Safety of peripheral intravenous administration of vasoactive medication

A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock

Shock is a life-threatening circulatory failure that results in inadequate tissue perfusion and oxygenation. Vasopressors and inotropes are vasoactive medications that are vital in increasing systemic vascular resistance and cardiac contractility, respectively, in patients presenting with shock. To be well versed in using these agents is an important skill to have in the critical care setting where patients can frequently exhibit symptoms of shock. In this review, we will discuss the pathophysiological mechanisms of shock and evaluate the current evidence behind the management of shock with an emphasis on vasopressors and inotropes.

Use and Outcomes of Peripheral Vasopressors in Early Sepsis-Induced Hypotension Across Michigan Hospitals: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Vasopressors traditionally are administered via central access, but newer data suggest that peripheral administration may be safe and may avoid delays and complications associated with central line placement.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How commonly are vasopressors initiated through peripheral IV lines in routine practice? Is vasopressor initiation route associated with in-hospital mortality?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included adults hospitalized with sepsis (November 2020-September 2022) at 29 hospitals in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium, a Collaborative Quality Initiative sponsored by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. We assessed route of early vasopressor initiation, factors and outcomes associated with peripheral initiation, and timing of central line placement.

RESULTS

Five hundred ninety-four patients received vasopressors within 6 h of hospital arrival and were included in this study. Peripheral vasopressor initiation was common (400/594 [67.3%]). Patients with peripheral vs central initiation were similar; BMI was the only patient factor associated independently with initiation route (adjusted OR [aOR] of peripheral initiation [per 1-kg/m2 increase], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-1.00; P = .015). The specific hospital showed a large impact on initiation route (median OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.31-3.07). Compared with central initiation, peripheral initiation was faster (median, 2.5 h vs 2.7 h from hospital arrival; P = .002), but was associated with less initial norepinephrine use (84.3% vs 96.8%; P = .001). We found no independent association between initiation route and in-hospital mortality (32.3% vs 42.2%; aOR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.39-1.12). No tissue injury from peripheral vasopressors was documented. Of patients with peripheral initiation, 135 of 400 patients (33.8%) never received a central line.

INTERPRETATION

Peripheral vasopressor initiation was common across Michigan hospitals and had practical benefits, including expedited vasopressor administration and avoidance of central line placement in one-third of patients. However, the findings of wide practice variation that was not explained by patient case mix and lower use of first-line norepinephrine with peripheral administration suggest that additional standardization may be needed.

Safety of pre-hospital peripheral vasopressors: The SPOTLESS study (Safety of PrehOspiTaL pEripheral vaSopreSsors)

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and effectiveness of peripheral vasoactive drugs initiated during pre-hospital care and retrieval missions, in Queensland, Australia.

METHODS

Three years of retrospective data was gathered from two sources. Medical notes were reviewed using a search for any patient having 'inotrope' recorded on an electronic medical record. Each case was reviewed to include only peripheral infusions of adrenaline or noradrenaline. Clinical Governance records were searched for adverse events related to vasoactive drugs, alerted for review to ensure complete capture.

RESULTS

A total of 418 patients received peripheral infusions of adrenaline and noradrenaline over the 3-year period. No major complications were recorded either immediately or at Clinical Governance review. Minor complications were recorded in 4.7% of the cases, of which 3.5% occurred with peripheral vasoactives during the presence of the retrieval team. The frequency of use of peripheral vasoactives increased over the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective data set there were no major complications of peripheral vasoactive drugs. Minor complications were similar to in-hospital use and related to vascular access and drug delivery.

Peripheral Administration of Norepinephrine: A Prospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Historically, norepinephrine has been administered through a central venous catheter (CVC) because of concerns about the risk of ischemic tissue injury if extravasation from a peripheral IV catheter (PIVC) occurs. Recently, several reports have suggested that peripheral administration of norepinephrine may be safe.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Can a protocol for peripheral norepinephrine administration safely reduce the number of days a CVC is in use and frequency of CVC placement?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a prospective observational cohort study conducted in the medical ICU at a quaternary care academic medical center. A protocol for peripheral norepinephrine administration was developed and implemented in the medical ICU at the study site. The protocol was recommended for use in patients who met prespecified criteria, but was used at the treating clinician's discretion. All adult patients admitted to the medical ICU receiving norepinephrine through a PIVC from February 2019 through June 2021 were included.

RESULTS

The primary outcome was the number of days of CVC use that were avoided per patient, and the secondary safety outcomes included the incidence of extravasation events. Six hundred thirty-five patients received peripherally administered norepinephrine. The median number of CVC days avoided per patient was 1 (interquartile range, 0-2 days per patient). Of the 603 patients who received norepinephrine peripherally as the first norepinephrine exposure, 311 patients (51.6%) never required CVC insertion. Extravasation of norepinephrine occurred in 35 patients (75.8 events/1,000 d of PIVC infusion [95% CI, 52.8-105.4 events/1,000 d of PIVC infusion]). Most extravasations caused no or minimal tissue injury. No patient required surgical intervention.

INTERPRETATION

This study suggests that implementing a protocol for peripheral administration of norepinephrine safely can avoid 1 CVC day in the average patient, with 51.6% of patients not requiring CVC insertion. No patient experienced significant ischemic tissue injury with the protocol used. These data support performance of a randomized, prospective, multicenter study to characterize the net benefits of peripheral norepinephrine administration compared with norepinephrine administration through a CVC.

