Terlipressin as a rescue therapy for catecholamine-resistant septic shock in children

Reporting of Social Determinants of Health in Pediatric Sepsis Studies

OBJECTIVE

Standardized, consistent reporting of social determinants of health (SDOH) in studies on children with sepsis would allow for: 1) understanding the association of SDOH with illness severity and outcomes, 2) comparing populations and extrapolating study results, and 3) identification of potentially modifiable socioeconomic factors for policy makers. We, therefore, sought to determine how frequently data on SDOH were reported, which factors were collected and how these factors were defined in studies of sepsis in children.

DATA SOURCES AND SELECTION

We reviewed 106 articles (published between 2005 and 2020) utilized in a recent systematic review on physiologic criteria for pediatric sepsis.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted by two reviewers on variables that fell within the World Health Organization's SDOH categories.

DATA SYNTHESIS

SDOH were not the primary outcome in any of the included studies. Seventeen percent of articles (18/106) did not report on any SDOH, and a further 36.8% (39/106) only reported on gender/sex. Of the remaining 46.2% of articles, the most reported SDOH categories were preadmission nutritional status (35.8%, 38/106) and race/ethnicity (18.9%, 20/106). However, no two studies used the same definition of the variables reported within each of these categories. Six studies reported on socioeconomic status (3.8%, 6/106), including two from upper-middle-income and four from lower middle-income countries. Only three studies reported on parental education levels (2.8%, 3/106). No study reported on parental job security or structural conflict.

CONCLUSIONS

We found overall low reporting of SDOH and marked variability in categorizations and definitions of SDOH variables. Consistent and standardized reporting of SDOH in pediatric sepsis studies is needed to understand the role these factors play in the development and severity of sepsis, to compare and extrapolate study results between settings and to implement policies aimed at improving socioeconomic conditions related to sepsis.

Efficacy and Safety of Vasopressin and Terlipressin in Preterm Neonates: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

The use of arginine vasopressin (AVP) and terlipressin to treat hypotension in preterm neonates is increasing. Our aim was to review the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of AVP and terlipressin for use in preterm neonates.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from inception to September 2021 were searched for studies of AVP and terlipressin in the treatment of hypotension of any cause in preterm neonates. Primary outcomes were improvement in end-organ perfusion and mortality. The risk of bias assessment and certainty of the evidence were performed using appropriate tools.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies describing the use of AVP (n = 12) or terlipressin (n = 3) among 148 preterm neonates were included. Certainly, the available evidence for the primary outcome of end-organ perfusion rated as very low. AVP or terlipressin were used to treat 144 and 4 neonates, respectively. Improvement in markers of end-organ perfusion was reported in 143 (99%) neonates treated with AVP and 3 (75%) treated with terlipressin. The mortality rate was 41% (n = 59) and 50% (n = 2) for neonates who received AVP and terlipressin, respectively. Hyponatremia was the most frequently reported adverse event (n = 37, 25%).

CONCLUSION

AVP and terlipressin may improve measured blood pressure values and possibly end-organ perfusion among neonates with refractory hypotension. However, the efficacy-safety balance of these drugs should be assessed on an individual basis and as per the underlying cause. Studies on the optimal dosing, efficacy, and safety of AVP and terlipressin in preterm neonates with variable underlying conditions are critically needed.

Applicability of Vasopressor Trials in Adult Critical Care: A Prospective Multicentre Meta-Epidemiologic Cohort Study

Objective

To assess the applicability of evidence from landmark randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of vasopressor treatment in critically ill adults.

Study Design and Setting

This prospective, multi-center cohort study was conducted at five medical and surgical intensive care units at three tertiary care centers. Consecutive cases of newly initiated vasopressor treatment were included. The primary end point was the proportion of patients (≥18 years) who met the eligibility criteria of 25 RCTs of vasopressor therapy in critically ill adults included in the most recent Cochrane review. Multilevel Poisson regression was used to estimate the eligibility proportions with 95% confidence intervals for each trial. Secondary end points included the eligibility criteria that contributed most to trial ineligibility, and the relationship between eligibility proportions and (i) the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) score, and (ii) the recruitment-to-screening ratio of each RCT. The PRECIS-2 score was used to assess the degree of pragmatism of each trial.

Results

Between January 1, 2017, and January 1, 2019, a total of 1189 cases of newly initiated vasopressor therapy were included. The median proportion of cases meeting eligibility criteria for all 25 RCTs ranged from 1.3% to 6.0%. The eligibility criteria contributing most to trial ineligibility were the exceedance of a specific norepinephrine dose, the presence of a particular shock type, and the drop below a particular blood pressure value. Eligibility proportions increased with the PRECIS-2 score but not with the recruitment-to-screening ratio of the trials.

Conclusion

The applicability of evidence from available trials on vasopressor treatment in critically ill adults to patients receiving vasopressors in daily practice is limited. Applicability increases with the degree of study pragmatism but is not reflected in a high recruitment-to-screening ratio. Our findings may help researchers design vasopressor trials and promote standardized assessment and reporting of the degree of pragmatism achieved.

Criteria for Pediatric Sepsis-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Pediatric Sepsis Definition Taskforce

OBJECTIVE

To determine the associations of demographic, clinical, laboratory, organ dysfunction, and illness severity variable values with: 1) sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock in children with infection and 2) multiple organ dysfunction or death in children with sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 1, 2004, and November 16, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Case-control studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials in children greater than or equal to 37-week-old postconception to 18 years with suspected or confirmed infection, which included the terms "sepsis," "septicemia," or "septic shock" in the title or abstract.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study characteristics, patient demographics, clinical signs or interventions, laboratory values, organ dysfunction measures, and illness severity scores were extracted from eligible articles. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

One hundred and six studies met eligibility criteria of which 81 were included in the meta-analysis. Sixteen studies (9,629 patients) provided data for the sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock outcome and 71 studies (154,674 patients) for the mortality outcome. In children with infection, decreased level of consciousness and higher Pediatric Risk of Mortality scores were associated with sepsis/severe sepsis. In children with sepsis/severe sepsis/septic shock, chronic conditions, oncologic diagnosis, use of vasoactive/inotropic agents, mechanical ventilation, serum lactate, platelet count, fibrinogen, procalcitonin, multi-organ dysfunction syndrome, Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction score, Pediatric Index of Mortality-3, and Pediatric Risk of Mortality score each demonstrated significant and consistent associations with mortality. Pooled mortality rates varied among high-, upper middle-, and lower middle-income countries for patients with sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Strong associations of several markers of organ dysfunction with the outcomes of interest among infected and septic children support their inclusion in the data validation phase of the Pediatric Sepsis Definition Taskforce.

Methylene blue versus vasopressin analog for refractory septic shock in the preterm neonate: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Refractory septic shock in neonates is still associated with high mortality, necessitating an alternative therapy, despite all currently available treatments. This study aims to assess the vasopressor effect of methylene blue (MB) in comparison to terlipressin (TP) as adjuvant therapy for refractory septic shock in the preterm neonate.

