Vasopressor Use for Severe Hypotension-A Multicentre Prospective Observational Study

Limb Necrosis in the Setting of Vasopressor Use

BACKGROUND

It remains poorly understood why only some hemodynamically unstable patients who receive aggressive treatment with vasopressor medications develop limb necrosis.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence of limb necrosis and the factors associated with it following high-dose vasopressor therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective case-control medical records review was performed of patients aged 18 to 89 years who received vasopressor therapy between 2012 and 2021 in a single academic medical center. The study population was stratified by the development of limb necrosis following vasopressor use. Patients who experienced necrosis were compared with age- and sex-matched controls who did not experience necrosis. Demographic information, comorbidities, and medication details were recorded.

RESULTS

The incidence of limb necrosis following vasopressor administration was 0.25%. Neither baseline demographics nor medical comorbidities differed significantly between groups. Necrosis was present in the same limb as the arterial catheter most often for femoral catheters. The vasopressor dose administered was significantly higher in the necrosis group than in the control group for ephedrine (P = .02) but not for the other agents. The duration of therapy was significantly longer in the necrosis group than in the control group for norepinephrine (P = .001), epinephrine (P = .04), and ephedrine (P = .01). The duration of vasopressin administration did not differ significantly between groups.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that medication-specific factors, rather than patient and disease characteristics, should guide clinical management of necrosis in the setting of vasopressor administration.

MAN VERSUS MACHINE: PROVIDER DIRECTED VERSUS PRECISION AUTOMATED CRITICAL CARE MANAGEMENT IN A PORCINE MODEL OF DISTRIBUTIVE SHOCK

ABSTRACT

Background: Critical care management of shock is a labor-intensive process. Precision Automated Critical Care Management (PACC-MAN) is an automated closed-loop system incorporating physiologic and hemodynamic inputs to deliver interventions while avoiding excessive fluid or vasopressor administration. To understand PACC-MAN efficacy, we compared PACC-MAN to provider-directed management (PDM). We hypothesized that PACC-MAN would achieve equivalent resuscitation outcomes to PDM while maintaining normotension with lower fluid and vasopressor requirements. Methods : Twelve swine underwent 30% controlled hemorrhage over 30 min, followed by 45 min of aortic occlusion to generate a vasoplegic shock state, transfusion to euvolemia, and randomization to PACC-MAN or PDM for 4.25 h. Primary outcomes were total crystalloid volume, vasopressor administration, total time spent at hypotension (mean arterial blood pressure <60 mm Hg), and total number of interventions. Results : Weight-based fluid volumes were similar between PACC-MAN and PDM; median and IQR are reported (73.1 mL/kg [59.0-78.7] vs. 87.1 mL/kg [79.4-91.8], P = 0.07). There was no statistical difference in cumulative norepinephrine (PACC-MAN: 33.4 μg/kg [27.1-44.6] vs. PDM: 7.5 [3.3-24.2] μg/kg, P = 0.09). The median percentage of time spent at hypotension was equivalent (PACC-MAN: 6.2% [3.6-7.4] and PDM: 3.1% [1.3-6.6], P = 0.23). Urine outputs were similar between PACC-MAN and PDM (14.0 mL/kg vs. 21.5 mL/kg, P = 0.13). Conclusion : Automated resuscitation achieves equivalent resuscitation outcomes to direct human intervention in this shock model. This study provides the first translational experience with the PACC-MAN system versus PDM.

Nurse management of noradrenaline infusions in intensive care units: An observational study

BACKGROUND

Intensive care nurse management of noradrenaline (norepinephrine) infusions is a common and essential clinical competency for patient haemodynamic support. Nurses titrate and wean noradrenaline infusions to a target blood pressure in a dynamic, high-risk, and unpredictable environment. Titration and weaning are complex interventions, and blood pressure goals are often variable.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to examine how nurses used blood pressure targets when escalating, weaning, and titrating noradrenaline in intensive care patients admitted for haemodynamic management and explore patient blood pressure responses to changes in noradrenaline doses.

METHODS

In this naturalistic observational study, noradrenaline dose changes were classified as escalation, weaning, and titration changes and analysed to explore nursing practice. The study was undertaken in two adult medical/surgical intensive care units in Melbourne, Australia. Participants included intensive care nurses and patients who received noradrenaline infusions for haemodynamic support.

