Early Use of Norepinephrine Improves Survival in Septic Shock: Earlier than Early

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 in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and KMbase databases. 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.

An Update on Pharmacologic Management of Neonatal Hypotension: When, Why, and Which Medication

Anti-hypotensive treatment, which includes dopamine, dobutamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, milrinone, vasopressin, terlipressin, levosimendan, and glucocorticoids, is a long-established intervention in neonates with arterial hypotension (AH). However, there are still gaps in knowledge and issues that need clarification. The main questions and challenges that neonatologists face relate to the reference ranges of arterial blood pressure in presumably healthy neonates in relation to gestational and postnatal age; the arterial blood pressure level that potentially affects perfusion of critical organs; the incorporation of targeted echocardiography and near-infrared spectroscopy for assessing heart function and cerebral perfusion in clinical practice; the indication, timing, and choice of medication for each individual patient; the limited randomized clinical trials in neonates with sometimes conflicting results; and the sparse data regarding the potential effect of early hypotension or anti-hypotensive medications on long-term neurodevelopment. In this review, after a short review of AH definitions used in neonates and existing data on pathophysiology of AH, we discuss currently available data on pharmacokinetic and hemodynamic effects, as well as the effectiveness and safety of anti-hypotensive medications in neonates. In addition, data on the comparisons between anti-hypotensive medications and current suggestions for the main indications of each medication are discussed.

Geo-economic Influence on the Effect of Fluid Volume for Sepsis Resuscitation: A Meta-Analysis

Rationale: Sepsis management relies on fluid resuscitation avoiding fluid overload and its related organ congestion. Objectives: To explore the influence of country income group on risk-benefit balance of fluid management strategies in sepsis. Methods: We searched e-databases for all randomized controlled trials on fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis or septic shock up to January 2023, excluding studies on hypertonic fluids, colloids, and depletion-based interventions. The effect of fluid strategies (higher versus lower volumes) on mortality was analyzed per income group (i.e., low- and middle-income countries [LMICs] or high-income countries [HICs]). Measurements and Main Results: Twenty-nine studies (11,798 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. There was a numerically higher mortality in studies of LMICs as compared with those of HICs: median, 37% (interquartile range [IQR]: 26-41) versus 29% (IQR: 17-38; P = 0.06). Income group significantly interacted with the effect of fluid volume on mortality: Higher fluid volume was associated with higher mortality in LMICs but not in HICs: odds ratio (OR), 1.47; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.14-1.90 versus 1.00 (95% CI: 0.87-1.16), P = 0.01 for subgroup differences. Higher fluid volume was associated with increased need for mechanical ventilation in LMICs (OR, 1.24 [95% CI: 1.08-1.43]) but not in HICs (OR, 1.02 [95% CI: 0.80-1.29]). Self-reported access to mechanical ventilation also significantly influenced the effect of fluid volume on mortality, which increased with higher volumes only in settings with limited access to mechanical ventilation (OR: 1.45 [95% CI: 1.09-1.93] vs. 1.09 [95% CI: 0.93-1.28], P = 0.02 for subgroup differences). Conclusions: In sepsis trials, the effect of fluid resuscitation approach differed by setting, with higher volume of fluid resuscitation associated with increased mortality in LMICs and in settings with restricted access to mechanical ventilation. The precise reason for these differences is unclear and may be attributable in part to resource constraints, participant variation between trials, or other unmeasured factors.

Beyond the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines: a systematic review of interventions affecting mortality in sepsis

INTRODUCTION

Sepsis-related mortality is decreasing over time after the introduction of "Surviving Sepsis Campaign" Guidelines in 2004. The last Guidelines version collects 93 recommendations, but several interventions supported by randomized evidence of mortality reduction are not included.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a systematic review of all randomized controlled trials reporting a statistically significant mortality reduction in septic patients and compared the identified studies to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines 2021 to highlight discrepancies.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We identified 83 randomized controlled trials (58 interventions) influencing mortality in sepsis. Only 9/58 of these interventions were included in the Guidelines: lactate measurement and lactate-guided hemodynamic management, procalcitonin-guided antibiotics discontinuation, balanced crystalloids as first choice fluids, albumin infusion, avoidance of starches, noradrenaline as first line vasopressor, vasopressin as an adjunctive vasopressor to noradrenaline, neuromuscular blocking agents in moderate-severe sepsis-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome, and corticosteroids use. Only 11/93 Guidelines recommendations were supported by randomized evidence with mortality difference. Five of the interventions with survival benefit in literature (vitamin C, terlipressin, polymyxin B, liberal transfusion strategy and immunoglobulins) were recommended to avoid in the Guidelines, while 44 interventions were not mentioned, including three interventions (esmolol, omega 3, and external warming) with at least two randomized controlled trials with a documented survival benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Several discrepancies exist between the randomized controlled trials with mortality difference in septic patients and the latest Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines. This systematic review can be of help for improving future guidelines and may guide research on specific promising topics.

Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies

Sepsis and septic shock are associated with high mortality, with diagnosis and treatment remaining a challenge for clinicians. Their management classically encompasses hemodynamic resuscitation, antibiotic treatment, life support, and focus control; however, there are aspects that have changed. This narrative review highlights current and avant-garde methods of handling patients experiencing septic shock based on the experience of its authors and the best available evidence in a context of uncertainty. Following the first recommendation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, it is recommended that specific sepsis care performance improvement programs are implemented in hospitals, i.e., "Sepsis Code" programs, designed ad hoc, to achieve this goal. Regarding hemodynamics, the importance of perfusion and hemodynamic coherence stand out, which allow for the recognition of different phenotypes, determination of the ideal time for commencing vasopressor treatment, and the appropriate fluid therapy dosage. At present, this is not only important for the initial timing, but also for de-resuscitation, which involves the early weaning of support therapies, directed elimination of fluids, and fluid tolerance concept. Finally, regarding blood purification therapies, those aimed at eliminating endotoxins and cytokines are attractive in the early management of patients in septic shock.

Impact of norepinephrine on immunity and oxidative metabolism in sepsis

Sepsis is a major health problem in the United States (US), constituting a leading contributor to mortality among critically ill patients. Despite advances in treatment the underlying pathophysiology of sepsis remains elusive. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) have a significant role in antimicrobial host defense and inflammation and its dysregulation leads to maladaptive responses because of excessive inflammation. There is growing evidence for crosstalk between the central nervous system and the immune system in response to infection. The hypothalamic-pituitary and adrenal axis and the sympathetic nervous system are the two major pathways that mediate this interaction. Epinephrine (Epi) and norepinephrine (NE), respectively are the effectors of these interactions. Upon stimulation, NE is released from sympathetic nerve terminals locally within lymphoid organs and activate adrenoreceptors expressed on immune cells. Similarly, epinephrine secreted from the adrenal gland which is released systemically also exerts influence on immune cells. However, understanding the specific impact of neuroimmunity is still in its infancy. In this review, we focus on the sympathetic nervous system, specifically the role the neurotransmitter norepinephrine has on immune cells. Norepinephrine has been shown to modulate immune cell responses leading to increased anti-inflammatory and blunting of pro-inflammatory effects. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that norepinephrine is involved in regulating oxidative metabolism in immune cells. This review attempts to summarize the known effects of norepinephrine on immune cell response and oxidative metabolism in response to infection.

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.

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.

Evolving Management Practices for Early Sepsis-induced Hypoperfusion: A Narrative Review

Sepsis causes significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Resuscitation is a cornerstone of management. This review covers five areas of evolving practice in the management of early sepsis-induced hypoperfusion: fluid resuscitation volume, timing of vasopressor initiation, resuscitation targets, route of vasopressor administration, and use of invasive blood pressure monitoring. For each topic, we review the seminal evidence, discuss the evolution of practice over time, and highlight questions for additional research. Intravenous fluids are a core component of early sepsis resuscitation. However, with growing concerns about the harms of fluid, practice is evolving toward smaller-volume resuscitation, which is often paired with earlier vasopressor initiation. Large trials of fluid-restrictive, vasopressor-early strategies are providing more information about the safety and potential benefit of these approaches. Lowering blood pressure targets is a means to prevent fluid overload and reduce exposure to vasopressors; mean arterial pressure targets of 60-65 mm Hg appear to be safe, at least in older patients. With the trend toward earlier vasopressor initiation, the need for central administration of vasopressors has been questioned, and peripheral vasopressor use is increasing, although it is not universally accepted. Similarly, although guidelines suggest the use of invasive blood pressure monitoring with arterial catheters in patients receiving vasopressors, blood pressure cuffs are less invasive and often sufficient. Overall, the management of early sepsis-induced hypoperfusion is evolving toward fluid-sparing and less-invasive strategies. However, many questions remain, and additional data are needed to further optimize our approach to resuscitation.

