Effects of norepinephrine on mean systemic pressure and venous return in human septic shock*:

Venous return physiology applied to post-cardiac arrest haemodynamic management: a post hoc analysis of the NEUROPROTECT trial

BACKGROUND

The European Resuscitation Council 2021 guidelines for haemodynamic monitoring and management during post-resuscitation care from cardiac arrest call for an individualised approach to therapeutic interventions. Combining the cardiac function and venous return curves with the inclusion of the mean systemic filling pressure enables a physiological illustration of intravascular volume, vasoconstriction and inotropy. An analogue mean systemic filling pressure (Pmsa) may be calculated once cardiac output, mean arterial and central venous pressure are known. The NEUROPROTECT trial compared targeting a mean arterial pressure of 65 mmHg (standard) versus an early goal directed haemodynamic optimisation targeting 85 mmHg (high) in ICU for 36 h after cardiac arrest. The trial data were used in this study to calculate post hoc Pmsa and its expanded variables to comprehensively describe venous return physiology during post-cardiac arrest management. A general estimating equation model was used to analyse continuous variables split by standard and high mean arterial pressure groups.

RESULTS

Data from 52 patients in each group were analysed. The driving pressure for venous return, and thus cardiac output, was higher in the high MAP group (p < 0.001) along with a numerically increased estimated stressed intravascular volume (mean difference 0.27 [- 0.014-0.55] L, p = 0.06). The heart efficiency was comparable (p = 0.43) in both the standard and high MAP target groups, suggesting that inotropy was similar despite increased arterial load in the high MAP group (p = 0.01). The efficiency of fluid boluses to increase cardiac output was increased in the higher MAP compared to standard MAP group (mean difference 0.26 [0.08-0.43] fraction units, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Calculation of the analogue mean systemic filling pressure and expanded variables using haemodynamic data from the NEUROPROTECT trial demonstrated an increased venous return, and thus cardiac output, as well as increased volume responsiveness associated with targeting a higher MAP. Further studies of the analogue mean systemic filling pressure and its derived variables are warranted to individualise post-resuscitation care and evaluate any clinical benefit associated with this monitoring approach.

Renal medullary perfusion differs from that in renal cortex in patients with sepsis associated acute kidney injury and correlates with renal function prognosis: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Renal perfusion status remains poorly studied at the bedside during sepsis associated acute kidney injury (AKI). The aim of the study is to examine renal cortical and medullary perfusion using renal contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in septic patients.

METHODS

In this single-center, prospective longitudinal study, septic patients were enrolled. Renal ultrasonography was performed within 24 hours of ICU admission (D1), then repeated at D3, D5 and D7. Each measurement consisted of three destruction replenishment sequences that were recorded for delayed analysis with dedicated software (Vuebox). Renal cortex and medulla perfusion were quantified by measuring time to peak (TTP). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate 28-day renal prognosis.

RESULTS

The study included 149 septic patients, including 70 non-AKI patients and 79 AKI patients. Both renal cortical and medullary TTP was longer in the AKI group than in the non-AKI group. The difference of TTP between renal cortex and medulla in AKI group was higher than that in the non-AKI group (p = 0.000). Medullary TTP on day 3 had the best performance in predicting the prognosis of 28-day renal function (AUC 0.673, 95% confidence interval 0.528-0.818, p = 0.024), and its cut-off value was 45 s with a sensitivity 52.2% and a specificity of 82.1%. Cortical TTP on day 3 also had the performance in predicting the prognosis of 28-day renal function (AUC 0.657, 95% confidence interval 0.514-0.800, p = 0.039), and its cut-off value was 33 s with a sensitivity 78.3% and a specificity of 55.0%.

CONCLUSION

Renal medullary perfusion alterations differ from those in cortex, with the medulla is worse. Simultaneous and dynamic assessment of cortical and medullary microcirculatory flow alterations necessary. TTP on day 3, especially medullary TTP, seems to be a relatively stable and useful indicator, which correlates with 28-day renal function prognosis in septic patients. Early correction of renal cortical and medullary perfusion alterations reduces the incidence of adverse renal events.

Blood pressure response index and clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock: a multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is a leading cause of mortality in intensive care units and vasoactive drugs are widely used in septic patients. The cardiovascular response of septic shock patients during resuscitation therapies and the relationship of the cardiovascular response and clinical outcome has not been clearly described.

METHODS

We included adult patients admitted to the ICU with sepsis from Peking Union Medical College Hospital (internal), Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) and eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD). The Blood Pressure Response Index (BPRI) was defined as the ratio between the mean arterial pressure and the vasoactive-inotropic score. BRRI was compared with existing risk scores on predicting in-hospital death. The relationship between BPRI and in-hospital mortality was calculated. A XGBoost's machine learning model identified the features that influence short-term changes in BPRI.

FINDINGS

There were 2139, 9455, and 4202 patients in the internal, MIMIC-IV and eICU-CRD cohorts, respectively. BPRI had a better AUROC for predicting in-hospital mortality than SOFA (0.78 vs. 0.73, p = 0.01) and APS (0.78 vs. 0.74, p = 0.03) in the internal cohort. The estimated odds ratio for death per unit decrease in BPRI was 1.32 (95% CI 1.20-1.45) when BPRI was below 7.1 vs. 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-1.01) when BPRI was above 7.1 in the internal cohort; similar relationships were found in MIMIC-IV and eICU-CRD. Respiratory support and latest cumulative 12-h fluid balance were intervention-related features influencing BPRI.

INTERPRETATION

BPRI is an easy, rapid, precise indicator of the response of patients with septic shock to vasoactive drugs. It is a comparable and even better predictor of prognosis than SOFA and APS in sepsis and it is simpler and more convenient in use. The application of BPRI could help clinicians identify potentially at-risk patients and provide clues for treatment.

FUNDING

Fundings for the Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation; the National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding; the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS) from Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and the National Key R&D Program of China, Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China.

Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis on Norepinephrine Use in Septic Shock: Why Is It Still a Male World?

Sex and gender are fundamental health determinants and their role as modifiers of treatment response is increasingly recognized. Norepinephrine is a cornerstone of septic shock management and its use is based on the highest level of evidence compared to dopamine. The related 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SCC) recommendation is presumably applicable to both females and males; however, a sex- and gender-based analysis is lacking, thus not allowing generalizable conclusions. This paper was aimed at exploring whether sex- and gender-disaggregated data are available in the evidence supporting this recommendation. For all the studies underpinning it, four pairs of authors, including a woman and a man, extracted data concerning sex and gender, according to the Sex and Gender Equity in Research guidelines. Nine manuscripts were included with an overall population of 2126 patients, of which 43.2% were females. No sex analysis was performed and gender was never reported. In conclusion, the present manuscript highlighted that the clinical studies underlying the SCC recommendation of NE administration in septic shock have neglected the likely role of sex and gender as modifiers of treatment response, thus missing the opportunity of sex- and gender-specific guidelines.

Should we initiate vasopressors earlier in patients with septic shock: A mini systemic review

Septic shock treatment remains a major challenge for intensive care units, despite the recent prominent advances in both management and outcomes. Vasopressors serve as a cornerstone of septic shock therapy, but there is still controversy over the timing of administration. Specifically, it remains unclear whether vasopressors should be used early in the course of treatment. Here, we provide a systematic review of the literature on the timing of vasopressor administration. Research was systematically identified through PubMed, Embase and Cochrane searching according to PRISMA guidelines. Fourteen studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. The pathophysiological basis for early vasopressor use was classified, with the exploration on indications for the early administration of mono-vasopressors or their combination with vasopressin or angiotensinII. We found that mortality was 28.1%-47.7% in the early vasopressors group, and 33.6%-54.5% in the control group. We also investigated the issue of vasopressor responsiveness. Furthermore, we acknowledged the subsequent challenge of administration of high-dose norepinephrine via peripheral veins with early vasopressor use. Based on the literature review, we propose a possible protocol for the early initiation of vasopressors in septic shock resuscitation.