RESULTS

Observations of 14 nurse-patient dyads provided 25 h of blood pressure and noradrenaline dose data. Patient participants received weight-adjusted maximum noradrenaline doses of between 0.06 mcg/kg/min and 0.87 mcg/kg/minute, with those in the escalation group receiving dose increases of up to 5 mcg to achieve blood pressure goals. During weaning, patients maintained or increased their blood pressure as noradrenaline doses were decreased. Nurses consistently maintained blood pressures at higher than target goals, and despite constant fluctuations, they only documented blood pressure readings hourly.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive care nurses managed noradrenaline to achieve mean arterial pressure targets that were variable and not evidence based. The disconnection between observed blood pressure fluctuations and nurse documentation of patient blood pressures was reflected in titration practices. Discrepancies between documented and actual blood pressures raised issues about data used by nurses and doctors to inform clinical practice on noradrenaline management.

Nurse decision-making when managing noradrenaline in the intensive care unit: A naturalistic observational study

OBJECTIVE

Intensive care nurses care for critically ill patients in a complex, fast paced environment. Management of noradrenaline (norepinephrine) is core business for intensive care nurses and nurse decision-making on noradrenaline is poorly understood. The study objective was to investigate decision-making processes nurses use when caring for intensive care unit patients receiving noradrenaline.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A qualitative exploratory design used the Cognitive Continuum Theory as a framework for naturalistic observations and interviews in two medical/surgical intensive care units in Melbourne, Australia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Observational and interview data from field notes and audiovisual recordings were transcribed and coded to develop themes using reflexive thematic analysis.

FINDINGS

Fourteen nurse and patient dyads were recruited to observational sessions from December 2019 to June 2021. Three major themes developed were Learning through doing; Individualised patient care; and Clinical expertise, with six supporting sub-themes. Nurses learned to manage noradrenaline experientially and developed titration and weaning strategies to support decision-making. Blood pressure targets and monitor alarms were used consistently to aid decision-making processes. Nurses were observed practicing across the cognitive continuum depending on knowledge structure, complexity of interventions, response time, and patient acuity.

CONCLUSION

Experiential learning of complex and high-risk interventions in the absence of guidelines or algorithms meant nurses developed their own titration and weaning strategies based on constant evaluation and re-evaluation of patient cues. Patient heterogeneity, cue ambiguity and a dynamic practice environment contributed to decision-making complexity that would benefit from development of evidence-based practice resources.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Nurses learn to manage noradrenaline through experiential learning, using blood pressure targets and monitor alarms to support decision-making when titrating and weaning noradrenaline. Nurses develop noradrenaline titration and weaning strategies to support decision-making in the absence of guidelines or algorithms. Supporting nurse decision-making and streamlining practice would reduce practice variation and cognitive workload.

Lower Versus Higher Exposure to Vasopressor Therapy in Vasodilatory Hypotension: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Balancing the risks of hypotension and vasopressor-associated adverse effects is a daily challenge in ICUs. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to examine the effect of lower versus higher exposure to vasopressor therapy on mortality among adult ICU patients with vasodilatory hypotension.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published from inception to October 15, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized controlled trials of lower versus higher exposure to vasopressor therapy in adult ICU patients with vasodilatory hypotension without language or publication status limits.

DATA EXTRACTION

The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality, with seven prespecified subgroups. Secondary outcomes included shorter- and longer-term mortality, use of life-sustaining therapies, vasopressor-related complications, neurologic outcome, and quality of life at longest reported follow-up. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to calculate summary effect measures across individual studies (risk ratio [RR] for dichotomous variables, mean difference for continuous variables, both with 95% CIs). The certainty of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. We registered this review on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021224434).

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 3,403 records retrieved, 68 full-text articles were reviewed and three eligible studies included. Lower exposure to vasopressors probably lowers 90-day mortality but this is based on moderate-certainty evidence, lowered for imprecision (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87-1.02). There was no credible subgroup effect. Lower vasopressor exposure may also decrease the risk of supraventricular arrhythmia (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.86; low certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with vasodilatory hypotension who are started on vasopressors, moderate-certainty evidence from three randomized trials showed that lower vasopressor exposure probably lowers mortality. However, additional trial data are needed to reach an optimal information size to detect a clinically important 10% relative reduction in mortality with this approach.

Closed-loop automated critical care as proof-of-concept study for resuscitation in a swine model of ischemia-reperfusion injury

Background

Volume expansion and vasopressors for the treatment of shock is an intensive process that requires frequent assessments and adjustments. Strict blood pressure goals in multiple physiologic states of shock (traumatic brain injury, sepsis, and hemorrhagic) have been associated with improved outcomes. The availability of continuous physiologic data is amenable to closed-loop automated critical care to improve goal-directed resuscitation.

