Comparison of norepinephrine-dobutamine to epinephrine for hemodynamics, lactate metabolism, and organ function variables in cardiogenic shock. A prospective, randomized pilot study

Effect of pulmonary artery catheter, type & combination of vasoactives for optimizing lactate clearance in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

INTRODUCTION

Lactate clearance(LC) is critical in managing critically ill patients. We hypothesized that treatment allocation with different vasoactive drugs or the presence of a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) could affect the behavior of lactate dynamics and, ultimately, the mortality in AMI-CS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 651 patients with AMI-CS, we examined the relationship of LC time with clinical, laboratory, and CS-management variables. Complete LC time was defined as serum lactate levels less than <2 mmol/L. We explore the impact of vasoactive drugs and PAC with LC. The CART method defined the vasoactive combinations (permutations) in relation with early (<96 h) complete LC.

RESULTS

PAC presence correlated with faster LC (-17.54 h) and was independently associated with lower mortality (HR = 0.61). Levosimendan and dobutamine were associated with lower lactate levels and faster LC (-8.82 & -8.77 h), while vasopressin was linked to slower LC (9.16 h). Slow LC (>96 h) was associated with increased mortality. CART analysis identified specific vasoactive drug combinations associated lactate clearance and mortality, without dobutamine, with vasopressin having higher mortality (80.6 %, HR = 5.53), and with dobutamine, with norepinephrine, without vasopressin, with levosimendan the lowest (35 %) and higher complete LC and a trend for higher %LC.

CONCLUSION

The right combination of vasoactive medications and the probable use of a PAC could significantly impact the achievement of complete LC in <96 h. The findings support the need for further research and the development of strategies to optimize lactate clearance and improve overall patient survival in this high-risk population.

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.

Cardiogenic Shock: An Overview

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex and dreadful condition for which effective treatments remain unclear. The concerningly high mortality rate of CS emphasizes a need for developing effective therapies to reduce its mortality and reverse its detrimental course. This article aims to provide an updated and evidence-based review of the pathophysiology of CS and the related pharmacotherapeutics with a special focus on vasoactive and inotropic agents.

Inotropic Agents: Are We Still in the Middle of Nowhere?

Inotropes are prescribed to enhance myocardial contractility while vasopressors serve to improve vascular tone. Although these medications remain a life-saving therapy in cardiovascular clinical scenarios with hemodynamic impairment, the paucity of evidence on these drugs makes the choice of the most appropriate vasoactive agent challenging. As such, deep knowledge of their pharmacological and hemodynamic effects becomes crucial to optimizing hemodynamic profile while reducing the potential adverse effects. Given this perspective, it is imperative for cardiologists to possess a comprehensive understanding of the underlying mechanisms governing these agents and to discern optimal strategies for their application across diverse clinical contexts. Thus, we briefly review these agents' pharmacological and hemodynamic properties and their reasonable clinical applications in cardiovascular settings. Critical interpretation of available data and the opportunities for future investigations are also highlighted.

Cardiogenic shock diagnosis and management in general intensive care: a nationwide survey

BACKGROUND

the epidemiology of cardiogenic shock has evolved over the years: in the last decades an increasing prevalence of cardiogenic shock related to acute decompensated heart failure was observed. Therefore, treatment bundles should be updated according to the underlying pathophysiology. No data exist regarding the diagnostic/therapeutic strategies in general intensive care units.

METHODS

A 27-questions survey was spread through the GiViTi (Italian Group for the Evaluation of Interventions in Intensive Care Medicine). The results were then divided according to level of hospitals (1st-2nd versus 3rd).

RESULTS

Sixty-nine general intensive care units replied to the survey. The shock team is present in 13% of institutions; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock classification is applied only in 18.8%. Among the ICUs, 94.2% routinely use a cardiac output monitoring device (pulmonary artery catheter more frequently in 3rd level centers). The first-line adrenergic drug are vasopressors in 27.5%, inotrope in 21.7% or their combination in 50.7%; 79.7% applies fluid challenge. The first vasopressor of choice is norepinephrine (95.7%) (maximum dosage tolerated higher than 0.5 mcg/kg/min in 29%); the first line inotrope is dobutamine (52.2%), followed by epinephrine in 36.2%. The most frequently used mechanical circulatory supports are intra-aortic balloon pump (71%), Impella (34.8%) and VA-ECMO (33.3%); VA-ECMO is the first line strategy in refractory cardiogenic shock (60.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

According to this survey, there is no standardized approach to cardiogenic shock amongst Italian general intensive care units. The application of shock severity stratification and the treatment bundles may play a key role in improving the outcome.

Acute Heart Failure: From The Emergency Department to the Intensive Care Unit

Acute heart failure (AHF) is a frequent cause of hospitalization around the world and is associated with high in-hospital and post-discharge morbidity and mortality. This review summarizes data on diagnosis and management of AHF from the emergency department to the intensive care unit. While more evidence is needed to guide risk stratification and care of patients with AHF, hospitalization is a key opportunity to optimize evidence-based medical therapy for heart failure. Close linkage to outpatient care is essential to improve post-hospitalization outcomes.

Management of cardiogenic shock: a narrative review

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is characterized by low cardiac output and sustained tissue hypoperfusion that may result in end-organ dysfunction and death. CS is associated with high short-term mortality, and its management remains challenging despite recent advances in therapeutic options. Timely diagnosis and multidisciplinary team-based management have demonstrated favourable effects on outcomes. We aimed to review evidence-based practices for managing patients with ischemic and non-ischemic CS, detailing the multi-organ supports needed in this critically ill patient population.

