The effect of vasoactive drugs on mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. A network meta-analysis of randomized trials

Blood Pressure Management for Hypotensive Patients in Intensive Care and Perioperative Cardiovascular Settings

Blood pressure is a critical physiological parameter, particularly in the context of cardiac intensive care and perioperative settings. As a primary indicator of organ perfusion, the maintenance of adequate blood pressure is imperative for the assurance of sufficient tissue oxygen delivery. Among critically ill and major surgery patients, the continuous monitoring of blood pressure is performed as a standard practice for patients. Nonetheless, uncertainties remain regarding blood pressure goals, and there is no consensus regarding blood pressure targets. This review describes the determinants of blood pressure, examine the influence of blood pressure on organ perfusion, and synthesize the current clinical evidence from various intensive care and perioperative settings to provide a concise guidance for daily clinical practice.

Towards the personalization of septic shock resuscitation: the fundamentals of ANDROMEDA-SHOCK-2 trial

Septic shock is a highly lethal and prevalent disease. Progressive circulatory dysfunction leads to tissue hypoperfusion and hypoxia, eventually evolving to multiorgan dysfunction and death. Prompt resuscitation may revert these pathogenic mechanisms, restoring oxygen delivery and organ function. High heterogeneity exists among the determinants of circulatory dysfunction in septic shock, and current algorithms provide a stepwise and standardized approach to conduct resuscitation. This review provides the pathophysiological and clinical rationale behind ANDROMEDA-SHOCK-2, an ongoing multicenter randomized controlled trial that aims to compare a personalized resuscitation strategy based on clinical phenotyping and peripheral perfusion assessment, versus standard of care, in early septic shock resuscitation.

Adjunctive Vasopressors in Patients with Septic Shock: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Over one-third of patients with septic shock have adjunctive vasopressors added to first-line vasopressors. However, no randomized trial has detected improved mortality with adjunctive vasopressors. Published systematic reviews and meta-analysis have sought to inform the use of adjunctive vasopressors, yet each published review has limitations that hinder its interpretation. This review aims to overcome the limitations of previous reviews by systematically synthesizing the direct evidence for adjunctive vasopressor therapy use in adult patients with septic shock.

Methods

We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating adjunctive vasopressors (vasopressin analogues, angiotensin II, hydroxocobalamin, methylene blue, and catecholamine analogues) in adult patients with septic shock. Relevant studies will be identified through comprehensive searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and reference lists of previous systematic reviews. Only randomized trials comparing adjunctive vasopressors (>75% of subjects on vasopressors at enrollment) to standard care vasopressors in adults with septic shock (>75% of subjects having septic shock) will be included. Titles and abstracts will be screened, full-text articles assessed for eligibility, and data extracted from included studies. Outcomes of interest include short-term mortality, intermediate-term mortality, kidney replacement therapy, digital/peripheral ischemia, and venous thromboembolism. Pairwise meta-analysis using a random-effects model will be utilized to estimate the risk ratio for the outcomes. Risk of bias will be adjudicated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and GRADE will be used to rate the certainty of the body of evidence.

Discussion

Although adjunctive vasopressors are commonly used in patients with septic shock their effect on patient-important outcomes is unclear. This study is planned to use rigorous systematic review methodology, including strict adhere to established guidelines, in order to overcome limitations of previously-published reviews and inform clinical practice and treatment guidelines for the use of adjunctive vasopressors in adults with septic shock.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD4202327984.

Sepsis-Induced myocardial dysfunction: heterogeneity of functional effects and clinical significance

Sepsis is a life-threatening disease state characterized by organ dysfunction and a dysregulated response to infection. The heart is one of the many organs affected by sepsis, in an entity termed sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy. This was initially used to describe a reversible depression in ejection fraction with ventricular dilation but advances in echocardiography and introduction of new techniques such as speckle tracking have led to descriptions of other common abnormalities in cardiac function associated with sepsis. This includes not only depression of systolic function, but also supranormal ejection fraction, diastolic dysfunction, and right ventricular dysfunction. These reports have led to inconsistent definitions of sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy. Just as there is heterogeneity among patients with sepsis, there is heterogeneity in the cardiac response; thus resuscitating these patients with a single approach is likely suboptimal. Many factors affect the heart in sepsis including inflammatory mediators, catecholamine responsiveness, and pathogen related toxins. This review will discuss different functional effects characterized by echocardiographic changes in sepsis and their prognostic and management implications.

Ventriculo-arterial (un)coupling in septic shock: Impact of current and upcoming hemodynamic drugs

Sepsis is an archetype of distributive shock and combines different levels of alterations in preload, afterload, and often cardiac contractility. The use of hemodynamic drugs has evolved over the past few years, along with the invasive and non-invasive tools used to measure these components in real time. However, none of them is impeccable, which is why the mortality of septic shock remains too high. The concept of ventriculo-arterial coupling (VAC) allows for the integration of these three fundamental macroscopic hemodynamic components. In this mini review, we discuss the knowledge, tools, and limitations of VAC measurement, along with the evidence supporting ventriculo-arterial uncoupling in septic shock. Finally, the impact of recommended hemodynamic drugs and molecules on VAC is detailed.