Hemodynamic management of septic shock: beyond the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines

Although the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines provide standardized and generalized guidance, they are less individualized. This review focuses on recent updates in the hemodynamic management of septic shock. Monitoring and intervention for septic shock should be personalized according to the phase of shock. In the salvage phase, fluid resuscitation and vasopressors should be given to provide life-saving tissue perfusion. During the optimization phase, tissue perfusion should be optimized. In the stabilization and de-escalation phases, minimal fluid infusion and safe fluid removal should be performed, respectively, while preserving organ perfusion. There is controversy surrounding the use of restrictive versus liberal fluid strategies after initial resuscitation. Fluid administration after initial resuscitation should depend upon the patient's fluid responsiveness and requires individualized management. A number of dynamic tests have been proposed to monitor fluid responsiveness, which can help clinicians decide whether to give fluid or not. The optimal timing for the initiation of vasopressor agents is unknown. Recent data suggest that early vasopressor initiation should be considered. Inotropes can be considered in patients with decreased cardiac contractility associated with impaired tissue perfusion despite adequate volume status and arterial blood pressure. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation should be considered for refractory septic shock with severe cardiac systolic dysfunction.

Evidence for a personalized early start of norepinephrine in septic shock

During septic shock, vasopressor infusion is usually started only after having corrected the hypovolaemic component of circulatory failure, even in the most severe patients. However, earlier administration of norepinephrine, simultaneously with fluid resuscitation, should be considered in some cases. Duration and depth of hypotension strongly worsen outcomes in septic shock patients. However, the response of arterial pressure to volume expansion is inconstant, delayed, and transitory. In the case of profound, life-threatening hypotension, relying only on fluids to restore blood pressure may unduly prolong hypotension and organ hypoperfusion. Conversely, norepinephrine rapidly increases and better stabilizes arterial pressure. By binding venous adrenergic receptors, it transforms part of the unstressed blood volume into stressed blood volume. It increases the mean systemic filling pressure and increases the fluid-induced increase in mean systemic filling pressure, as observed in septic shock patients. This may improve end-organ perfusion, as shown by some animal studies. Two observational studies comparing early vs. later administration of norepinephrine in septic shock patients using a propensity score showed that early administration reduced the administered fluid volume and day-28 mortality. Conversely, in another propensity score-based study, norepinephrine administration within the first hour following shock diagnosis increased day-28 mortality. The only randomized controlled study that compared the early administration of norepinephrine alone to a placebo showed that the early continuous administration of norepinephrine at a fixed dose of 0.05 µg/kg/min, with norepinephrine added in open label, showed that shock control was achieved more often than in the placebo group. The choice of starting norepinephrine administration early should be adapted to the patient's condition. Logically, it should first be addressed to patients with profound hypotension, when the arterial tone is very low, as suggested by a low diastolic blood pressure (e.g. ≤ 40 mmHg), or by a high diastolic shock index (heart rate/diastolic blood pressure) (e.g. ≥ 3). Early administration of norepinephrine should also be considered in patients in whom fluid accumulation is likely to occur or in whom fluid accumulation would be particularly deleterious (in case of acute respiratory distress syndrome or intra-abdominal hypertension for example).

Cardiopulmonary interactions-which monitoring tools to use?

Heart-lung interactions occur due to the mechanical influence of intrathoracic pressure and lung volume changes on cardiac and circulatory function. These interactions manifest as respiratory fluctuations in venous, pulmonary, and arterial pressures, potentially affecting stroke volume. In the context of functional hemodynamic monitoring, pulse or stroke volume variation (pulse pressure variation or stroke volume variability) are commonly employed to assess volume or preload responsiveness. However, correct interpretation of these parameters requires a comprehensive understanding of the physiological factors that determine pulse pressure and stroke volume. These factors include pleural pressure, venous return, pulmonary vessel function, lung mechanics, gas exchange, and specific cardiac factors. A comprehensive knowledge of heart-lung physiology is vital to avoid clinical misjudgments, particularly in cases of right ventricular (RV) failure or diastolic dysfunction. Therefore, when selecting monitoring devices or technologies, these factors must be considered. Invasive arterial pressure measurements of variations in breath-to-breath pressure swings are commonly used to monitor heart-lung interactions. Echocardiography or pulmonary artery catheters are valuable tools for differentiating preload responsiveness from right ventricular failure, while changes in diastolic function should be assessed alongside alterations in airway or pleural pressure, which can be approximated by esophageal pressure. In complex clinical scenarios like ARDS, combined forms of shock or right heart failure, additional information on gas exchange and pulmonary mechanics aids in the interpretation of heart-lung interactions. This review aims to describe monitoring techniques that provide clinicians with an integrative understanding of a patient's condition, enabling accurate assessment and patient care.

The Eight Unanswered and Answered Questions about the Use of Vasopressors in Septic Shock

Septic shock is mainly characterized-in addition to hypovolemia-by vasoplegia as a consequence of a release of inflammatory mediators. Systemic vasodilatation due to depressed vascular tone results in arterial hypotension, which induces or worsens organ hypoperfusion. Accordingly, vasopressor therapy is mandatory to correct hypotension and to reverse organ perfusion due to hypotension. Currently, two vasopressors are recommended to be used, norepinephrine and vasopressin. Norepinephrine, an α₁-agonist agent, is the first-line vasopressor. Vasopressin is suggested to be added to norepinephrine in cases of inadequate mean arterial pressure instead of escalating the doses of norepinephrine. However, some questions about the bedside use of these vasopressors remain. Some of these questions have been well answered, some of them not clearly addressed, and some others not yet answered. Regarding norepinephrine, we firstly reviewed the arguments in favor of the choice of norepinephrine as a first-line vasopressor. Secondly, we detailed the arguments found in the recent literature in favor of an early introduction of norepinephrine. Thirdly, we reviewed the literature referring to the issue of titrating the doses of norepinephrine using an individualized resuscitation target, and finally, we addressed the issue of escalation of doses in case of refractory shock, a remaining unanswered question. For vasopressin, we reviewed the rationale for adding vasopressin to norepinephrine. Then, we discussed the optimal time for vasopressin administration. Subsequently, we addressed the issue of the optimal vasopressin dose, and finally we discussed the best strategy to wean these two vasopressors when combined.

Fluids and Early Vasopressors in the Management of Septic Shock: Do We Have the Right Answers Yet?

Septic shock is a common condition associated with hypotension and organ dysfunction. It is associated with high mortality rates of up to 60% despite the best recommended resuscitation strategies in international guidelines. Patients with septic shock generally have a Mean Arterial Pressure below 65 mmHg and hypotension is the most important determinant of mortality among this group of patients. The extent and duration of hypotension are important. The two initial options that we have are 1) administration of intravenous (IV) fluids and 2) vasopressors, The current recommendation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines to administer 30 ml/kg fluid cannot be applied to all patients. Complications of fluid over-resuscitation further delay organ recovery, prolong ICU and hospital length of stay, and increase mortality. The only reason for administering intravenous fluids in a patient with circulatory shock is to increase the mean systemic filling pressure in a patient who is volume-responsive, such that cardiac output also increases. The use of vasopressors seems to be a more appropriate strategy, the very early administration of vasopressors, preferably during the first hour after diagnosis of septic shock, may have a multimodal action and potential advantages, leading to lower morbidity and mortality in the management of septic patients. Vasopressor therapy should be initiated as soon as possible in patients with septic shock.

The Association of Vasopressor Administration through a Midline Catheter with Catheter-related Complications

Rationale: Little is known about the safety of infusing vasopressors through a midline catheter. Objectives: To evaluate safety outcomes after vasopressor administration through a midline. Methods: We conducted a cohort study of adults admitted to 39 hospitals in Michigan (December 2017-March 2022) who received vasopressors while either a midline or peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) was in place. Patients receiving vasopressors through a midline were compared with those receiving vasopressors through a PICC and, separately, to those with midlines in place but who received vasopressors through a different catheter. We used descriptive statistics to characterize and compare cohort characteristics. Multivariable mixed effects logistic regression models were fit to determine the association between vasopressor administration through a midline with outcomes, primarily catheter-related complications (bloodstream infection, superficial thrombophlebitis, exit site infection, or catheter occlusion). Results: Our cohort included 287 patients with midlines through which vasopressors were administered, 1,660 with PICCs through which vasopressors were administered, and 884 patients with midlines who received vasopressors through a separate catheter. Age (median [interquartile range]: 68.7 [58.6-75.7], 66.6 [57.1-75.0], and 67.6 [58.7-75.8] yr) and gender (percentage female: 50.5%, 47.3%, and 43.8%) were similar in all groups. The frequency of catheter-related complications was lower in patients with midlines used for vasopressors than PICCs used for vasopressors (5.2% vs. 13.4%; P < 0.001) but similar to midlines with vasopressor administration through a different device (5.2% vs. 6.3%; P = 0.49). After adjustment, administration of vasopressors through a midline was not associated with catheter-related complications compared with PICCs with vasopressors (adjusted odds ratios [aOR], 0.65 [95% confidence interval, 0.31-1.33]; P = 0.23) or midlines with vasopressors elsewhere (aOR, 0.85 [0.46-1.58]; P = 0.59). Midlines used for vasopressors were associated with greater risk of systemic thromboembolism (vs. PICCs with vasopressors: aOR, 2.69 [1.31-5.49]; P = 0.008; vs. midlines with vasopressors elsewhere: aOR, 2.42 [1.29-4.54]; P = 0.008) but not thromboses restricted to the ipsilateral upper extremity (vs. PICCs with vasopressors: aOR, 2.35 [0.83-6.63]; P = 0.10; model did not converge for vs. midlines with vasopressors elsewhere). Conclusions: We found no significant association of vasopressor administration through a midline with catheter-related complications. However, we identified increased odds of systemic (but not ipsilateral upper extremity) venous thromboembolism warranting further evaluation.

