Measurement of mean systemic filling pressure after severe hemorrhagic shock in swine anesthetized with propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia: implications for vasopressor-free resuscitation

COMPARISON BETWEEN ACTIVE ABDOMINAL COMPRESSION-DECOMPRESSION CARDIOPULMONARY RESUSCITATION AND STANDARD CARDIOPULMONARY RESUSCITATION IN ASPHYCTIC CARDIAC ARREST RATS WITH MULTIPLE RIB FRACTURES

ABSTRACT

Background: Active abdominal compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (AACD-CPR) is potentially more effective for cardiac arrest (CA) with multiple rib fractures. However, its effect on survival rates and neurological outcomes remains unknown. This study aimed to assess if AACD-CPR improves survival rates and neurological outcomes in a rat model of asphyctic CA with multiple rib fractures. Methods: Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized into three groups-AACD group (n = 15), standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation (STD-CPR) group (n = 15), and sham group (n = 10)-after bilateral rib fractures were surgically created and endotracheal intubation was performed. AACD-CPR and STD-CPR groups underwent 8 min of asphyxia followed by different CPR techniques. The sham group had venous catheterization only. Physiological variables and arterial blood gases were recorded at baseline and during a 4-h monitoring period. Neurological deficit scores (NDSs) and cumulative survival rates were assessed at 24, 48, and 72 h. NDS, serum biomarkers, and hippocampal neuron analysis were used to evaluate neurological outcomes. Results: No statistical differences were observed in the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 24-, 48-, and 72-h survival rates between the AACD-CPR and STD-CPR groups. AACD-CPR rats had lower serum levels of neuron-specific enolase and S100B at 72 h post-ROSC, and higher NDS at 72 h post-ROSC compared with STD-CPR animals. Cellular morphology analysis, hematoxylin and eosin staining, and TUNEL/DAPI assays showed more viable neurons and fewer apoptotic neurons in the AACD-CPR group than in the STD-CPR group. Conclusions: AACD-CPR can achieve similar survival rates and better neurological outcome after asphyxial CA in rats with multiple rib fractures when compared with STD-CPR.

Effects of Vasopressin Receptor Agonists during the Resuscitation of Hemorrhagic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Experimental and Clinical Studies

BACKGROUND

The clinical impact of vasopressin in hemorrhagic shock remains largely unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to investigate the effects of vasopressin receptor agonists during the resuscitation of hemorrhagic shock.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and PubMed Central was conducted for relevant articles. Experimental (animal) and clinical studies were included. The primary objective was to investigate the correlation of vasopressin receptor agonist use with mortality and various hemodynamic parameters.

RESULTS

Data extraction was possible in thirteen animal studies and two clinical studies. Differences in risk of mortality between patients who received a vasopressin receptor agonist were not statistically significant when compared to those who were not treated with such agents [RR (95% CI): 1.17 (0.67, 2.08); p = 0.562; I² = 50%]. The available data were insufficient to conduct a meta-analysis assessing the effect of vasopressin receptor agonists on hemodynamics. Drawing safe conclusions from animal studies was challenging, due to significant heterogeneity in terms of species and dosage of vasopressin receptor agonists among studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in risk of mortality between patients who received a vasopressin receptor agonist were not statistically significant when compared to those who were not treated with such agents after hemorrhagic shock. More data are needed to deduce certain conclusions.

Assessment of Dynamic Changes in Stressed Volume and Venous Return during Hyperdynamic Septic Shock

The present work investigated the dynamic changes in stressed volume (Vs) and other determinants of venous return using a porcine model of hyperdynamic septic shock. Septicemia was induced in 10 anesthetized swine, and fluid challenges were started after the diagnosis of sepsis-induced arterial hypotension and/or tissue hypoperfusion. Norepinephrine infusion targeting a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mmHg was started after three consecutive fluid challenges. After septic shock was confirmed, norepinephrine infusion was discontinued, and the animals were left untreated until cardiac arrest occurred. Baseline Vs decreased by 7% for each mmHg decrease in MAP during progression of septic shock. Mean circulatory filling pressure (Pmcf) analogue (Pmca), right atrial pressure, resistance to venous return, and efficiency of the heart decreased with time (p < 0.001 for all). Fluid challenges did not improve hemodynamics, but noradrenaline increased Vs from 107 mL to 257 mL (140%) and MAP from 45 mmHg to 66 mmHg (47%). Baseline Pmca and post-cardiac arrest Pmcf did not differ significantly (14.3 ± 1.23 mmHg vs. 14.75 ± 1.5 mmHg, p = 0.24), but the difference between pre-arrest Pmca and post-cardiac arrest Pmcf was statistically significant (9.5 ± 0.57 mmHg vs. 14.75 ± 1.5 mmHg, p < 0.001). In conclusion, the baseline Vs decreased by 7% for each mmHg decrease in MAP during progression of hyperdynamic septic shock. Significant changes were also observed in other determinants of venous return. A new physiological intravascular volume existing at zero transmural distending pressure was identified, termed as the rest volume (Vr).