Efficacy of Levosimendan in the Treatment of Patients With Severe Septic Cardiomyopathy

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to compare the effects of levosimendan and dobutamine on hemodynamics and clinical efficacy in patients with severe septic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤35%).

DESIGN

A prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled study.

SETTING

In Baoding, China.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty patients with severe septic cardiomyopathy treated in the authors' hospital's Department of Critical Medicine from September 2018 to September 2021 were enrolled in this study.

INTERVENTIONS

These patients were divided randomly into the levosimendan group and dobutamine group. The LVEF, cardiac index (CI), stroke volume index (SVI), systemic vascular resistance index, heart rate, norepinephrine dose, and lactate at the time of enrollment and the 24th hour were compared, along with myocardial injury markers on the third day, C-reactive protein, mechanical ventilation time, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, cost, and 28-day mortality. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

At the 24th hour after treatment, CI, LVEF, SVI, and fluid volume were found to be higher in the levosimendan group than in the dobutamine group, whereas the dose of norepinephrine was lower in the former rather than the latter group. On the third day of treatment, cardiac troponin I in the levosimendan group was lower than that in the dobutamine group. Although the differences in 28-day mortality, ICU stay, and ICU treatment cost between the groups were not statistically significant, the ventilator application time of the levosimendan group was significantly shorter than that of the dobutamine group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with dobutamine, levosimendan was more effective at improving cardiac function, reducing myocardial injury, and reducing mechanical ventilation time in patients with severe septic cardiomyopathy.

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.

Circulatory shock in adults in emergency department

Circulatory shock is a common condition that carries high morbidity and mortality. This review aims to update the critical steps in managing common types of shock in adult patients admitted to medical emergency and intensive care units. A literature review was performed by searching PubMed, EMBASE Ovid, and Cochrane Library, using the following search items: ("shock" OR "circulatory shock" OR "septic shock" OR "cardiogenic shock") AND ("management" OR "treatment" OR "resuscitation"). The review emphasizes prompt shock identification with tissue hypoperfusion, knowledge of the underlying pathophysiological mechanism, initial fluid resuscitation with balanced crystalloids, norepinephrine as the preferred vasopressor in septic and profound cardiogenic shock, and tailored intervention addressing specific etiologies. Point-of-care ultrasound may help evaluate an undifferentiated shock and determine fluid responsiveness. The approach to septic shock is improving; however, confirmatory studies are required for many existing (e.g., amount of initial fluids and steroids) and emerging (e.g., angiotensin II) therapies. Knowledge gaps and wide variations persist in managing cardiogenic shock that needs urgent addressing to improve outcomes.

Combination of norepinephrine with phenylephrine versus norepinephrine with vasopressin in critically ill patients with septic shock: A retrospective study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the outcomes of patients with septic shock treated with a combination of norepinephrine with phenylephrine compared to norepinephrine with vasopressin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study including adults admitted between 2002 and 2017 with septic shock according to the Sepsis 3 criteria. We compared outcomes of patients treated with norepinephrine with phenylephrine to those treated with norepinephrine with vasopressin. Multivariate analysis was carried out to evaluate the association of norepinephrine with phenylephrine compared to norepinephrine with vasopressin with in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

During the study period, 158 patients with septic shock were treated with norepinephrine with phenylephrine and 129 with norepinephrine with vasopressin. Crude in-hospital mortality was not different between the two groups [91/158 (57.6%) versus 80/129 (62.5%), p = 0.40]. There was also no difference in ICU length of stay or hospital length of stay. Multivariate analysis demonstrated no significant association of norepinephrine with phenylephrine with in-hospital mortality compared to norepinephrine with vasopressin (OR 0.62 (95% confidence interval 0.31, 1.23, p = 0.17).

CONCLUSION

Phenylephrine used as a second-line vasoactive agent combined with norepinephrine may be a reasonable option compared to vasopressin. However, this finding needs to be validated in a randomized controlled trial.

Intravenous fluid therapy in sepsis

Sepsis is the dysregulated immune response to severe infection that is common and lethal among critically ill patients. Fluid administration is a common treatment for hypotension and shock in early sepsis. Fluid therapy can also cause edema and organ dysfunction. Research on the best treatment strategies for sepsis has provided insights on the optimal timing, dose, and type of fluid to treat patients with sepsis. Initial research on early goal-directed therapy for sepsis included an initial bolus of 30 ml/kg of fluid, but more recent research has supported use of smaller volumes. After initial fluid resuscitation, minimizing additional fluid administration may be beneficial, but no single measure has been established as the best method to guide ongoing fluid management in sepsis. Dynamic measures of "fluid responsiveness" can predict which patients will experience an increase in cardiac output from a fluid bolus. Use of such a measure in clinical care remains limited by applicability to patient populations and uncertainty regarding the effect on clinical outcomes. Recent research informs the effect of fluid composition on outcomes for patients with sepsis. Current data support the use of balanced crystalloids, rather than saline, and the use of crystalloids, rather than semisynthetic colloids. The role for albumin administration in sepsis remains uncertain. Future research should focus on determining the optimal volume of fluid during sepsis resuscitation, the effectiveness of measures of "fluid responsiveness" in improving outcomes, the optimal composition of crystalloid solutions, the role of albumin, and the effects of "deresuscitation" after septic shock.