Adverse Events of Peripherally Administered Norepinephrine During Surgery: A Prospective Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Perioperative treatment of hypotension by intravenous administration of norepinephrine in a peripheral vein can lead to adverse events, for example, tissue necrosis. However, the incidence and severity of adverse events during perioperative administration are unknown.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study conducted at 3 Swedish hospitals from 2019 to 2022. A total of 1004 patients undergoing surgery, who met the criteria for perioperative peripheral norepinephrine administration, were included. The infusion site was inspected regularly. If swelling or paleness of skin was detected, the infusion site was changed to a different peripheral line. Systolic blood pressure and pulse frequency were monitored during the infusion time and defined as adverse events at >220 mm Hg and <40 beats•min-1. In case of adverse events, patients were observed for up to 48 hours. The primary outcome was prevalence of extravasation, defined as swelling around the infusion site. Secondary outcomes were all types of adverse events and associations between predefined clinical variables and risk of adverse events.

RESULTS

We observed 2.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4%-3.2%) extravasation of infusion and 0.9% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.7%) bradycardia. No cases of tissue necrosis or severe hypertension were detected. All adverse events had dissipated spontaneously within 48 hours. Proximal catheter placement was associated with more adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Extravasation of peripherally administrated norepinephrine in the perioperative period occurred at similar rates as in previous studies in critically ill patients. In our setting, where we regularly inspected the infusion site and shifted site in case of swelling or paleness of skin, we observed no case of severe adverse events. Given that severe adverse events were absent, the potential benefit of this preventive approach requires confirmation in a larger population.

[The "Big Five" of Invasiveness - the Usefulness of Drains, Probes and Catheters in Colorectal Surgery]

The perioperative management of colorectal resections is often dominated by traditional procedures and a strong focus on safety. Evidence-based measures such as those established in Fast Track or ERAS programs, are rarely applied in a standardised manner. As part of elective colorectal surgery, many patients therefore continue to routinely receive central venous access, peridural catheters, urinary catheters, drains and/or gastric tubes ("Big Five" of invasiveness). This article presents the currently available evidence on these measures in colorectal surgery. In addition, results relating to the "Big Five" from the author's own centre are presented. This review shows that the "Big Five" of invasiveness are clinically unnecessary or supported by evidence. In addition, they often impair the patient's function.

Adverse effects related with norepinephrine through short peripheral venous access: Scoping review

Peripheral administration of norepinephrine is restricted due to the association of extravasation with tissue necrosis.

METHOD

Scoping review with the objective of describing the adverse effects related to the administration of norepinephrine through short peripheral venous access and the characteristics of drug administration in patients hospitalized in ICU, surgery, and emergency services.

RESULTS

12 studies with heterogeneous characteristics by size and type of population were included. The proportion of complications associated with peripheral norepinephrine administration was less than 12% in observational studies and it was less than 2% in those that used doses less than 0.13μg/kg/min, and concentrations less than 22.3μg/mL. The main associated complication was extravasation and there were no cases of tissue necrosis at the venipuncture site, some extravasation cases were treated with phentolamine, terbutaline or topical nitroglycerin. The drug administration time ranged between 1 and 528hours with a weighted mean of 2.78h.

CONCLUSION

The main adverse effect was extravasation, no additional complications occurred, phentolamine and terbutaline seem to be useful, and its availability is a necessity. It is essential for the nursing staff to carry out a close assessment and comprehensive care in patients receiving norepinephrine by peripheral route.

Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: What Have We Learned in the Last Two Decades?

Sepsis is a clinical syndrome encompassing physiologic and biological abnormalities caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Sepsis progression into septic shock is associated with a dramatic increase in mortality, hence the importance of early identification and treatment. Over the last two decades, the definition of sepsis has evolved to improve early sepsis recognition and screening, standardize the terms used to describe sepsis and highlight its association with organ dysfunction and higher mortality. The early 2000s witnessed the birth of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), which showed a dramatic reduction in mortality leading to its wide adoption, and the surviving sepsis campaign (SSC), which has been instrumental in developing and updating sepsis guidelines over the last 20 years. Outside of early fluid resuscitation and antibiotic therapy, sepsis management has transitioned to a less aggressive approach over the last few years, shying away from routine mixed venous oxygen saturation and central venous pressure monitoring and excessive fluids resuscitation, inotropes use, and red blood cell transfusions. Peripheral vasopressor use was deemed safe and is rising, and resuscitation with balanced crystalloids and a restrictive fluid strategy was explored. This review will address some of sepsis management's most important yet controversial components and summarize the available evidence from the last two decades.

Physicochemical Characteristics of Antimicrobials and Practical Recommendations for Intravenous Administration: A Systematic Review

Most antimicrobial drugs need an intravenous (IV) administration to achieve maximum efficacy against target pathogens. IV administration is related to complications, such as tissue infiltration and thrombo-phlebitis. This systematic review aims to provide practical recommendations about diluent, pH, osmolarity, dosage, infusion rate, vesicant properties, and phlebitis rate of the most commonly used antimicrobial drugs evaluated in randomized controlled studies (RCT) till 31 March 2023. The authors searched for available IV antimicrobial drugs in RCT in PUBMED EMBASE®, EBSCO® CINAHL®, and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials. Drugs' chemical features were searched online, in drug data sheets, and in scientific papers, establishing that the drugs with a pH of <5 or >9, osmolarity >600 mOsm/L, high incidence of phlebitis reported in the literature, and vesicant drugs need the adoption of utmost caution during administration. We evaluated 931 papers; 232 studies were included. A total of 82 antimicrobials were identified. Regarding antibiotics, 37 reach the "caution" criterion, as well as seven antivirals, 10 antifungals, and three antiprotozoals. In this subgroup of antimicrobials, the correct vascular access device (VAD) selection is essential to avoid complications due to the administration through a peripheral vein. Knowing the physicochemical characteristics of antimicrobials is crucial to improve the patient's safety significantly, thus avoiding administration errors and local side effects.

Fluids and Early Vasopressors in the Management of Septic Shock: Do We Have the Right Answers Yet?

