Is It Time to Beta Block the Septic Patient?

Beta-blockers in septic shock: What is new?

The use of beta(β)-blockers during septic shock aimed at countering peripheral adrenergic stress may be justified by the early reduction in deleterious effects resulting from sympathetic overactivation, and could improve the prognosis of patients in septic shock. Animal studies have demonstrated either a maintenance or increase in cardiac output (CO) despite the decrease in heart rate (HR) associated with improved myocardial performance. The mechanism by which β-blockers alter hemodynamics in septic shock is debated; however, preclinical and clinical data show that β-blockers are safe when started at a low dose. Recent publications (2019-2021) on adrenergic β1 receptor antagonists used in septic shock indicate that esmolol and landiolol should not be used in the early phase. While there is no optimal timing for their administration, a minimum of 12 h after the initiation of vasopressor therapy in stabilized euvolemic patients is a reasonable option. Patients should have a normal cardiac function, although a slight depression is compatible with landiolol use under hemodynamic monitoring. Slow titration in patients who remain tachycardic is preferable to rapid titration. When used to decrease HR, landiolol is also effective in reducing the incidence of new arrhythmias. Results of a well-performed and well-powered randomized controlled trial (RCT) demonstrating a positive effect on survival - or at least on hard surrogates such as the incidence/duration of organ failure - are pending.

Effects of esmolol infusion on cardiovascular parameters and quality of general anaesthesia in younger and older patients

Background: Esmolol is a cardioselective b-adrenergic antagonist that is used during general anaesthesia to blunt the sympathetic reflex tachycardia and hypertension. The aim of the study was to investigate whether the potential beneficial and adverse effects of esmolol differ depending on the patient age. Methods: A total of 50 ASA I/II patients scheduled for elective upper abdominal surgery were divided in two groups: younger (patients aged up to 35 years) and older (patients older than 65). After premedication with Diazepam, they were infused with esmolol during the first 5 min at a rate of 0.3 mg/kg/min and 0.1 mg/kg/min thereafter. Anaesthesia was induced with thiopental sodium 3-5 mg/kg intravenously (iv) and fentanyl 1.5 µg/kg IV. Tracheal intubation was facilitated with suxamethonium 1-2 mg/kg IV. Long-term neuromuscular blockade was induced with pancuronium bromide 0.07 mg/kg IV bolus and maintained with incremental IV boluses of 0.01 mg/ kg. Inhalational anaesthesia was maintained with a mixture of oxygen and nitrous oxide (O2 /N2 O) 2 : 1. Results: The systolic blood pressure remained constant during the intubation phase in the group of older patients, at the same time being around 89 % of the pre-induction values, while in younger patients it rose up to 100 %. During the same phase of anaesthesia, the diastolic blood pressure in older patients remained at about 91 %, while in younger patients it rose up to 107 % of the pre-induction values. The consumption of drugs and the speed and quality of the recovery from anaesthesia did not differ between the two groups of patients. Conclusion: Infusion of esmolol contributes to the concept of general balanced anaesthesia in elective patients scheduled for upper abdominal surgery equally in younger and older patients.

Serious infection may systemically increase noradrenergic signaling and produce psychological effects

Serious infection elicits inflammatory processes that act through a range of molecular pathways, including cytokine signaling. It is not established however that noradrenaline (NA), a widely distributed neurotransmitter in the brain that is also a principal output molecule of the sympathetic nervous system, can produce psychological effects associated with infection. This paper puts forth the hypothesis that through neural-immune crosstalk, serious infection increases noradrenergic signaling, both in the central nervous system and in peripheral organs. In this manner, elevated noradrenergic transmission may help produce basic symptoms of infection such as fever, fatigue, aches and pains (including headache), nausea, and loss of appetite. NA may also promote cognitive impairment, major depression, unipolar mania, and even epileptic seizures in some cases. The paper focuses on three major types of infection: influenza (viral), tuberculosis (bacterial), malaria (parasitic), while also summarizing the potential relationship between NA and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Four lines of evidence are used to test association between NA and influenza, tuberculosis, and malaria: direct measures of NA and its metabolites; and incidence of hypertension, bipolar mania, and epileptic seizures, since the latter three conditions may be associated with elevated NA. In addition, heart rate variability data are examined with respect to a number of infectious diseases, since those data provide information on sympathetic nervous system activity. While the data do not unequivocally support elevated noradrenergic signaling promoting psychological symptomatology with infection, many studies are consistent with this view.

Central venous pressure value can assist in adjusting norepinephrine dosage after the initial resuscitation of septic shock

BACKGROUND

New definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3) were published, but the strategy to adjust vasopressors after the initial guidelines is still unclear. We conducted a retrospective observational study to explore dosing strategy of norepinephrine (NE).