METHODS

A double-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Neonatal Intensive Care Units at Ain Shams University, Egypt. Thirty preterm neonates with refractory septic shock were randomized to receive either MB or TP as an adjuvant to conventional therapy. Both MB and TP were administered as an intravenous loading dose followed by continuous intravenous infusion. The hemodynamic variables, functional echocardiographic variables, and oxidant stress marker were assessed over a 24 h period together with the side effects of MB.

RESULTS

MB causes significant improvement in mean arterial blood pressure with a significant decrease of the norepinephrine requirements (1.15±0.21μm/kg/min at baseline vs. 0.55±0.15μm/kg/min at 24 h). MB infusion causes an increase of the pulmonary pressure (44.73±8.53 mmHg at baseline vs. 47.27±7.91 mmHg after 24 h) without affecting the cardiac output. Serum malonaldehyde decreased from 5.45±1.30 nmol/mL at baseline to 4.40±0.90 nmol/mL at 24 h in the MB group.

CONCLUSION

Administration of MB to preterm infants with refractory septic shock showed rapid increases in systemic vascular resistance and arterial blood pressure with minimal side effects.

Hemodynamic monitoring and management of pediatric septic shock

Sepsis remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality among children worldwide. Furthermore, refractory septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome are the most critical groups which account for a high mortality rate in pediatric sepsis, and their clinical course often deteriorates rapidly. Resuscitation based on hemodynamics can provide objective values for identifying the severity of sepsis and monitoring the treatment response. Hemodynamics in sepsis can be divided into two groups: basic and advanced hemodynamic parameters. Previous therapeutic guidance of early-goal directed therapy (EGDT), which resuscitated based on the basic hemodynamics (central venous pressure and central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2)) has lost its advantage compared with “usual care”. Optimization of advanced hemodynamics, such as cardiac output and systemic vascular resistance, has now been endorsed as better therapeutic guidance for sepsis. Despite this, there are still some important hemodynamics associated with prognosis. In this article, we summarize the common techniques for hemodynamic monitoring, list important hemodynamic parameters related to outcomes, and update evidence-based therapeutic recommendations for optimizing resuscitation in pediatric septic shock.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Efficacy and safety of vasopressin and terlipressin in preterm neonates: a protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The use of vasoactive agents like arginine vasopressin (AVP) and terlipressin to treat hypotension or persistent pulmonary hypertension in critically ill preterm neonates is increasing. Therefore, a systematic review of the available data on dosing, efficacy and safety of AVP and terlipressin in this patient population appears beneficial.

METHODS

We will conduct a systematic review of the available evidence on the use of AVP and terlipressin for the treatment of hypotension or persistent pulmonary hypertension in preterm neonates. We will search Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and Google Scholar from inception to March 2021. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, review the full text of eligible studies, extract data, assess the risk of bias and judge the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcome will be an (1) improvement of end-organ perfusion after initiation of AVP or terlipressin and (2) mortality prior to discharge. Our secondary outcomes will include (1) major neurosensory abnormality and (2) the occurrence of adverse events.

DISCUSSION

The currently available evidence on the efficacy and safety of AVP and terlipressin in preterm neonates is limited. Yet, evidence on the pharmacology of these drugs and the pathophysiology of vasoplegic shock support the biological plausibility for their clinical effectiveness in this population. Therefore, we aim to address this gap concerning the use of vasopressin and terlipressin among critically ill preterm neonates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This protocol has been submitted for registration to the international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews (PROSPERO, awaiting registration number).

Vasopressor Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit

After fluid administration for vasodilatory shock, vasopressors are commonly infused. Causes of vasodilatory shock include septic shock, post-cardiovascular surgery, post-acute myocardial infarction, postsurgery, other causes of an intense systemic inflammatory response, and drug -associated anaphylaxis. Therapeutic vasopressors are hormones that activate receptors-adrenergic: α1, α2, β1, β2; angiotensin II: AG1, AG2; vasopressin: AVPR1a, AVPR1B, AVPR2; dopamine: DA1, DA2. Vasopressor choice and dose vary widely because of patient and physician practice heterogeneity. Vasopressor adverse effects are excessive vasoconstriction causing organ ischemia/infarction, hyperglycemia, hyperlactatemia, tachycardia, and tachyarrhythmias. To date, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) of vasopressors has shown a decreased 28-day mortality rate. There is a need for evidence regarding alternative vasopressors as first-line vasopressors. We emphasize that vasopressors should be administered simultaneously with fluid replacement to prevent and decrease duration of hypotension in shock with vasodilation. Norepinephrine is the first-choice vasopressor in septic and vasodilatory shock. Interventions that decrease norepinephrine dose (vasopressin, angiotensin II) have not decreased 28-day mortality significantly. In patients not responsive to norepinephrine, vasopressin or epinephrine may be added. Angiotensin II may be useful for rapid resuscitation of profoundly hypotensive patients. Inotropic agent(s) (e.g., dobutamine) may be needed if vasopressors decrease ventricular contractility. Dopamine has fallen to almost no-use recommendation because of adverse effects; angiotensin II is available clinically; there are potent vasopressors with scant literature (e.g., methylene blue); and the novel V1a agonist selepressin missed on its pivotal RCT primary outcome. In pediatric septic shock, vasopressors, epinephrine, and norepinephrine are recommended equally because there is no clear evidence that supports the use of one vasoactive agent. Dopamine is recommended when epinephrine or norepinephrine is not available. New strategies include perhaps patients will be started on several vasopressors with complementary mechanisms of action, patients may be selected for particular vasopressors according to predictive biomarkers, and novel vasopressors may emerge with fewer adverse effects.

Methylene Blue for Refractory Shock in Children: A Systematic Review and Survey Practice Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Shock refractory to fluid and catecholamine therapy has significant morbidity and mortality in children. The use of methylene blue to treat refractory shock in children is not well described. We aim to collect and summarize the literature and define physicians' practice patterns regarding the use of methylene blue to treat shock in children.

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane for studies involving the use of methylene blue for catecholamine-refractory shock from database inception to 2019. Collected studies were analyzed qualitatively. To describe practice patterns of methylene blue use, we electronically distributed a survey to U.S.-based pediatric critical care physicians. We assessed physician knowledge and experience with methylene blue. Survey responses were quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated.

SETTING

Pediatric critical and cardiac care units.

PATIENTS OR SUBJECTS

Patients less than or equal to 25 years old with refractory shock treated with methylene blue.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

One-thousand two-hundred ninety-three abstracts met search criteria, 139 articles underwent full-text review, and 24 studies were included. Studies investigated refractory shock induced by a variety of etiologies and found that methylene blue was generally safe and increased mean arterial blood pressure. There is overall lack of studies, low number of study patients, and low quality of studies identified. Our survey had a 22.5% response rate, representing 125 institutions. Similar proportions of physicians reported using (40%) or never even considering (43%) methylene blue for shock. The most common reasons for not using methylene blue were unfamiliarity with this drug, its proper dosing, and lack of evidentiary support.