Pathophysiology, mechanisms, and managements of tissue hypoxia

Oxygen is needed to generate aerobic adenosine triphosphate and energy that is required to support vital cellular functions. Oxygen delivery (DO₂) to the tissues is determined by convective and diffusive processes. The ability of the body to adjust oxygen extraction (ERO₂) in response to changes in DO₂ is crucial to maintain constant tissue oxygen consumption (VO₂). The capability to increase ERO₂ is the result of the regulation of the circulation and the effects of the simultaneous activation of both central and local factors. The endothelium plays a crucial role in matching tissue oxygen supply to demand in situations of acute drop in tissue oxygenation. Tissue oxygenation is adequate when tissue oxygen demand is met. When DO₂ is severely compromised, a critical DO₂ value is reached below which VO₂ falls and becomes dependent on DO₂, resulting in tissue hypoxia. The different mechanisms of tissue hypoxia are circulatory, anaemic, and hypoxic, characterised by a diminished DO₂ but preserved capacity of increasing ERO₂. Cytopathic hypoxia is another mechanism of tissue hypoxia that is due to impairment in mitochondrial respiration that can be observed in septic conditions with normal overall DO₂. Sepsis induces microcirculatory alterations with decreased functional capillary density, increased number of stopped-flow capillaries, and marked heterogeneity between the areas with large intercapillary distance, resulting in impairment of the tissue to extract oxygen and to satisfy the increased tissue oxygen demand, leading to the development of tissue hypoxia. Different therapeutic approaches exist to increase DO₂ and improve microcirculation, such as fluid therapy, transfusion, vasopressors, inotropes, and vasodilators. However, the effects of these agents on microcirculation are quite variable.

Current practice and evolving concepts in septic shock resuscitation

Clinical and pathophysiological understanding of septic shock has progressed exponentially in the previous decades, translating into a steady decrease in septic shock-related morbidity and mortality. Even though large randomized, controlled trials have addressed fundamental aspects of septic shock resuscitation, many questions still exist. In this review, we will describe the current standards of septic shock resuscitation, but the emphasis will be placed on evolving concepts in different domains such as clinical resuscitation targets, adequate use of fluids and vasoactive drugs, refractory shock, and the use of extracorporeal therapies. Multiple research opportunities remain open, and collaborative endeavors should be performed to fill in these gaps.

Beyond the bundle: Clinical controversies in the management of sepsis in emergency medicine patients

Sepsis is a condition characterized by life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. The emergency department (ED) serves as a crucial entry point for patients presenting with sepsis. Given the heterogeneous presentation and high mortality rate associated with sepsis and septic shock, several clinical controversies have emerged in the management of sepsis. These include the use of novel therapeutic agents like angiotensin II, hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, thiamine ("HAT") therapy, and levosimendan, Additionally, controversies with current treatments in vasopressor dosing, and the use of and balanced or unbalanced crystalloid are crucial to consider. The purpose of this review is to discuss clinical controversies in the management of septic patients, including the use of novel medications and dosing strategies, to assist providers in appropriately determining what treatment strategy is best suited for patients.

Potential role of herbal medicines as a novel approach in sepsis treatment

The growing number of deaths related to sepsis has become a major concern for past few years. Sepsis is a complex pathological reactions that is explained by series of host response to microbial insult. The resulted systemic reactions are manifested by early appearance of proinflammatory cytokines leading to hyperinflammatory phase which is followed by septic shock and death of the patient. The present study has revealed that antibiotics are not self-sufficient to control the complex mechanism of sepsis. Moreover prolonged and unnecessary administration of antibiotics may lead to antibiotic resistance to pathogens. In addition to this, immunosuppressive medications are selective and have targeted approach to certain study population. Drugs from herbal origin have shown to possess a mammoth of immunomodulatory potential by suppressing proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines exhibiting no or minimal unwanted secondary responses. Concomitantly, herbal plants tend to modulate oxidative stress level and haematological imbalance during inflammatory diseased conditions. Natural compounds have gained much attention for the treatment of several clinical complications. Considering the promising responses of medicinal plants with less/no side effects and easy procurement, comprehensive research on herbal plants to treat sepsis should be contemplated.

The additional use of methylene blue has a decatecholaminisation effect on cardiac vasoplegic syndrome after cardiac surgery

Background

Postoperative vasoplegia with minimal responsiveness to vasopressors is common after cardiac surgery. Called cardiac vasoplegic syndrome (CVS), it is caused by multiple factors. Treating CVS involves a high dose of fluids and catecholamines, however high doses of catecholamines and fluids are associated with serious side effects. There is evidence that new therapeutic strategies can lead to a reduction in norepinephrine doses and mortality in CVS. Specifically, the use of non-adrenergic vasopressors such as methylene blue (MB) can be beneficial.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the electronic records of 8716 adult cardiac surgery patients from November 2008 to December 2016. Medication, hemodynamic and outcome parameter data were analyzed for CVS until discharge. We determined CVS according to the following parameters: a postoperative onset of ≤24 h, a reduced mean arterial pressure (MAP) of < 70 mmHg, a dose of norepinephrine ≥0.8 mg*h^− 1 and a continuously increasing need for catecholamine, without ventricular dysfunction.