Risk of arrhythmia in post-resuscitative shock after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with epinephrine versus norepinephrine

OBJECTIVE

To determine the rates of clinically significant tachyarrhythmias and mortality in the management of post-resuscitative shock after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) who receive a continuous epinephrine versus norepinephrine infusion.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

A large multi-site health system with hospitals across the United States.

PATIENTS

Adult patients admitted for OHCA with post-resuscitative shock managed with either epinephrine or norepinephrine infusions within 6 h of ROSC.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Between May 5th, 2018, to January 31st, 2022, there were 221 patients admitted for OHCA who received post-resuscitative epinephrine or norepinephrine infusions. There was no difference in the rate of tachyarrhythmias between epinephrine and norepinephrine infusion in univariate (47.1% vs 41.7%, OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.71-2.20) or multivariable analysis (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.68-2.62). Patients treated with epinephrine were more likely to die during hospitalization than those treated with norepinephrine (90.0% vs 54.3%, OR 6.21, 95% CI 2.37-16.25, p < 0.001). Epinephrine treated patients were more likely to have re-arrest during hospital admission (55.7% vs 14.6%, OR 5.77, 95% CI 2.74-12.18, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

There was no statistically significant difference in clinically significant cardiac tachyarrhythmias in post-OHCA patients treated with epinephrine versus norepinephrine infusions after ROSC. Re-arrest rates and in-hospital mortality were higher in patients who received epinephrine infusions in the first 6 h post-ROSC. Results of this study add to the literature suggesting norepinephrine may be the vasopressor of choice in post-OHCA patients with post-resuscitative shock after ROSC.

Norepinephrine versus epinephrine for hemodynamic support in post-cardiac arrest shock: A systematic review

PURPOSE

The preferred vasopressor in post-cardiac arrest shock has not been established with robust clinical outcomes data. Our goal was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing rates of in-hospital mortality, refractory shock, and hemodynamic parameters in post-cardiac arrest patients who received either norepinephrine or epinephrine as primary vasopressor support.

METHODS

We conducted a search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL from 2000 to 2022. Included studies were prospective, retrospective, or published abstracts comparing norepinephrine and epinephrine in adults with post-cardiac arrest shock or with cardiogenic shock and extractable post-cardiac arrest data. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. Other outcomes included incidence of arrhythmias or refractory shock.

RESULTS

The database search returned 2646 studies. Two studies involving 853 participants were included in the systematic review. The proposed meta-analysis was deferred due to low yield. Crude incidence of in-hospital mortality was numerically higher in the epinephrine group compared with norepinephrine in both studies, but only statistically significant in one. Risk of bias was moderate to severe for in-hospital mortality. Additional outcomes were reported differently between studies, minimizing direct comparison.

CONCLUSION

The vasopressor with the best mortality and hemodynamic outcomes in post-cardiac arrest shock remains unclear. Randomized studies are crucial to remedy this.

Medical therapy of cardiogenic shock: Contemporary use of inotropes and vasopressors

Cardiogenic shock is a primary cardiac disorder that results in both clinical and biochemical evidence of tissue hypoperfusion and can lead to multi-organ failure and death depending on its severity. Inadequate cardiac contractility or cardiac power secondary to acute myocardial infarction remains the most frequent cause of cardiogenic shock, although its contribution has declined over the past two decades, compared with other causes. Despite some advances in cardiogenic shock management, this clinical syndrome is still burdened by an extremely high mortality. Its management is based on immediate stabilization of haemodynamic parameters so that further treatment, including mechanical circulatory support and transfer to specialized tertiary care centres, can be accomplished. With these aims, medical therapy, consisting mainly of inotropic drugs and vasopressors, still has a major role. The purpose of this article is to review current evidence on the use of these medications in patients with cardiogenic shock and discuss specific clinical settings with indications to their use.

Use of Inotropic Agents in Advanced Heart Failure: Pros and Cons

BACKGROUND

Use of inotropic agents in advanced heart failure (HF) has over time been evaluated in several randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs). However, the evidence for both efficacy and safety is conflicting.

SUMMARY

In this narrative review, the evidence for and role of inotropes in advanced HF are outlined. Readers are provided with a comprehensive overview of key-findings from 23 important RCTs comparing orally or intravenously administered inotropes. Clinically relevant pros and cons of inotropic regimens are summarized to guide the clinician in the management of advanced HF patients in different settings (e.g., out-patient, in-patient, and intensive care unit). Finally, future perspectives and potential new agents are discussed.

KEY MESSAGES

Long-term use of inotropes in advanced HF is controversial and should only be considered in selected patients (e.g., as palliative or bridging strategy). However, short-term use continues to play a large role in hospitalized patients with cardiogenic shock or severe decompensated acute HF.

Prehospital Administration of Norepinephrine and Epinephrine for Shock after Resuscitation from Cardiac Arrest

INTRODUCTION

Shock after resuscitation from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is often treated with vasopressors. We examined whether infusion of epinephrine versus norepinephrine was associated with prehospital rearrest and neurologically favorable survival among OHCA patients.

METHODS

This retrospective study included OHCA cases in Seattle, Washington from 2014-2021 who had return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) followed by vasopressor infusion. Our primary exposure was infusion of epinephrine or norepinephrine. Our primary outcome was prehospital rearrest. Secondary outcomes included survival and neurologically favorable outcome (Cerebral Performance Category score of 1 or 2). We used multivariable logistic regression to test associations between exposures and outcomes adjusting for key covariates.

RESULTS

Of 451 OHCA patients with ROSC followed by vasopressor infusion, 253 (56%) received norepinephrine and 198 (44%) received epinephrine infusions. Those who received epinephrine were older (median 66 [interquartile ranges {IQR} 53-79] vs 63 [IQR 47-75] years), but otherwise had similar baseline characteristics. Patients who received epinephrine were twice as likely to rearrest (55% vs 25%). After adjustment, the difference in rearrest rates between epinephrine and norepinephrine persisted (OR 3.28, 95%CI 2.25-5.08), and the odds of pulses at hospital arrival were lower in the epinephrine group (OR 0.52 95%CI 0.32-0.83). After adjustment, there was no difference in neurologically favorable survival, survival to hospital admission, or survival to discharge.

