Norepinephrine plus dobutamine versus epinephrine alone for management of septic shock: a randomised trial

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.

Recent trends in septic shock management: a narrative review of current evidence and recommendations

Septic shock stands for a group of manifestations that will cause a severe hemodynamic and metabolic dysfunction, which leads to a significant increase in the risk of death by a massive response of the immune system to any sort of infection that ends up with refractory hypotension making it responsible for escalating the numbers of hospitalized patients mortality rate, Organisms that are isolated most of the time are Escherichia coli, Klebsiella, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staph aureus. The WHO considers sepsis to be a worldwide health concern; the incidence of sepsis and septic shock have been increasing over the years while being considered to be under-reported at the same time. This review is a quick informative recap of the recent studies regarding diagnostic approaches using lactic acid (Lac), procalcitonin (PCT), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score, as well as management recommendations for using vasopressors, fluid resuscitation, corticosteroids and antibiotics that should be considered when dealing with such type of shock.

The Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine Position Statement on the Management of Sepsis in Resource-limited Settings

Sepsis poses a significant global health challenge in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Several aspects of sepsis management recommended in international guidelines are often difficult or impossible to implement in resource-limited settings (RLS) due to issues related to cost, infrastructure, or lack of trained healthcare workers. The Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine (ISCCM) drafted a position statement for the management of sepsis in RLS focusing on India, facilitated by a task force of 18 intensivists using a Delphi process, to achieve consensus on various aspects of sepsis management which are challenging to implement in RLS. The process involved a comprehensive literature review, controlled feedback, and four iterative surveys conducted between 21 August 2023 and 21 September 2023. The domains addressed in the Delphi process included the need for a position statement, challenges in sepsis management, considerations for diagnosis, patient management while awaiting an intensive care unit (ICU) bed, and treatment of sepsis and septic shock in RLS. Consensus was achieved when 70% or more of the task force members voted either for or against statements using a Likert scale or a multiple-choice question (MCQ). The Delphi process with 100% participation of Task Force members in all rounds, generated consensus in 32 statements (91%) from which 20 clinical practice statements were drafted for the management of sepsis in RLS. The clinical practice statements will complement the existing international guidelines for the management of sepsis and provide valuable insights into tailoring sepsis interventions in the context of RLS, contributing to the global discourse on sepsis management. Future international guidelines should address the management of sepsis in RLS.

How to cite this article

Juneja D, Nasa P, Chanchalani G, Cherian A, Jagiasi BG, Javeri Y, et al. The Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine Position Statement on the Management of Sepsis in Resource-limited Settings. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(S2):S4-S19.

Impact of premorbid use of beta‑blockers on survival outcomes of patients with sepsis: A systematic review and meta‑analysis

It is unclear if premorbid use of beta-blockers affects sepsis outcomes. The present systematic review aimed to assess the impact of premorbid beta-blocker use on mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in patients with sepsis. Embase, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science were searched for studies comparing outcomes of patients with sepsis based on the premorbid use of beta-blockers. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcome was the need for mechanical ventilation. The results were reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 17 studies including 64,586 patients with sepsis were included. Of them, 8,665 patients received premorbid beta-blockers and 55,921 patients were not treated with premorbid beta-blockers and served as a control group. Pooled analysis of mortality rates revealed that premorbid use of beta-blockers did not affect in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.78, 1.18; and I2=63%) but significantly reduced one-month mortality rates (OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.96; and I2=63%). Combined analysis of adjusted data showed that premorbid beta-blockers were associated with a significant survival advantage in patients with sepsis (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.92; and I2=70%). However, there was no effect of premorbid use of beta-blockers on the need for mechanical ventilation (OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.66, 1.30); and I2=72%). The results of the present study indicated that premorbid use of beta-blockers is associated with improved survival in patients with sepsis. However, it does not impact the need for mechanical ventilation. The results should be interpreted with caution as the data is observational and unadjusted.

ExtraCorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the therapy for REfractory Septic shock with Cardiac function Under Estimated (ECMO-RESCUE): study protocol for a prospective, multicentre, non-randomised cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Severe septic cardiomyopathy (SCM) is one of the main causes of refractory septic shock (RSS), with a high mortality. The application of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) to support the impaired cardiac function in patients with septic shock remains controversial. Moreover, no prospective studies have been taken to address whether venoarterial ECMO treatment could improve the outcome of patients with sepsis-induced cardiogenic shock. The objective of this study is to assess whether venoarterial ECMO treatment can improve the 30-day survival rate of patients with sepsis-induced refractory cardiogenic shock.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

ExtraCorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the therapy for REfractory Septic shock with Cardiac function Under Estimated is a prospective, multicentre, non-randomised, cohort study on the application of ECMO in SCM. At least 64 patients with SCM and RSS will be enrolled in an estimated ratio of 1:1.5. Participants taking venoarterial ECMO during the period of study are referred to as cohort 1, and patients receiving only conventional therapy without ECMO belong to cohort 2. The primary outcome is survival in a 30-day follow-up period. Other end points include survival to intensive care unit (ICU) discharge, hospital survival, 6-month survival, quality of life for long-term survival (EQ-5D score), successful rate of ECMO weaning, long-term survivors' cardiac function, the number of days alive without continuous renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilation and vasopressor, ICU and hospital length of stay, the rate of complications potentially related to ECMO treatment.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial has been approved by the Clinical Research and Application Institutional Review Board of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University (2020-hs-51). Participants will be screened and enrolled from ICU patients with septic shock by clinicians, with no public advertisement for recruitment. Results will be disseminated in research journals and through conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05184296.

Limb Necrosis in the Setting of Vasopressor Use

BACKGROUND

It remains poorly understood why only some hemodynamically unstable patients who receive aggressive treatment with vasopressor medications develop limb necrosis.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence of limb necrosis and the factors associated with it following high-dose vasopressor therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective case-control medical records review was performed of patients aged 18 to 89 years who received vasopressor therapy between 2012 and 2021 in a single academic medical center. The study population was stratified by the development of limb necrosis following vasopressor use. Patients who experienced necrosis were compared with age- and sex-matched controls who did not experience necrosis. Demographic information, comorbidities, and medication details were recorded.

RESULTS

The incidence of limb necrosis following vasopressor administration was 0.25%. Neither baseline demographics nor medical comorbidities differed significantly between groups. Necrosis was present in the same limb as the arterial catheter most often for femoral catheters. The vasopressor dose administered was significantly higher in the necrosis group than in the control group for ephedrine (P = .02) but not for the other agents. The duration of therapy was significantly longer in the necrosis group than in the control group for norepinephrine (P = .001), epinephrine (P = .04), and ephedrine (P = .01). The duration of vasopressin administration did not differ significantly between groups.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that medication-specific factors, rather than patient and disease characteristics, should guide clinical management of necrosis in the setting of vasopressor administration.