CONCLUSIONS

Methylene blue appears safe and may benefit children with refractory shock. There is a stark divide in familiarity and practice patterns regarding its use among physicians. Studies to formally assess safety and efficacy of methylene blue in treating pediatric shock are warranted.

Surviving sepsis campaign international guidelines for the management of septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction in children

OBJECTIVES

To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction.

DESIGN

A panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process.

METHODS

The panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, "in our practice" statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate.

RESULTS

The panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 49 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, "in our practice" statements were provided. In addition, 52 research priorities were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

A large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign International Guidelines for the Management of Septic Shock and Sepsis-Associated Organ Dysfunction in Children

OBJECTIVES

To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction.

DESIGN

A panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process.

METHODS

The panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, "in our practice" statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate.

RESULTS

The panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 52 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, "in our practice" statements were provided. In addition, 49 research priorities were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

A large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.

Terlipressin Versus Norepinephrine for Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: The meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of terlipressin compared with norepinephrine for septic shock.

Materials and Methods: The relevant studies from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase were searched by two independent investigators. A variety of keywords were used to search the studies. Stata software (version 11.0, Stata Corp LP, College Station, TX, USA) was used for statistical analysis.

Results: A total of six studies were identified and incorporated into the meta-analysis. The results showed that there was no difference for 28-day mortality (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = [0.85,1.15], P = 0.849), AE (RR = 2.54, 95% CI = [0.58,11.08], P = 0.214), and MAP (SMD = -0.10, 95% CI = [-0.35,0.14], P = 0.405), OI, urinary output, Scr, total bilirubin, ALT, and AST between TP group and NE group. While TP could decrease HR at 24 and 48 h compared with NE.

Conclusions: Current results suggest that terlipressin showed no added survival benefit for septic shock when compared with norepinephrine, while terlipressin could decrease heart rate in the late phase of septic shock compared with norepinephrine without further liver and kidney injury.

Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019128743). Available online at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42019128743.

Global Case-Fatality Rates in Pediatric Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

The global patterns and distribution of case-fatality rates (CFRs) in pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock remain poorly described.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of children with severe sepsis and septic shock to elucidate the patterns of CFRs in developing and developed countries over time. We also described factors associated with CFRs.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Excerpta Medica database, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Cochrane Central systematically for randomized clinical trials and prospective observational studies from earliest publication until January 2017, using the keywords "pediatric," "sepsis," "septic shock," and "mortality."

STUDY SELECTION

Studies involving children with severe sepsis and septic shock that reported CFRs were included. Retrospective studies and studies including only neonates were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We conducted our systematic review and meta-analysis in close accordance to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Pooled case-fatality estimates were obtained using random-effects meta-analysis. The associations of study period, study design, sepsis severity, age, and continents in which studies occurred were assessed with meta-regression.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Meta-analyses to provide pooled estimates of CFR of pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock over time.

RESULTS

Ninety-four studies that included 7561 patients were included. Pooled CFRs were higher in developing countries (31.7% [95% CI, 27.3%-36.4%]) than in developed countries (19.3% [95% CI, 16.4%-22.7%]; P < .001). Meta-analysis of CFRs also showed significant heterogeneity across studies. Continents that include mainly developing countries reported higher CFRs (adjusted odds ratios: Africa, 7.89 [95% CI, 6.02-10.32]; P < .001; Asia, 3.81 [95% CI, 3.60-4.03]; P < .001; South America, 2.91 [95% CI, 2.71-3.12]; P < .001) than North America. Septic shock was associated with higher CFRs than severe sepsis (adjusted odds ratios, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.41-1.54]). Younger age was also a risk factor (adjusted odds ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.94-0.96] per year of increase in age). Earlier study eras were associated with higher CFRs (adjusted odds ratios for 1991-2000, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.13-1.37]; P < .001) compared with 2011 to 2016. Time-trend analysis showed higher CFRs over time in developing countries than developed countries.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Despite the declining trend of pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock CFRs, the disparity between developing and developed countries persists. Further characterizations of vulnerable populations and collaborations between developed and developing countries are warranted to reduce the burden of pediatric sepsis globally.

Terlipressin for septic shock patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled study

Background

Catecholamines are commonly used in septic shock but face limitations of their hypo-responsiveness and adverse events due to high dose. Terlipressin is a synthetic vasopressin analog with greater selectivity for the V1-receptor. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of terlipressin in septic shock.

Methods

We searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database from inception up to July 15, 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they reported data on any of the predefined outcomes in patients with septic shock and managed with terlipressin or any catecholamines. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were explored.

Results

Ten studies with 928 patients were included. Despite the shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, use of terlipressin did not reduce the risk of mortality (RR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.05; I² = 0%; P = 0.28) when compared with control. This finding was confirmed by further subgroup and sensitivity analyses. In addition, lactate clearance, length of stay in ICU or hospital, total adverse events, digital ischemia, and arrhythmia were also similar between groups, while terlipressin was associated with shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and less norepinephrine requirements.

Conclusions

Current results suggest terlipressin did not show added survival benefit in septic shock therapy when compared with catecholamines.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40560-019-0369-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparison of first-line and second-line terlipressin versus sole norepinephrine in fulminant ovine septic shock

The Surviving Sepsis Guidelines suggest the use of vasopressin in case of catecholamine-refractory septic shock. Terlipressin (TP) as a V₁-selective AVP analogue is a potential alternative, though data regarding the first-line administration in septic shock are scarce. The present study explored and compared the effects of first-line vs. second-line infusion of TP or sole norepinephrine regarding organ function, fluid and norepinephrine requirements and survival in fulminant ovine septic shock. Peritoneal sepsis was induced in 23 ewes after laparotomy and faecal withdrawal from the caecum. After onset of shock, causal and supportive sepsis therapy (antibiotics, peritoneal lavage, fluids and open-label norepinephrine) was performed in all animals. Concurrently, animals were randomized to receive 0.9% sodium chloride (control group) or TP (2 µg∙kg^-1∙h^-1, first-line group) after shock onset. In the second-line TP group, TP (2 µg∙kg^-1∙h^-1) was started once norepinephrine requirements exceeded 0.5 µg∙kg^-1∙min^-1. No significant differences were found between groups regarding survival, haemodynamics as well as fluid- and catecholamine-requirements. Kidney function and electron microscopic kidney injury were comparable between groups. In the present model of fulminant ovine septic shock, first-line TP infusion had no significant effect on fluid and norepinephrine requirements or organ dysfunction as compared to second-line TP infusion or placebo.