Determinants of venous return in steady-state physiology and asphyxia-induced circulatory shock and arrest: an experimental study

Background

Mean circulatory filling pressure (Pmcf) provides information on stressed volume and is crucial for maintaining venous return. This study investigated the Pmcf and other determinants of venous return in dysrhythmic and asphyxial circulatory shock and arrest.

Methods

Twenty Landrace/Large-White piglets were allocated into two groups of 10 animals each. In the dysrhythmic group, ventricular fibrillation was induced with a 9 V cadmium battery, while in the asphyxia group, cardiac arrest was induced by stopping and disconnecting the ventilator and clamping the tracheal tube at the end of exhalation. Mean circulatory filling pressure was calculated using the equilibrium mean right atrial pressure at 5–7.5 s after the onset of cardiac arrest and then every 10 s until 1 min post-arrest. Successful resuscitation was defined as return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) with a MAP of at least 60 mmHg for a minimum of 5 min.

Results

After the onset of asphyxia, a ΔPmca increase of 0.004 mmHg, 0.01 mmHg, and 1.26 mmHg was observed for each mmHg decrease in PaO₂, each mmHg increase in PaCO_2, and each unit decrease in pH, respectively. Mean Pmcf value in the ventricular fibrillation and asphyxia group was 14.81 ± 0.5 mmHg and 16.04 ± 0.6 mmHg (p < 0.001) and decreased by 0.031 mmHg and 0.013 mmHg (p < 0.001), respectively, for every additional second passing after the onset of cardiac arrest. With the exception of the 5–7.5 s time interval, post-cardiac arrest right atrial pressure was significantly higher in the asphyxia group. Mean circulatory filling pressure at 5 to 7.5 s after cardiac arrest predicted ROSC in both groups, with a cut-off value of 16 mmHg (AUC = 0.905, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Mean circulatory filling pressure was higher in hypoxic hypercapnic conditions and decreased at a lower rate after cardiac arrest compared to normoxemic and normocapnic state. A Pmcf cut-off point of 16 mmHg at 5–7.5 s after cardiac arrest can highly predict ROSC.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40635-022-00440-z.

Hemodynamic Effects of Cardiovascular Medications in a Normovolemic and Hemorrhaged Yorkshire-cross Swine Model

The Yorkshire-cross swine model is a valuable translational model commonly used to study cardiovascular physiologyand response to insult. Although the effects of vasoactive medications have been well described in healthy swine, the effects of these medications during hemorrhagic shock are less studied. In this study, we sought to expand the utility of the swine model by characterizing the hemodynamic changes that occurred after the administration of commonly available vasoactive medications during euvolemic and hypovolemic states. To this end, we anesthetized and established femoral arterial,central venous, and pulmonary arterial access in 15 juvenile Yorkshire-cross pigs. The pigs then received a series of rapidlymetabolized but highly vasoactive medications in a standard dosing sequence. After completion of this sequence, each pigunderwent a 30-mL/kg hemorrhage over 10 min, and the standard dosing sequence was repeated. We then used standard statisticaltechniques to compare the effects of these vasoactive medications on a variety of hemodynamic parameters betweenthe euvolemic and hemorrhagic states. All subjects completed the study protocol. The responses in the hemorrhagic state wereoften attenuated or even opposite of those in the euvolemic state. For example, phenylephrine decreased the mean arterialblood pressure during the euvolemic state but increased it in the hemorrhagic state. These results clarify previously poorlydefined responses to commonly used vasoactive agents during the hemorrhagic state in swine. Our findings also demonstratethe need to consider the complex and dynamic physiologic state of hemorrhage when anticipating the effects of vasoactivedrugs and planning study protocols.