Treatment of Acute Kidney Injury: A Review of Current Approaches and Emerging Innovations

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a complex and life-threatening condition with multifactorial etiologies, ranging from ischemic injury to nephrotoxic exposures. Management is founded on treating the underlying cause of AKI, but supportive care-via fluid management, vasopressor therapy, kidney replacement therapy (KRT), and more-is also crucial. Blood pressure targets are often higher in AKI, and these can be achieved with fluids and vasopressors, some of which may be more kidney-protective than others. Initiation of KRT is controversial, and studies have not consistently demonstrated any benefit to early start dialysis. There are no targeted pharmacotherapies for AKI itself, but some do exist for complications of AKI; additionally, medications become a key aspect of AKI management because changes in renal function and dialysis support can lead to issues with both toxicities and underdosing. This review will cover existing literature on these and other aspects of AKI treatment. Additionally, this review aims to identify gaps and challenges and to offer recommendations for future research and clinical practice.

Development of a rectally administrable Dnase1 to treat septic shock by targeting NETs

AIMS

Neutrophil extracellular trap (NET), which is formed by DNA threads, induces septic shock by aggravating systemic inflammation. An intravenous administration of deoxyribonuclease is regarded as a compelling modality for treating septic shock. However, alternative routes should be chosen when cutaneous veins are all collapsed due to hypotension. In this study, we genetically engineered this enzyme to develop a rectal suppository formulation to treat septic shock.

MAIN METHODS

Dnase1 was mutated at two amino acid residues to increase its stability in the blood and fused with a cell-penetrating peptide CR8 to increase its absorption through the rectal mucosa, which is designated AR-CR8. The life-saving effect of AR-CR8 was evaluated in a LPS-induced shock mouse model.

KEY FINDINGS

AR-CR8 was shown to remove NETs effectively in human neutrophils. When AR-CR8 was administered to the mouse rectum, the deoxyribonuclease activity in the mouse serum was significantly increased. In the LPS-induced shock model, 90 % of the control mice died over 72 h after LPS injection. In contrast, the rectal administration of AR-CR8 showed a mortality rate of 30 % by 72 h after LPS injection. The Log-rank test revealed that the survival rate is significantly higher in the AR-CR8 group. The NET markers in the mouse serum were enhanced by LPS, and significantly downregulated in the AR-CR8 group. These results suggest that AR-CR8 ameliorates LPS-induced shock by degrading NETs.

SIGNIFICANCE

The engineered DNASE1 could be developed as a rectal suppository formulation to treat septic shock urgently at out-of-hospital places where no syringe is available.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities 2023

OBJECTIVES

To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome, and pathophysiology of sepsis and septic shock.

DESIGN

Shortly after publication of the most recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines, the Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, convened virtually and iteratively developed the article and recommendations, which represents an update from the 2018 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities.

METHODS

Each task force member submitted five research questions on any sepsis-related subject. Committee members then independently ranked their top three priorities from the list generated. The highest rated clinical and basic science questions were developed into the current article.

RESULTS

A total of 81 questions were submitted. After merging similar questions, there were 34 clinical and ten basic science research questions submitted for voting. The five top clinical priorities were as follows: 1) what is the best strategy for screening and identification of patients with sepsis, and can predictive modeling assist in real-time recognition of sepsis? 2) what causes organ injury and dysfunction in sepsis, how should it be defined, and how can it be detected? 3) how should fluid resuscitation be individualized initially and beyond? 4) what is the best vasopressor approach for treating the different phases of septic shock? and 5) can a personalized/precision medicine approach identify optimal therapies to improve patient outcomes? The five top basic science priorities were as follows: 1) How can we improve animal models so that they more closely resemble sepsis in humans? 2) What outcome variables maximize correlations between human sepsis and animal models and are therefore most appropriate to use in both? 3) How does sepsis affect the brain, and how do sepsis-induced brain alterations contribute to organ dysfunction? How does sepsis affect interactions between neural, endocrine, and immune systems? 4) How does the microbiome affect sepsis pathobiology? 5) How do genetics and epigenetics influence the development of sepsis, the course of sepsis and the response to treatments for sepsis?

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge advances in multiple clinical domains have been incorporated in progressive iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, allowing for evidence-based recommendations for short- and long-term management of sepsis. However, the strength of existing evidence is modest with significant knowledge gaps and mortality from sepsis remains high. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

Navigating the Labyrinth: Intensive Care Challenges for Patients with Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) refers to the deterioration of liver function in individuals who already have chronic liver disease. In the setting of ACLF, liver damage leads to the failure of other organs and is associated with increased short-term mortality. Optimal medical management of patients with ACLF requires implementing complex treatment strategies, often in an intensive care unit (ICU). Failure of organs other than the liver distinguishes ACLF from other critical illnesses. Although there is growing evidence supporting the current approach to ACLF management, the mortality associated with this condition remains unacceptably high. In this review, we discuss considerations for ICU care of patients with ACLF and highlight areas for further research.

THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF VASOPRESSORS FOR SEPTIC SHOCK PATIENTS: A SYSTEMIC REVIEW AND NETWORK META-ANALYSIS

ABSTRACT

Background: Septic shock is a distributive shock with decreased systemic vascular resistance and MAP. Septic shock contributes to the most common causes of death in the intensive care unit (ICU). Current guidelines recommend the use of norepinephrine as the first-line vasopressor, whereas adrenergic agonists and vasopressin analogs are also commonly used by physicians. To date, very few studies have synthetically compared the effects of multiple types of vasoactive medications. The aim of this study was to systemically evaluate the efficacy of vasoactive agents both individually and in combination to treat septic shock. Methods: The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched up to May 12, 2022, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. A network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of different types of vasopressors. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was the ICU length of stay. Adverse events are defined as any undesirable outcomes, including myocardial infarction, cardiac arrhythmia, peripheral ischemia, or stroke and cerebrovascular events. Findings: Thirty-three randomized controlled trials comprising 4,966 patients and assessing 8 types of vasoactive treatments were included in the network meta-analysis. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve provided a ranking of vasoactive medications in terms of 28-day all-cause mortality from most effective to least effective: norepinephrine plus dobutamine, epinephrine, vasopressin, terlipressin, norepinephrine, norepinephrine plus vasopressin, dopamine, and dobutamine. Dopamine was associated with a significantly shorter ICU stay than norepinephrine, terlipressin, and vasopressin, whereas other vasoactive medications showed no definite difference in ICU length of stay. Regarding adverse events, norepinephrine was associated with the highest incidences of myocardial infarction and peripheral ischemia. Dopamine was associated with the highest incidence of cardiac arrhythmia. Epinephrine and terlipressin were associated with the highest incidences of myocardial infarction and peripheral ischemia. Interpretation: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that norepinephrine plus dobutamine is associated with a lower risk of 28-day mortality in septic shock patients than other vasoactive medications, and the use of dopamine is associated with a higher risk of 28-day mortality due to septic shock than norepinephrine, terlipressin, and vasopressin.

