Vasoactive drugs for vasodilatory shock in ICU:

The use of metaraminol as a vasopressor in critically unwell patients: a narrative review and a survey of UK practice

Background

Major international guidelines state that norepinephrine should be used as the first-line vasopressor to achieve adequate blood pressure in patients with hypotension or shock. However, recent observational studies report that in the United Kingdom and Australia, metaraminol is often used as second line medication for cardiovascular support.

Aim of the study

The aim of this study was to carry out a systematic review of metaraminol use for management of shock in critically unwell patients and carry out a survey evaluating whether UK critical care units use metaraminol and under which circumstances.

Methods

A systematic review literature search was conducted. A short telephone survey consisting of 6 questions regarding metaraminol use was conducted across 30 UK critical care units which included a mix of tertiary and district general intensive care units.

Results

Twenty-six of thirty contacted centres responded to our survey. Metaraminol was used in 88% of them in various settings and circumstances (emergency department, theatres, medical emergencies on medical wards), with 67% reporting use of metaraminol infusions in the critical care setting. The systematic literature review revealed several case reports and only two studies conducted in the last 20 years investigating the effect of metaraminol as a stand-alone vasopressor. Both studies focused on different aspects of metaraminol use and the data was incomparable, hence we decided not to perform a meta-analysis.

Conclusions

Metaraminol is widely used as a vasopressor inside and outside of the critical care setting in the UK despite limited evidence supporting its safety and efficacy for treating shock. Further service evaluation, observational studies and prospective randomised controlled trials are warranted to validate the role and safety profile of metaraminol in the treatment of the critically unwell patient.

Terlipressin for the treatment of septic shock in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Catecholamines are the first-line vasopressors used in patients with septic shock. However, the search for novel drug candidates is still of great importance due to the development of adrenergic hyposensitivity accompanied by a decrease in catecholamine activity. Terlipressin (TP) is a synthetic vasopressin analogue used in the management of patients with septic shock. In the current study, we aimed to compare the effects of TP and catecholamine infusion in treating septic shock patients.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by searching articles published in PUBMED, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials between inception and July 2018. We only selected randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of TP and catecholamine in adult patients with septic shock. The primary outcome was overall mortality. The secondary outcomes were the ICU length of stay, haemodynamic changes, tissue perfusion, renal function, and adverse events.

Results

A total of 9 studies with 850 participants were included in the analysis. Overall, no significant difference in mortality was observed between the TP and catecholamine groups (risk ratio(RR), 0.85 (0.70 to 1.03); P = 0.09). In patients < 60 years old, the mortality rate was lower in the TP group than in the catecholamine group (RR, 0.66 (0.50 to 0.86); P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the ICU length of stay (mean difference, MD), − 0.28 days; 95% confidence interval (CI), − 1.25 to 0.69; P = 0.58). Additionally, TP improved renal function. The creatinine level was decreased in patients who received TP therapy compared to catecholamine-treated participants (standard mean difference, SMD), − 0.65; 95% CI, − 1.09 to − 0.22; P = 0.003). No significant difference was found regarding the total adverse events (Odds Ratio(OR), 1.48(0.51 to 4.24); P = 0.47), whereas peripheral ischaemia was more common in the TP group (OR, 8.65(1.48 to 50.59); P = 0.02).

Conclusion

The use of TP was associated with reduced mortality in septic shock patients less than 60 years old. TP may also improve renal function and cause more peripheral ischaemia. PROSPERO registry: CRD42016035872.

Vasopressin versus Norepinephrine in Patients with Vasoplegic Shock after Cardiac Surgery: The VANCS Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Vasoplegic syndrome is a common complication after cardiac surgery and impacts negatively on patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether vasopressin is superior to norepinephrine in reducing postoperative complications in patients with vasoplegic syndrome.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted at the Heart Institute, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil, between January 2012 and March 2014. Patients with vasoplegic shock (defined as mean arterial pressure less than 65 mmHg resistant to fluid challenge and cardiac index greater than 2.2 l · min · m) after cardiac surgery were randomized to receive vasopressin (0.01 to 0.06 U/min) or norepinephrine (10 to 60 μg/min) to maintain arterial pressure. The primary endpoint was a composite of mortality or severe complications (stroke, requirement for mechanical ventilation for longer than 48 h, deep sternal wound infection, reoperation, or acute renal failure) within 30 days.