Influence of time from admission to norepinephrine administration and volume of fluids received on outcomes of patients meeting sepsis-3 criteria: a retrospective study using the MIMIC-IV database

Objectives

Vasopressors are a cornerstone in the management of sepsis, marked by distributive shock often unresponsive to fluid resuscitation. Prior research and clinician surveys have suggested that earlier usage of vasopressors corresponds to improved outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective cohort was constructed using patient data contained within the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV database. Analytic cohort included a total of 2079 patients meeting sepsis-3 criteria with a ≥2-point rise in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and administered norepinephrine (NE) as first-line vasopressor within 24 hours of admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Patients receiving other vasopressors or missing documented fluid resuscitation information were excluded. Primary end points included mortality, use of invasive mechanical ventilation and length of stay which were analyzed in a multivariate logistic regression model for the primary effect of time from ICU admission to NE administration using covariates.

Results

Time to NE use was defined as either early, using <6 hours from time of ICU admission or late using >6 hours to ≤24 hours. Patients who received early NE had significantly lower adjusted odds of mortality (0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.97, p=0.026), higher adjusted odds of invasive mechanical ventilation (1.48, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.16, p=0.045), no significant difference in hospital length of stay (difference in days 0.6 (95% CI -3.24 to 2.04)) and lower ICU length of stay (difference in days -0.9 (95% CI -1.74 to -0.01)), as compared with the late NE group.

Conclusion

Among patients admitted to the ICU for sepsis, early use of NE was associated with significantly lower odds of mortality but higher odds of mechanical ventilation, and no significant difference in length of hospital stay but less time in the ICU. Furthermore, the volume of fluids received prior to NE use may have a significant impact on optimal NE timing.

Level of evidence

Level IV-therapeutic care/management.

Effects of Collagen Antibacterial Functional Dressing plus Continuous Nursing on Lower Extremity Skin Injury Caused by Norepinephrine in Patients with Septic Shock

Background

This study was designed to explore the effects of collagen antibacterial functional dressing plus continuous care on norepinephrine-induced lower extremity skin injury in patients with septic shock.

Methods

In this prospective, randomized, controlled study, 120 patients with septic shock receiving norepinephrine in our hospital from February 2020 to February 2021 were recruited. All the enrollments were randomized into the experimental group (n = 60) and the control group (n = 60). The control group received continuous care, while the experimental group additionally received collagen antibacterial functional dressing. Outcome measures included skin sensation scores, incidence of lower extremity skin injuries, recovery time, inflammatory factor levels, and care satisfaction.

Results

Collagen antibacterial functional dressing plus continuous care resulted in significantly lower skin sensation scores and a lower incidence of skin injuries versus continuous care alone. Patients in the experimental group had faster recovery of lower extremity skin injury than those in the control group. Collagen antibacterial functional dressing plus continuous care was associated with significantly lower levels of inflammatory factors and a higher satisfaction rate than continuous care alone.

Conclusion

Collagen antibacterial functional dressing plus continuous care improves the local skin condition of patients with septic shock receiving norepinephrine, regulates the levels of inflammatory factors, reduces the risk of skin injuries, and enhances care satisfaction.

Vasopressors in Septic Shock: The Quest for Refinement

How to cite this article: Pichamuthu K. Vasopressors in Septic Shock: The Quest for Refinement. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(6):659-660.

Major Publications in the Critical Care Pharmacotherapy Literature: 2020

OBJECTIVES

To summarize selected meta-analyses and trials related to critical care pharmacotherapy published in 2020.

DATA SOURCES

The Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology Pharmacotherapy Literature Update group screened 36 journals monthly for impactful publications.

STUDY SELECTION

The group reviewed a total of 119 articles during 2020 according to relevance for practice.

