Angiotensin II for the treatment of distributive shock in the intensive care unit: A US cost-effectiveness analysis

Early adjunctive methylene blue in patients with septic shock: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Methylene blue (MB) has been tested as a rescue therapy for patients with refractory septic shock. However, there is a lack of evidence on MB as an adjuvant therapy, its' optimal timing, dosing and safety profile. We aimed to assess whether early adjunctive MB can reduce time to vasopressor discontinuation in patients with septic shock.

METHODS

In this single-center randomized controlled trial, we assigned patients with septic shock according to Sepsis-3 criteria to MB or placebo. Primary outcome was time to vasopressor discontinuation at 28 days. Secondary outcomes included vasopressor-free days at 28 days, days on mechanical ventilator, length of stay in ICU and hospital, and mortality at 28 days.

RESULTS

Among 91 randomized patients, forty-five were assigned to MB and 46 to placebo. The MB group had a shorter time to vasopressor discontinuation (69 h [IQR 59-83] vs 94 h [IQR 74-141]; p < 0.001), one more day of vasopressor-free days at day 28 (p = 0.008), a shorter ICU length of stay by 1.5 days (p = 0.039) and shorter hospital length of stay by 2.7 days (p = 0.027) compared to patients in the control group. Days on mechanical ventilator and mortality were similar. There were no serious adverse effects related to MB administration.

CONCLUSION

In patients with septic shock, MB initiated within 24 h reduced time to vasopressor discontinuation and increased vasopressor-free days at 28 days. It also reduced length of stay in ICU and hospital without adverse effects. Our study supports further research regarding MB in larger randomized clinical trials. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT04446871 , June 25, 2020, retrospectively registered.

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.

The pharmacotherapeutic options in patients with catecholamine-resistant vasodilatory shock

INTRODUCTION

Septic and vasoplegic shock are common types of vasodilatory shock (VS) with high mortality. After fluid resuscitation and the use of catecholamine-mediated vasopressors (CMV), vasopressin, angiotensin II, methylene blue (MB) and hydroxocobalamin can be added to maintain blood pressure.

AREAS COVERED

VS treatment utilizes a phased approach with secondary vasopressors added to vasopressor agents to maintain an acceptable mean arterial pressure (MAP). This review covers additional vasopressors and adjunctive therapies used when fluid and catecholamine-mediated vasopressors fail to maintain target MAP.

EXPERT OPINION

Evidence supporting additional vasopressor agents in catecholamine resistant VS is limited to case reports, series, and a few randomized control trials (RCTs) to guide recommendations. Vasopressin is the most common agent added next when MAPs are not adequately supported with CMV. VS patients failing fluids and vasopressors with cardiomyopathy may have cardiotonic agents such as dobutamine or milrinone added before or after vasopressin. Angiotensin II, another class of vasopressor is used in VS to maintain adequate MAP. MB and/or hydoxocobalamin, vitamin C, thiamine and corticosteroids are adjunctive therapies used in refractory VS. More RCTs are needed to confirm the utility of these drugs, at what doses, which combinations and in what order they should be given.

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.

Protocol for a two-arm pragmatic stepped-wedge hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial evaluating Engagement and Collaborative Management to Proactively Advance Sepsis Survivorship (ENCOMPASS)

BACKGROUND

Sepsis survivors experience high morbidity and mortality, and healthcare systems lack effective strategies to address patient needs after hospital discharge. The Sepsis Transition and Recovery (STAR) program is a navigator-led, telehealth-based multicomponent strategy to provide proactive care coordination and monitoring of high-risk patients using evidence-driven, post-sepsis care tasks. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of STAR to improve outcomes for sepsis patients and to examine contextual factors that influence STAR implementation.

METHODS

This study uses a hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation design to concurrently test clinical effectiveness and gather implementation data. The effectiveness evaluation is a two-arm, pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial at eight hospitals in North Carolina comparing clinical outcomes between sepsis survivors who receive Usual Care versus care delivered through STAR. Each hospital begins in a Usual Care control phase and transitions to STAR in a randomly assigned sequence (one every 4 months). During months that a hospital is allocated to Usual Care, all eligible patients will receive usual care. Once a hospital transitions to STAR, all eligible patients will receive STAR during their hospitalization and extending through 90 days from discharge. STAR includes centrally located nurse navigators using telephonic counseling and electronic health record-based support to facilitate best-practice post-sepsis care strategies including post-discharge review of medications, evaluation for new impairments or symptoms, monitoring existing comorbidities, and palliative care referral when appropriate. Adults admitted with suspected sepsis, defined by clinical criteria for infection and organ failure, are included. Planned enrollment is 4032 patients during a 36-month period. The primary effectiveness outcome is the composite of all-cause hospital readmission or mortality within 90 days of discharge. A mixed-methods implementation evaluation will be conducted before, during, and after STAR implementation.

DISCUSSION

This pragmatic evaluation will test the effectiveness of STAR to reduce combined hospital readmissions and mortality, while identifying key implementation factors. Results will provide practical information to advance understanding of how to integrate post-sepsis management across care settings and facilitate implementation, dissemination, and sustained utilization of best-practice post-sepsis management strategies in other heterogeneous healthcare delivery systems.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04495946 . Submitted July 7, 2020; Posted August 3, 2020.

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.