The effect of early vasopressin use on patients with septic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis

asopressin nitiation as a econd-Line Vasoressor in Early eptic hock (VISPSS)

BACKGROUND

Vasopressin is recommended as a second-line vasoactive agent for the management of septic shock; however, a paucity of data to guide its optimal use remains. The aim was to evaluate the effect of time-to vasopressin initiation and norepinephrine (NE) dose at vasopressin initiation on clinical outcomes in patients presenting with septic shock.

METHODS

This was a multi-centered, retrospective, observational study conducted in patients with septic shock. Patients were divided into 2 groups: patients initiated on vasopressin when NE-equivalent dose (NEE) < 0.25 mcg/kg/min or ≥ 0.25 mcg/kg/min. The primary outcome was time-to-vasopressor discontinuation (hours). Secondary outcomes included 28-day in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), fluid balance after 72 hours, and the change in NEE at 12 hours.

RESULTS

A total of 302 patients were included in this study. After propensity-score matching, 73 patients in each group were identified for analysis. There was no significant difference in the time-to-vasopressor discontinuation (hours) between the groups (88.8 [55-187.5] vs 86.7 [47-172]); p = 0.7815). Fluid balance (mL) at 72 hours was significantly lower when vasopressin was initiated at NEE < 0.25 mcg/kg/min (1769 [71-7287] vs 5762 [1463-8813]; p = 0.0077). A multivariable linear regression showed shorter time to shock resolution with earlier vasopressin initiation, defined as within 4 hours (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In this propensity-score matched cohort, vasopressin initiation at NEE < 0.25 mcg/kg/min was not associated with shorter vasopressor duration. There was a lower fluid balance at 72 hours when vasopressin was initiated at lower NE doses.

Does Early Vasopressin in Septic Shock Improve Outcomes? An Important Piece to This Emerging Puzzle Has Arrived

In this month's Annals of Pharmacotherapy, the largest observational study assessing the early versus later use of vasopressin has been published. When this new study is combined with the other available observational studies, there are 2 important outcomes to focus on. When all the observational studies are pooled together, no reduction in new onset arrhythmias is seen (odds ratio [OR] = 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.41-1.95) with early versus late vasopressin use while the reduction in renal replacement therapy just missed statistical significance (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.32-1.00). Early vasopressin likely does not reduce new onset arrhythmias versus later use but might reduce the need for renal replacement therapy.

INITIATION TIMING OF VASOPRESSOR IN PATIENTS WITH SEPTIC SHOCK: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

ABSTRACT

Background: Vasopressor plays a crucial role in septic shock. However, the time for vasopressor initiation remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore its initiation timing for septic shock patients. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Sciences were searched from inception to July 12, 2023, for relevant studies. Primary outcome was short-term mortality. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 15.0. Results: Twenty-three studies were assessed, including 2 randomized controlled trials and 21 cohort studies. The early group resulted in lower short-term mortality than the late group (OR [95% CI] = 0.775 [0.673 to 0.893], P = 0.000, I2 = 67.8%). The significance existed in the norepinephrine and vasopressin in subgroup analysis. No significant difference was considered in the association between each hour's vasopressor delay and mortality (OR [95% CI] = 1.02 [0.99 to 1.051], P = 0.195, I2 = 57.5%). The early group had an earlier achievement of target MAP ( P < 0.001), shorter vasopressor use duration ( P < 0.001), lower serum lactate level at 24 h ( P = 0.003), lower incidence of kidney injury ( P = 0.001), renal replacement therapy use ( P = 0.022), and longer ventilation-free days to 28 days ( P < 0.001). Conclusions: Early initiation of vasopressor (1-6 h within septic shock onset) would be more beneficial to septic shock patients. The conclusion needs to be further validated by more well-designed randomized controlled trials.

Optimizing Vasopressin Use and Initiation Timing in Septic Shock: A Narrative Review

TOPIC IMPORTANCE

This review discusses the rationale for vasopressin use, summarizes the results of clinical trials evaluating vasopressin, and focuses on the timing of vasopressin initiation to provide clinicians guidance for optimal adjunctive vasopressin initiation in patients with septic shock.

REVIEW FINDINGS

Patients with septic shock require vasoactive agents to restore adequate tissue perfusion. After norepinephrine, vasopressin is the suggested second-line adjunctive agent in patients with persistent inadequate mean arterial pressure. Vasopressin use in practice is heterogeneous likely because of inconsistent clinical trial findings, the lack of specific recommendations for when it should be used, and the high drug acquisition cost. Despite these limitations, vasopressin has demonstrated price inelastic demand, and its use in the United States has continued to increase. However, questions remain regarding optimal vasopressin use in patients with septic shock, particularly regarding patient selection and the timing of vasopressin initiation.

SUMMARY

Experimental studies evaluating the initiation timing of vasopressin in patients with septic shock are limited, and recent observational studies have revealed an association between vasopressin initiation at lower norepinephrine-equivalent doses or lower lactate concentrations and lower mortality.