METHODS

A retrospective observational study in the 15-bed mixed intensive care unit of a tertiary care university hospital. The study was performed on septic shock patients after 30 mL/kg fluid resuscitation and mean arterial pressure (MAP) levels reached >65 mmHg requiring NE. We divided patients into NE dosage increase and decrease groups, and collected hemodynamic and tissue perfusion parameters before (T1) and after (T2) adjusting NE dosage.

RESULTS

In both NE increase and decrease groups, central venous pressure (CVP) and pressure difference between usual MAP and MAP (dMAP) at the T1 time point were associated with lactate clearance. In groups LC HM (CVP <10 mmHg, dMAP > 0 mmHg) and HC HM (CVP ≥ 10 mmHg, dMAP > 0 mmHg), decrease in NE dosage decreased lactate level, while in group HC LM (CVP ≥ 10 mmHg, dMAP ≤ 0 mmHg), both increase and decrease in NE dosage led to increase lactate level.

CONCLUSIONS

After patients with septic shock (Sepsis-3) resuscitated to reach the initial recovery target goals, combination of CVP and MAP refer to usual levels can help doctors make the next decision to make the correct choice of increase NE dosage or decrease NE dosage.

Immunologic adverse reactions of β-blockers and the skin

β-Blockers are a widely utilised class of medication. They have been in use for a variety of systemic disorders including hypertension, heart failure and intention tremors. Their use in dermatology has garnered growing interest with the discovery of their therapeutic effects in the treatment of haemangiomas, their potential positive effects in wound healing, Kaposi sarcoma, melanoma and pyogenic granuloma, and, more recently, pemphigus. Since β-blockers are deployed in a variety of disorders, which have cutaneous co-morbidities such as psoriasis, their pertinence to dermatologists cannot be overstated. Likewise, β-blockers, like any other drug category, carry risks of side effects, some of which are dermatologic. These include triggering and exacerbation of psoriasis, psoriatic and rheumatoid arthritis, anaphylaxis, contact dermatitis, occupational contact dermatitis, Raynaud's disease, alopecia, lichen planus-like drug eruption, hyperhydrosis and vitiligo. While recent articles have focussed on the positive uses of β-blockers, it may also be wise to call our attention to the potential dermatologic adverse effects that may follow β-blocker use, as well as possible therapeutic approaches to these. This short review will focus on those dermatoses resulting from β-blocker use, which have an immunologic basis.

β-bloquants dans la prise en charge du choc septique

Les adrénorécepteurs α et en particulier β sont les principales cibles de l’adrénaline et de la noradrénaline libérées par le système sympathique activé. Durant le choc septique, la dysautonomie est une stimulation prolongée à un haut niveau d’intensité du système nerveux sympathique à l’origine d’une altération de la contractilité, de la vasoréactivité et d’une immunodépression. Ainsi, l’administration précoce d’un traitement β-bloquant lors du choc septique pourrait pondérer les effets délétères de cette surstimulation sympathique. Néanmoins, si les preuves expérimentales sont en faveur de cette approche, l’accumulation des preuves cliniques reste encore insuffisante.

Hemodynamic response to β-blockers in severe sepsis and septic shock: A review of current literature

The administration of β-blockers in patients with sepsis is a trending topic in intensive care medicine since the landmark study by Morelli and colleagues, showing a striking decrease in 28-day mortality compared to standard care. While the available evidence suggests that the use of β-blockers in septic shock is safe, the effects on hemodynamics are controversial. In this paper, we review the effect of β-blockade in septic shock on hemodynamics from animal models to critically ill patients.

Low-Dose Landiolol Reduces Heart Rate and Cardiac Oxygen Consumption Without Compromising Initial Hemodynamic Resuscitation in a Canine Model of Endotoxin Shock

In septic shock, it is not known whether β-blocker can be used to reduce heart rate (HR) safely during the initial phase of hemodynamic resuscitation. The purpose of this study was to experimentally investigate the effects of low-dose landiolol, a β-blocker, on initial hemodynamic resuscitation in dogs with endotoxin shock. In 13 anesthetized dogs [n = 7 in control (CT) group, n = 6 in β-blockade (BB) group], after endotoxin shock was induced by intravenous infusion of lipopolysaccharide (4 mg kg), we started hemodynamic resuscitation to restore mean arterial pressure (AP) and cardiac output (CO) by infusing noradrenaline (NA) and Ringer acetate solution (RiA). During 4 h of hemodynamic resuscitation, dose of NA and RiA were automatically titrated with use of a computer-controlled drug infusion system that we developed previously. In BB group, landiolol was administered at a low-dose range (1-10 μg kg min) to lower HR to lower than 140 bpm. Hemodynamic resuscitation using the system restored AP to 70 mmHg and CO to greater than 90% of baseline level similarly in both groups. Throughout resuscitation, HR and indices of cardiac contractility were significantly lower in BB group than in CT group. However, there were no significant intergroup differences in the dose of NA and RiA. During First 2 h of resuscitation, cardiac oxygen consumption was significantly lower in BB group than in CT group. In conclusion, low-dose landiolol may reduce HR without compromising initial hemodynamic resuscitation in septic shock. To clearly establish this, large-size randomized study using animal models more relevant to septic shock is needed.

