Cost-effectiveness of second-line vasopressors for the treatment of septic shock

Hospital Outcomes in Patients Who Developed Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome After Community-Acquired Pneumonia

Purpose: To identify risk factors for and outcomes in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Methods: This is a retrospective study using the Premier Healthcare Database between 2016 and 2020. Patients diagnosed with pneumonia, requiring mechanical ventilation (MV), antimicrobial therapy, and hospital admission ≥2 days were included. Multivariable regression models were used for outcomes including in-hospital mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, and days on MV. Results: 1924 (2.7%) of 72 107 patients with CAP developed ARDS. ARDS was associated with higher mortality (33.7% vs 18.9%; adjusted odds ratio 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.16-2.66), longer hospital LOS (13 vs 9 days; adjusted incidence risk ratio (aIRR) 1.24; 95% CI 1.20-1.27), ICU LOS (9 vs 5 days; aIRR 1.51; 95% CI 1.46-1.56), more MV days (8 vs 5; aIRR 1.54; 95% CI 1.48-1.59), and increased hospitalization cost ($46 459 vs $29 441; aIRR 1.50; 95% CI 1.45-1.55). Conclusion: In CAP, ARDS was associated with worse in-patient outcomes in terms of mortality, LOS, and hospitalization cost. Future studies are needed to explore outcomes in patients with CAP with ARDS and explore risk factors for development of ARDS after CAP.

Angiotensin II for the Treatment of Refractory Shock: A Matched Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine if angiotensin II is associated with improved outcomes as measured by 30- and 90-day mortality as well as other secondary outcomes such as organ dysfunction and adverse events.

DESIGN

Retrospective, matched analysis of patients receiving angiotensin II compared with both historical and concurrent controls receiving equivalent doses of nonangiotensin II vasopressors.

SETTING

Multiple ICUs in a large, university-based hospital.

PATIENTS

Eight hundred thirteen adult patients with shock admitted to an ICU and requiring vasopressor support.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Angiotensin II use had no association with the primary outcome of 30-day mortality (60% vs 56%; p = 0.292). The secondary outcome of 90-day mortality was also similar (65% vs 63%; p = 0.440) as were changes in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores over a 5-day monitoring period after enrollment. Angiotensin II was not associated with increased rates of kidney replacement therapy (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 0.88-2.19; p = 0.158) or receipt of mechanical ventilation (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.41-5.51; p = 0.539) after enrollment, and the rate of thrombotic events was similar between angiotensin II and control patients (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.71-1.48; p = 0.912).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe shock, angiotensin II was not associated with improved mortality or organ dysfunction and was not associated with an increased rate of adverse events.

Vasopressin in Sepsis and Other Shock States: State of the Art

This review of the use of vasopressin aims to be comprehensive and highly practical, based on the available scientific evidence and our extensive clinical experience with the drug. It summarizes controversies about vasopressin use in septic shock and other vasodilatory states. Vasopressin is a natural hormone with powerful vasoconstrictive effects and is responsible for the regulation of plasma osmolality by maintaining fluid homeostasis. Septic shock is defined by the need for vasopressors to correct hypotension and lactic acidosis secondary to infection, with a high mortality rate. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend vasopressin as a second-line vasopressor, added to norepinephrine. However, these guidelines do not address specific debates surrounding the use of vasopressin in real-world clinical practice.

Association Between Vasopressin Rebranding and Utilization in Patients With Septic Shock

OBJECTIVES

Vasopressin is suggested as an adjunct to norepinephrine in patients with septic shock. However, after vasopressin was rebranded in November 2014, its cost exponentially increased. Utilization patterns of vasopressin after its rebranding are unclear. The objective of this study was to determine if there is an association between the rebranding of vasopressin in November 2014 and its utilization in vasopressor-dependent patients with severe sepsis or septic shock.

DESIGN

Retrospective, multicenter, database study between January 2010 and March 2017.

SETTING

Premier Healthcare Database hospitals.

PATIENTS

Adult patients admitted to an ICU with severe sepsis or septic shock, who received at least one vasoactive agent for two or more calendar days were included.