CONCLUSION

Patients who received epinephrine infusions after ROSC suffered prehospital rearrest more frequently than those who received norepinephrine. Survival and neurological status at hospital discharge were similar. Future trials should examine the optimal approach to hemodynamic management for post-OHCA shock.

Improved mortality and haemodynamics with milrinone in cardiogenic shock due to acute decompensated heart failure

AIMS

Studies in cardiogenic shock (CS) often have a heterogeneous population of patients, including those with acute myocardial infarction and acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF-CS). The therapeutic profile of milrinone may benefit patients with ADHF-CS. We compared the outcomes and haemodynamic trends in ADHF-CS receiving either milrinone or dobutamine.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients presenting with ADHF-CS (from 2014 to 2020) treated with a single inodilator (milrinone or dobutamine) were included in this study. Clinical characteristics, outcomes, and haemodynamic parameters were collected. The primary endpoint was 30 day mortality, with censoring at the time of transplant or left ventricular assist device implantation. A total of 573 patients were included, of which 366 (63.9%) received milrinone and 207 (36.1%) received dobutamine. Patients receiving milrinone were younger, had better kidney function, and lower lactate at admission. In addition, patients receiving milrinone received mechanical ventilation or vasopressors less frequently, whereas a pulmonary artery catheter was more frequently used. Milrinone use was associated with a lower adjusted risk of 30 day mortality (hazard ratio = 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.35-0.77). After propensity-matching, the use of milrinone remained associated with a lower mortality (hazard ratio = 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.96). These findings were associated with improved pulmonary artery compliance, stroke volume, and right ventricular stroke work index.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of milrinone compared with dobutamine in patients with ADHF-CS is associated with lower 30 day mortality and improved haemodynamics. These findings warrant further study in future randomized controlled trials.

State of Shock: Contemporary Vasopressor and Inotrope Use in Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock is characterized by tissue hypoxia caused by circulatory failure arising from inadequate cardiac output. In addition to treating the pathologic process causing impaired cardiac function, prompt hemodynamic support is essential to reduce the risk of developing multiorgan dysfunction and to preserve cellular metabolism. Pharmacologic therapy with the use of vasopressors and inotropes is a key component of this treatment strategy, improving perfusion by increasing cardiac output, altering systemic vascular resistance, or both, while allowing time and hemodynamic stability to treat the underlying disease process implicated in the development of cardiogenic shock. Despite the use of mechanical circulatory support recently garnering significant interest, pharmacologic hemodynamic support remains a cornerstone of cardiogenic shock management, with over 90% of patients receiving at least 1 vasoactive agent. This review aims to describe the pharmacology and hemodynamic effects of current pharmacotherapies and provide a practical approach to their use, while highlighting important future research directions.

Advanced heart failure: a contemporary approach

Advanced heart failure (HF) is defined as the persistence of severe symptoms despite the use of optimized medical, surgical, and device therapies. These patients require timely advanced treatments, such as heart transplantation or long-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Inotropic agents are often used to reduce congestion and increase cardiac output, while renal replacement therapy may be beneficial if necessary. Cardiac resynchronization therapy has clear benefits in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, particularly with left bundle branch block (QRS duration > 130 ms). The role of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in advanced HF patients requires further investigation considering the introduction of novel HF medications. In selected patients with significant secondary mitral regurgitation, transcatheter edge-to-edge repair can help delay heart transplantation or long-term MCS. In later stages, the appropriateness of heart transplantation should be evaluated, and the use of short- or long-term MCS may be considered. A multidisciplinary HF management program is crucial for patients with advanced HF. Recent treatment advances, including drugs, devices, and MCS, have broadened the options available to patients with advanced HF and this trend is expected to continue.

The current and future status of inotropes in heart failure management

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome with a wide range of presentations and acuity, ranging from outpatient care to inpatient management due to acute decompensated HF, cardiogenic shock or advanced HF. Frequently, the etiology of a patient's decompensation is diminished cardiac output and peripheral hypoperfusion. Consequently, there is a need for use of inotropes, agents that increase cardiac contractility, optimize hemodynamics and ensure adequate perfusion.

AREAS COVERED

Inotropes are divided into 3 major classes: beta agonists, phosphodiesterase III inhibitors and calcium sensitizers. Additionally, as data from prospective studies accumulates, novel agents are emerging, including omecamtiv mecarbil and istaroxime. The aim of this review is to summarize current data on the optimal use of inotropes and to provide an expert opinion regarding their current and future use in the management of HF.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of inotropes has long been linked to worsening mortality, tachyarrhythmias, increased myocardial oxygen consumption and ischemia. Therefore, individualized and evidence-based treatment plans for patients who require inotropic support are necessary. Also, better quality data on the use of existing inotropes is imperative, while the development of newer and safer agents will lead to more effective management of patients with HF in the future.