Ventriculo-arterial (un)coupling in septic shock: Impact of current and upcoming hemodynamic drugs

Sepsis is an archetype of distributive shock and combines different levels of alterations in preload, afterload, and often cardiac contractility. The use of hemodynamic drugs has evolved over the past few years, along with the invasive and non-invasive tools used to measure these components in real time. However, none of them is impeccable, which is why the mortality of septic shock remains too high. The concept of ventriculo-arterial coupling (VAC) allows for the integration of these three fundamental macroscopic hemodynamic components. In this mini review, we discuss the knowledge, tools, and limitations of VAC measurement, along with the evidence supporting ventriculo-arterial uncoupling in septic shock. Finally, the impact of recommended hemodynamic drugs and molecules on VAC is detailed.

2023 Update on Sepsis and Septic Shock in Adult Patients: Management in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Sepsis/septic shock is a life-threatening and time-dependent condition that requires timely management to reduce mortality. This review aims to update physicians with regard to the main pillars of treatment for this insidious condition.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE were searched from inception with special attention paid to November 2021-January 2023.

RESULTS

The management of sepsis/septic shock is challenging and involves different pathophysiological aspects, encompassing empirical antimicrobial treatment (which is promptly administered after microbial tests), fluid (crystalloids) replacement (to be established according to fluid tolerance and fluid responsiveness), and vasoactive agents (e.g., norepinephrine (NE)), which are employed to maintain mean arterial pressure above 65 mmHg and reduce the risk of fluid overload. In cases of refractory shock, vasopressin (rather than epinephrine) should be combined with NE to reach an acceptable level of pressure control. If mechanical ventilation is indicated, the tidal volume should be reduced from 10 to 6 mL/kg. Heparin is administered to prevent venous thromboembolism, and glycemic control is recommended. The efficacy of other treatments (e.g., proton-pump inhibitors, sodium bicarbonate, etc.) is largely debated, and such treatments might be used on a case-to-case basis.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of sepsis/septic shock has significantly progressed in the last few years. Improving knowledge of the main therapeutic cornerstones of this challenging condition is crucial to achieve better patient outcomes.

Blood volume in patients likely to be preload responsive: a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Preload responsive postoperative patients with signs of inadequate organ perfusion are commonly assumed to be hypovolemic and therefore treated with fluids to increase preload. However, preload is influenced not only by blood volume, but also by venous vascular tone and the contribution of these factors to preload responsiveness in this setting is unknown. Based on this, the objective of this study was to investigate blood volume status in preload-responsive postoperative patients.

METHODS

Data from a clinical trial including postoperative patients after major abdominal surgery were analyzed. Patients with signs of inadequate organ perfusion and with data from a passive leg raising test (PLR) were included. An increase in pulse pressure by ≥ 9% was used to identify patients likely to be preload responsive. Blood volume was calculated from plasma volume measured using radiolabelled albumin and hematocrit. Patients with a blood volume of at least 10% above or below estimated normal volume were considered hyper- and hypovolemic, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 63 patients were included in the study. Median (IQR) blood volume in the total was 57 (50-65) ml/kg, and change in pulse pressure after PLR was 14 (7-24)%. A total of 43 patients were preload responsive. Of these patients, 44% were hypovolemic, 28% euvolemic and 28% hypervolemic.

CONCLUSIONS

A large fraction of postoperative patients with signs of hypoperfusion that are likely to be preload responsive, are hypervolemic. In these patients, treatments other than fluid administration may be a more rational approach to increase cardiac output. Trial registration EudraCT 2013-004446-42.

How I personalize fluid therapy in septic shock?

During septic shock, fluid therapy is aimed at increasing cardiac output and improving tissue oxygenation, but it poses two problems: it has inconsistent and transient efficacy, and it has many well-documented deleterious effects. We suggest that there is a place for its personalization according to the patient characteristics and the clinical situation, at all stages of circulatory failure. Regarding the choice of fluid for volume expansion, isotonic saline induces hyperchloremic acidosis, but only for very large volumes administered. We suggest that balanced solutions should be reserved for patients who have already received large volumes and in whom the chloremia is rising. The initial volume expansion, intended to compensate for the constant hypovolaemia in the initial phase of septic shock, cannot be adapted to the patient's weight only, as suggested by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, but should also consider potential absolute hypovolemia induced by fluid losses. After the initial fluid infusion, preload responsiveness may rapidly disappear, and it should be assessed. The choice between tests used for this purpose depends on the presence or absence of mechanical ventilation, the monitoring in place and the risk of fluid accumulation. In non-intubated patients, the passive leg raising test and the mini-fluid challenge are suitable. In patients without cardiac output monitoring, tests like the tidal volume challenge, the passive leg raising test and the mini-fluid challenge can be used as they can be performed by measuring changes in pulse pressure variation, assessed through an arterial line. The mini-fluid challenge should not be repeated in patients who already received large volumes of fluids. The variables to assess fluid accumulation depend on the clinical condition. In acute respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary arterial occlusion pressure, extravascular lung water and pulmonary vascular permeability index assess the risk of worsening alveolar oedema better than arterial oxygenation. In case of abdominal problems, the intra-abdominal pressure should be taken into account. Finally, fluid depletion in the de-escalation phase is considered in patients with significant fluid accumulation. Fluid removal can be guided by preload responsiveness testing, since haemodynamic deterioration is likely to occur in patients with a preload dependent state.

Central venous pressure and dynamic indices to assess fluid appropriateness in critically ill patients: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

The correct identification of the appropriateness of fluid administration is important for the treatment of critically ill patients. Static and dynamic indices used to identify fluid responsiveness have been developed throughout the years, nonetheless fluid responsiveness does not indicate that fluid administration is appropriate, and indexes to evaluate appropriateness of fluid administration are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate if central venous pressure (CVP) anddynamic indices could correctly identify fluid appropriateness for critically ill patients.

METHODS

Data from 31 ICU patients, for a total of 53 observations, was included in the analysis. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on the appropriateness of fluid administration. Fluid appropriateness was defined in presence of a low cardiac index (< 2.5 l/min/m2) without any sign of fluid overload, as assessed by global end-diastolic volume index, extravascular lung water index or pulmonary artery occlusion pressure.

RESULTS

For 10 patients, fluid administration was deemed appropriate, while for 21 patients it was deemed inappropriate. Central venous pressure was not different between the two cohorts (mean CVP 11 (4) mmHg in the fluid inappropriate group, 12 (4) mmHg in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.58). The same is true for pulse pressure variation (median PPV 5 [2, 9] % in the fluid inappropriate group, 4 [3, 13] % in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.57), for inferior vena cava distensibility (mean inferior vena cava distensibility 24 (14) % in the fluid inappropriate group, 22 (16) % in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.75) and for changes in end tidal carbon dioxide during a passive leg raising test (median d.ETCO2 1.5 [0.0, 2.0]% in the fluid inappropriate group, 1.0 [0.0, 2.0] % in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.98). There was no association between static and dynamic indices and fluid appropriateness.

CONCLUSIONS

Central venous pressure, pulse pressure variation, changes in end tidal carbon dioxide during a passive leg raising test, inferior vena cava distensibility were not associated with fluid appropriateness in our cohorts.