Using terlipressin in a pediatric patient with septic shock resistant to catecholamines

Sepsis and septic shock are important causes of morbidity and mortality in critically ill children. The goal of treatment is to ensure adequate mean arterial pressure to maintain organ perfusion. The growing number of instances of peripheral vascular hyporeactivity to catecholamines has necessitated the search for alternative vasopressors. A 14-year-old boy had septic shock, with a high cardiac index and low systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) measurements according to pulse contour analysis, despite treatment with dopamine, dobutamine, adrenaline, and noradrenaline infusions. A terlipressin (TP) 10 μg/kg intravenous bolus was administered, followed by a 1 μg/kg/minute continuous infusion. The response to TP treatment was assessed using pulse contour analysis. The mean arterial pressure and SVRI increased, and the cardiac index and heart rate decreased within 10 minutes after bolus administration of TP. Noradrenaline infusion could be reduced to 0.7 μg/kg/minute within 5 hours. The goal in presenting this case was to evaluate the vasoconstrictor effects of TP, a long-acting vasopressin analogue, in septic shock.

American College of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Practice Parameters for Hemodynamic Support of Pediatric and Neonatal Septic Shock

OBJECTIVES

The American College of Critical Care Medicine provided 2002 and 2007 guidelines for hemodynamic support of newborn and pediatric septic shock. Provide the 2014 update of the 2007 American College of Critical Care Medicine "Clinical Guidelines for Hemodynamic Support of Neonates and Children with Septic Shock."

DESIGN

Society of Critical Care Medicine members were identified from general solicitation at Society of Critical Care Medicine Educational and Scientific Symposia (2006-2014). The PubMed/Medline/Embase literature (2006-14) was searched by the Society of Critical Care Medicine librarian using the keywords: sepsis, septicemia, septic shock, endotoxemia, persistent pulmonary hypertension, nitric oxide, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and American College of Critical Care Medicine guidelines in the newborn and pediatric age groups.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The 2002 and 2007 guidelines were widely disseminated, translated into Spanish and Portuguese, and incorporated into Society of Critical Care Medicine and American Heart Association/Pediatric Advanced Life Support sanctioned recommendations. The review of new literature highlights two tertiary pediatric centers that implemented quality improvement initiatives to improve early septic shock recognition and first-hour compliance to these guidelines. Improved compliance reduced hospital mortality from 4% to 2%. Analysis of Global Sepsis Initiative data in resource rich developed and developing nations further showed improved hospital mortality with compliance to first-hour and stabilization guideline recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

The major new recommendation in the 2014 update is consideration of institution-specific use of 1) a "recognition bundle" containing a trigger tool for rapid identification of patients with septic shock, 2) a "resuscitation and stabilization bundle" to help adherence to best practice principles, and 3) a "performance bundle" to identify and overcome perceived barriers to the pursuit of best practice principles.

Update on pediatric sepsis: a review

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is one of the leading causes of mortality among children worldwide. Unfortunately, however, reliable evidence was insufficient in pediatric sepsis and many aspects in clinical practice actually depend on expert consensus and some evidence in adult sepsis. More recent findings have given us deep insights into pediatric sepsis since the publication of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines 2012.

MAIN TEXT

New knowledge was added regarding the hemodynamic management and the timely use of antimicrobials. Quality improvement initiatives of pediatric "sepsis bundles" were reported to be successful in clinical outcomes by several centers. Moreover, a recently published global epidemiologic study (the SPROUT study) did not only reveal the demographics, therapeutic interventions, and prognostic outcomes but also elucidated the inappropriateness of the current definition of pediatric sepsis.

CONCLUSIONS

With these updated knowledge, the management of pediatric sepsis would be expected to make further progress. In addition, it is meaningful that the fundamental data on which future research should be based were established through the SPROUT study.

Primary Outcome Measures in Pediatric Septic Shock Trials: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate all published pediatric randomized controlled trials of patients with septic shock from any cause to examine the outcome measures used, the strengths and limitations of these measurements and whether the trial outcomes met feasibility criteria.

DATA SOURCES

We used a previously published database of pediatric critical care randomized controlled trials (PICUtrials.net) derived from searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL.

STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized controlled trials of interventions to children admitted to a PICU with septic or dengue hemorrhagic shock which were published in English.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study characteristics and outcomes were retrieved by two independent reviewers with disagreement being resolved by a third reviewer. We defined feasibility as 1) recruitment of at least 90% of the targeted sample size and agreement of the observed outcome rate in the control group with the rate used for the sample size calculation to within 10% or 2) finding of a statistically significant difference in an interim or final analysis.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Nineteen of 321 identified articles were selected for review. Fourteen of 19 studies (74%) provided an a priori definition of their primary outcome measure in their "Methods section." Mortality rate was the most commonly reported primary outcome (8/14; 57%), followed by duration of shock (4/14; 29%) followed by organ failure (1/14; 7%). Only three of 19 included trials met feasibility criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review found that use of mortality alone as a primary outcome in pediatric septic shock trials was associated with significant limitations and that long-term patient-centered outcomes were not used in this setting. Composite outcomes incorporating mortality and long-term outcomes should be explored for use in future pediatric septic shock trials.

Safety and Efficacy of Terlipressin in Pediatric Distributive Shock: A Retrospective Analysis in 20 Children

INTRODUCTION

Data are still lacking about the use of terlipressin or vasopressin in the treatment of pediatric patients who are in a state of therapy-refractory shock.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of terlipressin on hemodynamics in children with distributive shock and to describe any severe side effects.

METHODS

Consecutive patients (n = 20) with catecholamine-resistant distributive shock who were treated with terlipressin were retrospectively enrolled in this study. We analyzed response in terms of mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate, vasoactive inotropic score (VIS), urinary output, and serum lactate.

RESULTS

The hemodynamics of 12 children significantly improved within 6 h of commencing terlipressin (mean blood pressure increase of ≥20 % without VIS increase, or mean blood pressure increase of ≥10 % with VIS decrease of ≥10 %). The hemodynamics of eight patients did not improve, regardless of treatment dosage or duration. More children died in the responders group (n = 7 [58.3 %]) than in the non-responders group (n = 2 [25.0 %]), but this was not statistically significant. Two patients (one in each group) who received high dosages of terlipressin developed rhabdomyolysis. One case of Takotsubo cardiomyopathy was observed, which could be related to terlipressin.

CONCLUSIONS

Although treatment with terlipressin resulted in rapid positive hemodynamic responses in some children, it did not seem to have a positive effect in other pediatric patients. Therefore, the possible benefits of terlipressin should be always weighed against potential severe adverse effects.

