A Randomized Controlled Trial of Norepinephrine Plus Dobutamine Versus Epinephrine As First-Line Vasoactive Agents in Children With Fluid Refractory Cold Septic Shock

An Update on Pharmacologic Management of Neonatal Hypotension: When, Why, and Which Medication

Anti-hypotensive treatment, which includes dopamine, dobutamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, milrinone, vasopressin, terlipressin, levosimendan, and glucocorticoids, is a long-established intervention in neonates with arterial hypotension (AH). However, there are still gaps in knowledge and issues that need clarification. The main questions and challenges that neonatologists face relate to the reference ranges of arterial blood pressure in presumably healthy neonates in relation to gestational and postnatal age; the arterial blood pressure level that potentially affects perfusion of critical organs; the incorporation of targeted echocardiography and near-infrared spectroscopy for assessing heart function and cerebral perfusion in clinical practice; the indication, timing, and choice of medication for each individual patient; the limited randomized clinical trials in neonates with sometimes conflicting results; and the sparse data regarding the potential effect of early hypotension or anti-hypotensive medications on long-term neurodevelopment. In this review, after a short review of AH definitions used in neonates and existing data on pathophysiology of AH, we discuss currently available data on pharmacokinetic and hemodynamic effects, as well as the effectiveness and safety of anti-hypotensive medications in neonates. In addition, data on the comparisons between anti-hypotensive medications and current suggestions for the main indications of each medication are discussed.

Resuscitation With Early Adrenaline Infusion for Children With Septic Shock: A Randomized Pilot Trial

OBJECTIVES

In children with septic shock, guidelines recommend resuscitation with 40-60 mL/kg of fluid boluses, yet there is a lack of evidence to support this practice. We aimed to determine the feasibility of a randomized trial comparing early adrenaline infusion with standard fluid resuscitation in children with septic shock.

DESIGN

Open-label parallel randomized controlled, multicenter pilot study. The primary end point was feasibility; the exploratory clinical endpoint was survival free of organ dysfunction by 28 days.

SETTING

Four pediatric Emergency Departments in Queensland, Australia.

PATIENTS

Children between 28 days and 18 years old with septic shock.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive a continuous adrenaline infusion after 20 mL/kg fluid bolus resuscitation (n = 17), or standard care fluid resuscitation defined as delivery of 40 to 60 mL/kg fluid bolus resuscitation prior to inotrope commencement (n = 23).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Forty of 58 eligible patients (69%) were consented with a median age of 3.7 years (interquartile range [IQR], 0.9-12.1 yr). The median time from randomization to inotropes was 16 minutes (IQR, 12-26 min) in the intervention group, and 49 minutes (IQR, 29-63 min) in the standard care group. The median amount of fluid delivered during the first 24 hours was 0 mL/kg (IQR, 0-10.0 mL/kg) in the intervention group, and 20.0 mL/kg (14.6-28.6 mL/kg) in the standard group (difference, -20.0; 95% CI, -28.0 to -12.0). The number of days alive and free of organ dysfunction did not differ between the intervention and standard care groups, with a median of 27 days (IQR, 26-27 d) versus 26 days (IQR, 25-27 d). There were no adverse events reported associated with the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

In children with septic shock, a protocol comparing early administration of adrenaline versus standard care achieved separation between the study arms in relation to inotrope and fluid bolus use.

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.

Haemodynamic support for paediatric septic shock: a global perspective

Septic shock is a leading cause of hospitalisation, morbidity, and mortality for children worldwide. In 2020, the paediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) issued evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children with septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction based on the evidence available at the time. There are now more trials from multiple settings, including low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), addressing optimal fluid choice and amount, selection and timing of vasoactive infusions, and optimal monitoring and therapeutic endpoints. In response to developments in adult critical care to trial personalised haemodynamic management algorithms, it is timely to critically reassess the current state of applying SSC guidelines in LMIC settings. In this Viewpoint, we briefly outline the challenges to improve sepsis care in LMICs and then discuss three key concepts that are relevant to management of children with septic shock around the world, especially in LMICs. These concepts include uncertainties surrounding the early recognition of paediatric septic shock, choices for initial haemodynamic support, and titration of ongoing resuscitation to therapeutic endpoints. Specifically, given the evolving understanding of clinical phenotypes, we focus on the controversies surrounding the concepts of early fluid resuscitation and vasoactive agent use, including insights gained from experience in LMICs and high-income countries. We outline the key components of sepsis management that are both globally relevant and translatable to low-resource settings, with a view to open the conversation to the large variety of treatment pathways, especially in LMICs. We emphasise the role of simple and easily available monitoring tools to apply the SSC guidelines and to tailor individualised support to the patient's cardiovascular physiology.