Results

We identified 513 patients with CVS. Perioperative risk factors were higher in patients treated with methylene blue (MB). Before MB administration patients had a significantly higher dose of norepinephrine, and MAP increased after MB administration. Norepinephrine could be reduced after MB administration and MAP remained stable at the same level even after the reduction of norepinephrine.

Conclusions

CVS patients have a severe systemic disease accompanied by significant operative stress and a high catecholamine requirement. The administration of MB in addition to standard treatment for CVS in the first 24 h was accompanied by an increase in MAP followed by a decrease in vasopressor requirement, indicating that early MB administration can be beneficial.

Vasopressor and inotrope treatment for septic shock: An umbrella review of reviews

PURPOSE

To review the characteristics, findings and quality of systematic reviews (SRs) on the effect of any vasopressor/inotrope on outcomes in adult patients with sepsis compared with either no treatment, another vasopressor or inotrope or fluids.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed and Embase (January 1993-March 2021). Descriptive statistics were used.

RESULTS

Among the 28 SRs identified, mortality was the primary outcome in most (26/28) and mortality was usually (23/28) studied using randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Fifteen SRs focused exclusively on patients with sepsis or septic shock. Sepsis and septic shock were always grouped for the analysis. Publication bias was consistently low when studied. The most consistent findings were a survival advantage with norepinephrine versus dopamine, which disappeared in analyses restricted to 28-day mortality, and more arrhythmias with dopamine. However, these analyses were dominated by a single study. Only 2 SRs were judged to be of moderate-high quality. Lack of blinding and attrition bias may have affected the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of SRs on the effect of vasopressors/inotropes on the outcomes of adult patients with sepsis can be improved, but high-quality, multicenter, RCTs should be preferred to additional SRs on this topic.

Norepinephrine was superior in death risk reducing and hemodynamics compared to dopamine in treatment of patients with septic shock

Background

To investigate the clinical effects of norepinephrine versus dopamine in treatment of septic shock by pooling the data form open published clinical trials.

Material and Methods

The clinical trials relevant to norepinephrine versus dopamine in treatment of septic shock were electronically searched in the databases of Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google scholar and CNKI. The original data related to the treatment effects such as death risk, oxygen metabolism and hemodynamics index were extracted from the included original studies. The death risk was pooled by the effect size of relative risk (RR), the oxygen metabolism and hemodynamics index were pooled by standard mean difference (SMD) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (95%CI). The publication bias was evaluated by Begg's funnel plot and Egger's line regression test.

Results

Thirteen clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results demonstrated the death risk was significantly decreased (RR=0.89, 95%CI:0.81 to 0.98, p=0.024) in septic shock patients who received norepinephrine compared to those receiving dopamine. The HR (SMD=−1.84, 95%CI: −2.86 to −0.81, p<0.01) and cardiac index (SMD=−0.74, 95%CI: −1.01 to −0.48, p<0.01) were lower in norepinephrine group compared to dopamine group. The systemic vascular resistance index (SMD=1.33, 95%CI:0.62 to 2.04, p<0.01) in norepinephrine group was higher than those of dopamine group with statistical difference. The Begg's funnel plot and Egger's line regression test (t=−0.84, p=0.425) showed no publication bias.

Conclusions

Based on the present evidence, norepinephrine was superior to dopamine in the aspects of death risk reducing and hemodynamics.

Current use of inotropes in circulatory shock

Background

Treatment decisions on critically ill patients with circulatory shock lack consensus. In an international survey, we aimed to evaluate the indications, current practice, and therapeutic goals of inotrope therapy in the treatment of patients with circulatory shock.

Methods

From November 2016 to April 2017, an anonymous web-based survey on the use of cardiovascular drugs was accessible to members of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). A total of 14 questions focused on the profile of respondents, the triggering factors, first-line choice, dosing, timing, targets, additional treatment strategy, and suggested effect of inotropes. In addition, a group of 42 international ESICM experts was asked to formulate recommendations for the use of inotropes based on 11 questions.

Results

A total of 839 physicians from 82 countries responded. Dobutamine was the first-line inotrope in critically ill patients with acute heart failure for 84% of respondents. Two-thirds of respondents (66%) stated to use inotropes when there were persistent clinical signs of hypoperfusion or persistent hyperlactatemia despite a supposed adequate use of fluids and vasopressors, with (44%) or without (22%) the context of low left ventricular ejection fraction. Nearly half (44%) of respondents stated an adequate cardiac output as target for inotropic treatment. The experts agreed on 11 strong recommendations, all of which were based on excellent (> 90%) or good (81–90%) agreement. Recommendations include the indications for inotropes (septic and cardiogenic shock), the choice of drugs (dobutamine, not dopamine), the triggers (low cardiac output and clinical signs of hypoperfusion) and targets (adequate cardiac output) and stopping criteria (adverse effects and clinical improvement).

Conclusion

Inotrope use in critically ill patients is quite heterogeneous as self-reported by individual caregivers. Eleven strong recommendations on the indications, choice, triggers and targets for the use of inotropes are given by international experts. Future studies should focus on consistent indications for inotrope use and implementation into a guideline for circulatory shock that encompasses individualized targets and outcomes.

