensin II by producing higher ICU survival at less cost. For the lifetime horizon, while norepinephrine monotherapy was least expensive, adjunctive vasopressin was the most cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,762 / QALY gained. Although adjunctive angiotensin II produced more QALYs compared to norepinephrine monotherapy, it was dominated in the long-term evaluation by second-line vasopressin. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated model robustness and medication costs were not significant drivers of model results.

CONCLUSIONS

Vasopressin is the most cost-effective second-line vasopressor in both the short- and long-term evaluations. Vasopressor price is a minor contributor to overall cost.

Combination era, using combined vasopressors showed benefits in treating septic shock patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Septic shock is one of the major healthcare problems, affecting millions of people around the world every year. The object of this study is to find the best kind of regimen of vasopressors treatment in septic shock.

Methods

The PubMed, and the Web of Science were used to find the included studies. Stata 15.1 was performed to this systemic review and network meta-analysis.

Results

After searching and screening the articles, finally we included articles about 31 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 11 arms (dopamine, dopexamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, norepinephrine + dobutamine, norepinephrine + dopexamine, norepinephrine + epinephrine, norepinephrine + vasopressin, phenylephrine, terlipressin, vasopressin) and total 5,928 patients with septic shock. Compared with dopamine, the regimens (epinephrine, norepinephrine, norepinephrine + dobutamine, and vasopressin) have significantly lower 28-day mortality. Ranking the regimens in the order of estimated probabilities of each treatment by using the network meta-analysis for 28-day mortality, the result showed that norepinephrine + dopexamine was the best one (57.3%), followed by norepinephrine + epinephrine (14.8%), norepinephrine + dobutamine (10.9%), dopexamine (11.2%), terlipressin (9.8%), norepinephrine + vasopressin (2.4%), phenylephrine (1.2%), epinephrine (1.0%), vasopressin (0.5%), norepinephrine (0.0%), and dopamine (0.0%). In addition, for the results of arrhythmia and increased heart rate, the combination regimens groups did not showed inferiority to other single regimen groups.

Conclusions

Single dopamine had significantly higher 28d mortality. Combination regimens of vasopressors accounted for the best three therapeutic regimens. In treating patients with septic shock, using combining regimens probably gets more benefits.

Comparative efficacy of vasoactive medications in patients with septic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Catecholamines, especially norepinephrine, are the most frequently used vasopressors for treating patients with septic shock. During the recent decades, terlipressin, vasopressin V1A agonist, and even Ca²⁺ sensitizer were increasingly used by physicians. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of such different kinds of vasoactive medications on mortality among patients with septic shock.

Methods

Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials updated to February 22, 2018. A network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of different types of vasoactive medications. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS), and adverse events were also assessed.

Results

A total of 43 trials with 5767 patients assessing 17 treatment modalities were included. Treatments ranking based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve values from largest to smallest were NE/DB 85.9%, TP 75.1%, NE/EP 74.6%, PI 74.1%, EP 72.5%, VP 66.1%, NE 59.8%, PE 53.0%, DA 42.1%, DX 38.2%, SP 27.0%, PA 24.3%, EX 22.8%, LE 21.5%, and DB 13.3% for 28-day mortality. Treatments ranking for ICU mortality were TP/NE 86.4%, TP 80.3%, TP/DB/NE 65.7%, VP/NE 62.8%, NE 57.4%, VP 56.5%, PE 48.4%, DA 33.0%, PA 27.5%, LE 22.1%, and DB 9.9%. The incidence of myocardial infarction was reported with NE/EP 3.33% (n = 1 of 30), followed by EP 3.11% (n = 5 of 161), and then VP 3.10% (n = 19 of 613), NE 3.03% (n = 43 of 1417), DA 2.21% (n = 19 of 858), NE/DB 2.01% (n = 4 of 199), LE 1.16% (n = 3 of 258), and PA 0.39% (n = 1 of 257). The incidence of arrhythmia was reported with DA 26.01% (n = 258 of 992), followed by EP 22.98% (n = 37 of 161), and then NE/DB 20.60% (n = 41 of 199), NE/EP 20.0% (n = 6 of 30), NE 8.33% (n = 127 of 1525), LE 5.81% (n = 15 of 258), PA 2.33% (n = 6 of 257), and VP 1.67% (n = 10 of 600).

