Tight control of mean arterial pressure using a closed loop system for norepinephrine infusion after high-risk abdominal surgery: a randomized controlled trial

Intensive care unit (ICU) nurses frequently manually titrate norepinephrine to maintain a predefined mean arterial pressure (MAP) target after high-risk surgery. However, achieving this task is often suboptimal. We have developed a closed-loop vasopressor (CLV) controller to better maintain MAP within a narrow range. After ethical committee approval, fifty-three patients admitted to the ICU following high-risk abdominal surgery were randomized to CLV or manual norepinephrine titration. In both groups, the aim was to maintain MAP in the predefined target of 80-90 mmHg. Fluid administration was standardized in the two groups using an advanced hemodynamic monitoring device. The primary outcome of our study was the percentage of time patients were in the MAP target. Over the 2-hour study period, the percentage of time with MAP in target was greater in the CLV group than in the control group (median: IQR25-75: 80 [68-88]% vs. 42 [22-65]%), difference 37.2, 95% CI (23.0-49.2); p < 0.001). Percentage time with MAP under 80 mmHg (1 [0-5]% vs. 26 [16-75]%, p < 0.001) and MAP under 65 mmHg (0 [0-0]% vs. 0 [0-4]%, p = 0.017) were both lower in the CLV group than in the control group. The percentage of time with a MAP > 90 mmHg was not statistically different between groups. In patients admitted to the ICU after high-risk abdominal surgery, closed-loop control of norepinephrine infusion better maintained a MAP target of 80 to 90 mmHg and significantly decreased postoperative hypotensive when compared to manual norepinephrine titration.

[The current sepsis guidelines-What do you need to know?]

The current international sepsis guidelines from 2021 are based on the work of a panel of 60 international experts from various fields. They include a total of 93 recommendations, some of which include new aspects compared to the 2016 version of the guidelines. This article provides a subjective compilation by two internal medicine intensivists who highlight some aspects, especially of changes within the guidelines compared to the previous version. The focus is on the fields of screening, sepsis bundles, fluid and vasopressor treatment and adjuvant treatment. In addition, for the first time these guidelines address the important issue of long-term sequelae for sepsis survivors and their environment.

A plea for personalization of the hemodynamic management of septic shock

Although guidelines provide excellent expert guidance for managing patients with septic shock, they leave room for personalization according to patients' condition. Hemodynamic monitoring depends on the evolution phase: salvage, optimization, stabilization, and de-escalation. Initially during the salvage phase, monitoring to identify shock etiology and severity should include arterial pressure and lactate measurements together with clinical examination, particularly skin mottling and capillary refill time. Low diastolic blood pressure may trigger vasopressor initiation. At this stage, echocardiography may be useful to identify significant cardiac dysfunction. During the optimization phase, echocardiographic monitoring should be pursued and completed by the assessment of tissue perfusion through central or mixed-venous oxygen saturation, lactate, and carbon dioxide veno-arterial gradient. Transpulmonary thermodilution and the pulmonary artery catheter should be considered in the most severe patients. Fluid therapy also depends on shock phases. While administered liberally during the resuscitation phase, fluid responsiveness should be assessed during the optimization phase. During stabilization, fluid infusion should be minimized. In the de-escalation phase, safe fluid withdrawal could be achieved by ensuring tissue perfusion is preserved. Norepinephrine is recommended as first-line vasopressor therapy, while vasopressin may be preferred in some patients. Essential questions remain regarding optimal vasopressor selection, combination therapy, and the most effective and safest escalation. Serum renin and the angiotensin I/II ratio may identify patients who benefit most from angiotensin II. The optimal therapeutic strategy for shock requiring high-dose vasopressors is scant. In all cases, vasopressor therapy should be individualized, based on clinical evaluation and blood flow measurements to avoid excessive vasoconstriction. Inotropes should be considered in patients with decreased cardiac contractility associated with impaired tissue perfusion. Based on pharmacologic properties, we suggest as the first test a limited dose of dobutamine, to add enoximone or milrinone in the second line and substitute or add levosimendan if inefficient. Regarding adjunctive therapies, while hydrocortisone is nowadays advised in patients receiving high doses of vasopressors, patients responding to corticosteroids may be identified in the future by the analysis of selected cytokines or specific transcriptomic endotypes. To conclude, although some general rules apply for shock management, a personalized approach should be considered for hemodynamic monitoring and support.

Shock index is better than conventional vital signs for assessing higher level of care and mortality in severe sepsis or shock

BACKGROUND

Conventional vital signs alone have limitations in determining the physiological status. Age-adjusted shock-index (SIPA), a comprehensive physiological variable, defined as the ratio of heart rate (HR) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) may be better at predicting hemodynamic stability and outcome than vital signs.