Good clinical practice for the use of vasopressor and inotropic drugs in critically ill patients: state-of-the-art and expert consensus

Vasopressors and inotropic agents are widely used in critical care. However, strong evidence supporting their use in critically ill patients is lacking in many clinical scenarios. Thus, the Italian Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) promoted a project aimed to provide indications for good clinical practice on the use of vasopressors and inotropes, and on the management of critically ill patients with shock. A panel of 16 experts in the field of intensive care medicine and hemodynamics has been established. Systematic review of the available literature was performed based on PICO questions. Basing on available evidence, the panel prepared a summary of evidence and then wrote the clinical questions. A modified semi-quantitative RAND/UCLA appropriateness method has been used to determine the appropriateness of specific clinical scenarios. The panel identified 29 clinical questions for the use of vasopressors and inotropes in patients with septic shock and cardiogenic shock. High level of agreement exists among the panel members about appropriateness of inotropes/vasopressors' use in patients with septic shock and cardiogenic shock.

Comparison of Hemodynamic Responses to Administration of Vasopressin and Norepinephrine Under General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials with Trial Sequential Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The authors performed a meta-analysis to determine if vasopressin improves hypotension more than norepinephrine under general anesthesia.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

SETTING

Operating room.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent surgery, with general anesthesia.

INTERVENTIONS

Administration of vasopressin or norepinephrine in order to increase blood pressure.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome of this study was to determine if vasopressin increased mean blood pressure more effectively compared with norepinephrine for patients under general anesthesia. The secondary outcome was to see if vasopressin increased heart rate (HR), central venous pressure (CVP), cardiac output (CO), and cardiac index (CI) more significantly compared with norepinephrine under general anesthesia. The authors calculated the weighted mean difference, with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model, and calculated the required information size (RIS) by performing trial sequential analysis (TSA). The authors selected 6 studies for analysis. Vasopressin did not improve hypotension compared with norepinephrine under general anesthesia. (weighted mean difference = -0.84 mmHg, 95% CI: -5.90 to 4.23, p = 0.75, Cochran Q = 24.6, I² = 84%) In TSA, only 35.5% of RIS was achieved. Similarly, vasopressin and norepinephrine were not significantly different in terms of HR, CVP, CO, and CI. In TSA, only 23.7% of the RIS was reached for HR but RIS was almost achieved for CVP and CO.

CONCLUSIONS

Vasopressin did not improve hypotension compared with norepinephrine under general anesthesia. The RIS was not reached in TSA, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation is very low. Therefore, further research is needed to reach more robust conclusions.

Minimising haemodynamic lability during changeover of syringes infusing norepinephrine in adult critical care patients: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Arterial pressure lability is common during the process of replacing syringes used for norepinephrine infusions in critically ill patients. It is unclear if there is an optimal approach to minimise arterial pressure instability during this procedures. We investigated whether 'double pumping' changeover (DPC) or automated changeover (AC) reduced blood pressure lability in critically ill adults compared with quick syringe changeover (QC).

METHODS

Patients requiring a norepinephrine infusion syringe change were randomised in a non-blinded trial undertaken in six ICUs. Randomisation was minimised by norepinephrine flow rate at inclusion and centre. The primary outcome was the frequency of increased/decreased mean arterial pressure (defined by </>15 mm Hg from baseline measurements) within 15 min of switching the syringe compared with QC.

RESULTS

Patients (mean age: 64 (range:18-88)) yr were randomly assigned to QC (n=95), DPC (n=95), or AC (n=96). Increased MAP was the commonest consequence of syringe changeovers. MAP variability was most frequent after DPC (89/224 changeovers; 39.7%) compared with 57/223 (25.6%) changeovers after quick syringe switch and 46/181 (25.4%) in patients randomised to receive automated changeover (P=0.001). Fewer events occurred with QC compared with DPC (P=0.002). Sensitivity analysis based on mixed models showed that performing several changeovers on a single patient had no impact. Both type of changeover and norepinephrine dose before syringe changeover were independently associated with MAP variations >15 mm Hg.

CONCLUSIONS

Quick changeover of norepinephrine syringes was associated with less blood pressure lability compared with DPC. The prevalence of MAP variations was the same between AC and QC.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02304939.

Levosimendan Efficacy and Safety: 20 years of SIMDAX in Clinical Use

Levosimendan was first approved for clinic use in 2000, when authorisation was granted by Swedish regulatory authorities for the haemodynamic stabilisation of patients with acutely decompensated chronic heart failure. In the ensuing 20 years, this distinctive inodilator, which enhances cardiac contractility through calcium sensitisation and promotes vasodilatation through the opening of adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels on vascular smooth muscle cells, has been approved in more than 60 jurisdictions, including most of the countries of the European Union and Latin America. Areas of clinical application have expanded considerably and now include cardiogenic shock, takotsubo cardiomyopathy, advanced heart failure, right ventricular failure and pulmonary hypertension, cardiac surgery, critical care and emergency medicine. Levosimendan is currently in active clinical evaluation in the US. Levosimendan in IV formulation is being used as a research tool in the exploration of a wide range of cardiac and non-cardiac disease states. A levosimendan oral form is at present under evaluation in the management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. To mark the 20 years since the advent of levosimendan in clinical use, 51 experts from 23 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and Ukraine) contributed to this essay, which evaluates one of the relatively few drugs to have been successfully introduced into the acute heart failure arena in recent times and charts a possible development trajectory for the next 20 years.

