1
|
Blankenship CR, Betthauser KD, Hencken LN, Maamari JA, Goetz J, Giacomino BD, Gibson GA. Clinical Response to Third-Line Angiotensin-II vs Epinephrine in Septic Shock: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study. Ann Pharmacother 2024:10600280231226132. [PMID: 38303571 DOI: 10.1177/10600280231226132] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The appropriate third-line vasopressor in septic shock patients receiving norepinephrine and vasopressin is unknown. Angiotensin-II (AT-II) offers a unique mechanism of action to traditionally used vasopressors in septic shock. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of third-line AT-II to epinephrine in patients with septic shock. METHODS A single-center, retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients was performed between April 1, 2019 and July 31, 2022. Propensity-matched (2:1) analysis compared adults with septic shock who received third-line AT-II to controls who received epinephrine following norepinephrine and vasopressin. The primary outcome was clinical response 24 hours after third-line vasopressor initiation. Additional efficacy and safety outcomes were investigated. RESULTS Twenty-three AT-II patients were compared with 46 epinephrine patients. 47.8% of AT-II patients observed a clinical response at hour 24 compared with 28.3% of epinephrine patients (P = 0.12). In-hospital mortality (65.2% vs 73.9%, P = 0.45), cardiac arrhythmias (26.1% vs 26.1%, P = 0.21), and thromboembolism (4.3% vs 2.2%, P = 0.61) were not observed to be statistically different between groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Administration of AT-II as a third-line vasopressor agent in septic shock patients was not associated with significantly improved clinical response at hour 24 compared with epinephrine. Although underpowered to detect meaningful differences, the clinical observations of this study warrant consideration and further investigation of AT-II as a third-line vasopressor in septic shock.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Kevin D Betthauser
- Department of Pharmacy Practice, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Laura N Hencken
- Department of Pharmacy Practice, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Julie A Maamari
- Department of Pharmacy Practice, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Jenna Goetz
- Department of Pharmacy Practice, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Bria D Giacomino
- Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Gabrielle A Gibson
- Department of Pharmacy Practice, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, MO, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ibarra-Estrada M, Kattan E, Aguilera-González P, Sandoval-Plascencia L, Rico-Jauregui U, Gómez-Partida CA, Ortiz-Macías IX, López-Pulgarín JA, Chávez-Peña Q, Mijangos-Méndez JC, Aguirre-Avalos G, Hernández G. Early adjunctive methylene blue in patients with septic shock: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care 2023; 27:110. [PMID: 36915146 PMCID: PMC10010212 DOI: 10.1186/s13054-023-04397-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/03/2023] [Accepted: 03/07/2023] [Indexed: 03/14/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Miguel Ibarra-Estrada
- Unidad de Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Civil Fray Antonio Alcalde, Universidad de Guadalajara, Coronel Calderón 777, El Retiro, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.
- Instituto Jalisciense de Cancerología, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.
- The Latin American Intensive Care Network (LIVEN), Guadalajara, Mexico.
| | - Eduardo Kattan
- The Latin American Intensive Care Network (LIVEN), Guadalajara, Mexico
- Departamento de Medicina Intensiva, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
| | | | | | - Uriel Rico-Jauregui
- Unidad de Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Civil Fray Antonio Alcalde, Universidad de Guadalajara, Coronel Calderón 777, El Retiro, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico
| | - Carlos A Gómez-Partida
- Unidad de Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Civil Fray Antonio Alcalde, Universidad de Guadalajara, Coronel Calderón 777, El Retiro, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico
| | - Iris X Ortiz-Macías
- Unidad de Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Civil Fray Antonio Alcalde, Universidad de Guadalajara, Coronel Calderón 777, El Retiro, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico
| | - José A López-Pulgarín
- Unidad de Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Civil Fray Antonio Alcalde, Universidad de Guadalajara, Coronel Calderón 777, El Retiro, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico
| | - Quetzalcóatl Chávez-Peña
- Unidad de Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Civil Fray Antonio Alcalde, Universidad de Guadalajara, Coronel Calderón 777, El Retiro, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico
| | - Julio C Mijangos-Méndez
- Unidad de Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Civil Fray Antonio Alcalde, Universidad de Guadalajara, Coronel Calderón 777, El Retiro, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico
| | - Guadalupe Aguirre-Avalos
- Unidad de Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Civil Fray Antonio Alcalde, Universidad de Guadalajara, Coronel Calderón 777, El Retiro, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico
| | - Glenn Hernández
- The Latin American Intensive Care Network (LIVEN), Guadalajara, Mexico
- Departamento de Medicina Intensiva, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Not all Shock States Are Created Equal: A Review of the Diagnosis and Management of Septic, Hypovolemic, Cardiogenic, Obstructive, and Distributive Shock. Anesthesiol Clin 2023; 41:1-25. [PMID: 36871993 DOI: 10.1016/j.anclin.2022.11.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/07/2023]
Abstract
Shock in the critically ill patient is common and associated with poor outcomes. Categories include distributive, hypovolemic, obstructive, and cardiogenic, of which distributive (and usually septic distributive) shock is by far the most common. Clinical history, physical examination, and hemodynamic assessments & monitoring help differentiate these states. Specific management necessitates interventions to correct the triggering etiology as well as ongoing resuscitation to maintain physiologic milieu. One shock state may convert to another and may have an undifferentiated presentation; therefore, continual re-assessment is essential. This review provides guidance for intensivists for management of all shock states based on available scientific evidence.
Collapse
|
5
|
Leone M, Einav S, Antonucci E, Depret F, Lakbar I, Martin-Loeches I, Wieruszewski PM, Myatra SN, Khanna AK. Multimodal strategy to counteract vasodilation in septic shock. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med 2023; 42:101193. [PMID: 36621622 DOI: 10.1016/j.accpm.2023.101193] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2022] [Revised: 12/26/2022] [Accepted: 12/30/2022] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
Early initiation of a multimodal treatment strategy in the management of vasopressors during septic shock has been advocated to reduce delays in restoring adequate organ perfusion and to mitigate side effects associated with the administration of high-dose catecholamines. We provide a review that summarises the pathophysiology of vasodilation, the physiologic response to the vascular response, and the different drugs used in this situation, focusing on the need to combine early different vasopressors. Fluid loading being insufficient for counteracting vasoplegia, norepinephrine is usually the first-line vasopressor used to restore hemodynamics. Norepinephrine sparing is discussed in further detail through the concomitant use of adrenergic, vasopressinergic, and renin-angiotensin systems and the optimisation of endothelial reactivity with methylene blue. A blueprint for the construction of new studies is outlined to address the question of vasopressor selection and timing in septic shock.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marc Leone
- Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Unit, North Hospital, Aix Marseille University, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux Universitaires de Marseille, Marseille, France.
| | - Sharon Einav
- Surgical Intensive Care, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel
| | - Elio Antonucci
- Intermediate Care Unit, Emergency Department, Ospedale Guglielmo da Saliceto, Piacenza, Italy
| | - François Depret
- GH St-Louis-Lariboisière, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care and Burn Unit, St-Louis Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Ines Lakbar
- Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Unit, North Hospital, Aix Marseille University, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux Universitaires de Marseille, Marseille, France
| | - Ignacio Martin-Loeches
- Intensive Care Unit, Trinity Centre for Health Science HRB-Wellcome Trust, St James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | | | - Sheila Nainan Myatra
- Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain, Tata Memorial Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| | - Ashish K Khanna
- Department of Anesthesiology, Section on Critical Care Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC, USA; Outcomes Research Consortium, Cleveland, OH, USA
| |
Collapse
|