Should we initiate vasopressors earlier in patients with septic shock: A mini systemic review

Septic shock treatment remains a major challenge for intensive care units, despite the recent prominent advances in both management and outcomes. Vasopressors serve as a cornerstone of septic shock therapy, but there is still controversy over the timing of administration. Specifically, it remains unclear whether vasopressors should be used early in the course of treatment. Here, we provide a systematic review of the literature on the timing of vasopressor administration. Research was systematically identified through PubMed, Embase and Cochrane searching according to PRISMA guidelines. Fourteen studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. The pathophysiological basis for early vasopressor use was classified, with the exploration on indications for the early administration of mono-vasopressors or their combination with vasopressin or angiotensinII. We found that mortality was 28.1%-47.7% in the early vasopressors group, and 33.6%-54.5% in the control group. We also investigated the issue of vasopressor responsiveness. Furthermore, we acknowledged the subsequent challenge of administration of high-dose norepinephrine via peripheral veins with early vasopressor use. Based on the literature review, we propose a possible protocol for the early initiation of vasopressors in septic shock resuscitation.

Research Progress of Macromolecules in the Prevention and Treatment of Sepsis

Sepsis is associated with high rates of mortality in the intensive care unit and accompanied by systemic inflammatory reactions, secondary infections, and multiple organ failure. Biological macromolecules are drugs produced using modern biotechnology to prevent or treat diseases. Indeed, antithrombin, antimicrobial peptides, interleukins, antibodies, nucleic acids, and lentinan have been used to prevent and treat sepsis. In vitro, biological macromolecules can significantly ameliorate the inflammatory response, apoptosis, and multiple organ failure caused by sepsis. Several biological macromolecules have entered clinical trials. This review summarizes the sources, efficacy, mechanism of action, and research progress of macromolecular drugs used in the prevention and treatment of sepsis.

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

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

Effect of early vasopressin combined with norepinephrine on short-term mortality in septic shock: A retrospective study based on the MIMIC-IV database

BACKGROUND

Septic shock is a leading cause of death in intensive care units (ICUs), with short-term mortality rates of 35-40%. Vasopressin (AVP) is a second-line vasoactive agent for septic shock, and recent studies suggest that early AVP use can be beneficial. However, differences between early initiation of AVP combined with norepinephrine (NE) and nonearly AVP with NE are unclear. A retrospective cohort research was designed to explore the effects of early AVP initiation versus nonearly AVP initiation.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center cohort study included adult patients with septic shock from the MIMIC (Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care)-IV database. According to whether AVP was used early in the ICU (intensive care unit), patients were assigned to the early- (within 6 h of septic shock onset) and non-early-AVP (at least 6 h after septic shock onset) groups. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were ICU and hospital mortality, the numbers of vasopressor-free and ventilation-free days at 28 days, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score on days 2 and 3, and renal replacement therapy (RRT) use on days 2 and 3. Univariate and multivariate cox proportional-hazards regression, propensity-score matching were used to analyze the differences between the groups.

RESULTS

The study included 531 patients with septic shock: 331 (62.5%) in the early-AVP group and 200 (37.5%) in the non-early-AVP group. For 1:1 matching, 158 patients in the early-AVP group were matched with the same number of patients with nonearly AVP. Regarding the primary outcome, there was no significant difference between the early- and non-early-AVP groups in 28-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.68-1.24). For the secondary outcomes, there were no differences between the early- and non-early-AVP groups in ICU mortality (HR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.67-1.35), hospital mortality (HR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.69-1.31), the numbers of vasopressor-free and ventilation-free days at 28 days, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, SOFA score on days 2 and 3, and RRT use on days 2 and 3.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in short-term mortality between early AVP combined with NE and nonearly AVP with NE in septic shock.

2023 Update on Sepsis and Septic Shock in Adult Patients: Management in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Sepsis/septic shock is a life-threatening and time-dependent condition that requires timely management to reduce mortality. This review aims to update physicians with regard to the main pillars of treatment for this insidious condition.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE were searched from inception with special attention paid to November 2021-January 2023.

RESULTS

The management of sepsis/septic shock is challenging and involves different pathophysiological aspects, encompassing empirical antimicrobial treatment (which is promptly administered after microbial tests), fluid (crystalloids) replacement (to be established according to fluid tolerance and fluid responsiveness), and vasoactive agents (e.g., norepinephrine (NE)), which are employed to maintain mean arterial pressure above 65 mmHg and reduce the risk of fluid overload. In cases of refractory shock, vasopressin (rather than epinephrine) should be combined with NE to reach an acceptable level of pressure control. If mechanical ventilation is indicated, the tidal volume should be reduced from 10 to 6 mL/kg. Heparin is administered to prevent venous thromboembolism, and glycemic control is recommended. The efficacy of other treatments (e.g., proton-pump inhibitors, sodium bicarbonate, etc.) is largely debated, and such treatments might be used on a case-to-case basis.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of sepsis/septic shock has significantly progressed in the last few years. Improving knowledge of the main therapeutic cornerstones of this challenging condition is crucial to achieve better patient outcomes.