Septic shock is a common condition associated with hypotension and organ dysfunction. It is associated with high mortality rates of up to 60% despite the best recommended resuscitation strategies in international guidelines. Patients with septic shock generally have a Mean Arterial Pressure below 65 mmHg and hypotension is the most important determinant of mortality among this group of patients. The extent and duration of hypotension are important. The two initial options that we have are 1) administration of intravenous (IV) fluids and 2) vasopressors, The current recommendation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines to administer 30 ml/kg fluid cannot be applied to all patients. Complications of fluid over-resuscitation further delay organ recovery, prolong ICU and hospital length of stay, and increase mortality. The only reason for administering intravenous fluids in a patient with circulatory shock is to increase the mean systemic filling pressure in a patient who is volume-responsive, such that cardiac output also increases. The use of vasopressors seems to be a more appropriate strategy, the very early administration of vasopressors, preferably during the first hour after diagnosis of septic shock, may have a multimodal action and potential advantages, leading to lower morbidity and mortality in the management of septic patients. Vasopressor therapy should be initiated as soon as possible in patients with septic shock.

Effect of Peripherally Infused Norepinephrine on Reducing Central Venous Catheter Utilization

The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the impact of peripherally administered norepinephrine on avoiding central venous catheter insertion while maintaining safety of the infusion. An institutional guideline allows peripheral infusion of norepinephrine via dedicated, 16- to 20-gauge, mid-to-upper arm intravenous (IV) catheters for up to 24 hours. The primary outcome was the need for central venous access in patients initially started on peripherally infused norepinephrine. A total of 124 patients were evaluated (98 initially on peripherally infused norepinephrine vs 26 with central catheter only administration). Thirty-six (37%) of the 98 patients who were started on peripheral norepinephrine avoided the need for central catheter placement, which was associated with $8,900 in direct supply cost avoidance. Eighty (82%) of the 98 patients who started peripherally infused norepinephrine required the vasopressor for ≤12 hours. No extravasation or local complications were observed in any of the 124 patients, regardless of site of infusion. Administration of norepinephrine via a dedicated peripheral IV site appears safe and may lead to a reduction in the need for subsequent central venous access. To achieve timely resuscitation goals, as well as to minimize complications associated with central access, initial peripheral administration should be considered for all patients.

Reducing Central Line Utilization by Peripherally Infusing Vasopressors

BACKGROUND

Central line-associated bloodstream infection is a preventable contributor to excess death and excess cost in the health care system. Vasopressor infusion is one of the primary reasons for central line placement. In the medical intensive care unit (MICU) at an academic medical center, there was no standard practice for peripheral versus central infusion of vasopressors.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this quality improvement project was to implement an evidence-based, nurse-driven protocol to guide the peripheral infusion of vasopressors. The goal was to reduce central line utilization by 10%.

METHODS

Education on the protocol was provided to the MICU nurses, MICU residents, and crisis nurses, followed by a 16-week implementation period. Nursing staff were also surveyed preimplementation and postimplementation of the protocol.

RESULTS

Central line utilization was reduced by 37.9%, and there were no central line-associated bloodstream infections recorded during project implementation. Most of the nursing staff indicated that use of the protocol increased their confidence in administering vasopressors without a central line. No significant extravasation events occurred.

DISCUSSION

Although a causal link between implementation of this protocol and reduction of central line utilization cannot be established, the reduction is clinically meaningful given the known risks of central lines. Increased nursing staff confidence also provides support for continued use of the protocol.

CONCLUSION

A nurse-driven protocol to guide the peripheral infusion of vasopressors can be effectively implemented into nursing practice.

Management of noncytotoxic extravasation injuries: A focused update on medications, treatment strategies, and peripheral administration of vasopressors and hypertonic saline

Extravasation is the leakage of intravenous solutions into surrounding tissues, which can be influenced by drug properties, infusion techniques, and patient-related risk factors. Although peripheral administration of vesicants may increase the risk of extravasation injuries, the time and resources required for central venous catheter placement may delay administration of time-sensitive therapies. Recent literature gathered from the growing use of peripheral vasopressors and hypertonic sodium suggests low risk of harm for initiating these emergent therapies peripherally, which may prevent delays and improve patient outcomes. Physiochemical causes of tissue injury include vasoconstriction, pH-mediated, osmolar-mediated, and cytotoxic mechanisms of extravasation injuries. Acidic agents, such as promethazine, amiodarone, and vancomycin, may cause edema, sloughing, and necrosis secondary to cellular desiccation. Alternatively, basic agents, such as phenytoin and acyclovir, may be more caustic due to deeper tissue penetration of the dissociated hydroxide ions. Osmotically active agents cause cellular damage as a result of osmotic shifts across cellular membranes in addition to agent-specific toxicities, such as calcium-induced vasoconstriction and calcifications or arginine-induced leakage of potassium causing apoptosis. A new category has been proposed to identify absorption-refractory mechanisms of injury in which agents such as propofol and lipids may persist in the extravasated space and cause necrosis or compartment syndrome. Pharmacological antidotes may be useful in select extravasations but requires prompt recognition and frequently complex administration strategies. Historically, intradermal phentolamine has been the preferred agent for vasopressor extravasations, but frequent supply shortages have led to the emergence of terbutaline, a β2 -agonist, as an acceptable alternative treatment option. For hyperosmolar and pH-related mechanisms of injuries, hyaluronidase is most commonly used to facilitate absorption and dispersion of injected agents. However, extravasation management is largely supportive and requires a protocolized multidisciplinary approach for early detection, treatment, and timely surgical referral when required to minimize adverse events.

How We Escalate Vasopressor and Corticosteroid Therapy in Patients With Septic Shock

Septic shock is defined by the need for vasopressor agents to correct hypotension and lactic acidosis resulting from infection, with 30%-40% case fatality rates. The care of patients with worsening septic shock involves multiple treatment decisions involving vasopressor choices and adjunctive treatments. In this edition of "How I Do It", we provide a case-based discussion of common clinical decisions regarding choice of first-line vasopressor, BP targets, route of vasopressor delivery, use of secondary vasopressors, and adjunctive medications. We also consider diagnostic approaches, treatment, and monitoring strategies for the patient with worsening shock, as well as approaches to difficult weaning of vasopressors.