Use of CO2-Derived Variables in Cardiac Intensive Care Unit: Pathophysiology and Clinical Implications

Shock is a life-threatening condition, and its timely recognition is essential for adequate management. Pediatric patients with congenital heart disease admitted to a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) after surgical corrections are particularly at risk of low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) and shock. Blood lactate levels and venous oxygen saturation (ScVO₂) are usually used as shock biomarkers to monitor the efficacy of resuscitation efforts, but they are plagued by some limitations. Carbon dioxide (CO₂)-derived parameters, namely veno-arterial CO₂ difference (ΔCCO₂) and the VCO₂/VO₂ ratio, may represent a potentially valuable addition as sensitive biomarkers to assess tissue perfusion and cellular oxygenation and may represent a valuable addition in shock monitoring. These variables have been mostly studied in the adult population, with a strong association between ΔCCO₂ or VCO₂/VO₂ ratio and mortality. In children, particularly in CICU, few studies looked at these parameters, while they reported promising results on the use of CO₂-derived indices for patients' management after cardiac surgeries. This review focuses on the physiological and pathophysiological determinants of ΔCCO₂ and VCO₂/VO₂ ratio while summarizing the actual state of knowledge on the use of CO₂-derived indices as hemodynamical markers in CICU.

The medical treatment of cardiogenic shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. CS presentation and management in the current era have been widely depicted in epidemiological studies. Its treatment is codified and relies on medical care and extracorporeal life support (ECLS) in the bridge to recovery, chronic mechanical device therapy, or transplantation. Recent improvements have changed the landscape of CS. The present analysis aims to review current medical treatments of CS in light of recent literature, including addressing excitation-contraction coupling and specific physiology on applied hemodynamics. Inotropism, vasopressor use, and immunomodulation are discussed as pre-clinical and clinical studies have focused on new therapeutic options to improve patient outcomes. Certain underlying conditions of CS, such as hypertrophic or Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, warrant specifically tailored management that will be overviewed in this review.

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.

Lactic Acidosis in Patients with Solid Cancer

Significance: Cancer-associated tissue-specific lactic acidosis stimulates and mediates tumor invasion and metastasis and is druggable. Rarely, malignancy causes systemic lactic acidosis, the role of which is poorly understood. Recent Advances: The understanding of the role of lactate has shifted dramatically since its discovery. Long recognized as only a waste product, lactate has become known as an alternative metabolism substrate and a secreted nutrient that is exchanged between the tumor and the microenvironment. Tissue-specific lactic acidosis is targeted to improve the host body's anticancer defense and serves as a tool that allows the targeting of anticancer compounds. Systemic lactic acidosis is associated with poor survival. In patients with solid cancer, systemic lactic acidosis is associated with an extremely poor prognosis, as revealed by the analysis of 57 published cases in this study. Although it is considered a pathology worth treating, targeting systemic lactic acidosis in patients with solid cancer is usually inefficient. Critical Issues: Research gaps include simple questions, such as the unknown nuclear pH of the cancer cells and its effects on chemotherapy outcomes, pH sensitivity of glycosylation in cancer cells, in vivo mechanisms of response to acidosis in the absence of lactate, and overinterpretation of in vitro results that were obtained by using cells that were not preadapted to acidic environments. Future Directions: Numerous metabolism-targeting anticancer compounds induce lactatemia, lactic acidosis, or other types of acidosis. Their potential to induce acidic environments is largely overlooked, although the acidosis might contribute to a substantial portion of the observed clinical effects. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 37, 1130-1152.

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.

Vasoactive pharmacological management according to SCAI class in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock

Background

Vasoactive treatment is a cornerstone in treating hypoperfusion in cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction (AMICS). The purpose was to compare the achievement of treatment targets and outcome in relation to vasoactive strategy in AMICS patients stratified according to the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) shock classification.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of patients with AMICS admitted to cardiac intensive care unit at two tertiary cardiac centers during 2010–2017 with retrieval of real-time hemodynamic data and dosages of vasoactive drugs from intensive care unit databases.

Results

Out of 1,249 AMICS patients classified into SCAI class C, D, and E, mortality increased for each shock stage from 34% to 60%, and 82% (p<0.001). Treatment targets of mean arterial blood pressure > 65mmHg and venous oxygen saturation > 55% were reached in the majority of patients; however, more patients in SCAI class D and E had values below treatment targets within 24 hours (p<0.001) despite higher vasoactive load and increased use of epinephrine for each severity stage (p<0.001). In univariate analysis no significant difference in mortality within SCAI class D and E regarding vasoactive strategy was observed, however in SCAI class C, epinephrine was associated with higher mortality and a significantly higher vasoactive load to reach treatment targets. In multivariate analysis there was no statistically association between individually vasoactive choice within each SCAI class and 30-day mortality.

Conclusion

Hemodynamic treatment targets were achieved in most patients at the expense of increased vasoactive load and more frequent use of epinephrine for each shock severity stage. Mortality was high regardless of vasoactive strategy; only in SCAI class C, epinephrine was associated with a significantly higher mortality, but the signal was not significant in adjusted analysis.

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.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.

STRUCTURE

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Analysis of Fluid Balance as Predictor of Length of Assisted Mechanical Ventilation in Children Admitted to Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU)

Background

Ventilator-associated lung injury (VALI) is a devastating complication of assisted mechanical ventilation (AMV) and is one of the root causes of prolonged AMV. Many strategies were made to decrease the effect of the same. This study is conducted to determine the association of prolonged AMV with fluid balance and pediatric index of mortality 2 (PIM2) score.

Methods

This prospective observational study was carried out in a PICU of a tertiary care centre over a period of 12 months. Patient's fluid balance was calculated by tabulating fluid input-output over initial 48 hours of AMV. The PIM2 score on admission was documented. The association between qualitative variables was assessed by a chi-square test. Comparison of quantitative data measured between cases with duration of AMV ≥ 7 days and <7 days was done using the Mann–Whitney U test. Correlation between quantitative data was done by using the Pearson product moment correlation.

Results

Out of 40 patients, 27 patients who had ≥15% positive fluid balance required prolonged mechanical ventilation. Similarly, 27 patients with PIM2 score ≥ 5 required prolonged AMV. On applying the Pearson chi-square test, we found a significant association between positive fluid balance and prolonged mechanical ventilation (P value = 2.25 × 10⁻⁷ (<0.05)). Likewise, a statistically significant association was found between PIM2 score and prolonged ventilation (P value = 1.19 × 10⁻⁵ (<0.05)).

