Change in Myocardial Contractility in Response to Treatment with Norepinephrine in Septic Shock

Running from a Bear: How We Teach Vasopressors, Adrenoreceptors, and Shock

Vasopressors are widely used in the management of shock among critically ill patients. The physiology of vasopressors and adrenoreceptors and their effects on end organs therefore represent important, high-yield topics for learners in the critical care environment. In this report, we describe our approach to teaching this core concept using the stereotypical human physiologic response when running from a bear, in the context of the relevant supporting literature. We use escaping from a threatening predator as a lens to describe the end-organ effects of activating adrenoreceptors together with the effects of endogenous and exogenous catecholamines and vasopressors. After reviewing this foundational physiology, we transition to the clinical environment, reviewing the pathophysiology of various shock states. We then consolidate our teaching by integrating the physiology of adrenoreceptors with the pathophysiology of shock to understand the appropriateness of each therapy to various shock phenotypes. We emphasize to learners the importance of generating a hypothesis about a patient's physiology, testing that hypothesis with an intervention, and then revising the hypothesis as needed, a critical component in the management of critically ill patients.

Alternatives to norepinephrine in septic shock: Which agents and when?

Vasopressors are the cornerstone of hemodynamic management in patients with septic shock. Norepinephrine is currently recommended as the first-line vasopressor in these patients. In addition to norepinephrine, there are many other potent vasopressors with specific properties and/or advantages that act on vessels through different pathways after activation of specific receptors; these could be of interest in patients with septic shock. Dopamine is no longer recommended in patients with septic shock because its use is associated with a higher rate of cardiac arrhythmias without any benefit in terms of mortality or organ dysfunction. Epinephrine is currently considered as a second-line vasopressor therapy, because of the higher rate of associated metabolic and cardiac adverse effects compared with norepinephrine; however, it may be considered in settings where norepinephrine is unavailable or in patients with refractory septic shock and myocardial dysfunction. Owing to its potential effects on mortality and renal function and its norepinephrine-sparing effect, vasopressin is recommended as second-line vasopressor therapy instead of norepinephrine dose escalation in patients with septic shock and persistent arterial hypotension. However, two synthetic analogs of vasopressin, namely, terlipressin and selepressin, have not yet been employed in the management of patients with septic shock, as their use is associated with a higher rate of digital ischemia. Finally, angiotensin Ⅱ also appears to be a promising vasopressor in patients with septic shock, especially in the most severe cases and/or in patients with acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy. Nevertheless, due to limited evidence and concerns regarding safety (which remains unclear because of potential adverse effects related to its marked vasopressor activity), angiotensin Ⅱ is currently not recommended in patients with septic shock. Further studies are needed to better define the role of these vasopressors in the management of these patients.

Current practice and evolving concepts in septic shock resuscitation

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