Role of vasopressin and terlipressin in refractory shock compared to conventional therapy in the neonatal and pediatric population: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis

Background

Vasopressin (AVP) and terlipressin (TP) have been used as last-line therapy in refractory shock in children. However, the efficacy and safety profiles of AVP and TP have not been determined in pediatric refractory shock of different origins. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the addition of AVP/TP therapy in pediatric refractory shock of all causes compared to conventional therapy with fluid resuscitation and vasopressor and inotropic therapy.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) comparing AVP and TP to conventional therapy. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to February 2016. The systematic review included all reports of AVP/TP use in the pediatric population. Reports of clinical trials were pooled using random-effects models and TSA. Main outcomes were mortality and tissue ischemia.

Results

Three randomized controlled trials and five “before-and-after clinical” trials (without comparator) met the inclusion criteria. Among 224 neonates and children (aged 0 to 18 years) with refractory shock, 152 received therapy with AVP or TP. Pooled analyses showed no association between AVP/TP treatment and mortality (relative risk (RR),1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71–2.00), length of stay in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) (mean difference (MD), –3.58 days; 95% CI, –9.05 to 1.83), and tissue ischemia (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.47–4.62). In TSA, no significant effect on mortality and risk for developing tissue ischemia was observed with AVP/TP therapy.

Conclusion

Our results emphasize the lack of observed benefit for AVP/TP in terms of mortality and length of stay in the PICU, and suggest an increased risk for ischemic events. Our TSA suggests that further large studies are necessary to demonstrate and establish benefits of AVP/TP in children.

PROSPERO registry: CRD42016035872

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1589-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Vasopressin in Pediatric Critical Care

Vasopressin is a unique hormone with complex receptor physiology and numerous physiologic functions beyond its well-known vascular actions and osmoregulation. While vasopressin has in the past been primarily used in the management of diabetes insipidus and acute gastrointestinal bleeding, an increased understanding of the physiology of refractory shock, and the role of vasopressin in maintaining cardiovascular homeostasis prompted a renewed interest in the therapeutic roles for this hormone in the critical care setting. Identifying vasopressin-deficient individuals for the purposes of assessing responsiveness to exogenous hormone and prognosticating outcome has expanded research into the evaluation of vasopressin and its precursor, copeptin as useful biomarkers. This review summarizes the current evidence for vasopressin in critically ill children, with a specific focus on its use in the management of shock. We outline important considerations and current guidelines, when considering the use of vasopressin or its analogues in the pediatric critical care setting.

Vasopressors for hypotensive shock

BACKGROUND

Initial goal-directed resuscitation for hypotensive shock usually includes administration of intravenous fluids, followed by initiation of vasopressors. Despite obvious immediate effects of vasopressors on haemodynamics, their effect on patient-relevant outcomes remains controversial. This review was published originally in 2004 and was updated in 2011 and again in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to compare the effect of one vasopressor regimen (vasopressor alone, or in combination) versus another vasopressor regimen on mortality in critically ill participants with shock. We further aimed to investigate effects on other patient-relevant outcomes and to assess the influence of bias on the robustness of our effect estimates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015 Issue 6), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PASCAL BioMed, CINAHL, BIOSIS and PsycINFO (from inception to June 2015). We performed the original search in November 2003. We also asked experts in the field and searched meta-registries to identify ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing various vasopressor regimens for hypotensive shock.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors abstracted data independently. They discussed disagreements between them and resolved differences by consulting with a third review author. We used a random-effects model to combine quantitative data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 28 RCTs (3497 participants) with 1773 mortality outcomes. Six different vasopressors, given alone or in combination, were studied in 12 different comparisons.All 28 studies reported mortality outcomes; 12 studies reported length of stay. Investigators reported other morbidity outcomes in a variable and heterogeneous way. No data were available on quality of life nor on anxiety and depression outcomes. We classified 11 studies as having low risk of bias for the primary outcome of mortality; only four studies fulfilled all trial quality criteria.In summary, researchers reported no differences in total mortality in any comparisons of different vasopressors or combinations in any of the pre-defined analyses (evidence quality ranging from high to very low). More arrhythmias were observed in participants treated with dopamine than in those treated with norepinephrine (high-quality evidence). These findings were consistent among the few large studies and among studies with different levels of within-study bias risk.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of substantial differences in total mortality between several vasopressors. Dopamine increases the risk of arrhythmia compared with norepinephrine and might increase mortality. Otherwise, evidence of any other differences between any of the six vasopressors examined is insufficient. We identified low risk of bias and high-quality evidence for the comparison of norepinephrine versus dopamine and moderate to very low-quality evidence for all other comparisons, mainly because single comparisons occasionally were based on only a few participants. Increasing evidence indicates that the treatment goals most often employed are of limited clinical value. Our findings suggest that major changes in clinical practice are not needed, but that selection of vasopressors could be better individualised and could be based on clinical variables reflecting hypoperfusion.

[Septic shock in intensive care units. Current focus on treatment]

Essential therapeutic principles in children with septic shock persist over time, although some new concepts have been recently incorporated, and fully awareness of pediatricians and intensivists is essential. Fluid resuscitation is a fundamental intervention, but the kind of ideal fluid has not been established yet, as each of these interventions has specific limitations and there is no evidence supportive of the superiority of one type of fluid. Should septic shock persists despite adequate fluid resuscitation, the use of inotropic medication and/or vasopressors is indicated. New vasoactive drugs can be used in refractory septic shock caused by vasopressors, and the use of hydrocortisone should be considered in children with suspected adrenal insufficiency, as it reduces the need for vasopressors. The indications for red blood cells transfusion or the optimal level of glycemia are still controversial, with no consensus on the threshold value for the use of these blood products or the initiation of insulin administration, respectively. Likewise, the use of high-volume hemofiltration is a controversial issue and further study is needed on the routine recommendation in the course of septic shock. Nutritional support is crucial, as malnutrition is a serious complication that should be properly prevented and treated. The aim of this paper is to provide update on the most recent advances as concerns the treatment of septic shock in the pediatric population.

Low-dose vasopressin improves cardiac function in newborn piglets with acute hypoxia-reoxygenation