Methods

Five adult swine were anesthetized and subjected to a controlled 30% estimated total blood volume hemorrhage followed by 30 min of complete supra-celiac aortic occlusion and then autotransfusion back to euvolemia with removal of aortic balloon. The animals underwent closed-loop critical care for 255 min after removal of the endovascular aortic balloon. The closed-loop critical care algorithm used proximal aortic pressure and central venous pressure as physiologic input data. The algorithm had the option to provide programmatic control of pumps for titration of vasopressors and weight-based crystalloid boluses (5 ml/kg) to maintain a mean arterial pressure between 60 and 70 mmHg.

Results

During the 255 min of critical care the animals experienced hypotension (< 60 mmHg) 15.3% (interquartile range: 8.6–16.9%), hypertension (> 70 mmHg) 7.7% (interquartile range: 6.7–9.4%), and normotension (60–70 mmHg) 76.9% (interquartile range: 76.5–81.2%) of the time. Excluding the first 60 min of the critical care phase the animals experienced hypotension 1.0% (interquartile range: 0.5–6.7%) of the time. Median intervention rate was 8.47 interventions per hour (interquartile range: 7.8–9.2 interventions per hour). The proportion of interventions was 61.5% (interquartile range: 61.1–66.7%) weight-based crystalloid boluses and 38.5% (interquartile range: 33.3–38.9%) titration of vasopressors.

Conclusion

This autonomous critical care platform uses critical care adjuncts in an ischemia–reperfusion injury model, utilizing goal-directed closed-loop critical care algorithm and device actuation. This description highlights the potential for this approach to deliver nuanced critical care in the ICU environment, thereby optimizing resuscitative efforts and expanding capabilities through cognitive offloading. Future efforts will focus on optimizing this platform through comparative studies of inputs, therapies, and comparison to manual critical care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40635-022-00459-2.

Perioperative Hypertension Etiologies in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery in University Health Network Hospitals–Canada from 2015–2020

Introduction

Perioperative hypertension, defined as increased blood pressure around the surgery, is a known risk factor for perioperative complications, including cardiovascular events. Identifying reasons associated with hypertension in each period is of great help in preventing and better managing perioperative hypertension.

Objective

The aim of the study was to explore common etiologies of hypertension during the perioperative period (pre, intra, and post-operation) in patients who underwent noncardiac surgeries in University Health Network (UHN) hospitals, Canada, from 2015 to 2020.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 174 patients undergoing noncardiac surgeries who experienced perioperative hypertension. We assessed the prevalence of 10 reasons for perioperative hypertension as a whole and also each period separately according to the physicians’ notes in patients’ medical records. Two-way measurements ANOVA was used to determine the change of mean hypertension among patients for specific etiology.

Results

The common etiologies of perioperative hypertension were poorly controlled hypertension (21.8%), excessive fluid therapy (19.5%), excessive vasopressor (18.4%), and medication withdrawal (13.7%). Regarding each period separately, the most common reasons were poorly controlled hypertension for pre (42.9%) and intraoperative period (22.7%) and fluid overload for the postoperative period (20.1%). Poor control of hypertension showed both within-subject statistical significance for systolic and between-subject statistical significance for diastolic blood pressure.

Conclusion

Poorly controlled hypertension is the most significant etiology of perioperative hypertension in patients undergoing noncardiac surgeries. Apart from poorly controlled hypertension, as a patient-related factor, iatrogenic factors such as excessive vasopressor therapy, aggressive fluid replacement and poor management of antihypertensive medications can also cause perioperative hypertension.

The evolution of mean arterial pressure in critically ill patients on vasopressors before and during a trial comparing a specific mean arterial pressure target to usual care

Background

In randomized clinical controlled trials, the choice of usual care as the comparator may be associated with better clinician uptake of the study protocol and lead to more generalizable results. However, if care processes evolve to resemble the intervention during the course of a trial, differences between the intervention group and usual care control group may narrow. We evaluated the effect on mean arterial pressure of an unblinded trial comparing a lower mean arterial pressure target to reduce vasopressor exposure, vs. a clinician-selected mean arterial pressure target, in critically ill patients at least 65 years old.

Methods

For this multicenter observational study using data collected both prospectively and retrospectively, patients were recruited from five of the seven trial sites. We compared the mean arterial pressure of patients receiving vasopressors, who met or would have met trial eligibility criteria, from two periods: [1] at least 1 month before the trial started, and [2] during the trial period and randomized to usual care, or not enrolled in the trial.