Landiolol for managing atrial fibrillation in intensive care

Landiolol is an injectable ultrashort acting beta-blocker with high beta1 selectivity indicated for heart rate control of atrial fibrillation in the emergency and critical care setting. Accordingly, landiolol is associated with a significantly reduced risk of arterial hypotension and negative inotropic effects. Based on this particular profile along with the clinical experience in Japan for more than a decade landiolol represents a promising agent for the management of elevated heart rate and atrial fibrillation in intensive care patients even with catecholamine requirements. This article provides a review and perspective of landiolol for heart rate control in intensive care patients based on the current literature.

β-Blockers, heart disease and COPD: current controversies and uncertainties

Treating people with cardiovascular disease and COPD causes significant clinician anxiety. β-Blockers save lives in people with heart disease, specifically postinfarction and heart failure. COPD and heart disease frequently coexist and people with both disorders have particularly high cardiovascular mortality. There are concerns about giving β-blockers to people with concomitant COPD that include reduced basal lung function, diminished effectiveness of emergency β-agonist treatments, reduced benefit of long-acting β-agonist treatment and difficulty in discriminating between asthma and COPD. β-Blockers appear to reduce lung function in both the general population and those with COPD because they are poorly selective for cardiac β1-adrenoceptors over respiratory β2-adrenoceptors, and studies have shown that higher β-agonist doses are required to overcome the β-blockade. COPD and cardiovascular disease share similar environmental risks and both disease states have high adrenergic and inflammatory activation. β-Blockers may therefore be particularly helpful in reducing cardiovascular events in this high-risk group. They may reduce the background inflammatory state, and inhibit the tachycardia and hypertension associated with both the endogenous adrenaline and high-dose β-agonist treatment associated with acute exacerbations of COPD. Some studies have suggested no increased and, at times, reduced mortality in patients with COPD taking β-blockers for heart disease. However, these are all observational studies and there are no randomised controlled trials. Potential ways to improve this dilemma include the development of highly β1-selective β-blockers or the use of non-β-blocking heart rate reducing agents, such as ivabridine, if these are proven to be beneficial in randomised controlled trials.

Heart rate reduction with esmolol is associated with improved arterial elastance in patients with septic shock: a prospective observational study

PURPOSE

Ventricular-arterial (V-A) decoupling decreases myocardial efficiency and is exacerbated by tachycardia that increases static arterial elastance (Ea). We thus investigated the effects of heart rate (HR) reduction on Ea in septic shock patients using the beta-blocker esmolol. We hypothesized that esmolol improves Ea by positively affecting the tone of arterial vessels and their responsiveness to HR-related changes in stroke volume (SV).

METHODS

After at least 24 h of hemodynamic optimization, 45 septic shock patients, with an HR ≥95 bpm and requiring norepinephrine to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥65 mmHg, received a titrated esmolol infusion to maintain HR between 80 and 94 bpm. Ea was calculated as MAP/SV. All measurements, including data from right heart catheterization, echocardiography, arterial waveform analysis, and norepinephrine requirements, were obtained at baseline and at 4 h after commencing esmolol.

RESULTS

Esmolol reduced HR in all patients and this was associated with a decrease in Ea (2.19 ± 0.77 vs. 1.72 ± 0.52 mmHg l(-1)), arterial dP/dt max (1.08 ± 0.32 vs. 0.89 ± 0.29 mmHg ms(-1)), and a parallel increase in SV (48 ± 14 vs. 59 ± 18 ml), all p < 0.05. Cardiac output and ejection fraction remained unchanged, whereas norepinephrine requirements were reduced (0.7 ± 0.7 to 0.58 ± 0.5 µg kg(-1) min(-1), p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

HR reduction with esmolol effectively improved Ea while allowing adequate systemic perfusion in patients with severe septic shock who remained tachycardic despite standard volume resuscitation. As Ea is a major determinant of V-A coupling, its reduction may contribute to improving cardiovascular efficiency in septic shock.