Dynamic Arterial Elastance to Predict Mean Arterial Pressure Decrease after Reduction of Vasopressor in Septic Shock Patients

After fluid status optimization, norepinephrine infusion represents the cornerstone of septic shock treatment. De-escalation of vasopressors should be considered with caution, as hypotension increases the risk of mortality. In this prospective observational study including 42 patients, we assess the role of dynamic elastance (EaDyn), i.e., the ratio between pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation, which can be measured noninvasively by the MostCare monitoring system, to predict a mean arterial pressure (MAP) drop > 10% 30 min after norepinephrine reduction. Patients were divided into responders (MAP falling > 10%) and non-responders (MAP falling < 10%). The receiver-operating-characteristic curve identified an area under the curve of the EaDyn value to predict a MAP decrease > 10% of 0.84. An EaDyn cut-off of 0.84 predicted a MAP drop > 10% with a sensitivity of 0.71 and a specificity of 0.89. In a multivariate logistic regression, EaDyn was significantly and independently associated with MAP decrease (OR 0.001, 95% confidence interval 0.00001−0.081, p < 0.001). The nomogram model for the probability of MAP decrease > 10% showed a C-index of 0.90. In conclusion, in a septic shock cohort, EaDyn correlates well with the risk of decrease of MAP > 10% after norepinephrine reduction.

A plea for personalization of the hemodynamic management of septic shock

Although guidelines provide excellent expert guidance for managing patients with septic shock, they leave room for personalization according to patients' condition. Hemodynamic monitoring depends on the evolution phase: salvage, optimization, stabilization, and de-escalation. Initially during the salvage phase, monitoring to identify shock etiology and severity should include arterial pressure and lactate measurements together with clinical examination, particularly skin mottling and capillary refill time. Low diastolic blood pressure may trigger vasopressor initiation. At this stage, echocardiography may be useful to identify significant cardiac dysfunction. During the optimization phase, echocardiographic monitoring should be pursued and completed by the assessment of tissue perfusion through central or mixed-venous oxygen saturation, lactate, and carbon dioxide veno-arterial gradient. Transpulmonary thermodilution and the pulmonary artery catheter should be considered in the most severe patients. Fluid therapy also depends on shock phases. While administered liberally during the resuscitation phase, fluid responsiveness should be assessed during the optimization phase. During stabilization, fluid infusion should be minimized. In the de-escalation phase, safe fluid withdrawal could be achieved by ensuring tissue perfusion is preserved. Norepinephrine is recommended as first-line vasopressor therapy, while vasopressin may be preferred in some patients. Essential questions remain regarding optimal vasopressor selection, combination therapy, and the most effective and safest escalation. Serum renin and the angiotensin I/II ratio may identify patients who benefit most from angiotensin II. The optimal therapeutic strategy for shock requiring high-dose vasopressors is scant. In all cases, vasopressor therapy should be individualized, based on clinical evaluation and blood flow measurements to avoid excessive vasoconstriction. Inotropes should be considered in patients with decreased cardiac contractility associated with impaired tissue perfusion. Based on pharmacologic properties, we suggest as the first test a limited dose of dobutamine, to add enoximone or milrinone in the second line and substitute or add levosimendan if inefficient. Regarding adjunctive therapies, while hydrocortisone is nowadays advised in patients receiving high doses of vasopressors, patients responding to corticosteroids may be identified in the future by the analysis of selected cytokines or specific transcriptomic endotypes. To conclude, although some general rules apply for shock management, a personalized approach should be considered for hemodynamic monitoring and support.

How can assessing hemodynamics help to assess volume status?

In critically ill patients, fluid infusion is aimed at increasing cardiac output and tissue perfusion. However, it may contribute to fluid overload which may be harmful. Thus, volume status, risks and potential efficacy of fluid administration and/or removal should be carefully evaluated, and monitoring techniques help for this purpose. Central venous pressure is a marker of right ventricular preload. Very low values indicate hypovolemia, while extremely high values suggest fluid harmfulness. The pulmonary artery catheter enables a comprehensive assessment of the hemodynamic profile and is particularly useful for indicating the risk of pulmonary oedema through the pulmonary artery occlusion pressure. Besides cardiac output and preload, transpulmonary thermodilution measures extravascular lung water, which reflects the extent of lung flooding and assesses the risk of fluid infusion. Echocardiography estimates the volume status through intravascular volumes and pressures. Finally, lung ultrasound estimates lung edema. Guided by these variables, the decision to infuse fluid should first consider specific triggers, such as signs of tissue hypoperfusion. Second, benefits and risks of fluid infusion should be weighted. Thereafter, fluid responsiveness should be assessed. Monitoring techniques help for this purpose, especially by providing real time and precise measurements of cardiac output. When decided, fluid resuscitation should be performed through fluid challenges, the effects of which should be assessed through critical endpoints including cardiac output. This comprehensive evaluation of the risk, benefits and efficacy of fluid infusion helps to individualize fluid management, which should be preferred over a fixed restrictive or liberal strategy.

Decreased renal cortical perfusion, independent of changes in renal blood flow and sublingual microcirculatory impairment, is associated with the severity of acute kidney injury in patients with septic shock

Background

Reduced renal perfusion has been implicated in the development of septic AKI. However, the relative contributions of macro- and microcirculatory blood flow and the extent to which impaired perfusion is an intrinsic renal phenomenon or part of a wider systemic shock state remains unclear.

Methods

Single-centre prospective longitudinal observational study was carried out. Assessments were made at Day 0, 1, 2 and 4 after ICU admission of renal cortical perfusion in 50 patients with septic shock and ten healthy volunteers using contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). Contemporaneous measurements were made using transthoracic echocardiography of cardiac output. Renal artery blood flow was calculated using velocity time integral and vessel diameter. Assessment of the sublingual microcirculation was made using handheld video microscopy. Patients were classified based on the degree of AKI: severe = KDIGO 3 v non-severe = KDIGO 0–2.

Results

At study enrolment, patients with severe AKI (37/50) had prolonged CEUS mean transit time (mTT) (10.2 vs. 5.5 s, p < 0.05), and reduced wash-in rate (WiR) (409 vs. 1203 au, p < 0.05) and perfusion index (PI) (485 vs. 1758 au, p < 0.05); differences persisted throughout the entire study. Conversely, there were no differences in either cardiac index, renal blood flow or renal resistive index. Sublingual microcirculatory variables were not significantly different between groups at study enrolment or at any subsequent time point. Although lactate was higher in the severe AKI group at study enrolment, these differences did not persist, and there were no differences in either ScvO2 or ScvCO2-SaCO2 between groups. Patients with severe AKI received higher doses of noradrenaline (0.34 vs. 0.21mcg/kg/min, p < 0.05). Linear regression analysis showed no correlation between mTT and cardiac index (R-0.18) or microcirculatory flow index (R-0.16).

Conclusion

Renal cortical hypoperfusion is a persistent feature in critically ill septic patients who develop AKI and does not appear to be caused by reductions in macrovascular renal blood flow or cardiac output. Cortical hypoperfusion appears not be associated with changes in the sublingual microcirculation, raising the possibility of a specific renal pathogenesis that may be amenable to therapeutic intervention.

Trial Registration Clinical Trials.gov NCT03713307, 19 Oct 2018.

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

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

Prediction of fluid responsiveness. What’s new?

Although the administration of fluid is the first treatment considered in almost all cases of circulatory failure, this therapeutic option poses two essential problems: the increase in cardiac output induced by a bolus of fluid is inconstant, and the deleterious effects of fluid overload are now clearly demonstrated. This is why many tests and indices have been developed to detect preload dependence and predict fluid responsiveness. In this review, we take stock of the data published in the field over the past three years. Regarding the passive leg raising test, we detail the different stroke volume surrogates that have recently been described to measure its effects using minimally invasive and easily accessible methods. We review the limits of the test, especially in patients with intra-abdominal hypertension. Regarding the end-expiratory occlusion test, we also present recent investigations that have sought to measure its effects without an invasive measurement of cardiac output. Although the limits of interpretation of the respiratory variation of pulse pressure and of the diameter of the vena cava during mechanical ventilation are now well known, several recent studies have shown how changes in pulse pressure variation itself during other tests reflect simultaneous changes in cardiac output, allowing these tests to be carried out without its direct measurement. This is particularly the case during the tidal volume challenge, a relatively recent test whose reliability is increasingly well established. The mini-fluid challenge has the advantage of being easy to perform, but it requires direct measurement of cardiac output, like the classic fluid challenge. Initially described with echocardiography, recent studies have investigated other means of judging its effects. We highlight the problem of their precision, which is necessary to evidence small changes in cardiac output. Finally, we point out other tests that have appeared more recently, such as the Trendelenburg manoeuvre, a potentially interesting alternative for patients in the prone position.