Resuscitative Effect of Centhaquine (Lyfaquin®) in Hypovolemic Shock Patients: A Randomized, Multicentric, Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Centhaquine (Lyfaquin®) showed significant efficacy as a resuscitative agent in animal models of haemorrhagic shock. Its safety and tolerability were confirmed in healthy human volunteers. In this study, our primary objective was to determine the safety, and the secondary objective was to assess the efficacy of centhaquine in patients with hypovolemic shock.

METHODS

A prospective, multicentre, randomized phase II study was conducted in male and female patients aged 18-70 years with hypovolemic shock having systolic BP ≤ 90 mmHg. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the control or centhaquine group. The control group received 100 ml of normal saline infusion over 1 h, while the centhaquine group received 0.01 mg/kg of centhaquine in 100 ml normal saline infusion over 1 h. Every patient received standard of care (SOC) and was followed for 28 days.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were included, and 45 completed the trial: 22 in the control group and 23 in the centhaquine group. The demographics of patients in both groups were comparable. No adverse event related to centhaquine was recorded in the 28-day observation period. The baseline, Injury Scoring System score, haemoglobin, and haematocrit were similar in both groups. However, 91% of the patients in the centhaquine group needed major surgery, whereas only 68% in the control group (p = 0.0526). Twenty-eight-day all-cause mortality was 0/23 in the centhaquine group and 2/22 in the control group. The percent time in ICU and ventilator support was less in the centhaquine group than in the control group. The total amount of vasopressors needed in the first 48 h of resuscitation was lower in the centhaquine group than in the control group (3.12 ± 2.18 vs. 9.39 ± 4.28 mg). An increase in systolic and diastolic BP from baseline through 48 h was more marked in the centhaquine group than in the control group. Compared with the control group, blood lactate level was lower by 1.75 ± 1.07 mmol/l in the centhaquine group on day 3 of resuscitation. Improvements in base deficit, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) score and adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) were greater in the centhaquine group than in the control group.

CONCLUSION

When added to SOC, centhaquine is a well-tolerated and effective resuscitative agent. It improves the clinical outcome of patients with hypovolemic shock.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier number: NCT04056065.

A Multicentric, Randomized, Controlled Phase III Study of Centhaquine (Lyfaquin®) as a Resuscitative Agent in Hypovolemic Shock Patients

Introduction

Centhaquine (Lyfaquin^®) showed significant safety and efficacy in preclinical and clinical phase I and II studies.

Methods

A prospective, multicentric, randomized phase III study was conducted in patients with hypovolemic shock, systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≤ 90 mmHg, and blood lactate levels ≥ 2 mmol/L. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to the centhaquine group (n = 71) or the control (saline) group (n = 34). Every patient received standard of care (SOC) and was followed for 28 days. The study drug (normal saline or centhaquine 0.01 mg/kg) was administered in 100 mL of normal saline infusion over 1 h. The primary objectives were to determine changes (mean through 48 h) in SBP, diastolic blood pressure (DBP), blood lactate levels, and base deficit. The secondary objectives included the amount of fluids, blood products, and vasopressors administered in the first 48 h, duration of hospital stay, time in intensive care units, time on ventilator support, change in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), and the proportion of patients with 28-day all-cause mortality.

Results

The demographics of patients and baseline vitals in both groups were comparable. The cause of hypovolemic shock was trauma in 29.4 and 47.1% of control group and centhaquine group patients, respectively, and gastroenteritis in 44.1 and 29.4%, respectively. Shock index (SI) and quick sequential organ failure assessment at baseline were similar in the two groups. An equal amount of fluids and blood products were administered in both groups during the first 48 h of resuscitation. A lesser amount of vasopressors was needed in the first 48 h of resuscitation in the centhaquine group. An increase in SBP from baseline was consistently higher up to 48 h (12.9% increase in area under the curve from 0 to 48 h [AUC_0–48]) in the centhaquine group than in the control group. A significant increase in pulse pressure (48.1% increase in AUC_0–48) in the centhaquine group compared with the control group suggests improved stroke volume due to centhaquine. The SI was significantly lower in the centhaquine group from 1 h (p = 0.032) to 4 h (p = 0.049) of resuscitation. Resuscitation with centhaquine resulted in a significantly greater number of patients with improved blood lactate (control 46.9%; centhaquine 69.3%; p = 0.03) and the base deficit (control 43.7%; centhaquine 69.8%; p = 0.01) than in the control group. ARDS and MODS improved with centhaquine, and an 8.8% absolute reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality was observed in the centhaquine group.