DATA EXTRACTION

Articles were selected with consensus and importance to clinical practice from those included in the monthly Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology Pharmacotherapy Literature Update. The group reviewed articles according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria. Articles with a 1A grade were selected.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Several trials were summarized, including two meta-analyses and five original research trials. Original research trials evaluating vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine versus hydrocortisone in sepsis, the use of nonsedation strategies, dexmedetomidine in cardiac surgery, remdesivir for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke. Two meta-analyses determining the impact of norepinephrine initiation in patients with septic shock and the use of corticosteroids in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was included.

CONCLUSIONS

This clinical review provides summary and perspectives of clinical practice impact on influential critical care pharmacotherapy publications in 2020.

Combining fluids and vasopressors: A magic potion?

Early detection and prompt reversal of sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion are key elements while treating patients with septic shock. Fluid administration is widely accepted as the first-line therapy followed by vasopressor use in persistently hypotensive patients or in those with insufficient arterial pressure to ensure adequate tissue perfusion. Recent evidence suggests a beneficial effect of combining fluids with vasopressors in the early phase of sepsis. Compared with fluids alone, combining fluids and vasopressors increases mean systemic pressure and venous return and corrects hypotension better. This approach also limits fluid overload, which is an independent factor of poor outcomes in sepsis. It produces less hemodilution than fluids alone. As a consequence of these effects, combined treatment may improve outcomes in septic shock patients.

Should Vasopressors Be Started Early in Septic Shock?

Sepsis can influence blood volume, its distribution, vascular tone, and cardiac function. Persistent hypotension or the need for vasopressors after volume resuscitation is part of the definition of septic shock. Since increased positive fluid balance has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality in sepsis, timing of vasopressors in the treatment of septic shock seems crucial. However, conclusive evidence on timing and sequence of interventions with the goal to restore tissue perfusion is lacking. The aim of this narrative review is to depict the pathophysiology of hypotension in sepsis, evaluate how common interventions to treat hypotension interfere with physiology, and to give a resume of the results from clinical studies focusing on targets and timing of vasopressor in sepsis. The majority of studies comparing early versus late administration of vasopressors in septic shock are rather small, single-center, and retrospective. The range of "early" is between 1 and 12 hours. The available studies suggest a mean arterial pressure of 60 to 65 mm Hg as a threshold for increased risk of morbidity and mortality, whereas higher blood pressure targets do not seem to add further benefits. The data, albeit mostly from observational studies, speak for combining vasopressors with fluids rather "early" in the treatment of septic shock (within a 0-3-hour window). Nevertheless, the optimal resuscitation strategy should take into account the source of infection, the pathophysiology, the time and clinical course preceding the diagnosis of sepsis, and also comorbidities and sepsis-induced organ dysfunction.

Individualized resuscitation strategy for septic shock formalized by finite mixture modeling and dynamic treatment regimen

BACKGROUND

Septic shock comprises a heterogeneous population, and individualized resuscitation strategy is of vital importance. The study aimed to identify subclasses of septic shock with non-supervised learning algorithms, so as to tailor resuscitation strategy for each class.

METHODS

Patients with septic shock in 25 tertiary care teaching hospitals in China from January 2016 to December 2017 were enrolled in the study. Clinical and laboratory variables were collected on days 0, 1, 2, 3 and 7 after ICU admission. Subclasses of septic shock were identified by both finite mixture modeling and K-means clustering. Individualized fluid volume and norepinephrine dose were estimated using dynamic treatment regime (DTR) model to optimize the final mortality outcome. DTR models were validated in the eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD) dataset.

RESULTS

A total of 1437 patients with a mortality rate of 29% were included for analysis. The finite mixture modeling and K-means clustering robustly identified five classes of septic shock. Class 1 (baseline class) accounted for the majority of patients over all days; class 2 (critical class) had the highest severity of illness; class 3 (renal dysfunction) was characterized by renal dysfunction; class 4 (respiratory failure class) was characterized by respiratory failure; and class 5 (mild class) was characterized by the lowest mortality rate (21%). The optimal fluid infusion followed the resuscitation/de-resuscitation phases with initial large volume infusion and late restricted volume infusion. While class 1 transitioned to de-resuscitation phase on day 3, class 3 transitioned on day 1. Classes 1 and 3 might benefit from early use of norepinephrine, and class 2 can benefit from delayed use of norepinephrine while waiting for adequate fluid infusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Septic shock comprises a heterogeneous population that can be robustly classified into five phenotypes. These classes can be easily identified with routine clinical variables and can help to tailor resuscitation strategy in the context of precise medicine.