Results

We included 200 patients treated before and 229 after trial initiation. There were no differences in age (mean 74.5 vs. 75.2 years; p = 0.28), baseline Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (median 26 vs. 26; p = 0.47) or history of chronic hypertension (n = 126 [63.0%] vs. n = 153 [66.8%]; p = 0.41). Mean of the mean arterial pressure was similar between the two periods (72.5 vs. 72.4 mmHg; p = 0.76).

Conclusions

The initiation of a trial of a prescribed lower mean arterial pressure target, compared to a usual clinician-selected target, was not associated with a change in mean arterial pressure, reflecting stability in the net effect of usual clinician practices over time. Comparing prior and concurrent control groups may alleviate concerns regarding drift in usual practices over the course of a trial or permit quantification of any change.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-021-01529-w.

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Fluid Resuscitation and Vasopressor Therapy Research Priorities in Adult Patients

OBJECTIVE

Expand upon the priorities of fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy research priorities identified by a group of experts assigned by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

DATA SOURCES

Original article, literature search.

STUDY SELECTION

Several members of the original task force with expertise specific to the area of fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy.

DATA EXTRACTION

None.

DATA SYNTHESIS

None.

CONCLUSION

In the second of a series of manuscripts subsequent to the original article, members with expertise in the subjects expound upon the three identified priorities related to fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapies. This analysis summarizes what is known and what were identified as ongoing and future research.

The surviving sepsis campaign: fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy research priorities in adult patients

Objective

To expand upon the priorities of fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy research priorities identified by a group of experts assigned by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

Data Sources

Original paper and literature search.

Study Selection

Several members of the original task force with expertise specific to the area of fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy.

Data Extraction

None.

Data Synthesis

None.

Conclusion

In the second of a series of manuscripts subsequent to the original paper, members with expertise in the subjects expound upon the three identified priorities related to fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapies. This analysis summarizes what is known and what were identified as ongoing and future research.

Reduced exposure to vasopressors through permissive hypotension to reduce mortality in critically ill people aged 65 and over: the 65 RCT

BACKGROUND

Vasopressors are administered to critical care patients to avoid hypotension, which is associated with myocardial injury, kidney injury and death. However, they work by causing vasoconstriction, which may reduce blood flow and cause other adverse effects. A mean arterial pressure target typically guides administration. An individual patient data meta-analysis (Lamontagne F, Day AG, Meade MO, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Hylands M, et al. Pooled analysis of higher versus lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy septic and vasodilatory shock. Intensive Care Med 2018;44:12-21) suggested that greater exposure, through higher mean arterial pressure targets, may increase risk of death in older patients.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of reduced vasopressor exposure through permissive hypotension (i.e. a lower mean arterial pressure target of 60-65 mmHg) in older critically ill patients.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, randomised clinical trial with integrated economic evaluation.

SETTING

Sixty-five NHS adult general critical care units.

PARTICIPANTS

Critically ill patients aged ≥ 65 years receiving vasopressors for vasodilatory hypotension.

INTERVENTIONS

Intervention - permissive hypotension (i.e. a mean arterial pressure target of 60-65 mmHg). Control (usual care) - a mean arterial pressure target at the treating clinician's discretion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary clinical outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. The primary cost-effectiveness outcome was 90-day incremental net monetary benefit. Secondary outcomes included receipt and duration of advanced respiratory and renal support, mortality at critical care and acute hospital discharge, and questionnaire assessment of cognitive decline and health-related quality of life at 90 days and 1 year.

RESULTS

Of 2600 patients randomised, 2463 (permissive hypotension, n = 1221; usual care, n = 1242) were analysed for the primary clinical outcome. Permissive hypotension resulted in lower exposure to vasopressors than usual care [mean duration 46.0 vs. 55.9 hours, difference -9.9 hours (95% confidence interval -14.3 to -5.5 hours); total noradrenaline-equivalent dose 31.5 mg vs. 44.3 mg, difference -12.8 mg (95% CI -18.0 mg to -17.6 mg)]. By 90 days, 500 (41.0%) patients in the permissive hypotension group and 544 (43.8%) patients in the usual-care group had died (absolute risk difference -2.85%, 95% confidence interval -6.75% to 1.05%; p = 0.154). Adjustment for prespecified baseline variables resulted in an odds ratio for 90-day mortality of 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98) favouring permissive hypotension. There were no significant differences in prespecified secondary outcomes or subgroups; however, patients with chronic hypertension showed a mortality difference favourable to permissive hypotension. At 90 days, permissive hypotension showed similar costs to usual care. However, with higher incremental life-years and quality-adjusted life-years in the permissive hypotension group, the incremental net monetary benefit was positive, but with high statistical uncertainty (£378, 95% confidence interval -£1347 to £2103).