INTERVENTIONS

The proportion of patients who received vasopressin and vasopressin cost was assessed before and after rebranding, and evaluated with segmented regression.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Among 294,733 patients (mean age, 66 ± 15 yr), 27.8% received vasopressin, and ICU mortality was 26.5%. The proportion of patients receiving vasopressin was higher after rebranding (31.2% postrebranding vs 25.8% prerebranding). Before vasopressin rebranding, the quarterly proportion of patients who received vasopressin had an increasing slope (prerebranding slope 0.41% [95% CI, 0.35-0.46%]), with no difference in slope detected after vasopressin rebranding (postrebranding slope, 0.47% [95% CI, 0.29-0.64%]). After vasopressin rebranding, mean vasopressin cost per patient was higher ($527 ± 1,130 vs $77 ± 160), and the quarterly slope of vasopressin cost was higher (change in slope $77.18 [95% CI, $75.73-78.61]). Total vasopressin billed cost postrebranding continually increased by ~$294,276 per quarter from less than $500,000 in Q4 2014 to over $3,000,000 in Q1 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

After vasopressin rebranding, utilization continued to increase quarterly despite a significant increase in vasopressin cost. Vasopressin appeared to have price inelastic demand in septic shock.

Effectiveness of Angiotensin II for Catecholamine Refractory Septic or Distributive Shock on Mortality: A Propensity Score Weighted Analysis of Real-World Experience in the Medical ICU

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Angiotensin II (ATII) was approved for septic or other distributive shock due to its property of increasing blood pressure within 3 hours. Limited data exist regarding its effectiveness when used in real-world clinical practice.

Hemodynamic Response to Vasopressin Dosage of 0.03 Units/Min vs. 0.04 Units/Min in Patients With Septic Shock

BACKGROUND

Arginine vasopressin (AVP) is suggested as an adjunct to norepinephrine in patients with septic shock. Guidelines recommend an AVP dosage up to 0.03 units/min, but 0.04 units/min is commonly used in practice based on initial studies. This study was designed to compare the incidence of hemodynamic response between initial fixed-dosage AVP 0.03 units/min and AVP 0.04 units/min.

METHODS

This retrospective, multi-hospital health system, cohort study included adult patients with septic shock receiving AVP as an adjunct to catecholamine vasopressors. Patients were excluded if they received an initial dosage other than 0.03 units/min or 0.04 units/min, or AVP was titrated within the first 6 hours of therapy. The primary outcome was hemodynamic response, defined as a mean arterial pressure ≥65 mm Hg and a decrease in catecholamine dosage at 6 hours after AVP initiation. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on the propensity score for initial AVP dosage receipt was utilized to estimate adjusted exposure effects.

RESULTS

Of the 1536 patients included in the observed data, there was a nearly even split between initial AVP dosage of 0.03 units/min (n = 842 [54.8%]) and 0.04 units/min (n = 694 [45.2%]). Observed patients receiving AVP 0.03 units/min were more frequently treated at the main campus academic medical center (96.3% vs. 52.2%, p < 0.01) and in a medical intensive care unit (87.4% vs. 39.8%, p < 0.01). The IPTW analysis included 1379 patients with achievement of baseline covariate balance. There was no evidence for a difference between groups in the incidence of hemodynamic response (0.03 units/min 50.0% vs. 0.04 units/min 53.1%, adjusted relative risk 1.06 [95% CI 0.94, 1.20]).

CONCLUSIONS

Initial AVP dosing varied by hospital and unit type. Although commonly used, an initial AVP dosage of 0.04 units/min was not associated with a higher incidence of early hemodynamic response to AVP in patients with septic shock.

The order of vasopressor discontinuation and incidence of hypotension: a retrospective cohort analysis