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.

Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: What Have We Learned in the Last Two Decades?

Sepsis is a clinical syndrome encompassing physiologic and biological abnormalities caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Sepsis progression into septic shock is associated with a dramatic increase in mortality, hence the importance of early identification and treatment. Over the last two decades, the definition of sepsis has evolved to improve early sepsis recognition and screening, standardize the terms used to describe sepsis and highlight its association with organ dysfunction and higher mortality. The early 2000s witnessed the birth of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), which showed a dramatic reduction in mortality leading to its wide adoption, and the surviving sepsis campaign (SSC), which has been instrumental in developing and updating sepsis guidelines over the last 20 years. Outside of early fluid resuscitation and antibiotic therapy, sepsis management has transitioned to a less aggressive approach over the last few years, shying away from routine mixed venous oxygen saturation and central venous pressure monitoring and excessive fluids resuscitation, inotropes use, and red blood cell transfusions. Peripheral vasopressor use was deemed safe and is rising, and resuscitation with balanced crystalloids and a restrictive fluid strategy was explored. This review will address some of sepsis management's most important yet controversial components and summarize the available evidence from the last two decades.

Is Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Associated With Increased Mortality Among Patients With Sepsis and Septic Shock?

BACKGROUND

The impact of left ventricular (LV) systolic function on outcomes in patients with sepsis and septic shock remains uncertain. The association, if any, may be nonlinear.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is LV systolic dysfunction associated with increased mortality among patients with sepsis and septic shock?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Retrospective cohort study comprising all adult patients admitted to the medical ICU from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2020, with sepsis and septic shock as defined by the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock guidelines. All adult patients with sepsis or septic shock who underwent transthoracic echocardiography within 3 days from admission to the medical ICU were included. We divided patients into five groups based on LV ejection fraction (LVEF). In addition to univariate analysis, we also performed multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusting for patients' baseline characteristics and severity of illness. The primary outcome was the association between each classification of LVEF and in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 3,151 patients were included in this study (LVEF < 25%, 133 patients; 25% ≤ LVEF < 40%, 305 patients; 40% ≤ LVEF < 55%, 568 patients; 55% ≤ LVEF < 70%, 1,792 patients; and LVEF ≥ 70%, 353 patients). In-hospital mortalities in each LVEF category were 51.1%, 34.8%, 26.6%, 26.2%, and 41.9%, respectively. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, LVEF of < 25% (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.82-4.17; P < .001) and LVEF of ≥ 70% (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.09-1.88; P = .010) were associated independently with significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared with the reference LVEF category of 55% to 70%.

INTERPRETATION

The association of LVEF to in-hospital mortality in sepsis and septic shock was U-shaped. Both severe LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF < 25%) and hyperdynamic LVEF (LVEF ≥ 70%) were associated independently with significantly higher in-hospital mortality.

Running from a Bear: How We Teach Vasopressors, Adrenoreceptors, and Shock

Vasopressors are widely used in the management of shock among critically ill patients. The physiology of vasopressors and adrenoreceptors and their effects on end organs therefore represent important, high-yield topics for learners in the critical care environment. In this report, we describe our approach to teaching this core concept using the stereotypical human physiologic response when running from a bear, in the context of the relevant supporting literature. We use escaping from a threatening predator as a lens to describe the end-organ effects of activating adrenoreceptors together with the effects of endogenous and exogenous catecholamines and vasopressors. After reviewing this foundational physiology, we transition to the clinical environment, reviewing the pathophysiology of various shock states. We then consolidate our teaching by integrating the physiology of adrenoreceptors with the pathophysiology of shock to understand the appropriateness of each therapy to various shock phenotypes. We emphasize to learners the importance of generating a hypothesis about a patient's physiology, testing that hypothesis with an intervention, and then revising the hypothesis as needed, a critical component in the management of critically ill patients.

An updated "norepinephrine equivalent" score in intensive care as a marker of shock severity

Vasopressors and fluids are the cornerstones for the treatment of shock. The current international guidelines on shock recommend norepinephrine as the first-line vasopressor and vasopressin as the second-line vasopressor. In clinical practice, due to drug availability, local practice variations, special settings, and ongoing research, several alternative vasoconstrictors and adjuncts are used in the absence of precise equivalent doses. Norepinephrine equivalence (NEE) is frequently used in clinical trials to overcome this heterogeneity and describe vasopressor support in a standardized manner. NEE quantifies the total amount of vasopressors, considering the potency of each such agent, which typically includes catecholamines, derivatives, and vasopressin. Intensive care studies use NEE as an eligibility criterion and also an outcome measure. On the other hand, NEE has several pitfalls which clinicians should know, important the lack of conversion of novel vasopressors such as angiotensin II and also adjuncts such as methylene blue, including a lack of high-quality data to support the equation and validate its predictive performance in all types of critical care practice. This review describes the history of NEE and suggests an updated formula incorporating novel vasopressors and adjuncts.

Therapeutic Dilemmas in Mixed Septic-Cardiogenic Shock

Sepsis is an increasing cause of decompensation in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced or preserved ejection fraction. Sepsis and decompensated heart failure results in a mixed septic-cardiogenic shock that poses several therapeutic dilemmas: Rapid fluid resuscitation is the cornerstone of sepsis management, while loop diuretics are the main stay of decompensated heart failure treatment. Whether inotropic therapy with dobutamine or inodilators improves microvascular alterations remains unsettled in sepsis. When to resume loop diuretic therapy in patients with sepsis and decompensated heart failure is unclear. In the absence of relevant guidelines, we review vasopressor therapy, the timing and volume of fluid resuscitation, and the need for inotropic therapy in patients who, with sepsis and decompensated heart failure, present with a mixed septic-cardiogenic shock.

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.

Updates in the Management of Perioperative Vasoplegic Syndrome

Vasoplegic syndrome occurs relatively frequently in cardiac surgery, liver transplant, major noncardiac surgery, in post-return of spontaneous circulation situations, and in pateints with sepsis. It is paramount for the anesthesiologist to understand both the pathophysiology of vasoplegia and the different treatment strategies available for rescuing a patient from life-threatening hypotension.