RESULTS

A total of 330 patients were randomized, and 300 were infused with one of the study drugs (vasopressin, 149; norepinephrine, 151). The primary outcome occurred in 32% of the vasopressin patients and in 49% of the norepinephrine patients (unadjusted hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.80; P = 0.0014). Regarding adverse events, the authors found a lower occurrence of atrial fibrillation in the vasopressin group (63.8% vs. 82.1%; P = 0.0004) and no difference between groups in the rates of digital ischemia, mesenteric ischemia, hyponatremia, and myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' results suggest that vasopressin can be used as a first-line vasopressor agent in postcardiac surgery vasoplegic shock and improves clinical outcomes.

Terlipressin protects intestinal epithelial cells against oxygen-glucose deprivation/re-oxygenation injury via the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase pathway

Intestinal ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury is associated with a high morbidity and mortality. Vasopressin is administered to critically ill patients with potential intestinal I/R. However, the impacts of vasopressin on intestinal epithelia under ischemic/anoxic conditions remain unclear. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of terlipressin, a highly selective vasopressin V1 receptor agonist, on oxygen and glucose deprivation/re-oxygenation (OGD/R)-induced damage in intestinal epithelial cells (IEC-6). IEC-6 cells were subjected to OGD for 4 h, followed by 4 h re-oxygenation. Terlipressin was incubated with cells for 4 h following OGD. Following OGD/R, IEC-6 cell viability, proliferation and apoptosis, as well as cell cycle dynamics, were assessed and the levels of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and 15-F2t-isoprostane in the culture medium were measured. In addition, wortmannin, a specific phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor, was administrated to investigate the mechanism of terlipressin action. The results demonstrated that IEC-6 cell viability and proliferation decreased, and cell apoptosis increased, following OGD/R. However, IEC-6 cell cycle dynamics did not significantly change 4 h after OGD. Incubation with 25 nM terlipressin significantly improved cell viability, proliferation and apoptosis. Furthermore, terlipressin inhibited the secretion of TNF-α and 15-F2t-isoprostane from IEC-6 cells following OGD/R. The aforementioned effects of terlipressin were completely abolished following the application of 2 µM wortmannin. Therefore, the current study demonstrated that terlipressin administration following OGD attenuates OGD/R-induced cell damage via the PI3K signaling pathway. These results may help physicians to better understand and more effectively use terlipressin in a clinical setting.

Vasopressors for hypotensive shock

BACKGROUND

Initial goal-directed resuscitation for hypotensive shock usually includes administration of intravenous fluids, followed by initiation of vasopressors. Despite obvious immediate effects of vasopressors on haemodynamics, their effect on patient-relevant outcomes remains controversial. This review was published originally in 2004 and was updated in 2011 and again in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to compare the effect of one vasopressor regimen (vasopressor alone, or in combination) versus another vasopressor regimen on mortality in critically ill participants with shock. We further aimed to investigate effects on other patient-relevant outcomes and to assess the influence of bias on the robustness of our effect estimates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015 Issue 6), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PASCAL BioMed, CINAHL, BIOSIS and PsycINFO (from inception to June 2015). We performed the original search in November 2003. We also asked experts in the field and searched meta-registries to identify ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing various vasopressor regimens for hypotensive shock.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors abstracted data independently. They discussed disagreements between them and resolved differences by consulting with a third review author. We used a random-effects model to combine quantitative data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 28 RCTs (3497 participants) with 1773 mortality outcomes. Six different vasopressors, given alone or in combination, were studied in 12 different comparisons.All 28 studies reported mortality outcomes; 12 studies reported length of stay. Investigators reported other morbidity outcomes in a variable and heterogeneous way. No data were available on quality of life nor on anxiety and depression outcomes. We classified 11 studies as having low risk of bias for the primary outcome of mortality; only four studies fulfilled all trial quality criteria.In summary, researchers reported no differences in total mortality in any comparisons of different vasopressors or combinations in any of the pre-defined analyses (evidence quality ranging from high to very low). More arrhythmias were observed in participants treated with dopamine than in those treated with norepinephrine (high-quality evidence). These findings were consistent among the few large studies and among studies with different levels of within-study bias risk.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of substantial differences in total mortality between several vasopressors. Dopamine increases the risk of arrhythmia compared with norepinephrine and might increase mortality. Otherwise, evidence of any other differences between any of the six vasopressors examined is insufficient. We identified low risk of bias and high-quality evidence for the comparison of norepinephrine versus dopamine and moderate to very low-quality evidence for all other comparisons, mainly because single comparisons occasionally were based on only a few participants. Increasing evidence indicates that the treatment goals most often employed are of limited clinical value. Our findings suggest that major changes in clinical practice are not needed, but that selection of vasopressors could be better individualised and could be based on clinical variables reflecting hypoperfusion.