Conclusion

There is a significant association of prolonged AMV with positive fluid balance (>15%) and PIM2 score (>5). By strict maintenance of fluid balance with appropriate intervention, the length of AMV and PICU stay can be decreased.

Norepinephrine use in cardiogenic shock patients is associated with increased 30 day mortality

Aims

Norepinephrine is recommended as a first‐line vasopressor agent in the haemodynamic stabilization of cardiogenic shock. The survival benefit of norepinephrine therapy has not been demonstrated in clinical practice, however. This study aimed to explore the relationship between norepinephrine use and outcomes in cardiogenic shock patients in real‐world conditions.

Methods and results

We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III (MIMIC‐III) database. Cardiogenic shock patients were enrolled and categorized into a norepinephrine group or a non‐norepinephrine group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for confounders. Cox proportional‐hazards models and multivariable logistic regression were used to investigate the relationship between norepinephrine treatment and mortality. A total of 927 eligible patients were included: 552 patients in the norepinephrine group and 375 patients in the non‐norepinephrine group. After PSM, 222 cases from each group were matched using a 1:1 matching algorithm. Thirty day mortality for patients treated with norepinephrine was significantly higher than for those in the non‐norepinephrine group (41% vs. 30%, OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.09–2.39, P = 0.017; HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.09–2.06, P = 0.013). In the multivariable analysis, there was no significant difference between norepinephrine therapy and long‐term (90 day, 180 day, or 1 year) mortality (90 day (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.82–1.74, P = 0.363), 180 day (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.80–1.70, P = 0.418), 1 year (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.79–1.66, P = 0.477). Patients in the norepinephrine group required more mechanical ventilation (84% vs. 67%, OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.70–4.25, P < 0.001) and experienced longer ICU stays (median 7 vs. 4 days, OR 7.92, 95% CI 1.40–44.83, P = 0.020) than non‐norepinephrine group.

Conclusions

Cardiogenic shock patients treated with norepinephrine were associated with significantly increased short‐term mortality, while no significant difference was found on long‐term survival rates. Future trials are needed to validate and explore this association.

Hemodynamic response and clinical outcome following intravenous milrinone plus norepinephrine-based hyperdynamic hypertensive therapy in patients suffering secondary cerebral ischemia after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage

Purpose

Intravenous and intra-arterial milrinone as a rescue measure for delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) after subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) has been adopted by several groups, but so far, evidence for the clinical benefit is unclear and effect on brain perfusion is unknown. The aim of the actual analysis was to define cerebral hemodynamic effects and outcome of intravenous milrinone plus norepinephrine supplemented by intra-arterial nimodipine as a rescue strategy for DCI following aneurysmal SAH.

Methods

Of 176 patients with aneurysmal SAH treated at our neurosurgical department between April 2016 and March 2021, 98 suffered from DCI and were submitted to rescue therapy. For the current analysis, characteristics of these patients and clinical response to rescue therapy were correlated with hemodynamic parameters, as assessed by CT angiography (CTA) and perfusion CT. Time to peak (TTP) delay in the ischemic focus and the volume with a TTP delay of more than 4 s (T4 volume) were used as hemodynamic parameters.

Results

The median delay to neurological deterioration following SAH was 5 days. Perfusion CT at that time showed median T4 volumes of 40 cc and mean focal TTP delays of 2.5 ± 2.1 s in these patients. Following rescue therapy, median T4 volume decreased to 10 cc and mean focal TTP delay to 1.7 ± 1.9 s. Seventeen patients (17% of patients with DCI) underwent additional intra-arterial spasmolysis using nimodipine. Visible resolution of macroscopic vasospasm on CTA was observed in 43% patients with DCI and verified vasospasm on CTA, including those managed with additional intra-arterial spasmolysis. Initial WFNS grade, occurrence of secondary infarction, ischemic volumes and TTP delays at the time of decline, the time to clinical decline, and the necessity for additional intra-arterial spasmolysis were identified as the most important features determining neurological outcome at 6 months.

Conclusion

The current analysis shows that cerebral perfusion in the setting of secondary cerebral ischemia following SAH is measurably improved by milrinone and norepinephrine–based hyperdynamic therapy. A long-term clinical benefit by the addition of milrinone appears likely. Separation of the direct effect of milrinone from the effect of induced hypertension is not possible based on the present dataset.

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.

Intra-aortic balloon pump for acute-on-chronic heart failure complicated by cardiogenic shock

The Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is widely implanted as temporary mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock (CS). However, its use is declining following the results of the IABP-SHOCK II trial, which failed to show a clinical benefit of IABP in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) related CS. Acute-on-chronic heart failure has become an increasingly recognized, distinct etiology of CS (HF-CS). The pathophysiology of HF-CS differs from ACS-CS, as it typically represents the progression from a state of congestion (with relatively preserved cardiac output) to a low output state with hypoperfusion. The IABP is a "volume displacement pump" that promotes forward flow from a high-capacitance reservoir to low-capacitance vessels, improving peripheral perfusion and decreasing left ventricular afterload in the setting of high filling pressures. The IABP can improve ventricular-vascular coupling and, therefore, myocardial energetics. Additionally, many HF-CS patients are candidates for cardiac replacement therapies (left ventricular assist device or heart transplantation), and, therefore, may benefit from a "bridge" strategy that stabilizes the hemodynamics and end-organ function in preparation for more durable therapies. Notably, the new United Network for Organ Sharing donor heart allocation system has recently prioritized patients on IABP support. This review describes the role of IABP for the treatment of HF-CS. It also briefly discusses new strategies for vascular access as well as a fully implantable versions for a longer duration of support.

