Early initiation of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock: A propensity score-based analysis

Comparison of Early and Late Norepinephrine Administration in Patients with Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Vasopressor administration at an appropriate time is crucial, but the optimal timing remains controversial.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does early vs late norepinephrine administration impact the prognosis of septic shock?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Searches were conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and KMBASE. We included studies of adults with sepsis and categorized patients into an early and late norepinephrine group according to specific time points or differences in norepinephrine use protocols. The primary outcome was overall mortality. The secondary outcomes included length of stay in the ICU, days free from ventilator use, days free from renal replacement therapy, days free from vasopressor use, adverse events, and total fluid volume.

RESULTS

Twelve studies (four randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and eight observational studies) comprising 7,281 patients were analyzed. For overall mortality, no significant difference was found between the early norepinephrine group and late norepinephrine group in RCTs (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.41-1.19) or observational studies (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.54-1.29). In the two RCTs without a restrictive fluid strategy that prioritized vasopressors and lower IV fluid volumes, the early norepinephrine group showed significantly lower mortality than the late norepinephrine group (OR, 0.49; 95%, CI, 0.25-0.96). The early norepinephrine group demonstrated more mechanical ventilator-free days in observational studies (mean difference, 4.06; 95% CI, 2.82-5.30). The incidence of pulmonary edema was lower in the early norepinephrine group in the three RCTs that reported this outcome (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.25-0.74). No differences were found in the other secondary outcomes.

INTERPRETATION

Overall mortality did not differ significantly between early and late norepinephrine administration for septic shock. However, early norepinephrine administration seemed to reduce pulmonary edema incidence, and mortality improvement was observed in studies without fluid restriction interventions, favoring early norepinephrine use.

Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis on Norepinephrine Use in Septic Shock: Why Is It Still a Male World?

Sex and gender are fundamental health determinants and their role as modifiers of treatment response is increasingly recognized. Norepinephrine is a cornerstone of septic shock management and its use is based on the highest level of evidence compared to dopamine. The related 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SCC) recommendation is presumably applicable to both females and males; however, a sex- and gender-based analysis is lacking, thus not allowing generalizable conclusions. This paper was aimed at exploring whether sex- and gender-disaggregated data are available in the evidence supporting this recommendation. For all the studies underpinning it, four pairs of authors, including a woman and a man, extracted data concerning sex and gender, according to the Sex and Gender Equity in Research guidelines. Nine manuscripts were included with an overall population of 2126 patients, of which 43.2% were females. No sex analysis was performed and gender was never reported. In conclusion, the present manuscript highlighted that the clinical studies underlying the SCC recommendation of NE administration in septic shock have neglected the likely role of sex and gender as modifiers of treatment response, thus missing the opportunity of sex- and gender-specific guidelines.

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.

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.

Evidence for a personalized early start of norepinephrine in septic shock

During septic shock, vasopressor infusion is usually started only after having corrected the hypovolaemic component of circulatory failure, even in the most severe patients. However, earlier administration of norepinephrine, simultaneously with fluid resuscitation, should be considered in some cases. Duration and depth of hypotension strongly worsen outcomes in septic shock patients. However, the response of arterial pressure to volume expansion is inconstant, delayed, and transitory. In the case of profound, life-threatening hypotension, relying only on fluids to restore blood pressure may unduly prolong hypotension and organ hypoperfusion. Conversely, norepinephrine rapidly increases and better stabilizes arterial pressure. By binding venous adrenergic receptors, it transforms part of the unstressed blood volume into stressed blood volume. It increases the mean systemic filling pressure and increases the fluid-induced increase in mean systemic filling pressure, as observed in septic shock patients. This may improve end-organ perfusion, as shown by some animal studies. Two observational studies comparing early vs. later administration of norepinephrine in septic shock patients using a propensity score showed that early administration reduced the administered fluid volume and day-28 mortality. Conversely, in another propensity score-based study, norepinephrine administration within the first hour following shock diagnosis increased day-28 mortality. The only randomized controlled study that compared the early administration of norepinephrine alone to a placebo showed that the early continuous administration of norepinephrine at a fixed dose of 0.05 µg/kg/min, with norepinephrine added in open label, showed that shock control was achieved more often than in the placebo group. The choice of starting norepinephrine administration early should be adapted to the patient's condition. Logically, it should first be addressed to patients with profound hypotension, when the arterial tone is very low, as suggested by a low diastolic blood pressure (e.g. ≤ 40 mmHg), or by a high diastolic shock index (heart rate/diastolic blood pressure) (e.g. ≥ 3). Early administration of norepinephrine should also be considered in patients in whom fluid accumulation is likely to occur or in whom fluid accumulation would be particularly deleterious (in case of acute respiratory distress syndrome or intra-abdominal hypertension for example).