Recombinant human brain natriuretic peptide ameliorates venous return function in congestive heart failure

Aims

Recombinant human brain natriuretic peptide (rh‐BNP) is commonly used as a decongestive therapy. This study aimed to investigate the instant effects of rh‐BNP on cardiac output and venous return function in post‐cardiotomy patients with congestive heart failure (CHF).

Methods and results

Twenty‐four post‐cardiotomy heart failure patients were enrolled and received a standard loading dose of rh‐BNP. Haemodynamic monitoring was performed via a pulmonary artery catheter before and after the administration of rh‐BNP. The cardiac output and venous return functions were estimated by depicting Frank‐Starling and Guyton curves. After rh‐BNP infusion, variables reflecting cardiac congestion and venous return function, such as pulmonary artery wedge pressure, mean systemic filling pressure (Pmsf) and venous return resistance index (VRRI), reduced from 15 ± 3 to 13 ± 3 mmHg, from 32 ± 7 to 28 ± 7 mmHg and from 6.7 ± 2.6 to 5.7 ± 1.8 mmHg min m²/L, respectively. Meanwhile, cardiac index, stroke volume index, and the cardiac output function curve remained unchanged per se. The decline in Pmsf [−13% (−22% to −8%)] and VRRI [−12% (−25% to −5%)] was much greater than that in the systemic vascular resistance index [−7% (−14% to 0%)]. In the subgroup analysis of reduced ejection fraction (<40%) patients, the aforementioned changes were more significant.

Conclusions

rh‐BNP might ameliorate venous return rather than cardiac output function in post‐cardiotomy CHF patients.

Venous return and mean systemic filling pressure: physiology and clinical applications

Venous return is the flow of blood from the systemic venous network towards the right heart. At steady state, venous return equals cardiac output, as the venous and arterial systems operate in series. However, unlike the arterial one, the venous network is a capacitive system with a high compliance. It includes a part of unstressed blood, which is a reservoir that can be recruited via sympathetic endogenous or exogenous stimulation. Guyton’s model describes the three determinants of venous return: the mean systemic filling pressure, the right atrial pressure and the resistance to venous return. Recently, new methods have been developed to explore such determinants at the bedside. In this narrative review, after a reminder about Guyton’s model and current methods used to investigate it, we emphasize how Guyton’s physiology helps understand the effects on cardiac output of common treatments used in critically ill patients.

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.

Assessment of Dynamic Changes in Stressed Volume and Venous Return during Hyperdynamic Septic Shock

The present work investigated the dynamic changes in stressed volume (Vs) and other determinants of venous return using a porcine model of hyperdynamic septic shock. Septicemia was induced in 10 anesthetized swine, and fluid challenges were started after the diagnosis of sepsis-induced arterial hypotension and/or tissue hypoperfusion. Norepinephrine infusion targeting a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mmHg was started after three consecutive fluid challenges. After septic shock was confirmed, norepinephrine infusion was discontinued, and the animals were left untreated until cardiac arrest occurred. Baseline Vs decreased by 7% for each mmHg decrease in MAP during progression of septic shock. Mean circulatory filling pressure (Pmcf) analogue (Pmca), right atrial pressure, resistance to venous return, and efficiency of the heart decreased with time (p < 0.001 for all). Fluid challenges did not improve hemodynamics, but noradrenaline increased Vs from 107 mL to 257 mL (140%) and MAP from 45 mmHg to 66 mmHg (47%). Baseline Pmca and post-cardiac arrest Pmcf did not differ significantly (14.3 ± 1.23 mmHg vs. 14.75 ± 1.5 mmHg, p = 0.24), but the difference between pre-arrest Pmca and post-cardiac arrest Pmcf was statistically significant (9.5 ± 0.57 mmHg vs. 14.75 ± 1.5 mmHg, p < 0.001). In conclusion, the baseline Vs decreased by 7% for each mmHg decrease in MAP during progression of hyperdynamic septic shock. Significant changes were also observed in other determinants of venous return. A new physiological intravascular volume existing at zero transmural distending pressure was identified, termed as the rest volume (Vr).

Pathophysiology, mechanisms, and managements of tissue hypoxia

Oxygen is needed to generate aerobic adenosine triphosphate and energy that is required to support vital cellular functions. Oxygen delivery (DO₂) to the tissues is determined by convective and diffusive processes. The ability of the body to adjust oxygen extraction (ERO₂) in response to changes in DO₂ is crucial to maintain constant tissue oxygen consumption (VO₂). The capability to increase ERO₂ is the result of the regulation of the circulation and the effects of the simultaneous activation of both central and local factors. The endothelium plays a crucial role in matching tissue oxygen supply to demand in situations of acute drop in tissue oxygenation. Tissue oxygenation is adequate when tissue oxygen demand is met. When DO₂ is severely compromised, a critical DO₂ value is reached below which VO₂ falls and becomes dependent on DO₂, resulting in tissue hypoxia. The different mechanisms of tissue hypoxia are circulatory, anaemic, and hypoxic, characterised by a diminished DO₂ but preserved capacity of increasing ERO₂. Cytopathic hypoxia is another mechanism of tissue hypoxia that is due to impairment in mitochondrial respiration that can be observed in septic conditions with normal overall DO₂. Sepsis induces microcirculatory alterations with decreased functional capillary density, increased number of stopped-flow capillaries, and marked heterogeneity between the areas with large intercapillary distance, resulting in impairment of the tissue to extract oxygen and to satisfy the increased tissue oxygen demand, leading to the development of tissue hypoxia. Different therapeutic approaches exist to increase DO₂ and improve microcirculation, such as fluid therapy, transfusion, vasopressors, inotropes, and vasodilators. However, the effects of these agents on microcirculation are quite variable.

Experimental validation of a mean systemic pressure analog against zero-flow measurements in porcine VA-ECMO

The mean systemic pressure analog (Pmsa), calculated from running hemodynamic data, estimates mean systemic filling pressure (MSFP). This post hoc study used data from a porcine veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) model [n = 9; Sus scrofa domesticus; ES breed (Schweizer Edelschwein)] with eight experimental conditions; Euvolemia [a volume state where ECMO flow produced normal mixed venous saturation (SVO2) without vascular collapse]; three levels of increasing norepinephrine infusion (Vasoconstriction 1-3); status after stopping norepinephrine (Post Vasoconstriction); and three steps of volume expansion (10 mL/kg crystalloid bolus) (Volume Expansion 1-3). In each condition, Pmsa and a "reduced-pump-speed-Pmsa" (Pmsared) were calculated from baseline and briefly reduced pump speeds, respectively. We calculated agreement for absolute values (per condition) and changes (between consecutive conditions) of Pmsa and Pmsared, against MSFP at zero ECMO flow. Euvolemia venous return driving pressure was 5.1 ± 2.0 mmHg. Bland-Altman analysis for Pmsa vs. MSFP (all conditions; 72 data pairs) showed bias (confidence interval) 0.5 (0.1-0.9) mmHg; limits of agreement (LoA) -2.7 to 3.8 mmHg. Bias for ΔPmsa vs. ΔMSFP (63 data pairs): 0.2 (-0.2 to 0.6) mmHg, LoA -3.2 to 3.6 mmHg. Bias for Pmsared vs. MSFP (72 data pairs): 0.0 (-0.3 to -0.3) mmHg; LoA -2.3 to 2.4 mmHg. Bias for ΔPmsared vs. ΔMSFP (63 data pairs) was 0.2 (-0.1 to 0.4) mmHg; LoA -1.8 to 2.1 mmHg. In conclusion, during veno-arterial ECMO, under clinically relevant levels of vasoconstriction and volume expansion, Pmsa accurately estimated absolute and changing values of MSFP, with low between-method precision. The within-method precision of Pmsa was excellent, with a least significant change of 0.15 mmHg.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This is the first study ever to validate the mean systemic pressure analog (Pmsa) against the reference mean systemic filling pressure (MSFP) determined at full arterio-venous pressure equilibrium. Using a porcine ECMO model with clinically relevant levels of vasoconstriction and volume expansion, we showed that Pmsa accurately estimated absolute and changing values of MSFP, with a poor between-method precision. The within-method precision of Pmsa was excellent.