Levosimendan Efficacy and Safety: 20 Years of SIMDAX in Clinical Use

Levosimendan was first approved for clinical use in 2000, when authorization was granted by Swedish regulatory authorities for the hemodynamic stabilization of patients with acutely decompensated chronic heart failure (HF). In the ensuing 20 years, this distinctive inodilator, which enhances cardiac contractility through calcium sensitization and promotes vasodilatation through the opening of adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels on vascular smooth muscle cells, has been approved in more than 60 jurisdictions, including most of the countries of the European Union and Latin America. Areas of clinical application have expanded considerably and now include cardiogenic shock, takotsubo cardiomyopathy, advanced HF, right ventricular failure, pulmonary hypertension, cardiac surgery, critical care, and emergency medicine. Levosimendan is currently in active clinical evaluation in the United States. Levosimendan in IV formulation is being used as a research tool in the exploration of a wide range of cardiac and noncardiac disease states. A levosimendan oral form is at present under evaluation in the management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. To mark the 20 years since the advent of levosimendan in clinical use, 51 experts from 23 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine) contributed to this essay, which evaluates one of the relatively few drugs to have been successfully introduced into the acute HF arena in recent times and charts a possible development trajectory for the next 20 years.

Inodilators in septic shock: should these be used?

Septic shock involves a complex interaction between abnormal vasodilation, relative and/or absolute hypovolemia, myocardial dysfunction, and altered blood flow distribution to the tissues. Fluid administration, vasopressor support and inotropes, represent fundamental pieces of quantitative resuscitation protocols directed to assist the restoration of impaired tissue perfusion during septic shock. Indeed, current recommendations on sepsis management include the use of inotropes in the case of myocardial dysfunction, as suggested by a low cardiac output, increased filling pressures, or persisting signals of tissue hypoperfusion despite an adequate correction of intravascular volume and mean arterial pressure by fluid administration and vasopressor support. Evidence supporting the use of inotropes in sepsis and septic shock is mainly based on physiological studies. Most of them suggest a beneficial effect of inotropes on macro hemodynamics especially when sepsis coexists with myocardial dysfunction; others, however, have demonstrated variable results on regional splanchnic circulation, while others suggest favorable effects on microvascular distribution independently of its impact on cardiac output. Conversely, impact of inodilators on clinical outcomes in this context has been more controversial. Use of dobutamine has not been consistently related with more favorable clinical results, while systematic administration of levosimendan in sepsis do not prevent the development of multiorgan dysfunction, even in patients with evidence of myocardial dysfunction. Nevertheless, a recent metanalysis of clinical studies suggests that cardiovascular support regimens based on inodilators in sepsis and septic shock could provide some beneficial effect on mortality, while other one corroborated such effect on mortality specially in patients with proved lower cardiac output. Thus, using or not inotropes during sepsis and septic shock remains as controversy matter that deserves more research efforts.

Use of Levosimendan in Intensive Care Unit Settings: An Opinion Paper

Levosimendan is an inodilator that promotes cardiac contractility primarily through calcium sensitization of cardiac troponin C and vasodilatation via opening of adenosine triphosphate–sensitive potassium (K_ATP) channels in vascular smooth muscle cells; the drug also exerts organ-protective effects through a similar effect on mitochondrial K_ATP channels. This pharmacological profile identifies levosimendan as a drug that may have applications in a wide range of critical illness situations encountered in intensive care unit medicine: hemodynamic support in cardiogenic or septic shock; weaning from mechanical ventilation or from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; and in the context of cardiorenal syndrome. This review, authored by experts from 9 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Czech republic, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and Switzerland), examines the clinical and experimental data for levosimendan in these situations and concludes that, in most instances, the evidence is encouraging, which is not the case with other cardioactive and vasoactive drugs routinely used in the intensive care unit. The size of the available studies is, however, limited and the data are in need of verification in larger controlled trials. Some proposals are offered for the aims and designs of these additional studies.

Dissociation between macro- and microvascular parameters in the early phase of hemorrhagic shock

Hemorrhagic shock (HS) therapy is based on macrohemodynamic improvement, but it is not clear if this therapy correlates directly with increases in tissue perfusion. Aiming to clarify this point, we compared norepinephrine (NE, a vasoconstrictor), sodium nitroprusside (NP, a vasodilator) and levosimendan (LEV, an inodilator) treatments on macro and microvascular parameters using the hamster dorsal skinfold chamber preparation. One hour after HS, animals received Ringer's lactate (RL) solution within 10 min, then animals received RL, NP, NE and LEV during 90 min via jugular vein. Macrovascular variables: mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), maximal ventricle pressure (MVP), change in ventricular pressure over time (dP/dt) and microvascular variables: arteriolar and venular diameters, functional capillary density (FCD) and red blood cell velocity (RBCV) were evaluated at baseline, 60 min after HS, 60 and 90 min after treatments. Lactate blood concentrations were evaluated at baseline, 60 min after HS and 90 min after treatments. Hematocrit (Hct), cardiac output (CO), stroke volume (SV) and number of rolling and adhered leukocytes were assessed at 90 min after treatments. Data were considered significant when p < 0.05. NE increased significantly all macrohemodynamic variables compared to baseline (except MAP), and it was the only treatment that increased Hct, CO and SV significantly. NE decreased significantly all microvascular variables in comparison to baseline. NP increased HR, FCD and RBCV and reduced MVP and dP/dt significantly. LEV decreased MVP and dP/dt, arteriolar diameter and FCD and augmented RBCV significantly in comparison to baseline. Blood concentration of lactate increased significantly 60 min after HS. Leukocyte rolling and adhesion were not different between groups. We concluded that, early, during hemorrhagic shock, norepinephrine associated to fluid therapy improved macrohemodynamic parameters but failed to improved microvascular flow. Conversely, sodium nitroprusside association had the opposite effect. Despite its inodilator properties, levosimendan did not improve macro or microhemodynamic parameters when combined to fluid therapy.