Conclusions

The use of norepinephrine plus dobutamine was associated with lower 28-day mortality for septic shock, especially among patients with lower cardiac output.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-019-2427-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The effects and safety of vasopressin receptor agonists in patients with septic shock: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects and safety of vasopressin receptor agonists in patients with septic shock.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of vasopressin receptor agonists in septic shock patients. Two reviewers performed literature selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation independently. The primary outcome was mortality. And secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and incidence of adverse events. In addition, a trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were eligible for meta-analysis. The results showed vasopressin receptor agonists use was associated with reduced mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.99; I2 = 0%). Nevertheless, they had no significant effects on ICU length of stay (mean deviation (MD) - 0.08, 95% CI, - 0.68 to 0.52, I2 = 0%) and duration of mechanical ventilation (MD - 0.58, 95% CI - 1.47 to 0.31, I2 = 57%). Additionally, there was no significant difference in total adverse events between two groups (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.90, I2 = 57%), but vasopressin receptor agonists administration could significantly increase the risk of digital ischemia (RR 4.85, 95% CI 2.81 to 8.39, I2 = 26%). Finally, there was no statistical difference of cardiovascular events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.57, I2 = 1%), arrhythmia (0.77, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.23, I2 = 23%), mesenteric ischemia (0.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.55, I2 = 0%), diarrhea (2.47, 95% CI 0.77 to 7.96, I2 = 49%), cerebrovascular events (1.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 10.54, I2 = 0%), and hyponatremia (1.47, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.55, I2 = 0%) between two groups. Egger's test showed there was no significant publication bias among studies (P = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of vasopressin might result in reduced mortality in patients with septic shock. An increased risk of digital ischemia must be taken into account.

Terlipressin for septic shock patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled study

Background

Catecholamines are commonly used in septic shock but face limitations of their hypo-responsiveness and adverse events due to high dose. Terlipressin is a synthetic vasopressin analog with greater selectivity for the V1-receptor. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of terlipressin in septic shock.

Methods

We searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database from inception up to July 15, 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they reported data on any of the predefined outcomes in patients with septic shock and managed with terlipressin or any catecholamines. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were explored.

Results

Ten studies with 928 patients were included. Despite the shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, use of terlipressin did not reduce the risk of mortality (RR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.05; I² = 0%; P = 0.28) when compared with control. This finding was confirmed by further subgroup and sensitivity analyses. In addition, lactate clearance, length of stay in ICU or hospital, total adverse events, digital ischemia, and arrhythmia were also similar between groups, while terlipressin was associated with shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and less norepinephrine requirements.

Conclusions

Current results suggest terlipressin did not show added survival benefit in septic shock therapy when compared with catecholamines.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40560-019-0369-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Novel Vasopressors in the Treatment of Vasodilatory Shock: A Systematic Review of Angiotensin II, Selepressin, and Terlipressin

Study Objective:

Vasodilatory shock is the most common type of shock. Catecholamine vasopressors are the cornerstone of hemodynamic therapy but carry risks. Angiotensin II (AT2) was recently approved, and other novel agents (selepressin and terlipressin) are under investigation and used outside the United States (terlipressin). We performed a systematic review to summarize the efficacy and safety of these novel vasopressors and to offer guidance on their appropriate use.

Design:

Systematic review of controlled trials.

Methods:

Numerous databases were searched using terms related to angiotensin II, selepressin, terlipressin, vasopressor, and shock. Twenty-one citations, including 16 prospective comparative trials and 5 post hoc analyses reporting effects of AT2, selepressin, and terlipressin, were reviewed for data on outcomes related to hemodynamic measures, mortality, severity and duration of illness, concomitant vasopressor utilization, and adverse effects. Findings from eligible literature are described qualitatively using Cochrane methods.