Cardiovascular dysfunction in asphyxiated neonates contributes significantly to their morbidity and mortality. We have recently shown that a low-dose vasopressin infusion (0.005 - 0.01 units/kg per hour) may improve myocardial oxygen transport balance in a swine model of neonatal hypoxia-reoxygenation. We aimed to compare the systemic and regional hemodynamic effects of low-dose vasopressin to dobutamine, a synthetic beta-adrenoreceptor agonist. Piglets (1 - 5 days old, 1.6 - 2.2 kg) were anesthetized and instrumented to continuously monitor systemic hemodynamic parameters, including cardiac output and mesenteric flow indices. After 2 h of hypoxia (10% - 15% O2), piglets had normoxic reoxygenation for 4 h. In a blinded randomized fashion, piglets received infusion of either vasopressin (0.01 units/kg per hour started at 30 min of reoxygenation) or dobutamine (20 μg/kg per minute started at 2 h of reoxygenation) (n = 8 per group). Hypoxia-reoxygenation controls (placebo, n = 8) and sham-operated (n = 5) piglets were also studied. Tissue lactate, glutathione, glutathione disulfide, and lipid hydroperoxides levels and histology of the left ventricle and the small bowel were analyzed. Plasma was also analyzed for troponin-I and intestinal fatty acid-binding protein levels. Piglets subjected to hypoxia-reoxygenation had cardiogenic shock and metabolic acidosis, which improved on reoxygenation. During recovery, cardiac output and mesenteric flows gradually deteriorated and were increased similarly in vasopressin- and dobutamine-treated piglets (P < 0.05 vs. controls). Plasma troponin-I and left ventricular lactate levels were lower in the vasopressin and dobutamine groups (P < 0.05 vs. controls), with no difference in the histological analysis among groups. The intestinal GSSG/GSH ratio and lipid hydroperoxides level were lower in the vasopressin and dobutamine groups (P < 0.05 vs. controls). This study is the first to demonstrate that a low-dose vasopressin infusion used in the setting of neonatal swine model of hypoxia-reoxygenation is associated with an improvement in cardiac output and mesenteric perfusion.

Advances in monitoring and management of shock

Early recognition and treatment of pediatric shock, regardless of cause, decreases mortality and improves outcome. In addition to the conventional parameters (eg, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, urine output, and central venous pressure), biomarkers and noninvasive methods of measuring cardiac output are available to monitor and treat shock. This article emphasizes how fluid resuscitation is the cornerstone of shock resuscitation, although the choice and amount of fluid may vary based on the cause of shock. Other emerging treatments for shock (ie, temperature control, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation/ventricular assist devices) are also discussed.

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.

METHODS

The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Some recommendations were ungraded (UG). Recommendations were classified into three groups: 1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; 2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and 3) pediatric considerations.

RESULTS

Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 hr of recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 hrs of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1C); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients) (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement, as based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO2/FIO2 ratio of ≤ 100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 hrs) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao2/Fio2 < 150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are > 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 hrs after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 hrs of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5 to 10 mins (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C).

CONCLUSIONS

Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Vasopressin and its analogues for the treatment of refractory hypotension in neonates

BACKGROUND

Neonatal hypotension that is refractory to volume expansion, catecholamines, or corticosteroids has a mortality of about 50%. Optimization of blood pressure and tissue perfusion in refractory hypotension may be crucial to improve clinical outcomes. Vasopressin, a neuropeptide hormone, or its analogue terlipressin has been used to treat refractory hypotension in neonates and may be effective.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vasopressin and its synthetic analogues (e.g. terlipressin) in decreasing mortality and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, and improving survival in neonates with refractory hypotension. Our secondary objectives were to determine the effects of vasopressin and its analogues (terlipressin) on improvement in blood pressure, increase in urine output, decrease in inotrope score, necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), periventricular leukomalacia, intraventricular hemorrhage, chronic lung disease, and retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in neonates with refractory hypotension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the literature in January 2012, using the search strategy recommended by the Cochrane Neonatal Group. We searched electronic databases (CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE), abstracts of the Pediatric Academic Societies, web sites for registered trials at www.clinicaltrials.gov and www.controlled-trials.com and in the reference list of identified articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized trials evaluating vasopressin or its analogues, at any dosage or duration used as an adjunct to standard therapy (any combination of volume expansion, inotropic agents and corticosteroids) to treat refractory hypotension in neonates.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed the standard methods of The Cochrane Collaboration for conducting a systematic review. Two review authors (BS and MP) independently assessed the titles and abstracts of studies identified by the search strategy for eligibility for inclusion. We obtained the full text version if eligibility could not be done reliably by title and abstract. We resolved any differences by mutual discussion. We designed electronic forms for trial inclusion/exclusion, data extraction, and for requesting additional published information from authors of the original reports.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search did not identify any completed or ongoing trials that met our inclusion criteria. Three studies that did not include neonates and one study where the objective was not to treat neonates with refractory hypotension were excluded.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to recommend or refute the use of vasopressin or its analogues in the treatment of refractory hypotension in neonates. Well-designed, adequately powered, randomized controlled studies are necessary to address efficacy, optimal dosing, safety and long-term neurodevelopmental and pulmonary outcomes. 

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.

METHODS

The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations.

RESULTS

Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO (2)/FiO (2) ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO (2)/FI O (2) <150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are >180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5-10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C).

CONCLUSIONS

Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Vasopressin and copeptin levels in children with sepsis and septic shock

PURPOSE

Levels of vasopressin and its precursor copeptin in pediatric sepsis and septic shock are not well defined. The main aim of this study is to compare the serum levels of vasopressin and copeptin in children with septic shock or sepsis and in healthy children. We hypothesized that vasopressin and copeptin levels are elevated in early and late stages of pediatric septic shock.

METHODS

Three groups were included: healthy children, children with clinical diagnosis of sepsis, and children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) with diagnosis of sepsis shock. Blood samples were drawn from children in all groups within 24 h of admission. For the septic shock group, additional samples at 24-h intervals were drawn up to 120 h after PICU admission. We used competitive immunoassays to determine vasopressin and copeptin levels.

RESULTS

There were 70 children in the control group, 53 children in the sepsis group, and 13 in the septic shock group. At baseline, there was a difference in median vasopressin levels [60.9 (Interquartile range: 32.3, 138.0) vs. 141.1 (45.2, 542) vs. 326 (55.6, 399) pg/mL, p < 0.05], but there was no difference in copeptin levels [1.2 (0.8, 1.8) vs. 1.5 (1.0, 2.2) vs. 0.9 (0.8, 1.2) ng/mL, p = 0.14] between the three groups. There was no difference in vasopressin and copeptin levels in early and late stages of pediatric septic shock.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline vasopressin levels were different between the three groups. In pediatric septic shock, vasopressin and copeptin levels are not robust markers for severity and clinical outcomes.

Therapeutic applications of vasopressin in pediatric patients

CONTEXT

Reports of successful use of vasopressin in various shock states and cardiac arrest has lead to the emergence of vasopressin therapy as a potentially major advancement in the management of critically ill children.

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of physiology of vasopressin, rationale of its use and dose schedule in different disease states with special focus on recent advances in the therapeutic applications of vasopressin.

DATA SOURCE

MEDLINE search (1966-September 2011) using terms vasopressin, terlipressin, arginine-vasopressin, shock, septic shock, vasodilatory shock, cardiac arrest, and resuscitation for reports on vasopressin/terlipressin use in children and manual review of article bibliographies. Search was restricted to human studies. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, evaluation studies, case series, and case reports on vasopressin/terlipressin use in children (preterm neonates to 21 years of age) were included. Outcome measures were analysed using following clinical questions: indication, dose and duration of vasopressin/terlipressin use, main effects especially on systemic blood pressure, catecholamine requirement, urine output, serum lactate, adverse effects, and mortality.