Methylene blue dosing strategies in critically ill adults with shock-A retrospective cohort study

Background

Shock increases mortality in the critically ill and the mainstay of therapy is the administration of vasopressor agents to achieve hemodynamic targets. In the past, studies have found that the NO-pathway antagonist methylene blue improves hemodynamics. However, the optimal dosing strategy remains elusive. Therefore, we investigated the hemodynamic and ICU outcome parameters of three different dosing strategies for methylene blue.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients in shock treated with methylene blue. Shock was defined as norepinephrine dose >0.1 μg/kg/min and serum lactate level >2 mmol/l at the start of methylene blue administration. Different demographic variables, ICU treatment, and outcome parameters were evaluated. To compare the differences in the administration of vasopressors or inotropes, the vasoactive inotropic score (VIS) was calculated at different time points after starting the administration of methylene blue. Response to methylene blue or mortality at 28 days were assessed.

Results

262 patients from July 2014 to October 2019 received methylene blue. 209 patients met the inclusion criteria. Three different dosing strategies were identified: bolus injection followed by continuous infusion (n = 111), bolus injection only (no continuous infusion; n = 59) or continuous infusion only (no bolus prior; n = 39). The groups did not differ in demographics, ICU scoring system, or comorbidities. In all groups, VIS decreased over time, indicating improved hemodynamics. Cardiogenic shock and higher doses of norepinephrine increased the chance of responding to methylene blue, while bolus only decreased the chance of responding to methylene blue treatment. 28-day mortality increased with higher SAPSII scores and higher serum lactate levels, while bolus injection followed by continuous infusion decreased 28-day mortality. No severe side effects were noted.

Conclusion

In this cohort, methylene blue as a bolus injection followed by continuous infusion was associated with a reduced 28-day mortality in patients with shock. Prospective studies are needed to systematically evaluate the role of methylene blue in the treatment of shock.

VASOPRESSOR-RESISTANT HYPOTENSION, COMBINATION VASOPRESSOR THERAPY, AND SHOCK PHENOTYPES IN CRITICALLY ILL ADULTS WITH VASODILATORY SHOCK

ABSTRACT

Objective: To examine the risk factors, resource utilization, and 1-year mortality associated with vasopressor-resistant hypotension (VRH) compared with vasopressor-sensitive hypotension (VSH) among critically ill adults with vasodilatory shock. We also examined whether combination vasopressor therapy and patient phenotype were associated with mortality. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Eight medical-surgical intensive care units at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. Patients : Critically ill patients with vasodilatory shock admitted between July 2000 and October 2008. Interventions : None. Measurements and Main Results: Vasopressor-resistant hypotension was defined as those requiring greater than 0.2 μg/kg per minute of norepinephrine equivalent dose of vasopressor consecutively for more than 6 h, and VSH was defined as patients requiring ≤0.2 μg/kg per minute to maintain MAP between 55 and 70 mm Hg after adequate fluid resuscitation. Of 5,313 patients with vasodilatory shock, 1,291 patients (24.3%) developed VRH. Compared with VSH, VRH was associated with increased risk of acute kidney injury (72.7% vs. 65.0%; P < 0.001), use of kidney replacement therapy (26.0% vs. 11.0%; P < 0.001), longer median (interquartile range [IQR]) intensive care unit length of stay (10 [IQR, 4.0-20.0] vs. 6 [IQR, 3.0-13.0] days; P < 0.001), and increased 1-year mortality (64.7% vs. 34.8%; P < 0.001). Vasopressor-resistant hypotension was associated with increased odds of risk-adjusted mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.52-3.40; P < 0.001). When compared with monotherapy, combination vasopressor therapy with two (aOR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78-1.06) and three or more vasopressors was not associated with lower mortality (aOR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.68-1.27). Using a finite mixture model, we identified four unique phenotypes of patient clusters that differed with respect to demographics, severity of illness, processes of care, vasopressor use, and outcomes. Conclusions: Among critically ill patients with vasodilatory shock, VRH compared with VSH is associated with increased resource utilization and long-term risk of death. However, combination vasopressor therapy was not associated with lower risk of death. We identified four unique phenotypes of patient clusters that require further validation.

Applicability of Vasopressor Trials in Adult Critical Care: A Prospective Multicentre Meta-Epidemiologic Cohort Study

Objective

To assess the applicability of evidence from landmark randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of vasopressor treatment in critically ill adults.

Study Design and Setting

This prospective, multi-center cohort study was conducted at five medical and surgical intensive care units at three tertiary care centers. Consecutive cases of newly initiated vasopressor treatment were included. The primary end point was the proportion of patients (≥18 years) who met the eligibility criteria of 25 RCTs of vasopressor therapy in critically ill adults included in the most recent Cochrane review. Multilevel Poisson regression was used to estimate the eligibility proportions with 95% confidence intervals for each trial. Secondary end points included the eligibility criteria that contributed most to trial ineligibility, and the relationship between eligibility proportions and (i) the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) score, and (ii) the recruitment-to-screening ratio of each RCT. The PRECIS-2 score was used to assess the degree of pragmatism of each trial.

Results

Between January 1, 2017, and January 1, 2019, a total of 1189 cases of newly initiated vasopressor therapy were included. The median proportion of cases meeting eligibility criteria for all 25 RCTs ranged from 1.3% to 6.0%. The eligibility criteria contributing most to trial ineligibility were the exceedance of a specific norepinephrine dose, the presence of a particular shock type, and the drop below a particular blood pressure value. Eligibility proportions increased with the PRECIS-2 score but not with the recruitment-to-screening ratio of the trials.

Conclusion

The applicability of evidence from available trials on vasopressor treatment in critically ill adults to patients receiving vasopressors in daily practice is limited. Applicability increases with the degree of study pragmatism but is not reflected in a high recruitment-to-screening ratio. Our findings may help researchers design vasopressor trials and promote standardized assessment and reporting of the degree of pragmatism achieved.

First-line Vasopressor Use in Septic Shock and Route of Administration: An Epidemiologic Study

RATIONALE

Norepinephrine is a first-line agent for treatment of hypotension in septic shock. However, its frequency of use, and potential barriers to its use are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the frequency of use of norepinephrine in septic shock, to identify potential barriers to its use, and to evaluate trends in use of vasopressors over time.