Norepinephrine May Exacerbate Septic Acute Kidney Injury: A Narrative Review

Sepsis, the most serious complication of infection, occurs when a cascade of potentially life-threatening inflammatory responses is triggered. Potentially life-threatening septic shock is a complication of sepsis that occurs when hemodynamic instability occurs. Septic shock may cause organ failure, most commonly involving the kidneys. The pathophysiology and hemodynamic mechanisms of acute kidney injury in the case of sepsis or septic shock remain to be elucidated, but previous studies have suggested multiple possible mechanisms or the interplay of multiple mechanisms. Norepinephrine is used as the first-line vasopressor in the management of septic shock. Studies have reported different hemodynamic effects of norepinephrine on renal circulation, with some suggesting that it could possibly exacerbate acute kidney injury caused by septic shock. This narrative review briefly covers the updates on sepsis and septic shock regarding definitions, statistics, diagnosis, and management, with an explanation of the putative pathophysiological mechanisms and hemodynamic changes, as well as updated evidence. Sepsis-associated acute kidney injury remains a major burden on the healthcare system. This review aims to improve the real-world clinical understanding of the possible adverse outcomes of norepinephrine use in sepsis-associated acute kidney injury.

Comprehensive Management of Blood Pressure in Patients with Septic AKI

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is one of the serious complications of sepsis in clinical practice, and is an important cause of prolonged hospitalization, death, increased medical costs, and a huge medical burden to society. The pathogenesis of AKI associated with sepsis is relatively complex and includes hemodynamic abnormalities due to inflammatory response, oxidative stress, and shock, which subsequently cause a decrease in renal perfusion pressure and eventually lead to ischemia and hypoxia in renal tissue. Active clinical correction of hypotension can effectively improve renal microcirculatory disorders and promote the recovery of renal function. Furthermore, it has been found that in patients with a previous history of hypertension, small changes in blood pressure may be even more deleterious for kidney function. Therefore, the management of blood pressure in patients with sepsis-related AKI will directly affect the short-term and long-term renal function prognosis. This review summarizes the pathophysiological mechanisms of microcirculatory disorders affecting renal function, fluid management, vasopressor, the clinical blood pressure target, and kidney replacement therapy to provide a reference for the clinical management of sepsis-related AKI, thereby promoting the recovery of renal function for the purpose of improving patient prognosis.

Multimodal strategy to counteract vasodilation in septic shock

Early initiation of a multimodal treatment strategy in the management of vasopressors during septic shock has been advocated to reduce delays in restoring adequate organ perfusion and to mitigate side effects associated with the administration of high-dose catecholamines. We provide a review that summarises the pathophysiology of vasodilation, the physiologic response to the vascular response, and the different drugs used in this situation, focusing on the need to combine early different vasopressors. Fluid loading being insufficient for counteracting vasoplegia, norepinephrine is usually the first-line vasopressor used to restore hemodynamics. Norepinephrine sparing is discussed in further detail through the concomitant use of adrenergic, vasopressinergic, and renin-angiotensin systems and the optimisation of endothelial reactivity with methylene blue. A blueprint for the construction of new studies is outlined to address the question of vasopressor selection and timing in septic shock.

Machine learning to predict vasopressin responsiveness in patients with septic shock

STUDY OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to develop and externally validate a model to predict adjunctive vasopressin response in patients with septic shock being treated with norepinephrine for bedside use in the intensive care unit.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective analysis of two adult tertiary intensive care unit septic shock populations.

SETTING

Barnes-Jewish Hospital (BJH) from 2010 to 2017 and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) from 2001 to 2012.

PATIENTS

Two septic shock populations (548 BJH patients and 464 BIDMC patients) that received vasopressin as second-line vasopressor.

INTERVENTION

Patients who were vasopressin responsive were compared with those who were nonresponsive. Vasopressin response was defined as survival with at least a 20% decrease in maximum daily norepinephrine requirements by one calendar day after vasopressin initiation, without a third-line vasopressor.

MEASUREMENTS

Two supervised machine learning models (gradient-boosting machine [XGBoost] and elastic net penalized logistic regression [EN]) were trained in 1000 bootstrap replications of the BJH data and externally validated in the BIDMC data to predict vasopressin responsiveness.

MAIN RESULTS

Vasopressin responsiveness was similar among each cohort (BJH 45% and BIDMC 39%). Mortality was lower for vasopressin responders compared with nonresponders in the BJH (51% vs. 73%) and BIDMC (45% vs. 83%) cohorts, respectively. Both models demonstrated modest discrimination in the training (XGBoost area under receiver operator curve [AUROC] 0.61 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.61], EN 0.59 [95% CI 0.58-0.59]) and external validation (XGBoost 0.68 [95% CI 0.63-0.73], EN 0.64 [95% CI 0.59-0.69]) datasets.

CONCLUSION

Vasopressin nonresponsiveness is common and associated with increased mortality. The models' modest performances highlight the complexity of septic shock and indicate that more research will be required before clinical decision support tools can aid in anticipating patient-specific responsiveness to vasopressin.