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

Cefepime Daily Exposure and the Associated Impact on the Change in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Scores and Vasopressors Requirement in Critically Ill Patients Using Repeated-Measures Mixed-Effect Modeling

IMPORTANCE

Sepsis and septic shock are major healthcare problems that need early and appropriate management.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the association of daily cefepime pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) parameters with change in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and vasopressors requirement.

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

This is a retrospective study. Adult ICU patients who received cefepime for Gram-negative pneumonia or bloodstream infection (BSI) and had cefepime concentrations measured were included. Daily cefepime exposure was generated and PK/PD parameters calculated for patients. Repeated-measures mixed-effect modeling was used to evaluate the impact of PK/PD on the outcomes.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Change in daily SOFA score and vasopressors requirement.

RESULTS

A total of 394 and 207 patients were included in the SOFA and vasopressors analyses, respectively. The mean (±sd) age was 55 years (19) and weight 81 kg (29). For the change in SOFA score, daily SOFA score, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, and number of vasopressors were included. In the vasopressors analysis, daily SOFA score, day of therapy, and hydrocortisone dose were significant covariates in the final model. Achieving cefepime concentrations above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) (T>MIC) for 100% of the dosing interval was associated with 0.006 µg/kg/min decrease in norepinephrine-equivalent dose. Cefepime PK/PD did not have an impact on the daily change in SOFA score.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Achieving 100% T>MIC was associated with negligible decrease in vasopressors requirement in ICU patients with Gram-negative pneumonia and BSI. There was no impact on the change in SOFA score.

[Resuscitation strategy for patients with sepsis and septic shock]

Fluid and vasopressor resuscitation is, along with antimicrobial therapy and control of the focus of infection, a basic issue of the treatment of sepsis and septic shock. There is currently no accepted protocol that we can follow for the resuscitation of these patients and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign proposes controversial measures and without sufficient evidence support to establish firm recommendations. We propose a resuscitation strategy adapted to the situation of each patient: in the patient in whom community sepsis is suspected, we consider that the early administration of 30mL/kg of crystalloids is effective and safe; in the patient with nosocomial sepsis, we must carry out a more in-depth evaluation before initiating aggressive resuscitation. In patients who do not respond to initial resuscitation, it is necessary to increase monitoring level and, depending on the hemodynamic profile, administer more fluids, a second vasopressor or inotropes.

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.