OBJECTIVES

To compare discriminatory power of SIPA against vital signs in assessing higher level of care (vasopressor use and mechanical ventilation) and early mortality in severe sepsis/septic shock.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study of 116children <14 years with severe sepsis/septic shock admitted at emergency department of a tertiary care hospital. Association between abnormal signs (raised heart-rate; HR, lower systolic blood-pressure; SBP, high SIPA) and higher level of care and early mortality at 0 and completed 6 hours (t0, t6) were assessed using univariate/multivariate analysis. Area-under-receiver-operating-characteristic curves (AUROC) of SIPA and conventional vital signs for outcome variables and their correlation with arterial lactate using Pearson's-coefficient were noted.

RESULTS

High SIPA was independently associated with higher level of care i.e. vasopressor use, mechanical ventilation (AUROC t0: 0.698, 0.730; AUROC t6; 0.733, 0.735) as well as early mortality (AUROC t0: 0.638; AUROC t6:0.721) at t0 and t6. At t0, only high SIPA (r² = 0.313) fairly correlated with arterial lactate (4.5 mmol/L). At t6, HR and SBP showed weak and SIPA (r² = 0.434) demonstrated moderate correlation with arterial lactate.

CONCLUSIONS

SIPA performs better than conventional vital-signs in recognising higher-level-of-care and early mortality.

[Perioperative pharmacological circulatory support in daily clinical routine]

Perioperative phases of hypotension are associated with an increase in postoperative complications and organ damage. Whereas some years ago hemodynamic stabilization was primarily carried out by volume supplementation, in recent years the use and dosing of cardiovascular-active substances has significantly increased. But like intravascular volume therapy, also substances with a cardiovascular effect have therapeutic margins, and thus, potential side effects. This review article discusses indications for each cardiovascular-active agent, weighing up advantages and disadvantages. Special attention is paid to the question how to administrate them: central venous catheter vs. peripheral indwelling venous cannula. The authors come to the conclusion that it is not a question of whether it is principally allowed to apply cardiovascular-active drugs via peripheral veins but more importantly, what should be taken into consideration if a peripheral venous access is used. This article provides concise recommendations.

Minimizing catecholamines and optimizing perfusion

Catecholamines are used to increase cardiac output and blood pressure, aiming ultimately at restoring/improving tissue perfusion. While intuitive in its concept, this approach nevertheless implies to be effective that regional organ perfusion would increase in parallel to cardiac output or perfusion pressure and that the catecholamine does not have negative effects on the microcirculation. Inotropic agents may be considered in some conditions, but it requires prior optimization of cardiac preload. Alternative approaches would be either to minimize exposure to vasopressors, tolerating hypotension and trying to prioritize perfusion but this may be valid as long as perfusion of the organ is preserved, or to combine moderate doses of vasopressors to vasodilatory agents, especially if these are predominantly acting on the microcirculation. In this review, we will discuss the pros and cons of the use of catecholamines and alternative agents for improving tissue perfusion in septic shock.

Vasopressors induce passive pulmonary hypertension by blood redistribution from systemic to pulmonary circulation

Vasopressors are widely used in resuscitation, ventricular failure, and sepsis, and often induce pulmonary hypertension with undefined mechanisms. We hypothesize that vasopressor-induced pulmonary hypertension is caused by increased pulmonary blood volume and tested this hypothesis in dogs under general anesthesia. In normal hearts (model 1), phenylephrine (2.5 μg/kg/min) transiently increased right but decreased left cardiac output, associated with increased pulmonary blood volume (63% ± 11.8, P = 0.007) and pressures in the left atrium, pulmonary capillary, and pulmonary artery. However, the trans-pulmonary gradient and pulmonary vascular resistance remained stable. These changes were absent after decreasing blood volume or during right cardiac dysfunction to reduce pulmonary blood volume (model 2). During double-ventricle bypass (model 3), phenylephrine (1, 2.5 and 10 μg/kg/min) only slightly induced pulmonary vasoconstriction. Vasopressin (1U and 2U) dose-dependently increased pulmonary artery pressure (52 ± 8.4 and 71 ± 10.3%), but did not cause pulmonary vasoconstriction in normally beating hearts (model 1). Pulmonary artery and left atrial pressures increased during left ventricle dysfunction (model 4), and further increased after phenylephrine injection by 31 ± 5.6 and 43 ± 7.5%, respectively. In conclusion, vasopressors increased blood volume in the lung with minimal pulmonary vasoconstriction. Thus, this pulmonary hypertension is similar to the hemodynamic pattern observed in left heart diseases and is passive, due to redistribution of blood from systemic to pulmonary circulation. Understanding the underlying mechanisms may improve clinical management of patients who are taking vasopressors, especially those with coexisting heart disease.

