The effects of acute renal denervation on kidney perfusion and metabolism in experimental septic shock

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities 2023

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Experimental models of acute kidney injury for translational research

Preclinical models of human disease provide powerful tools for therapeutic discovery but have limitations. This problem is especially apparent in the field of acute kidney injury (AKI), in which clinical trial failures have been attributed to inaccurate modelling performed largely in rodents. Multidisciplinary efforts such as the Kidney Precision Medicine Project are now starting to identify molecular subtypes of human AKI. In addition, over the past decade, there have been developments in human pluripotent stem cell-derived kidney organoids as well as zebrafish, rodent and large animal models of AKI. These organoid and AKI models are being deployed at different stages of preclinical therapeutic development. However, the traditionally siloed, preclinical investigator-driven approaches that have been used to evaluate AKI therapeutics to date rarely account for the limitations of the model systems used and have given rise to false expectations of clinical efficacy in patients with different AKI pathophysiologies. To address this problem, there is a need to develop more flexible and integrated approaches, involving teams of investigators with expertise in a range of different model systems, working closely with clinical investigators, to develop robust preclinical evidence to support more focused interventions in patients with AKI.

Renal Denervation Exacerbates LPS- and Antibody-induced Acute Kidney Injury, but Protects from Pyelonephritis in Mice

BACKGROUND

Renal denervation (RDN) is an invasive intervention to treat drug-resistant arterial hypertension. Its therapeutic value is contentious. Here we examined the effects of RDN on inflammatory and infectious kidney disease models in mice.

METHODS

Mice were unilaterally or bilaterally denervated, or sham operated, then three disease models were induced: nephrotoxic nephritis (NTN, a model for crescentic GN), pyelonephritis, and acute endotoxemic kidney injury (as a model for septic kidney injury). Analytical methods included measurement of renal glomerular filtration, proteinuria, flow cytometry of renal immune cells, immunofluorescence microscopy, and three-dimensional imaging of optically cleared kidney tissue by light-sheet fluorescence microscopy followed by algorithmic analysis.

RESULTS

Unilateral RDN increased glomerular filtration in denervated kidneys, but decreased it in the contralateral kidneys. In the NTN model, more nephritogenic antibodies were deposited in glomeruli of denervated kidneys, resulting in stronger inflammation and injury in denervated compared with contralateral nondenervated kidneys. Also, intravenously injected LPS increased neutrophil influx and inflammation in the denervated kidneys, both after unilateral and bilateral RDN. When we induced pyelonephritis in bilaterally denervated mice, both kidneys contained less bacteria and neutrophils. In unilaterally denervated mice, pyelonephritis was attenuated and intrarenal neutrophil numbers were lower in the denervated kidneys. The nondenervated contralateral kidneys harbored more bacteria, even compared with sham-operated mice, and showed the strongest influx of neutrophils.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that the increased perfusion and filtration in denervated kidneys can profoundly influence concomitant inflammatory diseases. Renal deposition of circulating nephritic material is higher, and hence antibody- and endotoxin-induced kidney injury was aggravated in mice. Pyelonephritis was attenuated in denervated murine kidneys, because the higher glomerular filtration facilitated better flushing of bacteria with the urine, at the expense of contralateral, nondenervated kidneys after unilateral denervation.

β-Blockade attenuates renal blood flow in experimental endotoxic shock by reducing perfusion pressure

Clinical data suggests that heart rate (HR) control with selective β1-blockers may improve cardiac function during septic shock. However, it seems counterintuitive to start β-blocker infusion in a shock state when organ blood flow is already low or insufficient. Therefore, we studied the effects of HR control with esmolol, an ultrashort- acting β1-selective adrenoceptor antagonist, on renal blood flow (RBF) and renal autoregulation during early septic shock. In 10 healthy sheep, sepsis was induced by continuous i.v. administration of lipopolysaccharide, while maintained under anesthesia and mechanically ventilated. After successful resuscitation of the septic shock with fluids and vasoactive drugs, esmolol was infused to reduce HR with 30% and was stopped 30-min after reaching this target. Arterial and venous pressures, and RBF were recorded continuously. Renal autoregulation was evaluated by the response in RBF to renal perfusion pressure (RPP) in both the time domain and frequency domain. During septic shock, β-blockade with esmolol significantly increased the pressure dependency of RBF to RPP. Stopping esmolol showed the reversibility of the impaired renal autoregulation. Showing that clinical diligence and caution are necessary when treating septic shock with esmolol in the acute phase since esmolol reduced RPP to critical values thereby significantly reducing RBF.

Renal autoregulation in experimental septic shock and its response to vasopressin and norepinephrine administration

Evidence suggests that septic shock patients with chronic arterial hypertension may benefit from resuscitation targeted to achieve higher blood pressure values than other patients, possibly as a result of altered renal autoregulation. The effects of different vasopressor agents on renal autoregulation may be important in this context. We investigated the effects of arginine vasopressin (AVP) and norepinephrine (NE) on renal autoregulation in ovine septic shock. Sepsis was induced by fecal peritonitis. When shock developed (decrease in mean arterial pressure to <65 mmHg and no fluid-responsiveness), animals were randomized to receive NE or AVP in a crossover design. Before the switch to the second vasopressor, the first vasopressor was discontinued for 30 minutes to ensure complete washout of the first vasopressor. Renal autoregulation was evaluated by recording the change in renal blood flow (RBF) in response to manual, stepwise reductions in renal inflow pressure. In this model, the lower limit of renal autoregulation was not significantly altered 6 hours after sepsis induction (59±9 vs. 64±7 mmHg at baseline, p=0.096). After development of shock, the autoregulatory threshold was lower with AVP than with NE (59±5 vs. 65±7 mmHg, p=0.010). However, RBF was higher with NE both at the start of autoregulatory measurements (206±58 vs. 170±52 mL/min; p=0.050) and at the autoregulatory threshold (191±53 vs. 150±47 mL/min; p=0.008). As vasopressors may have different effects on renal autoregulation, blood pressure management in patients with septic shock should be individualized and take into account drug-specific effects.