METHODS

Retrospective population-based cohort study of patients with septic shock in Alberta, Canada between July 1, 2012 and December 31, 2018. The primary outcome was receipt of a first-line vasopressor other than norepinephrine ("non-norepinephrine vasopressor"). Predictors of receiving a non-norepinephrine vasopressor were assessed using a multivariable-adjusted, multilevel logistic regression model with intensive care unit (ICU) as a random effect.

RESULTS

Among 6343 patients with septic shock, the proportion of patients receiving non-norepinephrine vasopressors as first-line treatment decreased steadily from 11.5% in 2012 to 3.0% in 2018. Two factors most strongly associated with their receipt were having peripheral intravenous access only (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 6.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.58-8.26, p<0.001) and year of admission (aOR 0.74 per year after 2012, 95% CI 0.69-0.80, p<0.001). Other factors that had associations after adjustment included admission to a non-teaching hospital (aOR 2.19, 95% CI 1.23-3.89, p=0.007), admission to a coronary care unit (aOR 2.56, 95% CI 1.001-6.54, p=0.05), SOFA score (aOR 0.92 per unit increase, 95% CI 0.88-0.96, p<0.001) and heart rate (aOR 0.92 per 10 beat per minute increase, 95% CI 0.87-0.97, p=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large cohort of patients in Alberta, Canada, we found a steady decrease in use of first-line vasopressors other than norepinephrine in septic shock. The strongest factor associated with their use was the presence of only peripheral venous access, suggesting this may still be considered a barrier to administration of norepinephrine.

Alternatives to norepinephrine in septic shock: Which agents and when?

Vasopressors are the cornerstone of hemodynamic management in patients with septic shock. Norepinephrine is currently recommended as the first-line vasopressor in these patients. In addition to norepinephrine, there are many other potent vasopressors with specific properties and/or advantages that act on vessels through different pathways after activation of specific receptors; these could be of interest in patients with septic shock. Dopamine is no longer recommended in patients with septic shock because its use is associated with a higher rate of cardiac arrhythmias without any benefit in terms of mortality or organ dysfunction. Epinephrine is currently considered as a second-line vasopressor therapy, because of the higher rate of associated metabolic and cardiac adverse effects compared with norepinephrine; however, it may be considered in settings where norepinephrine is unavailable or in patients with refractory septic shock and myocardial dysfunction. Owing to its potential effects on mortality and renal function and its norepinephrine-sparing effect, vasopressin is recommended as second-line vasopressor therapy instead of norepinephrine dose escalation in patients with septic shock and persistent arterial hypotension. However, two synthetic analogs of vasopressin, namely, terlipressin and selepressin, have not yet been employed in the management of patients with septic shock, as their use is associated with a higher rate of digital ischemia. Finally, angiotensin Ⅱ also appears to be a promising vasopressor in patients with septic shock, especially in the most severe cases and/or in patients with acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy. Nevertheless, due to limited evidence and concerns regarding safety (which remains unclear because of potential adverse effects related to its marked vasopressor activity), angiotensin Ⅱ is currently not recommended in patients with septic shock. Further studies are needed to better define the role of these vasopressors in the management of these patients.

Selepressin in Septic Shock

ABSTRACT

Sepsis and septic shock usually show a high mortality rate and frequently need of intensive care unit admissions. After fluid resuscitation, norepinephrine (NE) is the first-choice vasopressor in septic shock patients. However, high-NE doses are associated with increased rates of adverse effects and mortality. In this perspective, many authors have proposed the administration of non-adrenergic vasopressors (NAV). Selepressin is a selective vasopressin type 1A (V1A) receptor agonist and may be a valid option in this field, because it can decrease NE requirements and also limit the deleterious effects induced by high doses of catecholamines. Only few clinical data actually support selepressin administration in this setting. Here, we review the current literature on this topic analyzing some pathophysiological aspects, the rationale about the use of NAV, the possible use of selepressin differentiating animal, and human studies. Various issues remain unresolved and future trials should be focused on early interventions based on a multimodal activation of the vasopressive pathways using both alpha and V1A receptors pathways.

Vasopressors and Risk of Acute Mesenteric Ischemia: A Worldwide Pharmacovigilance Analysis and Comprehensive Literature Review

Vasodilatory shock, such as septic shock, requires personalized management which include adequate fluid therapy and vasopressor treatments. While these potent drugs are numerous, they all aim to counterbalance the vasodilatory effects of a systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Their specific receptors include α- and β-adrenergic receptors, arginine-vasopressin receptors, angiotensin II receptors and dopamine receptors. Consequently, these may be associated with severe adverse effects, including acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI). As the risk of AMI depends on drug class, we aimed to review the evidence of plausible associations by performing a worldwide pharmacovigilance analysis based on the World Health Organization database, VigiBase®. Among 24 million reports, 104 AMI events were reported, and disproportionality analyses yielded significant association with all vasopressors, to the exception of selepressin. Furthermore, in a comprehensive literature review, we detailed mechanistic phenomena which may enhance vasopressor selection, in the course of treating vasodilatory shock.

Sepsis Management for the Nephrologist

The definition of sepsis has evolved significantly over the past three decades. Today, sepsis is defined as a dysregulated host immune response to microbial invasion leading to end organ dysfunction. Septic shock is characterized by hypotension requiring vasopressors after adequate fluid resuscitation with elevated lactate. Early recognition and intervention remain hallmarks for sepsis management. We addressed the current literature and assimilated thought regarding optimum initial resuscitation of the patient with sepsis. A nuanced understanding of the physiology of lactate is provided in our review. Physiologic and practical knowledge of steroid and vasopressor therapy for sepsis is crucial and addressed. As blood purification may interest the nephrologist treating sepsis, we have also added a brief discussion of its status.

Colorectal Surgery in Critically Unwell Patients: A Multidisciplinary Approach

A proportion of patients require critical care support following elective or urgent colorectal procedures. Similarly, critically ill patients in intensive care units may also need colorectal surgery on occasions. This patient population is increasing in some jurisdictions given an aging population and increasing societal expectations. As such, this population often includes elderly, frail patients or patients with significant comorbidities. Careful stratification of operative risks including the need for prolonged intensive care support should be part of the consenting process. In high-risk patients, especially in setting of unplanned surgery, treatment goals should be clearly defined, and appropriate ceiling of care should be established to minimize care that is not in the best interest of the patient. In this article we describe approaches to critically unwell patients requiring colorectal surgery and how a multidisciplinary approach with proactive intensive care involvement can help achieve the best outcomes for these patients.

Beta-blockers in septic shock: What is new?