Changes of operative performance of pulse pressure variation as a predictor of fluid responsiveness in endotoxin shock

Several limitations regarding pulse pressure variation (PPV) use have been reported. Our aim was to describe changes in the PPV operative performance as a predictor of fluid responsiveness during the development of a swine endotoxin shock model and to assess hemodynamic variables associated with PPV changes. A swine porcine endotoxin shock model was established (Escherichia Coli 055:B5 endotoxin) in 7 pigs, and 3 pigs were included in the control group. The endotoxin was infused until the mean arterial pressure (MAP) dropped below 50 mmHg (TH0); then, the model animal was reanimated with fluids and vasopressors. We performed fluid challenges every hour for 6 h. ROC curve analysis and a linear mixed model were performed. The area under the curve of PPV decreased from 0.95 (0.81–1.00) to 0.60 (0.17–1.00) at TH0. Its cutoff increased from 10.5 to 22.00% at TH0. PPV showed an inverse relationship with stroke volume, mean systemic filling pressure, MAP, and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) (p < 0.001, AIC = 111.85). The PPV operative performance as a predictor of fluid responsiveness decreased with the progression of shock. This could lead to an inverse association between PPV and the following variables: MAP and SVR.

Changes of operative performance of pulse pressure variation as a predictor of fluid responsiveness in endotoxin shock

Several limitations regarding pulse pressure variation (PPV) use have been reported. Our aim was to describe changes in the PPV operative performance as a predictor of fluid responsiveness during the development of a swine endotoxin shock model and to assess hemodynamic variables associated with PPV changes. A swine porcine endotoxin shock model was established (Escherichia Coli 055:B5 endotoxin) in 7 pigs, and 3 pigs were included in the control group. The endotoxin was infused until the mean arterial pressure (MAP) dropped below 50 mmHg (TH0); then, the model animal was reanimated with fluids and vasopressors. We performed fluid challenges every hour for 6 h. ROC curve analysis and a linear mixed model were performed. The area under the curve of PPV decreased from 0.95 (0.81–1.00) to 0.60 (0.17–1.00) at TH0. Its cutoff increased from 10.5 to 22.00% at TH0. PPV showed an inverse relationship with stroke volume, mean systemic filling pressure, MAP, and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) (p < 0.001, AIC = 111.85). The PPV operative performance as a predictor of fluid responsiveness decreased with the progression of shock. This could lead to an inverse association between PPV and the following variables: MAP and SVR.

Feasibility to estimate mean systemic filling pressure with inspiratory holds at the bedside

Background: A decade ago, it became possible to derive mean systemic filling pressure (MSFP) at the bedside using the inspiratory hold maneuver. MSFP has the potential to help guide hemodynamic care, but the estimation is not yet implemented in common clinical practice. In this study, we assessed the ability of MSFP, vascular compliance (Csys), and stressed volume (Vs) to track fluid boluses. Second, we assessed the feasibility of implementation of MSFP in the intensive care unit (ICU). Exploratory, a potential difference in MSFP response between colloids and crystalloids was assessed. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study in adult patients admitted to the ICU after cardiac surgery. The MSFP was determined using 3-4 inspiratory holds with incremental pressures (maximum 35 cm H₂O) to construct a venous return curve. Two fluid boluses were administered: 100 and 500 ml, enabling to calculate Vs and Csys. Patients were randomized to crystalloid or colloid fluid administration. Trained ICU consultants acted as study supervisors, and protocol deviations were recorded. Results: A total of 20 patients completed the trial. MSFP was able to track the 500 ml bolus (p < 0.001). In 16 patients (80%), Vs and Csys could be determined. Vs had a median of 2029 ml (IQR 1605-3164), and Csys had a median of 73 ml mmHg^-1 (IQR 56-133). A difference in response between crystalloids and colloids was present for the 100 ml fluid bolus (p = 0.019) and in a post hoc analysis, also for the 500 ml bolus (p = 0.010). Conclusion: MSFP can be measured at the bedside and provides insights into the hemodynamic status of a patient that are currently missing. The clinical feasibility of Vs and Csys was judged ambiguously based on the lack of required hemodynamic stability. Future studies should address the clinical obstacles found in this study, and less-invasive alternatives to determine MSFP should be further explored. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03139929.

Current practice and evolving concepts in septic shock resuscitation

Clinical and pathophysiological understanding of septic shock has progressed exponentially in the previous decades, translating into a steady decrease in septic shock-related morbidity and mortality. Even though large randomized, controlled trials have addressed fundamental aspects of septic shock resuscitation, many questions still exist. In this review, we will describe the current standards of septic shock resuscitation, but the emphasis will be placed on evolving concepts in different domains such as clinical resuscitation targets, adequate use of fluids and vasoactive drugs, refractory shock, and the use of extracorporeal therapies. Multiple research opportunities remain open, and collaborative endeavors should be performed to fill in these gaps.

Hemodynamic resuscitation with fluids bolus and norepinephrine increases severity of lung damage in an experimental model of septic shock

OBJECTIVE

Hemodynamic resuscitation is considered a cornerstone of the initial treatment of septic shock. However, there is growing concern about its side effects. Our objective was to assess the relationship between fluid administration and norepinephrine infusion and the development of lung injury.

DESIGN

Randomized in vivo study in rabbits.

SETTING

University animal research laboratory.

PATIENTS

Eighteen New Zealand rabbits. Control group (SHAM, n=6), Sepsis group with or without hemodynamic resuscitation (ETX-R, n=6; ETX-NR, n=6).

INTERVENTIONS

Sepsis was induced by intravenous lipopolysaccharide administration and animals were followed-up for 4h. Hemodynamic resuscitation with Ringer lactate (20mL·kg^-1) was administered and later norepinephrine was initiated 3h after sepsis induction. At the end, the left lung was excised.

MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST

An indwelling arterial catheter and an esophageal Doppler were placed. Lung mechanics were monitored with side stream spirometry. Lung damage was analyzed by histopathological examination.

RESULTS

The SHAM group did not show hemodynamic or respiratory changes. Lipopolysaccharide administration aimed an increase in cardiac output and arterial hypotension. In the ETX-NR group, animals remained hypotensive until the end of the experiment. Resuscitation with fluids and norepinephrine reversed arterial hypotension. Compared to the ETX-NR group, the remaining lung of the ETX-R group showed greater accumulation of neutrophils and reactive type-II pneumocytes, thicker alveolar wall, alveolar hemorrhage and non-aerated pulmonary areas. Lung injury score was larger in the ETX-R group.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experimental study, following a strategy with bolus fluids and late norepinephrine used in the early phase of endotoxic septic shock has a negative influence on the development of lung injury.

Combining fluids and vasopressors: A magic potion?

Early detection and prompt reversal of sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion are key elements while treating patients with septic shock. Fluid administration is widely accepted as the first-line therapy followed by vasopressor use in persistently hypotensive patients or in those with insufficient arterial pressure to ensure adequate tissue perfusion. Recent evidence suggests a beneficial effect of combining fluids with vasopressors in the early phase of sepsis. Compared with fluids alone, combining fluids and vasopressors increases mean systemic pressure and venous return and corrects hypotension better. This approach also limits fluid overload, which is an independent factor of poor outcomes in sepsis. It produces less hemodilution than fluids alone. As a consequence of these effects, combined treatment may improve outcomes in septic shock patients.

[Fluid management in shock patients : New targets in the initial phase of shock]

BACKGROUND

Early i.v. fluid administration is a cornerstone in modern therapy of shock, especially in septic shock. However, there is much uncertainty concerning the amount and rate of fluid and which goals and measures could guide fluid management. Administering the optimal fluid volume is important because fluid overload can lead to severe negative consequences like organ failure and worsening of patient's outcome.

AIM

This review aims to describe the importance of fluid therapy and discuss possible strategies in fluid management as well as possible measurements and goals to guide such therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is no single measurement to guide fluid management alone. It is important to assess fluid responsiveness, which together with multiple other parameters can be used to repeatedly assess optimal fluid management. However, it has also not been shown that assessing fluid responsiveness can improve outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

After the initial resuscitation, further fluid administration should be determined by individual patient factors and measures of fluid responsiveness. A more restrictive fluid management with early vasopressor administration seems to be increasingly used in modern fluid management. However many questions regarding optimal fluid management remain to be solved.