Early Restrictive or Liberal Fluid Management for Sepsis-Induced Hypotension

BACKGROUND

Intravenous fluids and vasopressor agents are commonly used in early resuscitation of patients with sepsis, but comparative data for prioritizing their delivery are limited.

METHODS

In an unblinded superiority trial conducted at 60 U.S. centers, we randomly assigned patients to either a restrictive fluid strategy (prioritizing vasopressors and lower intravenous fluid volumes) or a liberal fluid strategy (prioritizing higher volumes of intravenous fluids before vasopressor use) for a 24-hour period. Randomization occurred within 4 hours after a patient met the criteria for sepsis-induced hypotension refractory to initial treatment with 1 to 3 liters of intravenous fluid. We hypothesized that all-cause mortality before discharge home by day 90 (primary outcome) would be lower with a restrictive fluid strategy than with a liberal fluid strategy. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 1563 patients were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Resuscitation therapies that were administered during the 24-hour protocol period differed between the two groups; less intravenous fluid was administered in the restrictive fluid group than in the liberal fluid group (difference of medians, -2134 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2318 to -1949), whereas the restrictive fluid group had earlier, more prevalent, and longer duration of vasopressor use. Death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 occurred in 109 patients (14.0%) in the restrictive fluid group and in 116 patients (14.9%) in the liberal fluid group (estimated difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.4 to 2.6; P = 0.61); 5 patients in the restrictive fluid group and 4 patients in the liberal fluid group had their data censored (lost to follow-up). The number of reported serious adverse events was similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CLOVERS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434028.).

European recommendations on the proper indication and use of peripheral venous access devices (the ERPIUP consensus): A WoCoVA project

Since several innovations have recently changed the criteria of choice and management of peripheral venous access (new devices, new techniques of insertion, new recommendations for maintenance), the WoCoVA Foundation (WoCoVA = World Conference on Vascular Access) has developed an international Consensus with the following objectives: to propose a clear and useful classification of the currently available peripheral venous access devices; to clarify the proper indication of central versus peripheral venous access; discuss the indications of the different peripheral venous access devices (short peripheral cannulas vs long peripheral cannulas vs midline catheters); to define the proper techniques of insertion and maintenance that should be recommended today. To achieve these purposes, WoCoVA have decided to adopt a European point of view, considering some relevant differences of terminology between North America and Europe in this area of venous access and the need for a common basis of understanding among the experts recruited for this project. The ERPIUP Consensus (ERPIUP = European Recommendations for Proper Indication and Use of Peripheral venous access) was designed to offer systematic recommendations for clinical practice, covering every aspect of management of peripheral venous access devices in the adult patient: indication, insertion, maintenance, prevention and treatment of complications, removal. Also, our purpose was to improve the standardization of the terminology, bringing clarity of definition, and classification.

Anesthetic management of patients with sepsis/septic shock

Sepsis is defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, while septic shock is a subset of sepsis with persistent hypotension requiring vasopressors to maintain a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of ≥65 mmHg and having a serum lactate level of >2 mmol/L, despite adequate volume resuscitation. Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies and time-dependent diseases with a high mortality rate for which early identification, early antibiotic therapy, and early source control are paramount for patient outcomes. The patient may require surgical intervention or an invasive procedure aiming to control the source of infection, and the anesthesiologist has a pivotal role in all phases of patient management. During the preoperative assessment, patients should be aware of all possible organ dysfunctions, and the severity of the disease combined with the patient's physiological reserve should be carefully assessed. All possible efforts should be made to optimize conditions before surgery, especially from a hemodynamic point of view. Anesthetic agents may worsen the hemodynamics of shock patients, and the anesthesiologist must know the properties of each anesthetic agent. All possible efforts should be made to maintain organ perfusion supporting hemodynamics with fluids, vasoactive agents, and inotropes if required.

How I Teach: Ultrasound-guided Peripheral Venous Access

Ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous (IV) placement is often required for patients with difficult IV access and is associated with a reduction in central line placement. Despite the importance, there is no standardized technical approach, and there is limited ability to attain mastery through simulation. We describe our step-by-step approach for teaching ultrasound-guided IV placement at the bedside using short-axis dynamic guidance, with emphasis on advancing the needle and catheter device almost entirely into the vessel before threading the catheter. Our teaching approach allows the opportunity for trainees to maximize the learning potential of a single insertion experience, which includes focused preprocedure hands-on practice, instruction with real-time feedback at the bedside, and a post-procedure debrief with reinforcement of concepts.

Septic Shock: Management and Outcomes

The incidence rates of sepsis and septic shock as a complication have become more common over the past several decades. With this increase, sepsis remains the most common cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and one of the most mortality factors, with a huge burden on healthcare facilities. Septic shock has devastating consequences on patients' lives, including organ failures and other long-term complications. Due to its dynamic clinical presentations, guidelines and tools have been established to improve the diagnosis and management effectively. However, there is still a need for evidence-based standardized procedures for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of sepsis and septic shock patients due to the inconsistency of current guidelines and studies contrasting with each other. The standardization would help physicians better manage sepsis, minimize complications and reduce mortality. Septic shock is usually challenging to manage due to its variety of clinical characteristics and physiologic dynamics, affecting the outcomes. Therefore, this review presented the available data in the literature on septic shock diagnosis, management, and prognosis to have an overview of the updated best practice approach to septic shock.

Inadvertent extravasations of norepinephrine

A male patient of diabetic ketoacidosis and septic shock was started on norepinephrine infusion following which he developed bulla and subcutaneous tissue ischemia in the event of inadvertent extravasations of norepinephrine. The patient improved after management with mechanical debridement of necrosed tissue and regular dressing of the wound. The use of higher concentration of norepinephrine via peripheral intravenous route may lead to vasoconstriction and subcutaneous tissue ischemia due to inadvertent extravasations.