Timing of norepinephrine initiation in patients with septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The effect of the timing of norepinephrine initiation on clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock is uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of early and late start of norepinephrine support on clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock.

Methods

We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies from inception to the 1st of March 2020. We included studies involving adult patients (> 18 years) with septic shock. All authors reported our primary outcome of short-term mortality and clearly comparing early versus late norepinephrine initiation with clinically relevant secondary outcomes (ICU length of stay, time to achieved target mean arterial pressure (≥ 65 mmHg), and volume of intravenous fluids within 6 h). Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Five studies including 929 patients were included. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis showed that the short-term mortality of the early group was lower than that of the late group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.61; P < 0.00001; χ² = 3.74; I² = 0%). Secondary outcomes demonstrated that the time to achieved target MAP of the early group was shorter than that of the late group (mean difference = − 1.39; 95% CI, − 1.81 to − 0.96; P < 0.00001; χ² = 1.03; I² = 0%). The volume of intravenous fluids within 6 h of the early group was less than that of the late group (mean difference = − 0.50; 95% CI, − 0.68 to − 0.32; P < 0.00001; χ² = 33.76; I² = 94%). There was no statistically significant difference in the ICU length of stay between the two groups (mean difference = − 0.11; 95% CI, − 1.27 to 1.05; P = 0.86; χ² = 0.85; I² = 0%).

Conclusions

Early initiation of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock was associated with decreased short-term mortality, shorter time to achieved target MAP, and less volume of intravenous fluids within 6 h. There was no significant difference in ICU length of stay between early and late groups. Further large-scale RCTs are still required to confirm these results.

Timing of norepinephrine initiation in patients with septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effect of the timing of norepinephrine initiation on clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock is uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of early and late start of norepinephrine support on clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies from inception to the 1st of March 2020. We included studies involving adult patients (> 18 years) with septic shock. All authors reported our primary outcome of short-term mortality and clearly comparing early versus late norepinephrine initiation with clinically relevant secondary outcomes (ICU length of stay, time to achieved target mean arterial pressure (≥ 65 mmHg), and volume of intravenous fluids within 6 h). Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Five studies including 929 patients were included. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis showed that the short-term mortality of the early group was lower than that of the late group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.61; P < 0.00001; χ² = 3.74; I² = 0%). Secondary outcomes demonstrated that the time to achieved target MAP of the early group was shorter than that of the late group (mean difference = - 1.39; 95% CI, - 1.81 to - 0.96; P < 0.00001; χ² = 1.03; I² = 0%). The volume of intravenous fluids within 6 h of the early group was less than that of the late group (mean difference = - 0.50; 95% CI, - 0.68 to - 0.32; P < 0.00001; χ² = 33.76; I² = 94%). There was no statistically significant difference in the ICU length of stay between the two groups (mean difference = - 0.11; 95% CI, - 1.27 to 1.05; P = 0.86; χ² = 0.85; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Early initiation of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock was associated with decreased short-term mortality, shorter time to achieved target MAP, and less volume of intravenous fluids within 6 h. There was no significant difference in ICU length of stay between early and late groups. Further large-scale RCTs are still required to confirm these results.

Vasopressors in septic shock: which, when, and how much?

In addition to fluid resuscitation, the vasopressor therapy is a fundamental treatment of septic shock-induced hypotension as it aims at correcting the vascular tone depression and then at improving organ perfusion pressure. Experts’ recommendations currently position norepinephrine (NE) as the first-line vasopressor in septic shock. Vasopressin and its analogues are only second-line vasopressors as strong recent evidence suggests no benefit of their early administration in spite of promising preliminary data. Early administration of NE may allow achieving the initial mean arterial pressure (MAP) target faster and reducing the risk of fluid overload. The diastolic arterial pressure (DAP) as a marker of vascular tone, helps identifying the patients who need NE urgently. Available data suggest a MAP of 65 mmHg as the initial target but a more individualized approach is often required depending on several factors such as history of chronic hypertension or value of central venous pressure (CVP). In cases of refractory hypotension, increasing NE up to doses ≥1 µg/kg/min could be an option. However, current experts’ guidelines suggest to combine NE with other vasopressors such as vasopressin, with the intent to rising the MAP to target or to decrease the NE dosage.