Comparative efficacy of vasoactive medications in patients with septic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Catecholamines, especially norepinephrine, are the most frequently used vasopressors for treating patients with septic shock. During the recent decades, terlipressin, vasopressin V1A agonist, and even Ca²⁺ sensitizer were increasingly used by physicians. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of such different kinds of vasoactive medications on mortality among patients with septic shock.

Methods

Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials updated to February 22, 2018. A network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of different types of vasoactive medications. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS), and adverse events were also assessed.

Results

A total of 43 trials with 5767 patients assessing 17 treatment modalities were included. Treatments ranking based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve values from largest to smallest were NE/DB 85.9%, TP 75.1%, NE/EP 74.6%, PI 74.1%, EP 72.5%, VP 66.1%, NE 59.8%, PE 53.0%, DA 42.1%, DX 38.2%, SP 27.0%, PA 24.3%, EX 22.8%, LE 21.5%, and DB 13.3% for 28-day mortality. Treatments ranking for ICU mortality were TP/NE 86.4%, TP 80.3%, TP/DB/NE 65.7%, VP/NE 62.8%, NE 57.4%, VP 56.5%, PE 48.4%, DA 33.0%, PA 27.5%, LE 22.1%, and DB 9.9%. The incidence of myocardial infarction was reported with NE/EP 3.33% (n = 1 of 30), followed by EP 3.11% (n = 5 of 161), and then VP 3.10% (n = 19 of 613), NE 3.03% (n = 43 of 1417), DA 2.21% (n = 19 of 858), NE/DB 2.01% (n = 4 of 199), LE 1.16% (n = 3 of 258), and PA 0.39% (n = 1 of 257). The incidence of arrhythmia was reported with DA 26.01% (n = 258 of 992), followed by EP 22.98% (n = 37 of 161), and then NE/DB 20.60% (n = 41 of 199), NE/EP 20.0% (n = 6 of 30), NE 8.33% (n = 127 of 1525), LE 5.81% (n = 15 of 258), PA 2.33% (n = 6 of 257), and VP 1.67% (n = 10 of 600).

Conclusions

The use of norepinephrine plus dobutamine was associated with lower 28-day mortality for septic shock, especially among patients with lower cardiac output.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-019-2427-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Novel Vasopressors in the Treatment of Vasodilatory Shock: A Systematic Review of Angiotensin II, Selepressin, and Terlipressin

Study Objective:

Vasodilatory shock is the most common type of shock. Catecholamine vasopressors are the cornerstone of hemodynamic therapy but carry risks. Angiotensin II (AT2) was recently approved, and other novel agents (selepressin and terlipressin) are under investigation and used outside the United States (terlipressin). We performed a systematic review to summarize the efficacy and safety of these novel vasopressors and to offer guidance on their appropriate use.

Design:

Systematic review of controlled trials.

Methods:

Numerous databases were searched using terms related to angiotensin II, selepressin, terlipressin, vasopressor, and shock. Twenty-one citations, including 16 prospective comparative trials and 5 post hoc analyses reporting effects of AT2, selepressin, and terlipressin, were reviewed for data on outcomes related to hemodynamic measures, mortality, severity and duration of illness, concomitant vasopressor utilization, and adverse effects. Findings from eligible literature are described qualitatively using Cochrane methods.

Results:

Fourteen controlled trials were assessed after exclusion of 2 dated trials of a distinct AT2 formulation. Trials are limited for AT2 (n = 2) and selepressin (n = 1), while terlipressin was investigated in 11 small trials. Overall, the trials have an unclear risk of bias. Most report mean arterial pressure (MAP) as primary end point, and all indicate novel vasopressors increase MAP compared to placebo and to a similar degree as with catecholamine vasopressors. Mortality findings are preliminary, as they have been limited to specific subgroups in trials of terlipressin and post hoc analyses of one trial of AT2. Trials reported safety concerns for each agent including thromboembolism with AT2 and ischemia with terlipressin/selepressin.

Conclusion:

In this systematic review, controlled trials of novel vasopressors in treatment of vasodilatory shock were limited and of low quality. Angiotensin II, selepressin, and terlipressin appear to significantly increase MAP, but further study is required, particularly for selepressin, to determine their safety, efficacy, and role in treatment of vasodilatory shock.