Safety and outcomes of short-term use of peripheral vasoactive infusions in critically ill paediatric population in the emergency department

Early restoration of oxygen delivery to end organs in paediatric patients experiencing shock states is critical to optimizing outcomes. However, obtaining central access in paediatric patients may be challenging in non-intensive care settings. There is limited literature on the use of peripheral vasoactive infusions in the initial resuscitation of paediatric patients in the emergency department. The aims of this study were to report the associated complications of peripheral vasoactive infusions and describe our local experience on its use. This was a single-centre, retrospective study on all paediatric patients who received peripheral vasoactive infusions at our paediatric emergency department from 2009 to 2016. 65 patients were included in this study. No patients had any local or regional complications. The mean patient age was 8.29 years old (± 5.99). The most frequent diagnosis was septic shock (45, 69.2%). Dopamine was the most used peripheral vasoactive agent (71.2%). The median time to central agents was 2 h (IQR 1–4). 16(24.2%) received multiple peripheral infusions. We reported no complications of peripheral vasoactive infusions. Its use could serve as a bridge till central access is obtained. Considerations on the use of multiple peripheral vasoactive infusions in the emergency department setting needs further research.

Adherence to Pediatric Sepsis Treatment Recommendations at Emergency Departments: A Multicenter Study in Latin America

OBJECTIVE

Sepsis is one of the most urgent health care issues worldwide. Guidelines for early identification and treatment are essential to decrease sepsis-related mortality. Our aim was to collect data on the epidemiology of pediatric septic shock (PSS) from the emergency department (PED) and to assess adherence to recommendations for its management in the first hour.

METHODS

A multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted evaluating children with PSS seen at the PED of 10 tertiary-care centers in Latin America. Adherence to guidelines was evaluated.

RESULTS

We included 219 patients (median age, 3.7 years); 43% had comorbidities, 31% risk factors for developing sepsis, 74% clinical signs of "cold shock," and 13% of "warm shock," 22% had hypotension on admission. Consciousness was impaired in 55%. A peripheral line was used as initial access in 78% (median placement time, 10 minutes). Fluid and antibiotics infusion was achieved within a median time of 30 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 20-60 minutes) and 40 minutes (IQR, 20-60 minutes), respectively; 40% responded inadequately to fluids requiring vasoactive drugs (median time at initiation, 60 minutes; IQR, 30-135 minutes). Delay to vasoactive drug infusion was significantly longer when a central line was placed compared to a peripheral line (median time, 133 minutes [59-278 minutes] vs 42 minutes [30-70 minutes], respectively [ P < 0.001]). Adherence to all treatment goals was achieved in 13%. Mortality was 10%. An association between mortality and hypotension on admission was found (26.1% with hypotension vs 4.9% without; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We found poor adherence to the international recommendations for the treatment of PSS in the first hour at the PED in third-level hospitals in Latin America.

Advances in Sepsis Care

This review article summarizes current scientific evidence regarding the treatment of sepsis. We highlight recent advances in sepsis management with a focus on antibiotics, fluids, vasopressors, and adjunctive therapies such as corticosteroids and renal replacement therapy.

Norepinephrine may improve survival of septic shock patients in a low-resource setting: a proof-of-concept study on feasibility and efficacy outside the Intensive Care Unit

Septic shock treatment in sub-Saharan African hospitals is challenging due to limited availability of ICUs, central venous catheters, vasopressors, and trained staff. We designed this proof-of-concept study to determine efficacy, safety, and feasibility of norepinephrine (NE) use in a non-intensive setting in a low-resource country, consisting in a peripheral infusion via a mechanical drop counter. Septic shock patients accessing a rural hospital in Uganda were included: the 2020 group (N = 12) was prospectively enrolled (Jan-Mar 2020) when NE was available; the 2019 group (N = 11) was retrospectively enrolled (Oct-Dec 2019). Enrollment was continuous to reduce selection bias. Basic clinical endpoints (noninvasive blood pressure, tissue perfusion, diuresis) defined shock control and the prognostic endpoint was survival at hospital discharge. Shock control at 6 and 12 hours was higher in the 2020 group (p = 0.012 for both). Survival at hospital discharge was 75% and 27.3%, respectively (p = 0.039). NE infusion was associated with a Hazard Ratio of 0.23 (p = 0.041) in a multivariate Cox model. No NE-induced adverse effects were detected. These preliminary results suggest that implementing NE infusion in a low-resource setting without ICU could be a safe and effective strategy in managing septic shock and that this approach could lead to a lower mortality rate.

Peripheral Vasoactive Administration in Critically Ill Children With Shock: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

Management of fluid refractory pediatric shock requires prompt administration of vasoactive agents. Although delivery of vasoactive therapy is generally provided via a central venous catheter, their placement can delay drug administration and is associated with complications. We characterize peripheral vasoactive administration in a cohort of critically ill children with shock, evaluate progression to central venous catheter placement, and describe complications associated with extravasation.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Single-center, quaternary PICU (January 2010 to December 2015).