The use of beta(β)-blockers during septic shock aimed at countering peripheral adrenergic stress may be justified by the early reduction in deleterious effects resulting from sympathetic overactivation, and could improve the prognosis of patients in septic shock. Animal studies have demonstrated either a maintenance or increase in cardiac output (CO) despite the decrease in heart rate (HR) associated with improved myocardial performance. The mechanism by which β-blockers alter hemodynamics in septic shock is debated; however, preclinical and clinical data show that β-blockers are safe when started at a low dose. Recent publications (2019-2021) on adrenergic β1 receptor antagonists used in septic shock indicate that esmolol and landiolol should not be used in the early phase. While there is no optimal timing for their administration, a minimum of 12 h after the initiation of vasopressor therapy in stabilized euvolemic patients is a reasonable option. Patients should have a normal cardiac function, although a slight depression is compatible with landiolol use under hemodynamic monitoring. Slow titration in patients who remain tachycardic is preferable to rapid titration. When used to decrease HR, landiolol is also effective in reducing the incidence of new arrhythmias. Results of a well-performed and well-powered randomized controlled trial (RCT) demonstrating a positive effect on survival - or at least on hard surrogates such as the incidence/duration of organ failure - are pending.

The Epidemiology of Extremity Threat and Amputation after Vasopressor-Dependent Sepsis

Rationale: Extremity threat and amputation after sepsis is a well-publicized and devastating event. However, there is a paucity of data about the epidemiology of extremity threat after sepsis onset. Objectives: To estimate the incidence of extremity threat with or without surgical amputation in community sepsis. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of adults with Sepsis-3 hospitalized at 14 academic and community sites from 2013 to 2017. Vasopressor-dependent sepsis was identified by administration of epinephrine, norepinephrine, phenylephrine, vasopressin, or dopamine for more than 1 hour during the 48 hours before to 24 hours after sepsis onset. Outcomes included the incidence of extremity threat, defined as acute onset ischemia, with or without amputation, in the 90 days after sepsis onset. The association between extremity threat, demographics, comorbid conditions, and time-varying sepsis treatments was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Among 24,365 adults with sepsis, 12,060 (54%) were vasopressor dependent (mean ± standard deviation age, 64 ± 16 years; male, 6,548 [54%]; sequential organ failure assessment [SOFA], 10 ± 4). Of these, 231 (2%) patients had a threatened extremity with 26 undergoing 37 amputations, a risk of 2.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-3.2) per 1,000, and 205 not undergoing amputation, a risk of 17.0 (95% CI, 14.8-19.5) per 1,000. Most amputations occurred in lower extremities (95%), a median (interquartile range) of 16 (6-40) days after sepsis onset. Compared with patients with no extremity threat, patients with threat had a higher SOFA score (11 ± 4 vs. 10 ± 4; P < 0.001), serum lactate (4.6 mmol/L [2.4-8.7] vs. 3.1 [1.7-6.0]; P < 0.001), and more bacteremia (n = 37 [37%] vs. n = 2,087 [26%]; P < 0.001) at sepsis onset. Peripheral vascular disease, congestive heart failure, SOFA score, and norepinephrine equivalents were significantly associated with extremity threat. Conclusions: The evaluation of a threatened extremity resulting in surgical amputation occurred in 2 per 1,000 patients with vasopressor-dependent sepsis.

[Vasoactive drugs in the treatment of septic shock]

Septic shock is a high mortality complication frequently associated with sepsis. Early initiation of vasopressor treatment, even before completion of initial fluid resuscitation, is a determining factor in prognosis. In this sense, norepinephrine continues to be the drug of first choice, although there is increasing evidence of benefit combining it with other non-adrenergic drugs, such as vasopressin, instead of escalating norepinephrine doses. The pathophysiology of septic shock is multifactorial, and sometimes is associated with a situation of myocardial dysfunction that contributes to hemodynamic instability. It is essential to identify this situation since it worsens the prognosis and may benefit from combined treatment with inotropic drugs. There are novel vasoactive agents under study, more selective than the classic ones that in a next future could help to design more individualized and precise treatments. In the present work, the current knowledge about vasoactive drugs and their use in the management of septic shock is summarized according to the most recent scientific evidence.

Sepsis and Septic Shock: Evolving Evidence, Evolving Paradigms

Sepsis and septic shock represent important infection-related medical emergencies that result in significant morbidity and mortality. The prevalence and microbiology of these processes are evolving. Nonetheless, timely and appropriate antibiotic therapy continues to represent the most important determinant of survival. Recent trials have clarified that crystalloids are preferred for initial resuscitation, and balanced crystalloids appear superior to 0.9% saline. Controversy remains regarding not only the rate and rapidity of fluid resuscitation but also about the timing and use of vasopressors to maintain blood pressure. While some newer alternative vasopressors may have a role in sepsis, more evidence supporting their use is required. Conflicting data exist regarding the impact of corticosteroids on mortality in septic shock. However, these reports indicate that adjunctive hydrocortisone can lead to more rapid shock reversal.

Effect of Dobutamine on Patients with Septic Shock: A Retrospective Nationwide Study

BACKGROUND

Dobutamine is administered to patients with hypoperfusion associated with septic shock; however, its effect on mortality of septic shock remains unknown. We used a national inpatient database to investigate the effect of dobutamine on patients with septic shock.

METHODS

Adults with septic shock who received ≥30 mL/kg fluid and ≥10 μg/min noradrenaline and either vasopressin or adrenaline within 1 day after admission from 1 July 2010 to 31 March 2016 were identified by searching the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. Stabilized inverse probability weighting analysis using propensity scores was performed to compare all-cause 28-day mortality and length of stay between patients who had and had not received dobutamine.

RESULTS

Of 4,747 eligible patients, 1,259 had received dobutamine and 3,488 had not. All-cause 28-day mortality did not differ significantly between the groups (risk difference, 0.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.3 to 3.4; P = 0.975). Receipt of dobutamine was significantly associated with longer hospital stay (difference, 3.8; 95% CI, 0.5-7.2; P = 0.024). Subgroup analysis showed that receipt of dobutamine was not significantly associated with length of stay in patients with cardiovascular disease (difference, -5.1 days; 95% CI, -11.7 to 1.5; P = 0.133), or those who received ≥20 μg/min noradrenaline (difference, 0.5 days; 95% CI, -6.8 to 7.7; P = 0.900).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall all-cause 28-day mortality in patients with septic shock did not significantly differ between patients who had and had not received dobutamine; however, receipt of dobutamine was significantly associated with longer hospital stay.

Epinephrine versus norepinephrine in cardiac arrest patients with post-resuscitation shock

PURPOSE

Whether epinephrine or norepinephrine is preferable as the continuous intravenous vasopressor used to treat post-resuscitation shock is unclear. We assessed outcomes of patients with post-resuscitation shock after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest according to whether the continuous intravenous vasopressor used was epinephrine or norepinephrine.