Early administration of multiple vasopressors is associated with better survival in patients with sepsis: a propensity score-weighted study

BACKGROUND

The association between the timing of administration of multiple vasopressors and patient outcomes has not been investigated.

METHODS

This study used data from the MIMIC-IV database. Patients with sepsis who were administered two or more vasopressors were included. The principal exposure was the last norepinephrine dose when adding a second vasopressor. The cohort was divided into early (last norepinephrine dose < 0.25 μg/kg/min) and normal (last norepinephrine dose ≥ 0.25 μg/kg/min) groups. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Multivariable Cox analyses, propensity score matching, stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (sIPTW), and restricted cubic spline (RCS) curves were used.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,437 patients who received multiple vasopressors were included. Patients in the early group had lower 28-day mortality (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.65-0.89; p < 0.001) than those in the single group, with similar results in the propensity score-matched (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.68-0.94; p = 0.006) and sIPTW (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.63-0.88; p < 0.001) cohorts. RCS curves showed that the risk of 28-day mortality increased as the last norepinephrine dose increased.

CONCLUSIONS

The timing of secondary vasopressor administration is strongly associated with the outcomes of patients with sepsis.

Effect of Early versus Delayed Use of Norepinephrine on Short-Term Outcomes in Patients with Traumatic Hemorrhagic Shock: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Background

Guidelines recommend norepinephrine (NE) for the treatment of fatal hypotension caused by trauma. However, the optimal timing of treatment remains unclear.

Objective

We aimed to investigate the effect of early versus delayed use of NE on survival in patients with traumatic haemorrhagic shock (HS).

Materials and Methods

From March 2017 to April 2021, 356 patients with HS in the Department of Emergency Intensive Care Medicine of the Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University were identified using the emergency information system and inpatient electronic medical records for inclusion in the study. Our study endpoint was 24 h mortality. We used a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis to reduce bias between groups. Survival models were used to evaluate the relationship between early NE and 24 h survival.

Results

After PSM, 308 patients were divided equally into an early NE (eNE) group and a delayed NE (dNE) group. Patients in the eNE group had lower 24 h mortality rates than those in the dNE group (29.9% versus 44.8%, respectively). A receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated that a cut-off point for NE use of 4.4 h yielded optimal predictive value for 24 h mortality, with a sensitivity of 95.52%, a specificity of 81.33% and an area under the curve value of 0.9272. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses showed that the survival rate of patients in the eNE group was higher (p < 0.01) than those in the dNE group.

Conclusion

The use of NE within the first 3 h was associated with a higher 24 h survival rate. The use of eNE appears to be a safe intervention that benefits patients with traumatic HS.

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.

Early versus delayed vasopressor administration in patients with septic shock

Aim

This study aimed to investigate the association of early vasopressor initiation with improved septic shock outcomes.

Methods

This multicenter observational study was conducted in 17 intensive care units in Japan and included adult patients with sepsis admitted to the intensive care unit from July 2019 to August 2020 and treated with vasopressor therapy. Patients were divided into the early vasopressor group (≤1 h from sepsis recognition) and the delayed vasopressor group (>1 h). The impact of early vasopressor administration on risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality was estimated using logistic regression analyses adjusted by an inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis with propensity scoring.

Results

Among the 97 patients, 67 received vasopressor therapy within 1 h from sepsis recognition and 30 received vasopressor after 1 h. In-hospital mortality was 32.8% in the early vasopressor group and 26.7% in the delayed vasopressor group (p = 0.543). The adjusted odds ratio for in-hospital mortality was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.17-3.29) when comparing patients in the early vasopressor with those in the delayed vasopressor group. The fit curve from the mixed-effects model showed a relatively lower trend toward an infusion volume over time in the early vasopressor group than in the delayed vasopressor group.

Conclusion

Our study did not reach a definitive conclusion for early vasopressor administration. However, early vasopressor administration may help avoid volume overload in the long course of sepsis care.

Effective hemodynamic monitoring

Hemodynamic monitoring is the centerpiece of patient monitoring in acute care settings. Its effectiveness in terms of improved patient outcomes is difficult to quantify. This review focused on effectiveness of monitoring-linked resuscitation strategies from: (1) process-specific monitoring that allows for non-specific prevention of new onset cardiovascular insufficiency (CVI) in perioperative care. Such goal-directed therapy is associated with decreased perioperative complications and length of stay in high-risk surgery patients. (2) Patient-specific personalized resuscitation approaches for CVI. These approaches including dynamic measures to define volume responsiveness and vasomotor tone, limiting less fluid administration and vasopressor duration, reduced length of care. (3) Hemodynamic monitoring to predict future CVI using machine learning approaches. These approaches presently focus on predicting hypotension. Future clinical trials assessing hemodynamic monitoring need to focus on process-specific monitoring based on modifying therapeutic interventions known to improve patient-centered outcomes.