RESULTS

51 reports on vasopressin (30 reports) and terlipressin (21 reports) use in pediatric population were identified. A total of 602 patients received vasopressin/terlipressin as vasopressors in various catecholamine-resistant states (septic - 176, post-cardiotomy - 136, other vasodilatory/mixed shock - 199, and cardiac arrest - 101). Commonly reported responses include rapid improvement in systemic blood pressure, decline in concurrent catecholamine requirement, and increase in urine output; despite these effects, the mortality rates remained high.

CONCLUSION

In view of the limited clinical experience, and paucity of randomized controlled trials evaluating these drugs in pediatric population, currently no definitive recommendations on vasopressin/terlipressin use can be laid down. Nevertheless, available clinical data supports the use of vasopressin in critically ill children as a rescue therapy in refractory shock and cardiac arrest.

[Septic shock. Update of treatment using hypertonic saline and antidiuretic hormone-vasopressin]

Safety in the use of small volumes of hypertonic saline solution for hypovolaemic shock and in the treatment of intracranial hypertension has been demonstrated in studies in the field of resuscitation. There is little experience of this for septic shock in humans. Beneficial immunomodulatory effects have been detected in pre-clinical studies. Interactions with the pituitary-adrenal axis and with the secretion of anti-diuretic hormone are varied and suggestive, but are not sufficiently understood. On the other hand, vasopressin has cardiovascular, osmoregulatory, and coagulation effects, and also acts on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. There is a relative deficit of vasopressin in septic shock. Its use in these patients does not seem to have any advantages as regards mortality, but may be beneficial in patients at risk from acute renal failure, or those who receive corticosteroids. Terlipressin is a vasopressin analogue that has also been studied. The synergy between vasopressin and hypertonic saline is a hypothesis that is mainly supported in pre-clinical studies. The use of hypertonic saline solution in septic shock, although promising, is still experimental, and must be restricted to the field of controlled clinical trials.

Intravenous arginine vasopressin infusion in refractory vasodilatory shock: a clinical study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of arginine vasopressin (AVP) as a rescue therapy in children with catecholamine refractory vasodilatory shock and its effect on various hemodynamic, clinical, and laboratory variables.

METHODS

This prospective hospital based study was conducted from January 2008 through July 2008 at a tertiary pediatric cardiac critical care unit. Twelve post cardiac surgery patients with advanced vasodilatory shock requiring intravenous vasopressin infusion longer than 60 min were included and continuous vasopressin infusion was given. The primary outcome measures were restoration of Mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) after starting AVP infusion and decrease in other concurrent catecholamines requirement. The secondary outcome measures were survival to hospital discharge, adverse effects, and laboratory variables.

RESULTS

Vasopressin was infused in the dose range of 0.0005 to 0.003 units/kg/min for a mean duration of 55.6 h. MAP improved from 41.08  ±  6.15 mmHg at baseline to 48.92  ±  10.05 mmHg after 1 h (P < 0.05), to 57.01  ±  8.30 mmHg after 4 h of AVP infusion (P < 0.001), and to 62.33  ±  8.55 mmHg after 12 h (P < 0.001), which further increased to 71.75  ±  9.55 mmHg after 24 h (P < 0.001). Inotrope score and requirement of other concurrent inotropes declined significantly in all patients after starting AVP infusion (P < 0.001). Lactate levels also declined significantly (P < 0.0001). No significant adverse effect due to end organ ischemia was observed. Only one patient expired while on vasopressin infusion due to refractory hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent addition of vasopressin at an appropriate stage help improving MAP significantly with decreased dependence on high dose catecholamines without any significant adverse effects.

Early recognition and management of septic shock in children

Septic shock remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality among children, mainly due to acute hemodynamic compromise and multiple organ failures. In the last decade, international guidelines for the management of septic shock, as well as clinical practice parameters for hemodynamic support of pediatric patients, have been published. Early recognition and aggressive therapy of septic shock, by means of abundant fluid resuscitation, use of catecholamines and other adjuvant drugs, are widely considered of pivotal importance to improve the short and long-term outcome of these patients. The aim of this paper is to summarize the modern approach to septic shock in children, particularly in its very initial phase, when pediatric healthcare providers may be required to intervene in the pre-intensive care unit setting or just on admission in the pediatric intensive care unit.

Vasopressin for treatment of vasodilatory shock: an ESICM systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the benefits and risks of vasopressin or its analog terlipressin for patients with vasodilatory shock.

DATA SOURCE

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS databases (up to March 2011) as well as reference lists of articles and proceedings of major meetings; we also contacted trial authors. We considered randomized and quasirandomized trials of vasopressin or terlipressin versus placebo or supportive treatment in adult and pediatric patients with vasodilatory shock. The primary outcome for this review was short-term all-cause mortality.

STUDY SELECTION

We identified 10 randomized trials (1,134 patients). Six studies were considered for the main analysis on mortality in adults.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The crude short-term mortality was 206 of 512 (40.2%) in vasopressin/terlipressin-treated patients and 198 of 461 (42.9%) in controls [six trials, risk ratio (RR) = 0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.05; P = 0.21; I(2) = 0%]. There were 49 of 463 (10.6%) patients with serious adverse events in the vasopressin/terlipressin arm and 51 of 431 (11.8%) in the control arm (four trials, RR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.49-1.67; P = 0.75; I(2) = 26%). Metaregression analysis showed negative correlation between vasopressin dose and norepinephrine dose (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, use of vasopressin or terlipressin did not produce any survival benefit in the short term in patients with vasodilatory shock. Physicians may value the sparing effects of vasopressin/terlipressin on norepinephrine requirement given its apparent safe profile.

Rescue treatment with terlipressin in different scenarios of refractory hypotension in newborns and infants

OBJECTIVE

Terlipressin has been successfully used as rescue treatment in hypotensive adults and children with septic shock, but only exceptionally in neonates. The aim of this study is to describe original clinical scenarios in which terlipressin, in newborns and infants, resolved the catecholamine-refractory hypotension.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Neonatal intensive care unit.

PATIENTS

All newborns with hypotension unresponsive to volume replacement and catecholamines, and treated with terlipressin, from January 2008 to December 2009. In this study, also an infant (11 months old) born extremely preterm was included.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Four hypotensive patients received as rescue therapy terlipressin, which produced a dramatic increase in mean arterial pressure, diuresis, and reduction of lactate levels. In three newborns, hypotension, associated with pulmonary hypertension, was resolved with terlipressin. Two of them (one with systemic inflammatory response syndrome, the other with congenital diaphragmatic hernia) died in the following days for causes unrelated to hypotension; the third (on mild hypothermia for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy) recovered. We report furthermore an infant with septic shock and on treatment with β-blockers in whom terlipressin normalized blood pressure. In two patients, cranial Doppler ultrasonography showed the recovery of diastolic cerebral flow in the anterior cerebral artery and the normalization of resistance index within 30 mins from the first dose of terlipressin. In two infants, hyponatremia was detected.