LIMITATIONS

The intervention was unblinded, with risk of bias minimised through central allocation concealment and a primary outcome not subject to observer bias. The control group event rate was higher than anticipated.

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients aged ≥ 65 years receiving vasopressors for vasodilatory hypotension, permissive hypotension did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality compared with usual care. The absolute treatment effect on 90-day mortality, based on 95% confidence intervals, was between a 6.8-percentage reduction and a 1.1-percentage increase in mortality.

FUTURE WORK

Future work should (1) update the individual patient data meta-analysis, (2) explore approaches for evaluating heterogeneity of treatment effect and (3) explore 65 trial conduct, including use of deferred consent, to inform future trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10580502.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Optimal VAsopressor TitraTION in patients 65 years and older (OVATION-65): protocol and statistical analysis plan for a randomised clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Vasodilatory hypotension is common among intensive care unit (ICU) patients; vasopressors are considered standard of care. However, optimal mean arterial pressure (MAP) targets for vasopressor titration are unknown. The objective of the Optimal VAsopressor TitraTION in patients 65 years and older (OVATION-65) trial is to ascertain the effect of permissive hypotension (vasopressor titration to achieve MAP 60-65 mm Hg) versus usual care on biomarkers of organ injury in hypotensive patients aged ≥65 years.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

OVATION-65 is an allocation-concealed randomised trial in 7 Canadian hospitals. Eligible patients are ≥65 years of age, in an ICU with vasodilatory hypotension, receiving vasopressors for ≤12 hours to maintain MAP ≥65 mm Hg during or after adequate fluid resuscitation, and expected to receive vasopressors for ≥6 additional hours. Patients are excluded for any of the following: active treatment for spinal cord or acute brain injury; vasopressors given solely for bleeding, ventricular failure or postcardiopulmonary bypass vasoplegia; withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments expected within 48 hours; death perceived as imminent; previous enrolment in OVATION-65; organ transplant within the last year; receiving extracorporeal life support or lack of physician equipoise. Patients are randomised to permissive hypotension versus usual care for up to 28 days. The primary outcome is high-sensitivity troponin T, a biomarker of cardiac injury, on day 3. Secondary outcomes include biomarkers of injury to other organs (brain, liver, intestine, skeletal muscle); lactate (a biomarker of global tissue dysoxia); resource utilisation; adverse events; mortality (90 days and 6 months) and cognitive function (6 months). Assessors of biomarkers, mortality and cognitive function are blinded to allocation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol has been approved at all sites. Consent is obtained from the eligible patient, the substitute decision-maker if the patient is incapable, or in a deferred fashion where permitted. End-of-grant dissemination plans include presentations, publications and social media platforms and discussion forums.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03431181.

Association of Premorbid Blood Pressure with Vasopressor Infusion Duration in Patients with Shock

Rationale: Guidelines for vasopressor titration suggest a universal target-mean arterial pressure (MAP) >65 mm Hg. The implications for patients with premorbid low/high blood pressure are unknown.Objectives: To investigate the relationship between premorbid blood pressure and vasopressor duration for patients with shock.Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adults admitted with shock to Calgary ICUs (June 2012-December 2018). The primary exposure was premorbid blood pressure: low (systolic <100); normal (systolic 100-139 and diastolic <90); and high (systolic ≥140 or diastolic ≥90). The primary outcome was vasopressor duration; secondary outcomes included ICU/hospital length of stay and ICU/hospital mortality. We examined associations of premorbid blood pressure with vasopressor duration and length of stay using multivariable competing risk models and mortality using multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression.Measurements and Main Results: Of 3,542 admissions with shock, 177 (5.0%) had premorbid low, 2,887 (81.5%) normal, and 478 (13.5%) high blood pressure. Premorbid low admissions had lower MAPs (vs. normal or high premorbid admissions) over the duration of vasopressor use (P = 0.003) and were maintained nearest premorbid MAPs while receiving vasopressors (P < 0.001). After adjustment, premorbid low admissions had longer vasopressor use (median, 1.35 d vs. 1.04 d for normal; hazard ratio for discontinuation vs. normal, 0.78 [0.73-0.85]; P < 0.001) and premorbid high admissions had shorter use (median, 0.84 d; hazard ratio, 1.22 [1.12-1.33]; P < 0.001). Premorbid low admissions had longer adjusted length of stay and higher adjusted mortality than premorbid normal admissions.Conclusions: Premorbid blood pressure was inversely associated with vasopressor duration.