PATIENTS

Children (31 d to 18 yr) who received epinephrine, norepinephrine, or dopamine.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We compared patients based on the initial site of vasoactive infusion: peripheral venous access (PVA) or central venous access (CVA) and, within the PVA group, compared patients based on subsequent placement of a central catheter for vasoactive infusion. We also characterized peripheral extravasations. We evaluated 756 patients: 231 (30.6%) PVA and 525 (69.4%) CVA patients. PVA patients were older, had lower illness severity, and more frequently had vasoactive therapy initiated at night compared with CVA patients. In PVA patients, 124 (53.7%) had a central catheter placed after a median of 140 minutes (interquartile range, 65-247 min) of peripheral treatment. Patients who avoided central catheter placement had lower illness severity. Of the 93 patients with septic shock, 44 (47.3%) did not have a central catheter placed. Extravasations occurred in four of 231 (1.7% [95% CI, 0.03-3.4]) PVA patients, exclusively in the hand. Three patients received pharmacologic intervention, and none had long-term disabilities.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, peripheral venous catheters can be used for vasoactive administration. In our series, the upper limit of the 95% CI for extravasation is approximately 1-in-30, meaning that this route may be an appropriate option while evaluating the need for central access, particularly in patients with low illness severity.

Vasopressor Administration via Peripheral Intravenous Access for Emergency Department Stabilization in Septic Shock Patients

Background

Septic shock is commonly treated in the emergency department (ED) with vasopressors. Prior data have shown that vasopressor administration through a peripheral intravenous line (PIV) is feasible.

Objectives

To characterize vasopressor administration for patients presenting to an academic ED in septic shock.

Materials and methods

Retrospective observational cohort study evaluating initial vasopressor administration for septic shock. ED patients from June 2018 to May 2019 were screened. Exclusion criteria included other shock states, hospital transfers, or heart failure history. Patient demographics, vasopressor data, and length of stay (LOS) were collected. Cases were grouped by initiation site: PIV, ED placed central line (ED-CVL), or tunneled port/indwelling central line (Prior-CVL).

Results

Of the 136 patients identified, 69 were included. Vasopressors were initiated via PIV in 49%, ED-CVL in 25%, and prior-CVL in 26%. The time to initiation was 214.8 minutes in PIV and 294.7 minutes in ED-CVL (p = 0.240). Norepinephrine predominated all groups. No extravasation or ischemic complications were identified with PIV vasopressor administration. Twenty-eight-day mortality was 20.6% for PIV, 17.6% for ED-CVL, and 61.1% for prior-CVL. Of 28-day survivors, ICU LOS was 4.44 for PIV and 4.86 for ED-CVL (p = 0.687), while vasopressor days were 2.26 for PIV and 3.14 for ED-CVL (p = 0.050).

Conclusion

Vasopressors are being administered via PIVs for ED septic shock patients. Norepinephrine comprised the majority of initial PIV vasopressor administration. There were no documented episodes of extravasation or ischemia. Further studies should look at the duration of PIV administration with potential avoidance of central venous cannulation altogether in appropriate patients.

How to cite this article

Kilian S, Surrey A, McCarron W, Mueller K, Wessman BT. Vasopressor Administration via Peripheral Intravenous Access for Emergency Department Stabilization in Septic Shock Patients. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(7):811-815.

First-line Vasopressor Use in Septic Shock and Route of Administration: An Epidemiologic Study

RATIONALE

Norepinephrine is a first-line agent for treatment of hypotension in septic shock. However, its frequency of use, and potential barriers to its use are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the frequency of use of norepinephrine in septic shock, to identify potential barriers to its use, and to evaluate trends in use of vasopressors over time.

METHODS

Retrospective population-based cohort study of patients with septic shock in Alberta, Canada between July 1, 2012 and December 31, 2018. The primary outcome was receipt of a first-line vasopressor other than norepinephrine ("non-norepinephrine vasopressor"). Predictors of receiving a non-norepinephrine vasopressor were assessed using a multivariable-adjusted, multilevel logistic regression model with intensive care unit (ICU) as a random effect.

RESULTS

Among 6343 patients with septic shock, the proportion of patients receiving non-norepinephrine vasopressors as first-line treatment decreased steadily from 11.5% in 2012 to 3.0% in 2018. Two factors most strongly associated with their receipt were having peripheral intravenous access only (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 6.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.58-8.26, p<0.001) and year of admission (aOR 0.74 per year after 2012, 95% CI 0.69-0.80, p<0.001). Other factors that had associations after adjustment included admission to a non-teaching hospital (aOR 2.19, 95% CI 1.23-3.89, p=0.007), admission to a coronary care unit (aOR 2.56, 95% CI 1.001-6.54, p=0.05), SOFA score (aOR 0.92 per unit increase, 95% CI 0.88-0.96, p<0.001) and heart rate (aOR 0.92 per 10 beat per minute increase, 95% CI 0.87-0.97, p=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large cohort of patients in Alberta, Canada, we found a steady decrease in use of first-line vasopressors other than norepinephrine in septic shock. The strongest factor associated with their use was the presence of only peripheral venous access, suggesting this may still be considered a barrier to administration of norepinephrine.

Utilisation of peripheral vasopressor medications and extravasation events among critically ill patients in Rwanda: A prospective cohort study

Introduction

In high-income settings, vasopressor administration to treat haemodynamic instability through a central venous catheter (CVC) is the preferred standard. However, due to lack of availability and potential for complications, CVCs are not widely used in low- and middle-income countries. This prospective cohort study evaluated the use of peripheral vasopressors and associated incidence of extravasation events in patients with haemodynamic instability at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Kigali, Rwanda.

Methods

Patients ≥18 years of age receiving peripheral vasopressors in the emergency centre (EC) or intensive care unit (ICU) for >1 hour were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was extravasation events. Patients were followed hourly until extravasation, medication discontinuation, death, or CVC placement. Extravasation incidence with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using Poisson exact tests.

Results

64 patients were analysed. The median age was 49 (Interquartile Range [IQR]:33-65) and 55% were female. Distributive shock was the most frequent aetiology (47%). Intravenous (IV) location was most commonly antecubital fossa/upper arm (31%) and forearm/hand (43%). IV gauges ≤18 were used in 58% of locations. Most patients were treated with adrenaline (66%) and noradrenaline (41%), and 11% received multiple vasopressors. The median treatment duration was 19 hours (IQR:8.5-37). Treatment discontinuation was predominantly due to mortality (41%) or resolution of instability (36%). There were two extravasation events (2.9%), both limited to soft tissue swelling. Extravasation incidence was 0.8 events per 1000 patient-hours (95% CI:0.2-2.2).