Realistic Survival Outcomes After Vasopressor Use in the Intensive Care Unit

AIM

Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) have significantly increased mortality rates. Frequently, clinicians are called upon to help families make decisions regarding aggressiveness of care. Having a realistic expectation of outcome is critical for these discussions. This article looked at survival and outcomes following initiation of vasopressors.

METHODS

All patients admitted to the ICU between January and June 2011were included. Patients were classified into those who had been started on vasopressors (VP+) and those who had not (VP-). Outcomes of these groups including survival were calculated and compared.

RESULTS

A total of 1023 patients were included: 169 in the VP+ group and 854 in the VP- group. The survival rate in the VP+ group was 29.6% compared to 92.0% in the VP- group. This was both clinically and statistically significant (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Patients started on vasopressors in the ICU have very poor outcomes. Being able to quantify this accurately is important to clinicians having discussions with family members.

Blood pressure regulation: every adaptation is an integration?

This focused review serves to explore relevant issues in regard to blood pressure regulation and by doing so, provides the initial stimulus paper for the Thematic Review series "Blood Pressure Regulation" to be published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology over the coming months. In this introduction, we highlight how variable normal blood pressure can be and challenge the reader to take another look at some key concepts related to blood pressure regulation. We point out that there is frequently an underappreciated balance between peripheral vasodilation and systemic blood pressure regulation and ask the question: are changes in blood pressure, in effect, reasonable and integrated adaptations to the physiological challenge at hand? We conclude with the idea that blood pressure regulatory systems are both flexible and redundant; ensuring a wide variety of activities associated with life can be accompanied by a perfusion pressure that can serve multiple masters.

Immunoassay cross-reactivity of phenylephrine and methamphetamine

Phenylephrine, an α(1) -adrenergic agonist, and methamphetamine, a prescription drug and substance of abuse, have similar chemical structures and thus have the potential to cross-react in qualitative screening tools such as a urine drug screening (UDS) performed by immunoassay. This cross-reactivity may yield a false-positive result that may affect the provision of care in certain patient populations and clinical situations. We describe a 36-year-old woman with confirmed brain death after a short hospital stay who had an initial UDS that was negative for methamphetamine. The patient was assessed for potential organ donation, which included obtaining a follow-up UDS. A urine sample was obtained after being hospitalized for 36 hours, which tested positive for methamphetamine, with no suspected ingestion of the target substance. Confirmatory laboratory testing indicated that intravenous phenylephrine and its metabolites were the likely cause of the false-positive UDS. However, the patient was not deemed to be a suitable candidate for organ donation, but clear documentation of the reason for denial of organ donation was not available in the patient's medical record. To our knowledge, this is the first case published in the English-language literature that describes the clinical occurrence of apparent immunoassay cross-reactivity of methamphetamine and phenylephrine that resulted in a false-positive UDS for methamphetamine. In addition, this report describes the potential implications of this situation on clinical care, including organ donation acceptance. Toxicology screening in the emergency department and intensive care unit is a tool to assist in the diagnosis of medical conditions, but it may not always be reliable. Therefore, positive immunoassay results that may change the management of a patient's condition should be quickly verified with confirmatory testing to minimize unfavorable consequences.