Automated Blood Pressure Control

Arterial pressure management is a crucial task in the operating room and intensive care unit. In high-risk surgical and in critically ill patients, sustained hypotension is managed with continuous infusion of vasopressor agents, which most commonly have direct α agonist activity like phenylephrine or norepinephrine. The current standard of care to guide vasopressor infusion is manual titration to an arterial pressure target range. This approach may be improved by using automated systems that titrate vasopressor infusions to maintain a target pressure. In this article, we review the evidence behind blood pressure management in the operating room and intensive care unit and discuss current and potential future applications of automated blood pressure control.

Automated Titration of Vasopressor Infusion Using a Closed-loop Controller: In Vivo Feasibility Study Using a Swine Model

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC

Intraoperative hypotension has been associated with adverse postoperative outcomes.A randomized controlled trial of individualized blood pressure management in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery found reduced postoperative adverse events in patients in the blood pressure management intervention group versus the standard of care group.

WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW

In this study of pigs with normovolemic hypotension induced by administration of sodium nitroprusside, an automated closed-loop vasopressor administration device was able to maintain mean arterial pressure within 5 mmHg of 80 mmHg for 98% of the intraoperative period. This suggests that norepinephrine can be accurately titrated using an automated infusion device in order to maintain target blood pressure.

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies have reported associations between intraoperative hypotension and adverse postoperative complications. One of the most common interventions in the management of hypotension is vasopressor administration. This approach requires careful and frequent vasopressor boluses and/or multiple adjustments of an infusion. The authors recently developed a closed-loop controller that titrates vasopressors to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) within set limits. Here, the authors assessed the feasibility and overall performance of this system in a swine model. The authors hypothesized that the closed-loop controller would be able to maintain MAP at a steady, predefined target level of 80 mmHg for greater than 85% of the time.

METHODS

The authors randomized 14 healthy anesthetized pigs either to a control group or a closed-loop group. Using infusions of sodium nitroprusside at doses between 65 and 130 µg/min, we induced four normovolemic hypotensive challenges of 30 min each. In the control group, nothing was done to correct hypotension. In the closed-loop group, the system automatically titrated norepinephrine doses to achieve a predetermined MAP of 80 mmHg. The primary objective was study time spent within ±5 mmHg of the MAP target. Secondary objectives were performance error, median performance error, median absolute performance error, wobble, and divergence.

RESULTS

The controller maintained MAP within ±5 mmHg of the target for 98 ± 1% (mean ± SD) of the time. In the control group, the MAP was 80 ± 5 mmHg for 14.0 ± 2.8% of the time (P< 0.0001). The MAP in the closed-loop group was above the target range for 1.2 ± 1.2% and below it for 0.5 ± 0.9% of the time. Performance error, median performance error, median absolute performance error, wobble, and divergence were all optimal.

CONCLUSIONS

In this experimental model of induced normovolemic hypotensive episodes in pigs, the automated controller titrated norepinephrine infusion to correct hypotension and keep MAP within ±5 mmHg of target for 98% of management time.

Effect of Reduced Exposure to Vasopressors on 90-Day Mortality in Older Critically Ill Patients With Vasodilatory Hypotension: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Vasopressors are commonly administered to intensive care unit (ICU) patients to raise blood pressure. Balancing risks and benefits of vasopressors is a challenge, particularly in older patients.

Objective

To determine whether reducing exposure to vasopressors through permissive hypotension (mean arterial pressure [MAP] target, 60-65 mm Hg) reduces mortality at 90 days in ICU patients aged 65 years or older with vasodilatory hypotension.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A multicenter, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial was conducted in 65 ICUs in the United Kingdom and included 2600 randomized patients aged 65 years or older with vasodilatory hypotension (assessed by treating clinician). The study was conducted from July 2017 to March 2019, and follow-up was completed in August 2019.

Interventions

Patients were randomized 1:1 to vasopressors guided either by MAP target (60-65 mm Hg, permissive hypotension) (n = 1291) or according to usual care (at the discretion of treating clinicians) (n = 1307).

Main Outcome and Measures

The primary clinical outcome was all-cause mortality at 90 days.