The optimal order of vasopressor discontinuation during shock resolution remains unclear. We evaluated the incidence of hypotension in patients receiving concomitant vasopressin (VP) and norepinephrine (NE) based on the order of their discontinuation. In this retrospective cohort study, consecutive patients receiving concomitant VP and NE infusions for shock admitted to intensive care units were evaluated. The primary outcome was hypotension incidence following discontinuation of VP or NE (VP1 and NE1 groups, respectively). Secondary outcomes included the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) and arrhythmias. Subgroup analysis was conducted by examining outcomes based on the type of shock. Of the 2,035 included patients, 952 (46.8%) were VP1 and 1,083 (53.2%) were NE1. VP1 had a higher incidence of hypotension than NE1 (42.1% vs. 14.2%; P < 0.001), longer time to shock reversal (median: 2.5 vs. 2.2 days; P = .009), higher hospital [29% (278/952) vs. 24% (258/1083); P = .006], and 28-day mortality [37% (348/952) vs. 29% (317/1,083); P < 0.001] when compared with the NE1 group. There were no differences in ICU mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, new-onset arrhythmia, or AKI incidence between the two groups. In subgroup analyses based on different types of shock, similar outcomes were observed. After adjustments, hypotension in the following 24 h and 28-day mortality were significantly higher in VP1 (Odds ratios (OR) 4.08(3.28, 5.07); p-value < .001 and 1.27(1.04, 1.55); p-value < .001, respectively). Besides, in a multivariable model, the need for renal replacement therapy (OR 1.68 (1.34, 2.12); p-value < .001) was significantly higher in VP1. Among patients with shock who received concomitant VP and NE, the VP1 group was associated with a higher incidence of hypotension in comparison with NE1. Future studies need to validate our findings and their impact on clinical outcomes.

Health-Related Quality-of-Life and Cost Utility Analyses in Critical Care: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Cost utility analyses compare the costs and health outcome of interventions, with a denominator of quality-adjusted life year, a generic health utility measure combining both quality and quantity of life. Cost utility analyses are difficult to compare when methods are not standardized. It is unclear how cost utility analyses are measured/reported in critical care and what methodologic challenges cost utility analyses pose in this setting. This may lead to differences precluding cost utility analyses comparisons. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of cost utility analyses conducted in critical care. Our objectives were to understand: 1) methodologic characteristics, 2) how health-related quality-of-life was measured/reported, and 3) what costs were reported/measured.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched for cost utility analyses in critical care in MEDLINE, Embase, American College of Physicians Journal Club, CENTRAL, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews' selected subset of archived versions of UK National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and American Economic Association electronic databases from inception to April 30, 2020.

SETTING

Adult ICUs.

PATIENTS

Adult critically ill patients.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 8,926 citations, 80 cost utility analyse studies were eligible. The time horizon most commonly reported was lifetime (59%). For health utility reporting, health-related quality-of-life was infrequently measured (29% reported), with only 5% of studies reporting baseline health-related quality-of-life. Indirect utility measures (generic, preference-based health utility measurement tools) were reported in 85% of studies (majority Euro-quality-of-life-5 Domains, 52%). Methods of estimating health-related quality-of-life were seldom used when the patient was incapacitated: imputation (19%), assigning fixed utilities for incapacitation (19%), and surrogates reporting on behalf of incapacitated patients (5%). For cost utility reporting transparency, separate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years were both reported in only 76% of studies. Disaggregated quality-adjusted life years (reporting separate health utility and life years) were described in only 34% of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified deficiencies which warrant recommendations (standardized measurement/reporting of resource use/unit costs/health-related quality-of-life/methodological preferences) for improved design, conduct, and reporting of future cost utility analyses in critical care.

Vasopressor dose equivalence: A scoping review and suggested formula

PURPOSE

Calculating equipotent doses between vasopressor agents is necessary in clinical practice and research pertaining to the management of shock. This scoping review summarizes conversion ratios between vasopressors and provides a formula to incorporate into study designs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to 21st October 2020. Additional papers were obtained through bibliography searches of retrieved articles. Two investigators assessed articles for eligibility. Clinical trials comparing the potency of at least two intravenous vasopressors (norepinephrine, epinephrine, dopamine, phenylephrine, vasopressin, metaraminol or angiotensin II), with regard to an outcome of blood pressure, were selected.

RESULTS

Of 16,315 articles, 21 were included for synthesis. The range of conversion ratios equivalent to one unit of norepinephrine were: epinephrine (0.7-1.4), dopamine (75.2-144.4), metaraminol (8.3), phenylephrine (1.1-16.3), vasopressin (0.3-0.4) and angiotensin II (0.07-0.13). The following formula may be considered for the calculation of norepinephrine equivalents (NE) (all in mcg/kg/min, except vasopressin in units/min): NE = norepinephrine + epinephrine + phenylephrine/10 + dopamine/100 + metaraminol/8 + vasopressin*2.5 + angiotensin II*10.