METHODS

We conducted an observational multicenter study of consecutive patients managed in 2011-2018 for post-resuscitation shock. The primary outcome was all-cause hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were cardiovascular hospital mortality and unfavorable neurological outcome (Cerebral Performance Category 3-5). A multivariate regression analysis and a propensity score analysis were performed, as well as several sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 766 patients included in five hospitals, 285 (37%) received epinephrine and 481 (63%) norepinephrine. All-cause hospital mortality was significantly higher in the epinephrine group (OR 2.6; 95%CI 1.4-4.7; P = 0.002). Cardiovascular hospital mortality was also higher with epinephrine (aOR 5.5; 95%CI 3.0-10.3; P < 0.001), as was the proportion of patients with CPC of 3-5 at hospital discharge. Sensitivity analyses produced consistent results. The analysis involving adjustment on a propensity score to control for confounders showed similar findings (aOR 2.1; 95%CI 1.1-4.0; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with post-resuscitation shock after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, use of epinephrine was associated with higher all-cause and cardiovascular-specific mortality, compared with norepinephrine infusion. Until additional data become available, intensivists may want to choose norepinephrine rather than epinephrine for the treatment of post-resuscitation shock after OHCA.

A Clinical Update on Vasoactive Medication in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock

This is a focused review looking at the pharmacological support in cardiogenic shock. There are a plethora of data evaluating vasopressors and inotropes in septic shock, but the data are limited for cardiogenic shock. This review article describes in detail the pathophysiology of cardiogenic shock, the mechanism of action of different vasopressors and inotropes emphasizing their indications and potential side effects. This review article incorporates the currently used specific risk-prediction models in cardiogenic shock as well as integrates data from many trials on the use of vasopressors and inotropes. Lastly, this review seeks to discuss the future direction for vasoactive medications in cardiogenic shock.

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.

Inotrope Use and Intensive Care Unit Mortality in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: An Analysis of a Large Electronic Intensive Care Unit Database

Purpose: To determine whether inotrope administration is associated with increased all-cause mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients and to identify inotropes superior for improving mortality.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data retrieved from the Philips Electronic ICU (eICU) database, a clinical database of 200,859 patients from over 208 hospitals located throughout the United States. The database was searched for patients admitted with CS to the intensive care unit (ICU) between 2014 and 2015. We evaluated 34,381 CS patients. They were classified into the inotrope and non-inotrope groups based on whether inotropes were administered during hospitalization. The primary endpoint was all-cause hospital mortality.

Findings: In total, 15,021 (43.69%) patients received inotropes during hospitalization. The in-hospital mortality rate was significantly higher in the inotrope group than in the non-inotrope group (2,999 [24.03%] vs. 1,547 [12.40%], adjusted hazard ratio: 2.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.09–2.39; p < 0.0001). After propensity score matching according to the cardiac index, 359 patients were included in each group. The risk of ICU (OR 5.65, 95% CI, 3.17–10.08, p < 0.001) and hospital (OR 2.63, 95% CI: 1.75–3.95, p < 0.001) mortality in the inotrope group was significantly higher. In the inotrope group, the administration of norepinephrine ≤0.1 μg/kg/min and dopamine ≤15 μg/kg/min did not increase the risk of hospital mortality, and milrinone administration was associated with a lower mortality risk (odds ratio: 0.559, 95% CI: 0.430–0.727, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, the administration of >0.1 μg/kg/min dobutamine, epinephrine, and norepinephrine and dopamine >15 μg/kg/min was associated with a higher risk of hospital mortality.

Conclusions: Inotropes should be used cautiously because they may be associated with a higher risk of mortality in CS patients. Low-dose norepinephrine and milrinone may associated with lower risk of hospital mortality in these patients, and supportive therapies should be considered when high-dose inotropes are administered.

WSES/GAIS/SIS-E/WSIS/AAST global clinical pathways for patients with intra-abdominal infections

Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are common surgical emergencies and have been reported as major contributors to non-trauma deaths in hospitals worldwide. The cornerstones of effective treatment of IAIs include early recognition, adequate source control, appropriate antimicrobial therapy, and prompt physiologic stabilization using a critical care environment, combined with an optimal surgical approach. Together, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery (GAIS), the Surgical Infection Society-Europe (SIS-E), the World Surgical Infection Society (WSIS), and the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) have jointly completed an international multi-society document in order to facilitate clinical management of patients with IAIs worldwide building evidence-based clinical pathways for the most common IAIs. An extensive non-systematic review was conducted using the PubMed and MEDLINE databases, limited to the English language. The resulting information was shared by an international task force from 46 countries with different clinical backgrounds. The aim of the document is to promote global standards of care in IAIs providing guidance to clinicians by describing reasonable approaches to the management of IAIs.

The β3 Adrenergic Receptor Antagonist L-748,337 Attenuates Dobutamine-Induced Cardiac Inefficiency While Preserving Inotropy in Anesthetized Pigs

Excessive myocardial oxygen consumption (MVO₂) is considered a limitation for catecholamines, termed oxygen cost of contractility. We hypothesize that increased MVO₂ induced by dobutamine is not directly related to contractility but linked to intermediary myocardial metabolism. Furthermore, we hypothesize that selective β₃ adrenergic receptor (β₃AR) antagonism using L-748,337 prevents this. In an open-chest pig model, using general anesthesia, we assessed cardiac energetics, hemodynamics and arterial metabolic substrate levels at baseline, ½ hour and 6 hours after onset of drug infusion. Cardiac efficiency was assessed by relating MVO₂ to left ventricular work (PVA; pressure–volume area). Three groups received dobutamine (5 μg/kg/min), dobutamine + L-748,337 (bolus 50 μg/kg), or saline for time-matched controls. Cardiac efficiency was impaired over time with dobutamine infusion, displayed by persistently increased unloaded MVO₂ from ½ hour and 47% increase in the slope of the PVA–MVO₂ relation after 6 hours. Contractility increased immediately with dobutamine infusion (dP/dt_max; 1636 ± 478 vs 2888 ± 818 mmHg/s, P < 0.05) and persisted throughout the protocol (2864 ± 1055 mmHg/s, P < 0.05). Arterial free fatty acid increased gradually (0.22 ± 0.13 vs 0.39 ± 0.30 mM, P < 0.05) with peak levels after 6 hours (1.1 ± 0.4 mM, P < 0.05). By combining dobutamine with L-748,337 the progressive impairment in cardiac efficiency was attenuated. Interestingly, this combined treatment effect occurred despite similar alterations in cardiac inotropy and substrate supply. We conclude that the extent of cardiac inefficiency following adrenergic stimulation is dependent on the duration of drug infusion, and β₃AR blockade may attenuate this effect.