Results

Of 2600 randomized patients, after removal of those who declined or had withdrawn consent, 2463 (95%) were included in the analysis of the primary outcome (mean [SD] age 75 years [7 years]; 1387 [57%] men). Patients randomized to the permissive hypotension group had lower exposure to vasopressors compared with those in the usual care group (median duration 33 hours vs 38 hours; difference in medians, -5.0; 95% CI, -7.8 to -2.2 hours; total dose in norepinephrine equivalents median, 17.7 mg vs 26.4 mg; difference in medians, -8.7 mg; 95% CI, -12.8 to -4.6 mg). At 90 days, 500 of 1221 (41.0%) in the permissive hypotension compared with 544 of 1242 (43.8%) in the usual care group had died (absolute risk difference, -2.85%; 95% CI, -6.75 to 1.05; P = .15) (unadjusted relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.03). When adjusted for prespecified baseline variables, the odds ratio for 90-day mortality was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.98). Serious adverse events were reported for 79 patients (6.2%) in the permissive care group and 75 patients (5.8%) in the usual care group. The most common serious adverse events were acute renal failure (41 [3.2%] vs 33 [2.5%]) and supraventricular cardiac arrhythmia (12 [0.9%] vs 13 [1.0%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients 65 years or older receiving vasopressors for vasodilatory hypotension, permissive hypotension compared with usual care did not result in a statistically significant reduction in mortality at 90 days. However, the confidence interval around the point estimate for the primary outcome should be considered when interpreting the clinical importance of the study.

Trial Registration

isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN10580502.

Evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of permissive hypotension in critically ill patients aged 65 years or over with vasodilatory hypotension: Protocol for the 65 randomised clinical trial

Vasodilatory shock is common in critically ill patients and vasopressors are a mainstay of therapy. A meta-analysis suggested that use of a higher, as opposed to a lower, mean arterial pressure target to guide titration of vasopressor therapy, could be associated with a higher risk of death in older critically ill patients. The 65 trial is a pragmatic, multi-centre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised clinical trial of permissive hypotension (a mean arterial pressure target of 60–65 mmHg during vasopressor therapy) versus usual care in critically ill patients aged 65 years or over with vasodilatory hypotension. The trial is conducted in 2600 patients from 65 United Kingdom adult, general critical care units. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality at 90 days. An economic evaluation is embedded. The 65 trial received favourable ethical opinion from the South Central – Oxford C Research Ethics Committee and approval from the Health Research Authority. The results will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed medical journals.

Trial registration: ISRCTN10580502

Closed-loop hemodynamic management

As the operating room and intensive care settings become increasingly complex, the required vigilance practitioners must dedicate to a wide array of clinical systems has increased concordantly. The resulting shortage of available attention to these various clinical tasks creates a vacuum for the introduction of systems that can administer well-established goal-directed therapies without significant provider feedback. Recently, there has been an explosion of academic exploration into creating such automated systems, with a strong specific focus on hemodynamic control. Within this field, the largest focus has been on goal-directed fluid therapy as systems automating vasopressor administration have only recently become viable options. Our goal in this review article is to summarize the validity of the relevant goal-directed hemodynamic systems and explore the expanding role of automation within these systems.

Current use of vasopressors in septic shock

Background

Vasopressors are commonly applied to restore and maintain blood pressure in patients with sepsis. We aimed to evaluate the current practice and therapeutic goals regarding vasopressor use in septic shock as a basis for future studies and to provide some recommendations on their use.

Methods

From November 2016 to April 2017, an anonymous web-based survey on the use of vasoactive drugs was accessible to members of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). A total of 17 questions focused on the profile of respondents, triggering factors, first choice agent, dosing, timing, targets, additional treatments, and effects of vasopressors. We investigated whether the answers complied with current guidelines. In addition, a group of 34 international ESICM experts was asked to formulate recommendations for the use of vasopressors based on 6 questions with sub-questions (total 14).

Results

A total of 839 physicians from 82 countries (65% main specialty/activity intensive care) responded. The main trigger for vasopressor use was an insufficient mean arterial pressure (MAP) response to initial fluid resuscitation (83%). The first-line vasopressor was norepinephrine (97%), targeting predominantly a MAP > 60–65 mmHg (70%), with higher targets in patients with chronic arterial hypertension (79%). The experts agreed on 10 recommendations, 9 of which were based on unanimous or strong (≥ 80%) agreement. They recommended not to delay vasopressor treatment until fluid resuscitation is completed but rather to start with norepinephrine early to achieve a target MAP of ≥ 65 mmHg.