CONCLUSION

Although the number of reported infants is little, terlipressin appears to be an effective rescue treatment in different scenarios of refractory neonatal hypotension. Further controlled studies are required to confirm its efficacy and safety.

Beneficial effects of terlipressin in pediatric cardiac arrest

OBJECTIVE

: Vasopressin and its analog, terlipressin (TP), are potent vasopressors that may be useful therapeutic agents in the treatment of cardiac arrest (CA), septic and catecholamine-resistant shock, and esophageal variceal hemorrhage. The American Heart Association 2000 guidelines recommend its use for adult ventricular fibrillation arrest, and the American Heart Association 2005 guidelines note that it may replace the first or second epinephrine dose. There is little reported experience with TP in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) of children. The purpose of this retrospective case series was to report successful return of spontaneous circulation after the rescue administration of vasopressin after prolonged CA and failure of conventional CPR, advanced life support, and epinephrine therapy in children.

METHODS

: Nine pediatric patients with asystole, aged 11 months to 14 years, who experienced 12 episodes of refractory CA and did not respond to conventional therapy. Terlipressin was administered as intravenous bolus doses of 20 mcg/kg to standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

RESULTS

: Return of spontaneous circulation was monitored and achieved in 6 of the 12 episodes. The mean duration of CPR was 24.8 minutes in these 12 episodes of CA with TP administration, with a range of 10 to 50 minutes (median, 23 minutes). Five survivors were discharged home without sequelae and with good neurologic status (score 1 by the pediatric cerebral performance category).

CONCLUSIONS

: The combination of TP to epinephrine during CPR may have a beneficial effect in children with CA. However, the recommendations for its use in the pediatric literature are based on limited clinical data.

Vasopressin and Terlipressin in the Treatment of Vasodilatory Septic Shock: A Systematic Review

Background:

Vasodilatory septic shock unresponsive to fluid resuscitation requires the addition of vasopressors. Catecholamines remain the first line vasopressor therapy, but treatment failure is a potential problem. Vasopressin and its analogue, terlipressin, have been used for this indication.

Objective:

This systematic review aims to evaluate the effects of vasopressin and terlipressin on mortality and morbidity outcomes in patients with vasodilatory shock. Secondary outcomes include the effects of vasopressin and terlipressin on haemodynamic stability and organ function.

Method:

A computerised search of MEDLINE from January 1966 till June 2010 and screening of references of relevant articles were conducted. Only prospective, randomised controlled trials comparing vasopressin or terlipressin versus standard vasopressors or placebo were included.

Results:

Seven studies using vasopressin, three using terlipressin and one using both were identified. Four vasopressin trials assessing mortality and morbidity outcomes showed a trend towards benefit for mortality in adults but possibly adverse outcomes in a small paediatric study. No data was available on the long-term mortality and morbidity outcomes of terlipressin. Vasopressin and terlipressin were similar to standard vasopressors in maintaining haemodynamic parameters, while allowing a beneficial catecholamine-sparing effect. These agents also had a neutral to positive effect on organ function.

Conclusion:

Vasopressin and terlipressin was comparable to conventional agents in the maintenance of haemodynamic stability and organ function in vasodilatory shock. Since morbidity and mortality data do not differentiate vasopressin and terlipressin from catecholamines, their role remains unclear. More large studies evaluating the long-term outcomes in this group of patients are required.

Vasopressors for hypotensive shock

BACKGROUND

Initial goal directed resuscitation for shock usually includes the administration of intravenous fluids, followed by initiating vasopressors. Despite obvious immediate effects of vasopressors on haemodynamics their effect on patient relevant outcomes remains controversial. This review was originally published in 2004 and was updated in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to assess whether particular vasopressors reduce overall mortality, morbidity, and health-related quality of life.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PASCAL BioMed, CINAHL, BIOSIS, and PsycINFO (from inception to March 2010). The original search was performed in November 2003. We also asked experts in the field and searched meta-registries for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing various vasopressor regimens for hypotensive shock.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors abstracted data independently. Disagreement between the authors was discussed and resolved with a third author. We used a random-effects model for combining quantitative data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 23 randomized controlled trials involving 3212 patients, with 1629 mortality outcomes. Six different vasopressors, alone or in combination, were studied in 11 different comparisons.All 23 studies reported mortality outcomes; length of stay was reported in nine studies. Other morbidity outcomes were reported in a variable and heterogeneous way. No data were available on quality of life or anxiety and depression outcomes. We classified 10 studies as being at low risk of bias for the primary outcome mortality; only four studies fulfilled all trial quality items.In summary, there was no difference in mortality in any of the comparisons between different vasopressors or combinations. More arrhythmias were observed in patients treated with dopamine compared to norepinephrine. Norepinephrine versus dopamine, as the largest comparison in 1400 patients from six trials, yielded almost equivalence (RR 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.03). Vasopressors used as add-on therapy in comparison to placebo were not effective either. These findings were consistent among the few large studies as well as in studies with different levels of within-study bias risk.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence of no difference in mortality between norepinephrine and dopamine. Dopamine appeared to increase the risk for arrhythmia. There is not sufficient evidence of any difference between any of the six vasopressors examined. Probably the choice of vasopressors in patients with shock does not influence the outcome, rather than any vasoactive effect per se. There is not sufficient evidence that any one of the investigated vasopressors is clearly superior over others.

Terlipressin as rescue therapy for refractory pulmonary hypertension in a neonate with a congenital diaphragmatic hernia

We report the case of a 38-week gestational age neonate, with isolated congenital diaphragmatic hernia presenting with refractory persistent pulmonary hypertension, systemic hypotension, and hypoxemia, resistant to usual therapeutics. Arginine vasopressin is responsible for systemic vasoconstriction and decreases pulmonary hypertension. We theorized that terlipressin, its long-acting analogue, could have the same properties. We used terlipressin as rescue therapy after parental and local ethics committee acceptance. After a bolus of terlipressin 20 μg/kg and continuous infusion at a rate of 5 μg/kg per hour, blood oxygen saturation improved from 75% to 98%, oxygen requirements fell from fraction of inspired oxygen 100% to 40%, and mean arterial pressure rose from 28 to 46 mm Hg, allowing a decrease of vasopressor infusion. Terlipressin may be useful in the management of neonates with congenital diaphragmatic hernia and refractory pulmonary hypertension.

Part 10: Pediatric basic and advanced life support: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations

Note From the Writing Group: Throughout this article, the reader will notice combinations of superscripted letters and numbers (eg, “Family Presence During ResuscitationPeds-003”). These callouts are hyperlinked to evidence-based worksheets, which were used in the development of this article. An appendix of worksheets, applicable to this article, is located at the end of the text. The worksheets are available in PDF format and are open access.