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.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Safety of treating acute liver injury and failure

INTRODUCTION

Acute liver injury and progression to acute liver failure can be life-threatening conditions that require prompt careful clinical assessment and therapeutic management.

AREAS COVERED

The aim of this article is to review the safety and side effect profile of pharmacological therapies used in the treatment of acute liver injury with specific focus on hepatic toxicity. We performed an extensive literature search with the terms 'acute liver injury,' 'acute liver failure,' 'therapy,' 'safety,' 'adverse reactions' and 'drug induced liver injury.' A thorough discussion of the main drugs and devices used in patients with acute liver injury and acute liver failure, its safety profile and the management of complications associated to therapy of these conditions is presented.

EXPERT OPINION

Several pharmacological approaches are used in acute liver injury and acute liver failure in an empirical basis. Whilst steroids are frequently tried in serious drug-induced liver injury there is concern on a potential harmful effect of these agents because of the higher mortality in patients receiving the drug; hence, statistical approaches such as propensity score matching might help resolve this clinical dilemma. Likewise, properly designed clinical trials using old and new drugs for subjects with serious drug-induced liver injury are clearly needed.

Vasopressor-Sparing Strategies in Patients with Shock: A Scoping-Review and an Evidence-Based Strategy Proposition

Despite the abundant literature on vasopressor therapy, few studies have focused on vasopressor-sparing strategies in patients with shock. We performed a scoping-review of the published studies evaluating vasopressor-sparing strategies by analyzing the results from randomized controlled trials conducted in patients with shock, with a focus on vasopressor doses and/or duration reduction. We analyzed 143 studies, mainly performed in septic shock. Our analysis demonstrated that several pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies are associated with a decrease in the duration of vasopressor therapy. These strategies are as follows: implementing a weaning strategy, vasopressin use, systemic glucocorticoid administration, beta-blockers, and normothermia. On the contrary, early goal directed therapies, including fluid therapy, oral vasopressors, vitamin C, and renal replacement therapy, are not associated with an increase in vasopressor-free days. Based on these results, we proposed an evidence-based vasopressor management strategy.

Pharmacometabolomics identifies candidate predictor metabolites of an L-carnitine treatment mortality benefit in septic shock

Sepsis‐induced metabolic dysfunction contributes to organ failure and death. L‐carnitine has shown promise for septic shock, but a recent phase II study of patients with vasopressor‐dependent septic shock demonstrated a non‐significant reduction in mortality. We undertook a pharmacometabolomics study of these patients (n = 250) to identify metabolic profiles predictive of a 90‐day mortality benefit from L‐carnitine. The independent predictive value of each pretreatment metabolite concentration, adjusted for L‐carnitine dose, on 90‐day mortality was determined by logistic regression. A grid‐search analysis maximizing the Z‐statistic from a binomial proportion test identified specific metabolite threshold levels that discriminated L‐carnitine responsive patients. Threshold concentrations were further assessed by hazard ratio and Kaplan‐Meier estimate. Accounting for L‐carnitine treatment and dose, 11 ¹H‐NMR metabolites and 12 acylcarnitines were independent predictors of 90‐day mortality. Based on the grid‐search analysis numerous acylcarnitines and valine were identified as candidate metabolites of drug response. Acetylcarnitine emerged as highly viable for the prediction of an L‐carnitine mortality benefit due to its abundance and biological relevance. Using its most statistically significant threshold concentration, patients with pretreatment acetylcarnitine greater than or equal to 35 µM were less likely to die at 90 days if treated with L‐carnitine (18 g) versus placebo (p = 0.01 by log rank test). Metabolomics also identified independent predictors of 90‐day sepsis mortality. Our proof‐of‐concept approach shows how pharmacometabolomics could be useful for tackling the heterogeneity of sepsis and informing clinical trial design. In addition, metabolomics can help understand mechanisms of sepsis heterogeneity and variable drug response, because sepsis induces alterations in numerous metabolite concentrations.

Dose equivalence between metaraminol and norepinephrine in critical care

AIMS

The aim of this study was to determine the conversion dose ratio between continuous infusion metaraminol and norepinephrine in critically ill patients with shock.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in adult patients with shock admitted to an intensive care unit from 29 October 2018 to 30 October 2019 and who transitioned from metaraminol monotherapy to norepinephrine monotherapy. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and infusion doses for both drugs were collected at hourly intervals; 2 hours before to 5 hours after switching from metaraminol monotherapy to norepinephrine monotherapy. The conversion dose ratio was defined as the ratio of metaraminol (μg.kg^-1 .min^-1) : norepinephrine (μg.kg^-1 .min^-1 ) required to achieve a similar MAP.

RESULTS

A total of 43 out of 144 eligible patients were included. The median age was 68 years (IQR 56-76) and 22 (51%) were male. There was no significant difference between the baseline MAP during metaraminol monotherapy (median 71 mm Hg, IQR 66-76) and the post-transition MAP during norepinephrine monotherapy (median 70 mm Hg, IQR 66-73) (P = .09). The median conversion dose ratio between metaraminol and norepinephrine was 13 (IQR 7-24). In the sensitivity analyses, the median conversion dose ratio using the maximum and the mean norepinephrine infusion dose was 8 (IQR 5-16) and 12 (IQR 8-23), respectively.

CONCLUSION

A conversion dose ratio of 10:1 (metaraminol μg.kg^-1 .min^-1 :norepinephrine μg.kg^-1 .min^-1 ) may be used in critically ill patients with shock to account for ease of calculations and variability of the conversion ratio in the primary and sensitivity analyses.

Pathophysiology of sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy

Sepsis is the life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection and is the leading cause of death in intensive care units. Cardiac dysfunction caused by sepsis, usually termed sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy, is common and has long been a subject of interest. In this Review, we explore the definition, epidemiology, diagnosis and pathophysiology of septic cardiomyopathy, with an emphasis on how best to interpret this condition in the clinical context. Advances in diagnostic techniques have increased the sensitivity of detection of myocardial abnormalities but have posed challenges in linking those abnormalities to therapeutic strategies and relevant clinical outcomes. Sophisticated methodologies have elucidated various pathophysiological mechanisms but the extent to which these are adaptive responses is yet to be definitively answered. Although the indications for monitoring and treating septic cardiomyopathy are clinical and directed towards restoring tissue perfusion, a better understanding of the course and implications of septic cardiomyopathy can help to optimize interventions and improve clinical outcomes.