CONCLUSION

A summary of equipotent ratios for common vasopressors used in clinical practice has been provided. Our formula may be considered to calculate NE for studies in the intensive care unit.

Major publications in the critical care pharmacotherapy literature: 2019

PURPOSE

To summarize selected meta-analyses and trials related to critical care pharmacotherapy published in 2019.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Critical Care Pharmacotherapy Literature Update (CCPLU) Group screened 36 journals monthly for impactful articles and reviewed 113 articles during 2019 according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria.

RESULTS

Articles with a 1A grade, including three clinical practice guidelines, six meta-analyses, and five original research trials are reviewed here from those included in the monthly CCPLU. Clinical practice guidelines on the use of polymyxins and antiarrhythmic drugs in cardiac arrest as well as meta-analyses on antipsychotic use in delirium, stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), and vasoactive medications in septic shock and cardiac arrest were summarized. Original research trials evaluated delirium, sedation, neuromuscular blockade, SUP, anticoagulation reversal, and hemostasis.

CONCLUSION

This clinical review and expert opinion provides summary and perspectives of clinical practice impact on influential critical care pharmacotherapy publications in 2019.

Vasopressor and Inotrope Therapy in Cardiac Critical Care

Patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) are often in shock and require hemodynamic support. Identifying and addressing the pathophysiology mechanisms operating in an individual patient is crucial to achieving a successful outcome, while initiating circulatory support therapy to restore adequate tissue perfusion. Vasopressors and inotropes are the cornerstone of supportive medical therapy for shock, in addition to fluid resuscitation when indicated. Timely initiation of optimal vasopressor and inotrope therapy is essential for patients with shock, with the ultimate goals of restoring effective tissue perfusion in order to normalize cellular metabolism. Use of vasoactive agents for hemodynamic support of patients with shock should take both arterial pressure and tissue perfusion into account when choosing therapeutic interventions. For most patients with shock, including cardiogenic or septic shock, norepinephrine (NE) is an appropriate choice as a first-line vasopressor titrated to achieve an adequate arterial pressure due to a lower risk of adverse events than other catecholamine vasopressors. If tissue and organ perfusion remain inadequate, an inotrope such as dobutamine may be added to increase cardiac output to a sufficient level that meets tissue demand. Low doses of epinephrine or dopamine may be used for inotropic support, but high doses of these drugs carry an excessive risk of adverse events when used for vasopressor support and should be avoided. When NE alone is inadequate to achieve an adequate arterial pressure, addition of a noncatecholamine vasopressor such as vasopressin or angiotensin-II is reasonable, in addition to rescue therapies that may improve vasopressor responsiveness. In this review, we discuss the pharmacology and evidence-based use of vasopressor and inotrope drugs in critically ill patients, with a focus on the CICU population.

Narrative Review of Controversies Involving Vasopressin Use in Septic Shock and Practical Considerations

Objective: To summarize literature evaluating vasopressin use, focusing on clinical controversies regarding initiation, dosing, and discontinuation and interaction of vasopressin with other therapies in septic shock patients. Data Sources: A PubMed English-language literature search (January 2008 to December 2019) was performed using these terms: arginine vasopressin, septic, shock, and sepsis. Citations, including controlled trials, observational studies, review articles, guidelines, and consensus statements, were reviewed. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Relevant clinical data focusing on specific controversial questions regarding the utility of vasopressin in patients with septic shock were narratively summarized. Data Synthesis: Current literature does not strongly support the use of vasopressin as a first-line initial therapy for septic shock. Additionally, there are conflicting data for weight-based dosing of vasopressin in overweight patients. Evidence for vasopressin renal protection and interaction with corticosteroids is minimal. However, vasopressin has the ability to reduce catecholamine requirements in septic shock patients and may provide a mortality benefit in specific subgroups. Discontinuation of vasopressin last, not second to last, in resolving septic shock may reduce hypotension development. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review addresses specific clinical controversies that drive vasopressin use in septic shock patients in real-world practice. Conclusion: Vasopressin should remain second-line adjunct to norepinephrine to augment mean arterial pressures. Dosing should be initiated at 0.03 U/min, and higher doses offer minimal benefit. There are conflicting data on the impact of weight on vasopressin response. Studies have failed to show renal benefit with vasopressin use or an interaction with corticosteroid therapy.