The effects of terlipressin on regional hemodynamics and kidney function in experimental hyperdynamic sepsis

Background and Aims

Although terlipressin (TP) may improve renal function in cirrhotic patients, its use in sepsis remains controversial due to concerns about regional ischemia. We investigated the effects of TP on regional hemodynamics and kidney function in experimental hyperdynamic sepsis.

Methods

We studied thirteen merino ewes in a university physiology laboratory using a randomized controlled cross over design. We implanted flow probes around the pulmonary, circumflex coronary, superior mesenteric, renal and iliac arteries. We injected live Escherichia coli and induced hyperdynamic sepsis. We treated animals with either bolus vehicle or a single dose of TP (sTP = 1 mg). In a second group, after 1 mg of TP, two additional bolus injections (mTP) of 0.5 mg were given at 2 hourly intervals.

Main Results

sTP (1 mg) significantly increased mean arterial pressure (MAP) (74 to 89 mmHg; P<0.0001) creatinine clearance (31 to 85 mL/min; P<0.0001) and urine output (24 to 307 mL/hr) (P<0.0001). However, it decreased CO (5.7 to 3.9 L/min; p<0.0001), coronary blood flow (CBF) (43 to 32 mL/min; p<0.0001) and mesenteric blood flow (MBF) (944 to 625 mL/min; p = 0.004) and increased blood lactate (2.1 to 4.0 mmol/L; p<0.0001). Extra doses of TP caused little additional effect.

Conclusions

In hyperdynamic sepsis, bolus TP transiently improves MAP and renal function, but reduces CO, CBF and MBF, and increases blood lactate. Caution should be applied when prescribing bolus TP in septic patients at risk of coronary or mesenteric ischemia.

Goal-directed therapy in small animal critical illness

Monitoring critically ill patients can be a daunting task even for experienced clinicians. Goal-directed therapy is a technique involving intensive monitoring and aggressive management of hemodynamics in patients with high risk of morbidity and mortality. The aim of goal-directed therapy is to ensure adequate tissue oxygenation and survival. This article reviews commonly used diagnostics in critical care medicine and what the information gathered signifies and discusses clinical decision making on the basis of diagnostic test results. One example is early goal-directed therapy for severe sepsis and septic shock. The components and application of goals in early goal-directed therapy are discussed.

Vasopressors for hypotensive shock

BACKGROUND

Initial goal directed resuscitation for shock usually includes the administration of intravenous fluids, followed by initiating vasopressors. Despite obvious immediate effects of vasopressors on haemodynamics their effect on patient relevant outcomes remains controversial. This review was originally published in 2004 and was updated in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to assess whether particular vasopressors reduce overall mortality, morbidity, and health-related quality of life.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PASCAL BioMed, CINAHL, BIOSIS, and PsycINFO (from inception to March 2010). The original search was performed in November 2003. We also asked experts in the field and searched meta-registries for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing various vasopressor regimens for hypotensive shock.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors abstracted data independently. Disagreement between the authors was discussed and resolved with a third author. We used a random-effects model for combining quantitative data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 23 randomized controlled trials involving 3212 patients, with 1629 mortality outcomes. Six different vasopressors, alone or in combination, were studied in 11 different comparisons.All 23 studies reported mortality outcomes; length of stay was reported in nine studies. Other morbidity outcomes were reported in a variable and heterogeneous way. No data were available on quality of life or anxiety and depression outcomes. We classified 10 studies as being at low risk of bias for the primary outcome mortality; only four studies fulfilled all trial quality items.In summary, there was no difference in mortality in any of the comparisons between different vasopressors or combinations. More arrhythmias were observed in patients treated with dopamine compared to norepinephrine. Norepinephrine versus dopamine, as the largest comparison in 1400 patients from six trials, yielded almost equivalence (RR 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.03). Vasopressors used as add-on therapy in comparison to placebo were not effective either. These findings were consistent among the few large studies as well as in studies with different levels of within-study bias risk.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence of no difference in mortality between norepinephrine and dopamine. Dopamine appeared to increase the risk for arrhythmia. There is not sufficient evidence of any difference between any of the six vasopressors examined. Probably the choice of vasopressors in patients with shock does not influence the outcome, rather than any vasoactive effect per se. There is not sufficient evidence that any one of the investigated vasopressors is clearly superior over others.