A global perspective on vasoactive agents in shock

PURPOSE

We set out to summarize the current knowledge on vasoactive drugs and their use in the management of shock to inform physicians' practices.

METHODS

This is a narrative review by a multidisciplinary, multinational-from six continents-panel of experts including physicians, a pharmacist, trialists, and scientists.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Vasoactive drugs are an essential part of shock management. Catecholamines are the most commonly used vasoactive agents in the intensive care unit, and among them norepinephrine is the first-line therapy in most clinical conditions. Inotropes are indicated when myocardial function is depressed and dobutamine remains the first-line therapy. Vasoactive drugs have a narrow therapeutic spectrum and expose the patients to potentially lethal complications. Thus, these agents require precise therapeutic targets, close monitoring with titration to the minimal efficacious dose and should be weaned as promptly as possible. Moreover, the use of vasoactive drugs in shock requires an individualized approach. Vasopressin and possibly angiotensin II may be useful owing to their norepinephrine-sparing effects.

Time to re-think the use of dobutamine in sepsis

Dobutamine is commonly used worldwide and included in the protocol for early goal-directed therapy (EGDT). Since the use of dobutamine in EGDT was reported, it has been considered to be an important component, especially in the treatment of septic patients with myocardial dysfunction. However, it is questionable whether dobutamine improves the mortality of sepsis and septic shock.

In three recent randomized controlled trials (ProCESS, ProMISe, and ARISE trials), the frequency of dobutamine use was significantly higher in the EGDT group than in the standard care group, but there were no significant differences in the mortality between the groups. These results suggested that dobutamine use may have been overemphasized despite its insignificant effect on the mortality in septic patients. Further, a propensity score analysis revealed that dobutamine use was associated with higher mortality in patients with septic shock.

Although dobutamine leads to an increase in cardiac index, myocardial oxygen demand also increases, thus increasing the risk of myocardial ischemia and tachyarrhythmia. It is well known that the mortality in sepsis complicated with atrial fibrillation (AFib) is worse than that in sepsis without AFib. A propensity score-matched analysis reported that β-blockers were associated with better survival in patients with sepsis complicated with AFib. Further, a randomized controlled trial reported that a short-acting β-blocker improved the survival in patients with septic shock. These studies also indicated the risk of β-stimulation during sepsis.

Notably, improvements in surrogate markers, such as CI, do not always indicate improvements in patient-centered outcomes, such as mortality. Conversely, some evidence indicates the worsening of patient-centered outcomes despite improvements in surrogate markers.

Thus, available evidence suggests that the benefits of dobutamine in patients with sepsis are unclear, but its use might be harmful rather than beneficial, considering the beneficial effects of β-blockers in sepsis that have been reported in recent clinical studies. From this perspective, we will soon have to rethink regarding dobutamine use in patients with sepsis.

Levosimendan does not provide mortality benefit over dobutamine in adult patients with septic shock: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

Despite of advancement in intensive care medicine, sepsis and septic shock carry a high mortality. Levosimendan, an inodilator, may be promising for septic shock patients with myocardial dysfunction; however, firm evidence is lacking. In this meta- analysis of randomized controlled trials, levosimendan has been compared with dobutamine in adult patients with sepsis and septic shock.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Intensive-care unit.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult septic shock patients.

INTERVENTION

Adult septic shock patients received dobutamine or levosimendan.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Mortality at longest follow-up, blood lactate level, cardiac index and noradrenaline requirement.

RESULTS

Data from 7 randomized trials have been included in this meta-analysis. Levosimendan has no benefit in terms of mortality at longest follow up in comparison to dobutamine (Odds ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.45, 132; p=0.34) and length of ICU stay (MD -4.7days, 95% CI -10.3, 0.9days, p=0.10). Patients received levosimendan had less blood lactate level (standardized mean difference -0.95; 95% CI -1.64, -0.27; p=0.006) and higher cardiac index (mean difference 0.44; 95% CI 0.17, 0.71; p=0.001). Noradrenaline requirements are similar in both the groups.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence that levosimendan is superior to dobutamine in adult patients with sepsis and septic shock. Further large randomized trials are necessary in this area.

Recent early clinical drug development for acute kidney injury

INTRODUCTION

Despite significant need and historical trials, there are no effective drugs in use for the prevention or treatment of acute kidney injury (AKI). There are several promising agents in early clinical development for AKI and two trials have recently been terminated. There are also exciting new findings in pre-clinical AKI research. There is a need to take stock of current progress in the field to guide future drug development for AKI. Areas covered: The main clinical trial registries, PubMed and pharmaceutical company website searches were used to extract the most recent clinical trials for sterile, transplant and sepsis-associated AKI. We summarise the development of the agents recently in clinical trial, update on their trial progress, consider reasons for failed efficacy of two agents, and discuss new paradigms in pre-clinical targets for AKI. Agents covered include- QPI-1002, THR-184, BB-3, heme arginate, human recombinant alkaline phosphatase (recAP), ciclosporin A, AB103, levosimendan, AC607 and ABT-719. Expert opinion: Due to the heterogenous nature of AKI, agents with the widest pleiotropic effects on multiple pathophysiological pathways are likely to be most effective. Linking preclinical models to clinical indication and improving AKI definition and diagnosis are key areas for improvement in future clinical trials.