"Assessing the hemodynamic impact of various inotropes combination in patients with cardiogenic shock with Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction -the ANAPHOR study"

BACKGROUND

Various inotropic agents/vasopressors combinations are used in patients of cardiogenic shock. We performed this study to observe hemodynamic effects of various inotrope/vasopressor combinations in patients with NSTEMI cardiogenic shock (CS) at tertiary cardiac centre METHODS AND MATERIALS: Of 3832 NSTEMI, we studied 59 consecutive such patients with CS who hadn't undergone revascularization in the first 24 h in a prospective, open label, observational study. Group 1 comprised of background Dopamine with Noradrenaline titration(N = 38), Group 2 had background Dobutamine and Noradrenaline titration(N = 15) and Group 3 comprised of triple combination of Dopamine, Noradrenaline & Adrenaline(N = 6).

RESULTS

The mean change in hemodynamic parameters between these groups from baseline to 24 h showed no statistical difference. Cardiac output(CO), mean arterial pressure(MAP), central venous pressure(CVP) and cardiac power output(CPO) in group 2 were favorable at 6 and 24 h compared to baseline but mean change was insignificant as compared to others. In group 3, the increase in MAP was significant. IABP use did not change CO, CPO or SVR in any group except lower dosages of Dobutamine (49%) in IABP group. Lower in-hospital mortality in group 2 compared to others (P = 0.004) may be reflective of sicker patients in group 1 and 3.

CONCLUSION

The mean changes in hemodynamic parameters were not significant between all groups. All regimes of inotropes when selected as per clinical indication in CS with ACS resulted in similar hemodynamic effects. The mortality difference may not truly be reflective of regimes rather reflect sicker patients in the higher mortality group.

Principles of Resuscitation

Shock from all causes carries a high mortality. Rapid and intentional intervention to resuscitate can reduce mortality and organ injury. Approaches to fluid resuscitation, vasopressor use as well as commonly assessed laboratory values are reviewed in this paper.

A Review of Inotropes and Inopressors for Effective Utilization in Patients With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

ABSTRACT

Inotropes and inopressors are often first-line treatment in patients with cardiogenic shock. We summarize the pharmacology, indications, and contraindications of dobutamine, milrinone, dopamine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, and levosimendan. We also review the data on the use of these medications for acute decompensated heart failure and cardiogenic shock in this article.

Milrinone as Compared with Dobutamine in the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Although inotropic support is a mainstay of medical therapy for cardiogenic shock, little evidence exists to guide the selection of inotropic agents in clinical practice.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with cardiogenic shock to receive milrinone or dobutamine in a double-blind fashion. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death from any cause, resuscitated cardiac arrest, receipt of a cardiac transplant or mechanical circulatory support, nonfatal myocardial infarction, transient ischemic attack or stroke diagnosed by a neurologist, or initiation of renal replacement therapy. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary composite outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 192 participants (96 in each group) were enrolled. The treatment groups did not differ significantly with respect to the primary outcome; a primary outcome event occurred in 47 participants (49%) in the milrinone group and in 52 participants (54%) in the dobutamine group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.19; P = 0.47). There were also no significant differences between the groups with respect to secondary outcomes, including in-hospital death (37% and 43% of the participants, respectively; relative risk, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.21), resuscitated cardiac arrest (7% and 9%; hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.29 to 2.07), receipt of mechanical circulatory support (12% and 15%; hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.71), or initiation of renal replacement therapy (22% and 17%; hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.73 to 2.67).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with cardiogenic shock, no significant difference between milrinone and dobutamine was found with respect to the primary composite outcome or important secondary outcomes. (Funded by the Innovation Fund of the Alternative Funding Plan for the Academic Health Sciences Centres of Ontario; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03207165.).

Vasopressors independently associated with mortality in acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUND

Increasing vasopressor dose is associated with increasing mortality in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS). It is unknown whether the use of vasopressors is independently harmful or if their use is secondary to decreasing intrinsic cardiac power output (CPO). Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices enhance CPO. We sought to evaluate the independent impact of increasing vasopressor dose on survival in the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI).

METHODS

The NCSI is a single arm prospective trial evaluating outcomes associated with the use of MCS using Impella in patients with AMICS. Early initiation of MCS placement before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and rapid de-escalation of vasopressors guided by systematic use of invasive hemodynamic measures led to 70% in-hospital survival for the first 300 patients enrolled from July 2016 to December 2019 in 57 U.S. sites.

RESULTS

Hemodynamic measures were obtained immediately after MCS and PCI. Survival curves were constructed based on CPO and use of vasopressors. For patients with CPO ≤0.6 W, survival was 77.3%, 45.0%, and 35.3% when 0, 1, or ≥ 2 vasopressors were used (p = 0.02). Similarly, for patients with CPO >0.6 W survival was 81.7%, 72.6%, and 56.8%, respectively (p = 0.01). Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that increasing vasopressor requirements were independently associated with increasing mortality (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Increasing vasopressor requirement is associated with increased mortality in AMICS independent of underlying CPO. Methods to decrease the need for vasopressors may enhance survival in AMICS.

[Pharmacological therapy of circulatory shock]

Circulatory shock requires treatment of the underlying pathology in addition to supportive pharmacological therapy that is guided by hemodynamic monitoring. Based on the evaluation of the patient's volume, perfusion and cardiac status, the following therapeutic goals should be achieved: (1) Normalization of the intra- and extravascular fluid volume. (2) Provision of sufficient perfusion pressure and organ perfusion. (3) Optimization of cardiac function including protecting an ischemic and exhausted myocardium from overload. The most important therapeutic substances are balanced electrolyte solutions and the vasopressor noradrenaline. Because there is little scientific evidence for the use of alternative drugs, these should only be given if there is a good pathophysiologic rationale and if their effect is continuously monitored and re-evaluated.