Conclusion

Extravasation incidence with peripheral vasopressors was low, even with long use durations, suggesting peripheral infusions may be an acceptable approach when barriers exist to CVC placement.

Safety of Vasopressor Medications through Peripheral Line in Pediatric Patients in PICU in a Resource-Limited Setting

Objective

Central venous catheter (CVC) placement in children in resource-limited settings (RLSs) can be a difficult task. Timely administration of vasopressor medications (VMs) through peripheral intravenous line (PIV) can help overcome this limitation. We aim to determine the safety of administration of vasopressor medications through PIVs in children admitted to pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) in a RLS.

Design

Prospective observational study. Setting. An eight-bedded PICU of a tertiary care hospital. Patients. Children aged 1 month to 18 years admitted to the PICU. Intervention. None. Measurements and Main Results. All children (aged 1 month–18 years) who received VMs through PIV line from January 2019 to December 2019 were prospectively followed for the development of extravasation, conversion to CVC, duration of infusion, maximum dose of VMs used, maximum vasopressor inotropic score (VIS), and coadministration of vasopressor medication through PIV line. Results are presented as means with standard deviation and frequency with percentages. A total of 369 patients were included in the study, 221 (59.9%) were males, and the median age of the study population was 24 months (IQR; 6–96). Epinephrine was the most frequently used vasopressor medication (n = 279, 75.6%), followed by milrinone (n = 93, 25.2%), norepinephrine (n = 42, 11.4%), and dopamine (n = 32, 8.7%). The maximum dose of vasopressor medication was 0.25 µg/kg/min (epinephrine), 0.2 µg/kg/min (norepinephrine), 15 µg/kg/min (dopamine), and 0.8 µg/kg/min (milrinone). Extravasation was observed in 8 (2.2%) patients, while PIV line was converted to CVC in 127 (34.4%) children. Maximum dose of epinephrine, norepinephrine, VIS score, and PRISM Score was associated with conversion to CVC (p < 0.001), while none of them was associated with risk for extravasation.

Conclusion

Vasopressor medication through PIV line is a safe option in patients admitted to the PICU.

Vesicant infusates are not associated with ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter failure: A secondary analysis of existing data

Background

Intravenous vesicants are commonly infused via peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) despite guidelines recommending administration via central route. The impact of these medications on PIVC failure is unclear. We aimed to assess dose-related impact of these caustic medications on ultrasound-guided (US) PIVC survivorship.

Methods

We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized control trial that compared survival of two catheters: a standard long (SL) and an ultra-long (UL) US PIVC. This study involved reviewing and recording all vesicants infusions through the PIVCs. Type and number of vesicants doses were extracted and characterized as one, two or multiple. The most commonly used vesicants were individually categorized for further analysis. The primary outcome was PIVC failure accounting for use and timing of vesicant infusates.

Results

Between October 2018 and March 2019, 257 subjects were randomized with 131 in the UL group and 126 in the SL group. Vesicants were infused in 96 (37.4%) out of 257 study participants. In multivariable time-dependent extended Cox regression analysis, there was no significant increased risk of failure due to vesicant use [adjusted hazard ratio, aHR 1.71 (95% CI 0.76–1.81) p = 0.477]. The number of vesicant doses was not significantly associated with the increased risk of PIVC failure [(1 vs 0) aHR 1.20 (95% CI 0.71–2.02) p = 0.500], [(2 vs 0) aHR 1.51 (95% CI 0.67–3.43) p = 0.320] and [(≥ 3 vs 0) aHR 0.98 (95% CI 0.50–1.92) p = 0.952].

Conclusion

Vesicant usage did not significantly increase the risk of PIVC failure even when multiple doses were needed in this investigation. Ultrasound-guided PIVCs represent a pragmatic option when vesicant therapy is anticipated. Nevertheless, it is notable that overall PIVC failure rates remain high and other safety events related to vesicant use should be considered when clinicians make vascular access decisions for patients.

Use of Inotropics by Peripheral Vascular Line in the First Hour of Treatment of Pediatric Septic Shock: Experience at an Emergency Department

OBJECTIVE

Mortality in pediatric septic shock remains unacceptably high. Delays in vasopressor administration have been associated with an increased risk of mortality. Current treatment guidelines suggest the use of a peripheral vascular line (PVL) for inotropic administration in fluid-refractory septic shock when a central vascular line is not already in place. The aim of this study was to report local adverse effects associated with inotropic drug administration through a PVL at a pediatric emergency department setting in the first hour of treatment of septic shock.

METHODS

A prospective, descriptive, observational cohort study of patients with septic shock requiring PVL inotropic administration was conducted at the pediatric emergency department of a tertiary care pediatric hospital. For the infusion and postplacement care of the PVL for vasoactive drugs, an institutional nursing protocol was used.

RESULTS

We included 49 patients; 51% had an underlying disease. Eighty-four percent of the children included had a clinical "cold shock." The most frequently used vasoactive drug was epinephrine (72%). One patient presented with local complications.

CONCLUSIONS

At our center, infusion of vasoactive drugs through a PVL was shown to be safe and allowed for adherence to the current guidelines for pediatric septic shock.

Low-Concentration Norepinephrine Infusion for Major Surgery: A Safety and Feasibility Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Prevention of hypotension during the intra- and postoperative period is an important goal. Peripheral administration of low-concentration norepinephrine may be a safe and effective strategy to reduce the risk of hypotension.

METHODS

We conducted a 2-center, randomized pilot feasibility trial, with a target of 60 adult patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery. We randomized patients to receive a peripheral low-concentration (10 µg/mL) norepinephrine or placebo (saline 0.9%) infusion. The study drug infusion was titrated to achieve a minimum systolic blood pressure target, preselected within 10% of baseline value and within the range limit 100 to 120 mm Hg during surgery and for up to 4 or 24 hours postoperatively.