Conclusion

Centhaquine is an efficacious resuscitative agent for treating hypovolemic shock. The efficacy of centhaquine in distributive shock is being explored.

Trial Registration

Clinical Trials Registry, India; ctri.icmr.org.in, CTRI/2019/01/017196; clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04045327.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40265-021-01547-5.

A multicentric, randomized, controlled phase III study of centhaquine (Lyfaquin ® ) as a resuscitative agent in hypovolemic shock patients

INTRODUCTION

Centhaquine (Lyfaquin ^® ) showed significant safety and efficacy in preclinical and clinical phase I and II studies.

METHODS

A prospective, multicentric, randomized phase III study was conducted in patients with hypovolemic shock having systolic blood pressure (SBP) of ≤90 mm Hg and blood lactate levels of ≥2 mmol/L. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio, 71 patients to the centhaquine group and 34 patients to the control (saline) group. Every patient received standard of care (SOC) and was followed for 28 days. The study drug (normal saline or centhaquine (0.01 mg/kg)) was administered in 100 mL of normal saline infusion over 1 hour. The primary objectives were to determine changes (mean through 48 hours) in SBP, diastolic blood pressure (DBP), blood lactate levels, and base deficit. The secondary objectives included the amount of fluids, blood products, vasopressors administered in the first 48 hours, duration of hospital stay, time in ICU, time on the ventilator support, change in patient's Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome (MODS) scores, and the proportion of patients with 28-day all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

The demographics of patients and baseline vitals in both groups were comparable. Trauma was the cause of hypovolemic shock in 29.41% of control and 47.06% of centhaquine, gastroenteritis in 44.12% of control, and 29.41% of centhaquine patients. An equal amount of fluids and blood products were administered in both groups during the first 48 hours of resuscitation. A lesser amount of vasopressors was needed in the first 48 hours of resuscitation in the centhaquine group. An increase in SBP from the baseline was consistently higher in the centhaquine group than in the control. A significant increase in pulse pressure in the centhaquine group than the control group suggests improved stroke volume due to centhaquine. The shock index was significantly lower in the centhaquine group than control from 1 hour (p=0.0320) till 4 hours (p=0.0494) of resuscitation. Resuscitation with centhaquine had a significantly greater number of patients with improved blood lactate and the base deficit than the control group. ARDS and MODS improved with centhaquine, and an 8.8% absolute reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality was observed in the centhaquine group.

CONCLUSION

Centhaquine is a highly efficacious resuscitative agent for treating hypovolemic shock. The efficacy of centhaquine in distributive shock due to sepsis and COVID-19 is being explored.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials Registry, India; ctri.icmr.org.in, CTRI/2019/01/017196; clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04045327 .

KEY SUMMARY POINTS

A multicentric, randomized, controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of centhaquine in hypovolemic shock patients.One hundred and five patients were randomized 2:1 to receive centhaquine or saline. Centhaquine was administered at a dose of 0.01 mg/kg in 100 mL saline and infused over 1 hour. The control group received 100 mL of saline over a 1-hour infusion.Centhaquine improved blood pressure, shock index, reduced blood lactate levels, and improved base deficit. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) and Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome (MODS) score improved with centhaquine.An 8.8% absolute reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality was observed in the centhaquine group. There were no drug-related adverse events in the study.

A Critical Appraisal of the Effects of Anesthetics on Immune-system Modulation in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

Purpose

The aim of the present article was to briefly summarize current knowledge about the immunomodulatory effects of general anesthetics and the possible clinical effects of this immunomodulation in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

The PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases were comprehensively searched for relevant studies.

Findings

The novel coronavirus causes a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations, with a large absolute number of patients experiencing severe pneumonia and rapid progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiple organ failure. In these patients, the equilibrium of the inflammatory response is a major determinant of survival. The impact of anesthetics on immune-system modulation may vary and includes both pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory effects.

Implications

Inhibition of the development of severe inflammation and/or the enhancement of inflammation resolution by anesthetics may limit organ damage and improve outcomes in patients with COVID-19.