Joint EAPCI/ACVC expert consensus document on percutaneous ventricular assist devices

There has been a significant increase in the use of short-term percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) as acute circulatory support in cardiogenic shock and to provide haemodynamic support during interventional procedures, including high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions. Although frequently considered together, pVADs differ in their haemodynamic effects, management, indications, insertion techniques, and monitoring requirements. This consensus document summarizes the views of an expert panel by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and the Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care (ACVC) and appraises the value of short-term pVAD. It reviews the pathophysiological context and possible indications for pVAD in different clinical settings and provides guidance regarding the management of pVAD based on existing evidence and best current practice.

Vasoactive pharmacologic therapy in cardiogenic shock: a critical review

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is an acute complex condition leading to morbidity and mortality. Vasoactive medications, such as vasopressors and inotropes are considered the cornerstone of pharmacological treatment of CS to improve end-organ perfusion by increasing cardiac output (CO) and blood pressure (BP), thus preventing multiorgan failure.

OBJECTIVE

A critical review was conducted to analyze the currently available randomized studies of vasoactive agents in CS to determine the indications of each agent and to critically appraise the methodological quality of the studies.

METHODS

PubMed database search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on vasoactive therapy in CS. After study selection, the internal validity of the selected studies was critically appraised using the three-item Jadad scale.

RESULTS

Nine studies randomized 2388 patients with a mean age ranged between 62 and 69 years, were identified. Seven of studies investigated CS in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The studies evaluated the comparisons of norepinephrine (NE) vs. dopamine, epinephrine vs. NE, levosimendan vs. dobutamine, enoximone or placebo, and nitric oxide synthase inhibitors (NOSi) vs. placebo. The mean Jadad score of the nine studies was 3.33, with only three studies of a score of 5.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from the studies of vasoactive agents in CS carries uncertainties. The methodological quality between the studies is variable due to the inherent difficulties to conduct a study in CS. Vasopressors and inotropes continue to have a fundamental role given the lack of pharmacological alternatives.

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.

The medical treatment of cardiogenic shock: cardiovascular drugs

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss the use of vasopressors and inotropes in cardiogenic shock.

RECENT FINDINGS

The classic form or cardiogenic shock requires administration of inotropic and/or vasopressor agents to try to improve the impaired tissue perfusion. Among vasopressors various alpha-adrenergic agents, vasopressin derivatives and angiotensin can be used. The first-line therapy remains norepinephrine as it is associated with minimal adverse effects and appears to be associated by the best outcome in network meta-analyses. On the contrary, epinephrine is associated with an increased incidence of refractory shock and observational studies suggest an increased risk of death. Vasopressin may be an excellent alternative in tachycardiac patients or in the presence of pulmonary hypertension. Concerning inotropic agents, dobutamine is the first-line agent but levosimendan is an excellent alternative or additional agent in cases not responding to dobutamine. The impact on outcome of inotropic agents remains controversial.

SUMMARY

Recent studies have refined the position of the various vasopressor and inotropic agents. Norepinephrine is recommended as first-line vasopressor agent by various guidelines. Among inotropic agents, selection between the agents should be individualized and based on the hemodynamic response.

Inotropic therapies in heart failure and cardiogenic shock: an educational review

Reduced systolic function is central to the pathophysiology and clinical sequelae of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) with reduced ejection fraction and cardiogenic shock. These clinical entities are the final common pathway for marked deterioration of right or left ventricular function and can occur in multiple clinical presentations including severe ADHF, myocardial infarction, post-cardiac surgery, severe pulmonary hypertension, and advanced or end-stage chronic heart failure. Inotropic therapies improve ventricular systolic function and may be divided into three classes on the basis of their mechanism of action (calcitropes, mitotropes, and myotropes). Most currently available therapies for cardiogenic shock are calcitropes which can provide critical haemodynamic support, but also may increase myocardial oxygen demand, ischaemia, arrhythmia, and mortality. Emerging therapies to improve cardiac function such as mitotropes (e.g. perhexiline, SGLT2i) or myotropes (e.g. omecamtiv mecarbil) may provide useful alternatives in the future.

Diagnosis and Management of Myocarditis: An Evidence-Based Review for the Emergency Medicine Clinician

BACKGROUND

Myocarditis is a potentially fatal condition that can be misdiagnosed in the emergency department (ED) setting.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this narrative review article is to provide a summary of the background, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of myocarditis, with a focus on emergency clinicians.

DISCUSSION

Myocarditis occurs when inflammation of the heart musculature causes cardiac dysfunction. Symptoms may range from mild to severe and are often preceded by a viral prodrome. Laboratory assessment and an electrocardiogram can be helpful for the diagnosis, but echocardiography is the ideal test in the ED setting. Some patients may also require advanced imaging, though this will often occur during hospitalization or follow-up. Treatment is primarily focused on respiratory and hemodynamic support. Initial hemodynamic management includes vasopressors and inotropes, whereas more severe cases may require an intra-aortic balloon pump, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or a ventricular assist device. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be avoided while intravenous immunoglobulin is controversial.

CONCLUSION

Myocarditis is a serious condition with the potential for significant morbidity and mortality. It is important for clinicians to be aware of the current evidence regarding the diagnosis, management, and disposition of these patients.