Is the Sympathetic System Detrimental in the Setting of Septic Shock, with Antihypertensive Agents as a Counterintuitive Approach? A Clinical Proposition

Mortality in the setting of septic shock varies between 20% and 100%. Refractory septic shock leads to early circulatory failure and carries the worst prognosis. The pathophysiology is poorly understood despite studies of the microcirculatory defects and the immuno-paralysis. The acute circulatory distress is treated with volume expansion, administration of vasopressors (usually noradrenaline: NA), and inotropes. Ventilation and anti-infectious strategy shall not be discussed here. When circulation is considered, the literature is segregated between interventions directed to the systemic circulation vs. interventions directed to the micro-circulation. Our thesis is that, after stabilization of the acute cardioventilatory distress, the prolonged sympathetic hyperactivity is detrimental in the setting of septic shock. Our hypothesis is that the sympathetic hyperactivity observed in septic shock being normalized towards baseline activity will improve the microcirculation by recoupling the capillaries and the systemic circulation. Therefore, counterintuitively, antihypertensive agents such as beta-blockers or alpha-2 adrenergic agonists (clonidine, dexmedetomidine) are useful. They would reduce the noradrenaline requirements. Adjuncts (vitamins, steroids, NO donors/inhibitors, etc.) proposed to normalize the sepsis-evoked vasodilation are not reviewed. This itemized approach (systemic vs. microcirculation) requires physiological and epidemiological studies to look for reduced mortality.

Norepinephrine potentiates the efficacy of volume expansion on mean systemic pressure in septic shock

Background

Through venous contraction, norepinephrine (NE) increases stressed blood volume and mean systemic pressure (Pms) and exerts a “fluid-like” effect. When both fluid and NE are administered, Pms may not only result from the sum of the effects of both drugs. Indeed, norepinephrine may enhance the effects of volume expansion: because fluid dilutes into a more constricted, smaller, venous network, fluid may increase Pms to a larger extent at a higher than at a lower dose of NE. We tested this hypothesis, by mimicking the effects of fluid by passive leg raising (PLR).

Methods

In 30 septic shock patients, norepinephrine was decreased to reach a predefined target of mean arterial pressure (65–70 mmHg by default, 80–85 mmHg in previously hypertensive patients). We measured the PLR-induced increase in Pms (heart–lung interactions method) under high and low doses of norepinephrine. Preload responsiveness was defined by a PLR-induced increase in cardiac index ≥ 10%.

Results

Norepinephrine was decreased from 0.32 [0.18–0.62] to 0.26 [0.13–0.50] µg/kg/min (p < 0.0001). This significantly decreased the mean arterial pressure by 10 [7–20]% and Pms by 9 [4–19]%. The increase in Pms (∆Pms) induced by PLR was 13 [9–19]% at the higher dose of norepinephrine and 11 [6–16]% at the lower dose (p < 0.0001). Pms reached during PLR at the high dose of NE was higher than expected by the sum of Pms at baseline at low dose, ∆Pms induced by changing the norepinephrine dose and ∆Pms induced by PLR at low dose of NE (35.6 [11.2] mmHg vs. 33.6 [10.9] mmHg, respectively, p < 0.01). The number of preload responders was 8 (27%) at the high dose of NE and 15 (50%) at the low dose.

Conclusions

Norepinephrine enhances the Pms increase induced by PLR. These results suggest that a bolus of fluid of the same volume has a greater haemodynamic effect at a high dose than at a low dose of norepinephrine during septic shock.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03711-5.

The role of recombinant human brain natriuretic peptide on the cardiac output of patients with acute decompensated heart failure using Guyton venous return curve: A STROBE-compliant retrospective study

ABSTRACT

rbBNP has positive cardiac effects in patients with acute decompensated heart failure, but its effects on the systemic venous circulation are not known.A single-center retrospective, self-controlled study was conducted on 14 patients undergone recombinant human brain natriuretic peptide (rhBNP) treatment between January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018.The cardiac output (CO) significantly increased from 3.75 ± 1.14 L min-1 to 4.24 ± 0.97 L min-1 30 minutes after rbBNP infusion, and to 4.20 ± 1.19 L min-1 3 hours later. The systemic vascular resistance significantly decreased from 18.85 ± 7.66 mm Hg min L-1 to 14.62 ± 6.13 mm Hg min L-1 30 minutes. The resistance to venous return (VR) significantly decreased from 5.93 ± 4.97 mm Hg min L-1 to 4.46 ± 1.53 mmHg min L-1 3 hours later. The mean systemic filling pressure significantly decreased from 32.71 ± 20.00 mm Hg to 28.254 ± 6.09 mm Hg 3 hours later.The role of rhBNP on CO was to reduce the peripheral circulation resistance at 30 minutes after rhBNP infusion and to reduce the resistance to VR at 3 hours later.This trial is registered at ChiCTR: ID ChiCTR1900024562.

Multivariable haemodynamic approach to predict the fluid challenge response: A multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Beat-to-beat stroke volume (SV) results from the interplay between left ventricular function and arterial load. Fluid challenge induces time-dependent responses in cardiac performance and peripheral vascular and capillary characteristics.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether analysis of the determinants of the haemodynamic response during fluid challenge can predict the final response at 10 and 30 min.

DESIGN

Observational multicentric cohort study.

SETTING

Three university ICUs.

PATIENTS

85 ICU patients with acute circulatory failure diagnosed within the first 48 h of admission.

INTERVENTION(S)

The fluid challenge consisted of 500 ml of Ringer's solution infused over 10 min. A SV index increase at least 10% indicated fluid responsiveness.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The SV, pulse pressure variation (PPV), arterial elastance, the systolic-dicrotic pressure difference (SAP-Pdic) and cardiac cycle efficiency (CCE) were measured at baseline, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15 and 30 min after the start of the fluid challenge. All haemodynamic data were submitted to a univariable logistic regression model and a multivariable analysis was then performed using the significant variables given by univariable analysis.

RESULTS

The multivariable model including baseline PPV, and the changes of arterial elastance at 1 min and of the CCE and SAP-Pdic at 5 min when compared with their baseline values, correctly classified 80.5% of responders and 90.7% of nonresponders at 10 min. For the response 30 min after starting the fluid challenge, the model, including the changes of PPV, CCE, SAP-Pdic at 5 min and of arterial elastance at 10 min compared with their baseline values, correctly identified 93.3% of responders and 91.4% of nonresponders.

CONCLUSION

In a selection of mixed ICU patients, a statistical model based on a multivariable analysis of the changes of PPV, CCE, arterial elastance and SAP-Pdic, with respect to baseline values, reliably predicts both the early and the late response to a standardised fluid challenge.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12617000076370.

Cardiovascular Responses During Sepsis

Sepsis is the life-threatening organ dysfunction arising from a dysregulated host response to infection. Although the specific mechanisms leading to organ dysfunction are still debated, impaired tissue oxygenation appears to play a major role, and concomitant hemodynamic alterations are invariably present. The hemodynamic phenotype of affected individuals is highly variable for reasons that have been partially elucidated. Indeed, each patient's circulatory condition is shaped by the complex interplay between the medical history, the volemic status, the interval from disease onset, the pathogen, the site of infection, and the attempted resuscitation. Moreover, the same hemodynamic pattern can be generated by different combinations of various pathophysiological processes, so the presence of a given hemodynamic pattern cannot be directly related to a unique cluster of alterations. Research based on endotoxin administration to healthy volunteers and animal models compensate, to an extent, for the scarcity of clinical studies on the evolution of sepsis hemodynamics. Their results, however, cannot be directly extrapolated to the clinical setting, due to fundamental differences between the septic patient, the healthy volunteer, and the experimental model. Numerous microcirculatory derangements might exist in the septic host, even in the presence of a preserved macrocirculation. This dissociation between the macro- and the microcirculation might account for the limited success of therapeutic interventions targeting typical hemodynamic parameters, such as arterial and cardiac filling pressures, and cardiac output. Finally, physiological studies point to an early contribution of cardiac dysfunction to the septic phenotype, however, our defective diagnostic tools preclude its clinical recognition. © 2021 American Physiological Society. Compr Physiol 11:1605-1652, 2021.

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Fluid Resuscitation and Vasopressor Therapy Research Priorities in Adult Patients

OBJECTIVE

Expand upon the priorities of fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy research priorities identified by a group of experts assigned by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

DATA SOURCES

Original article, literature search.

STUDY SELECTION

Several members of the original task force with expertise specific to the area of fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy.

DATA EXTRACTION

None.

DATA SYNTHESIS

None.

CONCLUSION

In the second of a series of manuscripts subsequent to the original article, members with expertise in the subjects expound upon the three identified priorities related to fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapies. This analysis summarizes what is known and what were identified as ongoing and future research.

Effect of norepinephrine challenge on cardiovascular determinants assessed using a mathematical model in septic shock: a physiological study

BACKGROUND

The present study investigated the cardiovascular determinants of cardiac output (CO), mean systemic filling pressure analogue (Pmsa) derived by Geoffrey Parkin, efficiency of heart (Eh) and related parameters to a norepinephrine (NE) challenge [an increase of 10 mmHg mean arterial pressure (MAP) by NE] in septic shock patients using of a mathematical model.

