Inotrope and vasopressor use in cardiogenic shock: what, when and why?

The medical treatment of cardiogenic shock

Cardiogenic shock is characterized by tissue hypoperfusion due to the inadequate cardiac output to maintain the tissue oxygen demand. Despite some advances in cardiogenic shock management, extremely high mortality is still associated with this clinical syndrome. Its management is based on the immediate stabilization of hemodynamic parameters through medical care and the use of mechanical circulatory supports in specialized centers. This review aims to understand the cardiogenic shock current medical treatment, consisting mainly of inotropic drugs, vasopressors and coronary revascularization. In addition, we highlight the relevance of applying measures to other organ levels based on the optimization of mechanical ventilation and the appropriate initiation of renal replacement therapy.

The cerebral and cardiac effects of Norepinephrine in an experimental cardiac arrest model

Introduction

Epinephrine has been the main drug recommended for decades during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). But epinephrine's ß-adrenergic effects might increase myocardial oxygen consumption and may cause arrythmias after ROSC. Norepinephrine has a weaker ß-adrenergic effect and could be useful during CPR. Studies on norepinephrine's effect on hemodynamic parameters and cerebral perfusion are scarce. This study aimed to assess norepinephrine's hemodynamic impact in an experimental model of cardiac arrest.

Methods

After an initial dose study to determine the optimal dose, we conducted a prospective randomized study with 19 pigs. After 3 minutes of untreated ventricular fibrillation, animals received boluses of 0.5 mg Epinephrine (EPI) or 1 mg Norepinephrine (NE) every 5 minutes during CPR. Coronary perfusion pressure (CPP), carotid blood flow (CBF) and cerebral perfusion pressure (CePP) were evaluated.

Results

At baseline, hemodynamic parameters did not differ between the two groups. During CPR, CPP and CBF were similar: 17.3 (12.8; 31.8) in the EPI group vs 16.0 (11.1; 37.7) in the NE group, p = 0.9 and 28.4 (22.0; 54.8) vs 30.8 (12.2; 56.3) respectively, p = 0.9. CePP was not significantly lower during resuscitation in the NE group compared to the EPI group: 12.2 (-8.2; 42.2) vs 7.8 (-2.0; 32.0) p = 0.4. Survival rate was low with only one animal in the EPI group and 2 in the NE group.

Conclusion

Cerebral perfusion pressure, coronary perfusion pressure and carotid blood flow during CPR did not significantly differ between the norepinephrine group and the epinephrine group. Further investigations should evaluate different options such as a continuous NE infusion.

A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock

Shock is a life-threatening circulatory failure that results in inadequate tissue perfusion and oxygenation. Vasopressors and inotropes are vasoactive medications that are vital in increasing systemic vascular resistance and cardiac contractility, respectively, in patients presenting with shock. To be well versed in using these agents is an important skill to have in the critical care setting where patients can frequently exhibit symptoms of shock. In this review, we will discuss the pathophysiological mechanisms of shock and evaluate the current evidence behind the management of shock with an emphasis on vasopressors and inotropes.

The association between levosimendan and mortality in patients with sepsis or septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Levosimendan is increasingly being used in patients with sepsis or septic shock because of its potential to improve organ function and reduce mortality. We aimed to determine if levosimendan can reduce mortality in patients with sepsis or septic shock via meta-analysis.

EVIDENCE SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

We comprehensively searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from inception through 1 October 2022. Literature evaluating the efficacy of levosimendan in patients with sepsis or septic shock was included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Two reviewers extracted data and assessed study quality. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate an odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and P -values for 28-day mortality (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes included changes in indexes reflecting cardiac function before and after treatment, changes in serum lactate levels in the first 24 h of treatment, and the mean SOFA score during the study period. Safety outcomes included rates of tachyarrhythmias and total adverse reactions encountered with levosimendan.

RESULTS

Eleven randomized controlled trials were identified, encompassing a total of 1044 patients. After using levosimendan, there was no statistical difference between groups for 28-day mortality (34.9% and 36.2%; OR: 0.93; 95% CI [0.72-1.2]; P  = 0.57; I 2  = 0%; trial sequential analysis-adjusted CI [0.6-1.42]) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, and more adverse reactions seemed to occur in the levosimendan group, although the septic shock patient's heart function and serum lactate level improved.

CONCLUSION

There was no association between the use of levosimendan and 28-day mortality and SOFA scores in patients with septic shock, though there was statistically significant improvement in cardiac function and serum lactate.

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.

Inotrope versus Placebo Therapy in Cardiogenic Shock: Rationale and Study Design of the CAPITAL DOREMI2 Trial

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a state of end-organ hypoperfusion related to cardiac dysfunction. Current guidelines recommend consideration of inotrope therapy in patients with CS, however no robust data support their use. The purpose of the CAPITAL DOREMI2 trial is to examine the efficacy and safety of inotrope therapy against placebo in the initial resuscitation of patients with CS.

METHODS AND DESIGN

This is a multi-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial comparing single-agent inotrope therapy to placebo in patients with CS. A total of 346 participants with Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions class C or D CS will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to inotrope or placebo therapy, which will be administered over a 12-hour period. After this period, participants will continue open-label therapies at the discretion of the treating team. The primary outcome is a composite of all-cause in-hospital death, and, as measured during the 12-hour intervention period, any of: sustained hypotension or high dose vasopressor requirements, lactate greater than 3.5 mmol/L at 6 hours or thereafter, need for mechanical circulatory support, arrhythmia leading to emergent electrical cardioversion, and resuscitated cardiac arrest. All participants will be followed for the duration of their hospitalization, and secondary outcomes will be assessed at the time of discharge.

IMPLICATION

This trial will be the first to establish the safety and efficacy of inotrope therapy against placebo in a population of patients with CS and has the potential to alter the standard care provided to this group of patients.

Dipeptidyl Amino-Peptidase 3 (DPP3) as an Early Marker of Severity in a Patient Population with Cardiogenic Shock

Dipeptidyl amino-peptidase 3 (DPP3) is an aminopeptidase that is released into circulation upon cell death. DPP3 is involved in the degradation of angiotensins, enkephalines, and endomorphines. It has been shown that circulating DPP3 (cDPP3) plasma concentration increases in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients and correlates with high mortality risk. Cardiogenic shock is a life-threatening syndrome associated with organ hypoperfusion. One of the common causes of CS is acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This study aimed to investigate if cDPP3 levels are associated with CS severity and the need for ventilation in patients suffering from CS. Fifteen patients with CS were included in this study. Six patients were invasively ventilated. The values of cDPP3 were higher in ventilated patients than in non-ventilated patients at admission, 3 h, and 24 h after admission in the intensive care unit. Patients with pulmonary hypertension at admission also showed high cDPP3 values at all time points. Furthermore, high cDPP3 levels were associated with reduced stroke volume. Our results suggest that cDPP3 could predict CS progression and guide therapy escalation.