Joint EAPCI/ACVC expert consensus document on percutaneous ventricular assist devices

There has been a significant increase in the use of short-term percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) as acute circulatory support in cardiogenic shock and to provide haemodynamic support during interventional procedures, including high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions. Although frequently considered together, pVADs differ in their haemodynamic effects, management, indications, insertion techniques, and monitoring requirements. This consensus document summarizes the views of an expert panel by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and the Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care (ACVC) and appraises the value of short-term pVAD. It reviews the pathophysiological context and possible indications for pVAD in different clinical settings and provides guidance regarding the management of pVAD based on existing evidence and best current practice.

Stepwise lactate kinetics in critically ill patients: prognostic, influencing factors, and clinical phenotype

Background

To investigate the optimal target e of lactate kinetics at different time during the resuscitation, the factors that influence whether the kinetics achieve the goals, and the clinical implications of different clinical phenotypes.

Methods

Patients with hyperlactatemia between May 1, 2013 and December 31, 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data, basic organ function, hemodynamic parameters at ICU admission (T0) and at 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h, arterial blood lactate and blood glucose levels, cumulative clinical treatment conditions at different time points and final patient outcomes were collected.

Results

A total of 3298 patients were enrolled, and the mortality rate was 12.2%. The cutoff values of lactate kinetics for prognosis at 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h were 21%, 40%, 57%, 66%, and 72%. The APACHE II score, SOFA score, heart rate (HR), and blood glucose were risk factors that correlated with whether the lactate kinetics attained the target goal. Based on the pattens of the lactate kinetics, eight clinical phenotypes were proposed. The odds ratios of death for clinical phenotypes VIII, IV, and II were 4.39, 4.2, and 5.27-fold of those of clinical phenotype I, respectively.

Conclusion

Stepwise recovery of lactate kinetics is an important resuscitation target for patients with hyperlactatemia. The APACHE II score, SOFA score, HR, and blood glucose were independent risk factors that influenced achievement of lactate kinetic targets. The cinical phenotypes of stepwise lactate kinetics are closely related to the prognosis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-021-01293-x.

Good clinical practice for the use of vasopressor and inotropic drugs in critically ill patients: state-of-the-art and expert consensus

Vasopressors and inotropic agents are widely used in critical care. However, strong evidence supporting their use in critically ill patients is lacking in many clinical scenarios. Thus, the Italian Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) promoted a project aimed to provide indications for good clinical practice on the use of vasopressors and inotropes, and on the management of critically ill patients with shock. A panel of 16 experts in the field of intensive care medicine and hemodynamics has been established. Systematic review of the available literature was performed based on PICO questions. Basing on available evidence, the panel prepared a summary of evidence and then wrote the clinical questions. A modified semi-quantitative RAND/UCLA appropriateness method has been used to determine the appropriateness of specific clinical scenarios. The panel identified 29 clinical questions for the use of vasopressors and inotropes in patients with septic shock and cardiogenic shock. High level of agreement exists among the panel members about appropriateness of inotropes/vasopressors' use in patients with septic shock and cardiogenic shock.

Effects of intraoperative adrenergic administration on postoperative hyperlactatemia in open colon surgery: an observational study

Background

Postoperative Hyperlactatemia (PO-HL) is a frequent condition associated with poor prognosis. In recent years, there has been growing evidence that adrenergic stimulation may contribute to increased lactate levels. The use of adrenergic agonists for the control of intraoperative hypotension is frequent, and its impact on the development of PO-HL is unknown.

Objective

To evaluate whether the use of intraoperative adrenergic agents is associated with the occurrence of PO-HL.

Methods

This was a prospective observational study. The inclusion criteria were undergoing elective open colon surgery, being ≥60 years old and signing informed consent. The exclusion criteria were cognitive impairment, unplanned surgery, and anticipated need for postoperative mechanical ventilation. Baseline and intraoperative variables were collected, and arterial lactate data were collected at baseline and every 6 hours postoperatively for 24 hours. Hyperlactatemia was defined as lactate >2.1 mEq.L^-1.

Results

We studied 28 patients, 61% of whom developed hyperlactatemia. The variables associated with PO-HL in the univariate analysis were anesthetic time, the total dose of intraoperative ephedrine, and lower intraoperative central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO₂). Multivariate analysis confirmed the association between the use of ephedrine (p = 0.004), intraoperative hypotension (p = 0.026), and use of phenylephrine (p = 0.001) with PO-HL.

Conclusions

The use of intraoperative ephedrine, phenylephrine and intraoperative hypotension were independently associated with the development of PO-HL. This finding should lead to new studies in this field, as well as a judicious interpretation of the finding of a postoperative increase in lactate levels.

Vasopressors and Inotropes as Predictors of Mortality in Acute Severe Cardiogenic Shock Treated With the Impella Device

BACKGROUND

Vasopressors and inotropes are the primary pharmacologic agents in the management of cardiogenic shock. Increased use of these agents in the setting of cardiogenic shock treated with the Impella is associated with increased mortality. This study evaluates the use of vasopressors and inotropes as predictors of mortality in patients treated with the Impella for acute cardiogenic shock.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 276 patients treated with the Impella 2.5, Impella CP, or Impella 5.0 from March 2011 to January 2020 at a single, tertiary referral center for acute cardiogenic shock.

RESULTS

All-cause in-hospital mortality was 44.6%. Mortality significantly increased with escalating use of vasopressors and inotropes, with the most significant increase in mortality from use of 2 agents to the use of 3 agents (8.1% vs 39.7%, p < 0.001). There was no difference in mortality whether dobutamine or milrinone was used (44.4% vs 35.7%, p = 0.41); there was increased mortality with use of multiple inotropes. Patients treated with only vasopressors had increased mortality compared to those treated with a combination of agents that included 1 inotrope.

CONCLUSIONS

The escalating need for vasopressors and inotropes and particular combinations of these agents are significant predictors of mortality that may help determine whether the Impella or higher level of support is more appropriate to treat acute cardiogenic shock.