METHODS

Twenty-seven septic shock patients with pulse index continuous cardiac output (PiCCO) monitoring were enrolled. These patients required NE to maintain an individualized MAP for organ perfusion after early fluid resuscitation based on their clinical condition. NE was decreased to obtain a decrease of 10 mmHg from base MAP (MAP-10mmHg), and the NE doses were adjusted to return MAP to baseline (MAPbase) and produce an increase of 10 mmHg from MAPbase (MAP+10mmHg). Two NE challenge episodes were analyzed for each patient: from MAP-10mmHg to MAPbase and from MAPbase to MAP+10mmHg. The Pmsa, pressure gradient for venous return (PGvr), and Eh (PGvr relative to Pmsa) were estimated using a mathematical model for the three MAP levels (MAP-10mmHg, MAPbase and MAP+10mmHg).

RESULTS

A total of 54 episodes of NE challenges were obtained in 27 patients. Significant and consistent increases were observed in the central venous pressure (CVP), Pmsa, and PGvr in response during the NE titration. ΔCO negatively and significantly correlated with ΔCVP (r=-0.722, P<0.0001), ΔPmsa (r=-0.549, P<0.0001), ΔResistance of venous return (Rvr) (r=-0.597, P<0.0001), and ΔResistance of systemic vascular beds (Rsys) (r=-0.597, P<0.0001). Episodes of decreasing CO/Eh were associated with a higher ΔCVP than the CO/Eh-increasing episodes. The area under the curve (AUC) of ΔCVP to predict decreased CO by the incremental NE was 0.86, and the AUC of ΔCVP to predict decreased Eh was 0.94. A cutoff of ΔCVP >1.5 mmHg for detecting decreased CO resulted in a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 94.1%. A cutoff of ΔCVP >1.5 mmHg for detecting decreased Eh resulted in a sensitivity of 64.3% and a specificity of 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

There were a highly divergent response in Eh and CO to afterload challenge episodes of an NE-induced 10mmHg increase in MAP. An increase in CVP may be an early alarm to identify the reduction in CO/Eh during an NE-induced increase of MAP.

Clinical validation of a computerized algorithm to determine mean systemic filling pressure

Mean systemic filling pressure (Pms) is a promising parameter in determining intravascular fluid status. Pms derived from venous return curves during inspiratory holds with incremental airway pressures (Pms-Insp) estimates Pms reliably but is labor-intensive. A computerized algorithm to calculate Pms (Pmsa) at the bedside has been proposed. In previous studies Pmsa and Pms-Insp correlated well but with considerable bias. This observational study was performed to validate Pmsa with Pms-Insp in cardiac surgery patients. Cardiac output, right atrial pressure and mean arterial pressure were prospectively recorded to calculate Pmsa using a bedside monitor. Pms-Insp was calculated offline after performing inspiratory holds. Intraclass-correlation coefficient (ICC) and assessment of agreement were used to compare Pmsa with Pms-Insp. Bias, coefficient of variance (COV), precision and limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated. Proportional bias was assessed with linear regression. A high degree of inter-method reliability was found between Pmsa and Pms-Insp (ICC 0.89; 95%CI 0.72–0.96, p = 0.01) in 18 patients. Pmsa and Pms-Insp differed not significantly (11.9 mmHg, IQR 9.8–13.4 vs. 12.7 mmHg, IQR 10.5–14.4, p = 0.38). Bias was −0.502 ± 1.90 mmHg (p = 0.277). COV was 4% with LOA –4.22 − 3.22 mmHg without proportional bias. Conversion coefficient Pmsa ➔ Pms-Insp was 0.94. This assessment of agreement demonstrates that the measures Pms-Insp and the computerized Pmsa-algorithm are interchangeable (bias −0.502 ± 1.90 mmHg with conversion coefficient 0.94). The choice of Pmsa is straightforward, it is non-interventional and available continuously at the bedside in contrast to Pms-Insp which is interventional and calculated off-line. Further studies should be performed to determine the place of Pmsa in the circulatory management of critically ill patients. (www.clinicaltrials.gov; TRN NCT04202432, release date 16-12-2019; retrospectively registered).

Clinical Trial Registrationwww.ClinicalTrials.gov, TRN: NCT04202432, initial release date 16-12-2019 (retrospectively registered).

Vasopressor Responsiveness Beyond Arterial Pressure: A Conceptual Systematic Review Using Venous Return Physiology

ABSTRACT

We performed a systematic review to investigate the effects of vasopressor-induced hemodynamic changes in adults with shock. We applied a physiological approach using the interacting domains of intravascular volume, heart pump performance, and vascular resistance to structure the interpretation of responses to vasopressors. We hypothesized that incorporating changes in determinants of cardiac output and vascular resistance better reflect the vasopressor responsiveness beyond mean arterial pressure alone.We identified 28 studies including 678 subjects in Pubmed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases.All studies demonstrated significant increases in mean arterial pressure (MAP) and systemic vascular resistance during vasopressor infusion. The calculated mean systemic filling pressure analogue increased (16 ± 3.3 mmHg to 18 ± 3.4 mmHg; P = 0.02) by vasopressors with variable effects on central venous pressure and the pump efficiency of the heart leading to heterogenous changes in cardiac output. Changes in the pressure gradient for venous return and cardiac output, scaled by the change in MAP, were positively correlated (r2 = 0.88, P < 0.001). Changes in the mean systemic filling pressure analogue and heart pump efficiency were negatively correlated (r2 = 0.57, P < 0.001) while no correlation was found between changes in MAP and heart pump efficiency.We conclude that hemodynamic changes induced by vasopressor therapy are inadequately represented by the change in MAP alone despite its common use as a clinical endpoint. The more comprehensive analysis applied in this review illustrates how vasopressor administration may be optimized.

The surviving sepsis campaign: fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy research priorities in adult patients

OBJECTIVE

To expand upon the priorities of fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy research priorities identified by a group of experts assigned by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

DATA SOURCES

Original paper and literature search.

STUDY SELECTION

Several members of the original task force with expertise specific to the area of fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy.

DATA EXTRACTION

None.

DATA SYNTHESIS

None.

CONCLUSION

In the second of a series of manuscripts subsequent to the original paper, members with expertise in the subjects expound upon the three identified priorities related to fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapies. This analysis summarizes what is known and what were identified as ongoing and future research.

Left ventricular-arterial coupling as a predictor of stroke volume response to norepinephrine in septic shock - a prospective cohort study

Background

Left ventricular-arterial coupling (VAC), defined as the ratio of arterial elastance (Ea) to left ventricular end-systolic elastance (Ees), is a key determinant of cardiovascular performance. This study aims to evaluate whether left VAC can predict stroke volume (SV) response to norepinephrine (NE) in septic shock patients.

Methods

This was a prospective cohort study conducted in an intensive care unit of a tertiary teaching hospital in China. We recruited septic shock patients who had persistent hypotension despite fluid resuscitation and required NE to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) > 65 mmHg. Those patients in whom the target MAP was not reached after NE infusion were ineligible. Echocardiographic variables were measured before (baseline) and after NE infusion. SV responder was defined by a ≥ 15% increase in SV after NE infusion.

Results

Of 34 septic shock patients included, 19 (56%) were SV responders. Before NE infusion, SV responders had a lower Ees (1.13 ± 0.24 mmHg/mL versus 1.50 ± 0.46 mmHg/mL, P = 0.005) and a higher Ea/Ees ratio (1.47 ± 0.40 versus 1.02 ± 0.30, P = 0.001) than non-responders, and Ea in SV responders was comparable to that in non-responders (1.62 ± 0.36 mmHg/mL versus 1.43 ± 0.28 mmHg/mL, P = 0.092). NE significantly increased Ea and Ees in both groups. The Ea/Ees ratio was normalized by NE administration in SV responders but unchanged in non-responders. The baseline Ea/Ees ratio was positively correlated with NE-induced SV increases (r = 0.688, P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis indicated that the baseline Ea/Ees ratio was a predictor of SV increases induced by NE (odd ratio 0.008, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.000 to 0.293), with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.816 (95% CI: 0.646 to 0.927).

Conclusions

The left VAC has the ability to predict SV response to NE infusion in septic shock patients.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR1900024031, Registered 23 June 2019 - Retrospectively registered, http://www.chictr.org.cn/edit.aspx?pid=40359&htm=4.