A systematic review of extravasation and local tissue injury from administration of vasopressors through peripheral intravenous catheters and central venous catheters

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to collect and describe all published reports of local tissue injury or extravasation from vasopressor administration via either peripheral intravenous (IV) or central venous catheter.

METHODS

A systematic search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed from inception through January 2014 for reports of adults who received vasopressor intravenously via peripheral IV or central venous catheter for a therapeutic purpose. We included primary studies or case reports of vasopressor administration that resulted in local tissue injury or extravasation of vasopressor solution.

RESULTS

Eighty-five articles with 270 patients met all inclusion criteria. A total of 325 separate local tissue injury and extravasation events were identified, with 318 events resulting from peripheral vasopressor administration and 7 events resulting from central administration. There were 204 local tissue injury events from peripheral administration of vasopressors, with an average duration of infusion of 55.9 hours (±68.1), median time of 24 hours, and range of 0.08 to 528 hours. In most of these events (174/204, 85.3%), the infusion site was located distal to the antecubital or popliteal fossae.

CONCLUSIONS

Published data on tissue injury or extravasation from vasopressor administration via peripheral IVs are derived mainly from case reports. Further study is warranted to clarify the safety of vasopressor administration via peripheral IVs.

A systematic review of extravasation and local tissue injury from administration of vasopressors through peripheral intravenous catheters and central venous catheters

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to collect and describe all published reports of local tissue injury or extravasation from vasopressor administration via either peripheral intravenous (IV) or central venous catheter.

METHODS

A systematic search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed from inception through January 2014 for reports of adults who received vasopressor intravenously via peripheral IV or central venous catheter for a therapeutic purpose. We included primary studies or case reports of vasopressor administration that resulted in local tissue injury or extravasation of vasopressor solution.

RESULTS

Eighty-five articles with 270 patients met all inclusion criteria. A total of 325 separate local tissue injury and extravasation events were identified, with 318 events resulting from peripheral vasopressor administration and 7 events resulting from central administration. There were 204 local tissue injury events from peripheral administration of vasopressors, with an average duration of infusion of 55.9 hours (±68.1), median time of 24 hours, and range of 0.08 to 528 hours. In most of these events (174/204, 85.3%), the infusion site was located distal to the antecubital or popliteal fossae.

CONCLUSIONS

Published data on tissue injury or extravasation from vasopressor administration via peripheral IVs are derived mainly from case reports. Further study is warranted to clarify the safety of vasopressor administration via peripheral IVs.

Vasopressors in obstetric anesthesia: A current perspective

Vasopressors are routinely used to counteract hypotension after neuraxial anesthesia in Obstetrics. The understanding of the mechanism of hypotension and the choice of vasopressor has evolved over the years to a point where phenylephrine has become the preferred vasopressor. Due to the absence of definitive evidence showing absolute clinical benefit of one over the other, especially in emergency and high-risk Cesarean sections, our choice of phenylephrine over the other vasopressors like mephentermine, metaraminol, and ephedrine is guided by indirect evidence on fetal acid-base status. This review article evaluates the present day evidence on the various vasopressors used in obstetric anesthesia today.

New directions for sepsis and septic shock research

BACKGROUND

Septic shock is a frequent complication in intensive care unit that can result in multiple organ failure and death. In addition, recent data suggested that severe sepsis and septic shock represent an economic burden. Therefore, septic shock is an important public health problem.

METHOD

In this review, we will focus on the recent evidences concerning the stages of septic shock, the complex macrocirculation and microcirculation relationship, and the importance of those evidences for future resuscitation goals and therapeutic strategies during late septic shock.

RESULT

Recently, two stages of septic shock are suggested. In early stage, hypovolemia is the main contributing factor. During this stage, macrocirculatory and microcirculatory changes run parallel, and fluid resuscitation seems to be effective in restoring the hemodynamic parameters. Late stage of septic shock is characterized by complex microcirculation and macrocirculation relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

Although early goal-directed therapy is a stepwise approach in the treatment of septic shock, tissue perfusion remains an important factor that contributes to septic shock outcome. Because appropriate monitoring of tissue perfusion is a matter of debt, the ideal therapeutic strategy remains a controversial issue that needs further investigations.