Results:

Fourteen controlled trials were assessed after exclusion of 2 dated trials of a distinct AT2 formulation. Trials are limited for AT2 (n = 2) and selepressin (n = 1), while terlipressin was investigated in 11 small trials. Overall, the trials have an unclear risk of bias. Most report mean arterial pressure (MAP) as primary end point, and all indicate novel vasopressors increase MAP compared to placebo and to a similar degree as with catecholamine vasopressors. Mortality findings are preliminary, as they have been limited to specific subgroups in trials of terlipressin and post hoc analyses of one trial of AT2. Trials reported safety concerns for each agent including thromboembolism with AT2 and ischemia with terlipressin/selepressin.

Conclusion:

In this systematic review, controlled trials of novel vasopressors in treatment of vasodilatory shock were limited and of low quality. Angiotensin II, selepressin, and terlipressin appear to significantly increase MAP, but further study is required, particularly for selepressin, to determine their safety, efficacy, and role in treatment of vasodilatory shock.

Management of acute-on-chronic liver failure: an algorithmic approach

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a distinct syndrome of liver failure in a patient with chronic liver disease presenting with jaundice, coagulopathy and ascites and/or hepatic encephalopathy, developing following an acute hepatic insult and associated with high 28-day mortality. The definition though lacks global consensus, excludes patients with known distinct entities such as acute liver failure and those with end-stage liver disease. The initial Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) because of cytokine storm in relation to acute insult and/or subsequent development of sepsis due to immunoparalysis leads to extrahepatic organ failure. These cascades of events progress through a 'Golden Window' period of about 7 days, subsequent to which majority of the patients develop complications, such as sepsis and extrahepatic organ failure. Prevention of sepsis, support of organs and management of organ failure (commonly hepatic, renal, cerebral, coagulation) and early referral for transplant is crucial. The APASL ACLF research consortium (AARC) liver failure score is a dynamic prognostic model for management decisions and is superior to existing models. Aggressive multidisciplinary approach can lead to a transplant-free survival in nearly half of the cases. The present review provides an algorithmic approach to management of organ failure, sepsis prevention, use of dynamic prognostic models for management decision and is aimed to improve the skills for managing and improving the outcomes of such critically ill patients.

Association of Vasopressin Plus Catecholamine Vasopressors vs Catecholamines Alone With Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Distributive Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Vasopressin is an alternative to catecholamine vasopressors for patients with distributive shock-a condition due to excessive vasodilation, most frequently from severe infection. Blood pressure support with a noncatecholamine vasopressor may reduce stimulation of adrenergic receptors and decrease myocardial oxygen demand. Atrial fibrillation is common with catecholamines and is associated with adverse events, including mortality and increased length of stay (LOS).

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether treatment with vasopressin + catecholamine vasopressors compared with catecholamine vasopressors alone was associated with reductions in the risk of adverse events.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to February 2018. Experts were asked and meta-registries searched to identify ongoing trials.

STUDY SELECTION

Pairs of reviewers identified randomized clinical trials comparing vasopressin in combination with catecholamine vasopressors to catecholamines alone for patients with distributive shock.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers abstracted data independently. A random-effects model was used to combine data.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was atrial fibrillation. Other outcomes included mortality, requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT), myocardial injury, ventricular arrhythmia, stroke, and LOS in the intensive care unit and hospital. Measures of association are reported as risk ratios (RRs) for clinical outcomes and mean differences for LOS.

RESULTS

Twenty-three randomized clinical trials were identified (3088 patients; mean age, 61.1 years [14.2]; women, 45.3%). High-quality evidence supported a lower risk of atrial fibrillation associated with vasopressin treatment (RR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.88]; risk difference [RD], -0.06 [95% CI, -0.13 to 0.01]). For mortality, the overall RR estimate was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.97; RD, -0.04 [95% CI, -0.07 to 0.00]); however, when limited to trials at low risk of bias, the RR estimate was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.11). The overall RR estimate for RRT was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08; RD, -0.07 [95% CI, -0.12 to -0.01]). However, in an analysis limited to trials at low risk of bias, RR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.92, P for interaction = .77). There were no significant differences in the pooled risks for other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the addition of vasopressin to catecholamine vasopressors compared with catecholamines alone was associated with a lower risk of atrial fibrillation. Findings for secondary outcomes varied.