Conclusion

Reported vasopressor use in septic shock is compliant with contemporary guidelines. Future studies should focus on individualized treatment targets including earlier use of vasopressors.

Closed-loop vasopressor control: in-silico study of robustness against pharmacodynamic variability

Initial feasibility of a novel closed-loop controller created by our group for closed-loop control of vasopressor infusions has been previously described. In clinical practice, vasopressor potency may be affected by a variety of factors including other pharmacologic agents, organ dysfunction, and vasoplegic states. The purpose of this study was therefore to evaluate the effectiveness of our controller in the face of large variations in drug potency, where 'effective' was defined as convergence on target pressure over time. We hypothesized that the controller would remain effective in the face up to a tenfold variability in drug response. To perform the robustness study, our physiologic simulator was used to create randomized simulated septic patients. 250 simulated patients were managed by the closed-loop in each of 7 norepinephrine responsiveness conditions: 0.1 ×, 0.2 ×, 0.5 ×, 1 ×, 2 ×, 5 ×, and 10 × expected population response to drug dose. Controller performance was evaluated for each level of norepinephrine response using Varvel's criteria as well as time-out-of-target. Median performance error and median absolute performance error were less than 5% in all response levels. Wobble was below 3% and divergence remained negative (i.e. the controller tended to converge towards the target over time) in all norepinephrine response levels, but at the highest response level of 10 × the value approached zero, suggesting the controller may be approaching instability. Response levels of 0.1 × and 0.2 × exhibited significantly higher time-out-of-target in the lower ranges (p < 0.001) compared to the 1 × response level as the controller was slower to correct the initial hypotension. In this simulation study, the closed-loop vasopressor controller remained effective in simulated patients exhibiting 0.1 to 10 × the expected population drug response.

Blood pressure variability in surgical and intensive care patients: Is there a potential for closed-loop vasopressor administration?

Blood pressure management in the operating rooms (OR) and intensive care units (ICU) frequently involves manually titrated vasopressor therapy to an optimal range of mean arterial pressure (MAP). Ideally, changes in vasopressor infusion rates have to quickly follow variations in blood pressure measurements. However, such a tightly controlled feedback loop is difficult to achieve. Few studies have examined blood pressure control when vasopressor therapy is administered manually in OR and ICU patients. We extracted MAP data from 3623 patients (2530 from the ORs and 1093 from the ICU) on vasopressors from our electronic medical records. Coefficient of variation (= standard deviation/mean value) *100) was calculated and the values were additionally categorized into different MAP ranges (MAP < 60 mmHg, 60 < MAP < 80 and MAP > 80 mmHg). There was no statistically significant difference between both centres for MAP across all time points (80 ± 12 vs. 80 ± 16, P = 0.996, 95% CI -6 to 6). The coefficients of variation of MAP were 13.7 ± 5.4% and 18.4 ± 9.8% in the OR and in ICU respectively. Patients on vasopressors spent 48.8% treatment time with a MAP between 60 and 80 mmHg (11.2% time with MAP < 60 mmHg, and 40% with MAP > 80 mmHg). These results provide a reasonable baseline from which to establish whether 'reduced variability' may be achieved with a closed-loop vasopressor administration system.

A systematic review of vasopressor blood pressure targets in critically ill adults with hypotension

PURPOSE

Clinicians must balance the risks from hypotension with the potential adverse effects of vasopressors. Experts have recommended a mean arterial pressure (MAP) target of at least 65 mmHg, and higher in older patients and in patients with chronic hypertension or atherosclerosis. We conducted a systematic review of randomized-controlled trials comparing higher vs lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy administered to hypotensive critically ill patients.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE™, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies of higher vs lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy in critically ill hypotensive adult patients. Two reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility based on titles and abstracts, and they then selected full-text reports. Outcomes, subgroups, and analyses were prespecified. We used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to rate the overall confidence in the estimates of intervention effects.

RESULTS

Of 8001 citations, we retrieved 57 full-text articles and ultimately included two randomized-controlled trials (894 patients). Higher blood pressure targets were not associated with lower mortality (relative risk [RR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.23; P = 0.54), and neither age (P = 0.17) nor chronic hypertension (P = 0.32) modified the overall effect. Nevertheless, higher blood pressure targets were associated with a greater risk of new-onset supraventricular cardiac arrhythmia (RR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.28 to 3.38; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Current evidence does not support a MAP target > 70 mmHg in hypotensive critically ill adult patients requiring vasopressor therapy.