RESULTS

We achieved a high consent rate (84%), successful study drug administration throughout surgery (98% of patients) and absence of unblinding. There were no important study drug-related adverse events. The average intraoperative systolic blood pressure was 120 ± 12.6 mm Hg in the norepinephrine group and 115 ± 14.9 mm Hg in the placebo group. The mean difference between the intraoperative systolic blood pressure achieved less the preselected minimum systolic blood pressure target was 10.0 ± 12.7 mm Hg in the norepinephrine group and 2.9 ± 14.7 mm Hg in the placebo group; difference in means, 7.1 (95% confidence interval, 0.2-14.0) mm Hg.

CONCLUSIONS

A future large trial evaluating the effectiveness and safety of peripheral administration of low-concentration norepinephrine during the perioperative period is feasible, and likely to achieve a minimum systolic blood pressure threshold.

Beyond the bundle: Clinical controversies in the management of sepsis in emergency medicine patients

Sepsis is a condition characterized by life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. The emergency department (ED) serves as a crucial entry point for patients presenting with sepsis. Given the heterogeneous presentation and high mortality rate associated with sepsis and septic shock, several clinical controversies have emerged in the management of sepsis. These include the use of novel therapeutic agents like angiotensin II, hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, thiamine ("HAT") therapy, and levosimendan, Additionally, controversies with current treatments in vasopressor dosing, and the use of and balanced or unbalanced crystalloid are crucial to consider. The purpose of this review is to discuss clinical controversies in the management of septic patients, including the use of novel medications and dosing strategies, to assist providers in appropriately determining what treatment strategy is best suited for patients.

Peripherally Infused Norepinephrine to Avoid Central Venous Catheter Placement in a Medical Intensive Care Unit: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Reducing central venous catheter (CVC) utilization can reduce complications in the intensive care unit (ICU). While norepinephrine (NE) is traditionally administered via a CVC, lower concentrations may be safely administered via peripheral intravenous (PIV) lines.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe the implementation of a pilot protocol utilizing PIVs to administer a low-dose and lower-concentration NE, review the number of CVCs avoided, and evaluate any adverse events.

METHODS

In a quaternary medical intensive care unit (MICU), from March 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020, we reviewed charts for CVC placement and adverse events from the pNE infusion. We also measured unit-level CVC utilization in all MICU patients and assessed the change in utilization associated with the peripheral norepinephrine (pNE) protocol.

RESULTS

Over a 1-year period, 87 patients received a pNE infusion. Overall, 44 patients (51%) never required CVC placement during their MICU stay. Three patients (3%) experienced adverse events, none of which were documented as serious and or required antidote for treatment. Implementation of the protocol was associated with a decrease in the number of patients at the unit level who received CVCs, even if they did not receive pNE.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

In this small pilot study, we pragmatically demonstrated that pNE is safe and may reduce the need for CVC placement. This information can be used to aid in pNE protocol development and implementation at other institutions, but further research should be done to confirm the safety of routine use of pNE in clinical practice.

Safety and efficacy of peripheral versus centrally administered vasopressor infusion: A single-centre retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Shock affects one-third of patients admitted to intensive care and is associated with increased mortality. Vasopressor medications are used to maintain blood pressure in shock. Central venous catheters are associated with serious complications and pose logistical difficulties for insertion. Delivery of vasopressors via peripheral intravenous cannula may be a safe alternative.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study comparing safety profile and outcomes of vasopressor delivery via peripheral and central routes in critically ill patients over a 12-month period in a mixed medical-surgical intensive care unit. Demographics, clinical characteristics, treatments, and safety outcome data were extracted from medical records. Patients were classified into three groups: vasopressor infusions via peripheral intravenous cannula, combined peripheral intravenous cannula followed by central venous catheter, and central venous catheter only. Groups were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. The impact of duration of vasopressor infusion on complication rates was assessed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

We identified 212 patients who received vasopressor infusion, 39 received via peripheral only (Group 1), 155 via peripheral followed by central (Group 2), and 18 via central only (Group 3). There were some baseline differences between groups. Group 1 had the lowest median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III score (64, interquartile range = 44-77), and Group 3, the highest (86, interquartile range = 57-101). Duration of vasopressor infusion was shortest in Group 1 and longer in Groups 2 and 3. There were no major complications; however, minor complications such as leakage, extravasation, and erythema occurred in 41% of Group 1 and 28% of Group 2 patients. Duration of peripheral vasopressor infusion was not associated with an increased risk of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of vasopressor infusions for short duration in critically ill patients via a peripheral venous cannula may be feasible, with low rates of complications, and offers a safe alternative to central venous access.

„C-Probleme“ des nichttraumatologischen Schockraummanagements

Im Rahmen des nichttraumatologischen Schockraummanagements zur Versorgung kritisch kranker Patienten werden akute Störungen der Vitalfunktionen rasch detektiert und behandelt. Beim „primary survey“ (Erstversorgung) dient das etablierte ABCDE-Schema der strukturierten Untersuchung aller relevanten Vitalparameter. Akute Störungen werden hierbei unmittelbar detektiert und therapiert. „C-Probleme“ stellen den größten Anteil der ABCDE-Störungen bei nichttraumatologischen Schockraumpatienten dar und zeichnen sich durch eine hämodynamische Instabilität infolge hypovolämischer, obstruktiver, distributiver oder kardiogener Schockformen aus. Abhängig von den lokalen Versorgungsstrukturen umfasst die nichttraumatologische Schockraumversorgung hierbei auch die Stabilisierung von Patienten mit akutem Koronarsyndrom oder nach prähospitaler Reanimation (Cardiac Arrest Center).