Incidence, Patient Characteristics, Mode of Drug Delivery, and Outcomes of Septic Shock Patients Treated With Vasopressors in the Arise Trial

Dose equivalence for metaraminol and noradrenaline - A retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Noradrenaline and metaraminol are commonly used vasopressors in critically ill patients. However, little is known of their dose equivalence.

METHODS

We conducted a single centre retrospective cohort study of all ICU patients who transitioned from metaraminol to noradrenaline infusions between August 26, 2016 and December 31, 2020. Patients receiving additional vasoactive drug infusion were excluded. Dose equivalence was calculated based on the last hour metaraminol dose (in μg/min) and the first hour noradrenaline dose (in μg/min) with the closest matched mean arterial pressure (MAP). Sensitivity analyses were performed on patients with acute kidney injury (AKI), sepsis and mechanical ventilation.

RESULTS

We studied 195 patients. The median conversion ratio of metaraminol to noradrenaline was 12.5:1 (IQR 7.5-20.0) for the overall cohort. However, the coefficient of variation was 77% and standard deviation was 11.8. Conversion ratios were unaffected by sepsis or mechanical ventilation but increased (14:1) with AKI. One in five patients had a MAP decrease of >10 mmHg during the transition period from metaraminol to noradrenaline. Post-transition noradrenaline dose (p < 0.001) and AKI (p = 0.045) were independently associated with metaraminol dose. The proportion of variation in noradrenaline dose predicted from metaraminol dose was low (R2 = 0.545).

CONCLUSIONS

The median dose equivalence for metaraminol and noradrenaline in this study was 12.5:1. However, there was significant variance in dose equivalence, only half the proportion of variation in noradrenaline infusion dose was predicted by metaraminol dose, and conversion-associated hypotension was common.

INITIATION TIMING OF VASOPRESSOR IN PATIENTS WITH SEPTIC SHOCK: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

ABSTRACT

Background: Vasopressor plays a crucial role in septic shock. However, the time for vasopressor initiation remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore its initiation timing for septic shock patients. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Sciences were searched from inception to July 12, 2023, for relevant studies. Primary outcome was short-term mortality. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 15.0. Results: Twenty-three studies were assessed, including 2 randomized controlled trials and 21 cohort studies. The early group resulted in lower short-term mortality than the late group (OR [95% CI] = 0.775 [0.673 to 0.893], P = 0.000, I2 = 67.8%). The significance existed in the norepinephrine and vasopressin in subgroup analysis. No significant difference was considered in the association between each hour's vasopressor delay and mortality (OR [95% CI] = 1.02 [0.99 to 1.051], P = 0.195, I2 = 57.5%). The early group had an earlier achievement of target MAP ( P < 0.001), shorter vasopressor use duration ( P < 0.001), lower serum lactate level at 24 h ( P = 0.003), lower incidence of kidney injury ( P = 0.001), renal replacement therapy use ( P = 0.022), and longer ventilation-free days to 28 days ( P < 0.001). Conclusions: Early initiation of vasopressor (1-6 h within septic shock onset) would be more beneficial to septic shock patients. The conclusion needs to be further validated by more well-designed randomized controlled trials.

Evolving Management Practices for Early Sepsis-induced Hypoperfusion: A Narrative Review

Sepsis causes significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Resuscitation is a cornerstone of management. This review covers five areas of evolving practice in the management of early sepsis-induced hypoperfusion: fluid resuscitation volume, timing of vasopressor initiation, resuscitation targets, route of vasopressor administration, and use of invasive blood pressure monitoring. For each topic, we review the seminal evidence, discuss the evolution of practice over time, and highlight questions for additional research. Intravenous fluids are a core component of early sepsis resuscitation. However, with growing concerns about the harms of fluid, practice is evolving toward smaller-volume resuscitation, which is often paired with earlier vasopressor initiation. Large trials of fluid-restrictive, vasopressor-early strategies are providing more information about the safety and potential benefit of these approaches. Lowering blood pressure targets is a means to prevent fluid overload and reduce exposure to vasopressors; mean arterial pressure targets of 60-65 mm Hg appear to be safe, at least in older patients. With the trend toward earlier vasopressor initiation, the need for central administration of vasopressors has been questioned, and peripheral vasopressor use is increasing, although it is not universally accepted. Similarly, although guidelines suggest the use of invasive blood pressure monitoring with arterial catheters in patients receiving vasopressors, blood pressure cuffs are less invasive and often sufficient. Overall, the management of early sepsis-induced hypoperfusion is evolving toward fluid-sparing and less-invasive strategies. However, many questions remain, and additional data are needed to further optimize our approach to resuscitation.

Adherence to Pediatric Sepsis Treatment Recommendations at Emergency Departments: A Multicenter Study in Latin America

OBJECTIVE

Sepsis is one of the most urgent health care issues worldwide. Guidelines for early identification and treatment are essential to decrease sepsis-related mortality. Our aim was to collect data on the epidemiology of pediatric septic shock (PSS) from the emergency department (PED) and to assess adherence to recommendations for its management in the first hour.

METHODS

A multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted evaluating children with PSS seen at the PED of 10 tertiary-care centers in Latin America. Adherence to guidelines was evaluated.

RESULTS

We included 219 patients (median age, 3.7 years); 43% had comorbidities, 31% risk factors for developing sepsis, 74% clinical signs of "cold shock," and 13% of "warm shock," 22% had hypotension on admission. Consciousness was impaired in 55%. A peripheral line was used as initial access in 78% (median placement time, 10 minutes). Fluid and antibiotics infusion was achieved within a median time of 30 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 20-60 minutes) and 40 minutes (IQR, 20-60 minutes), respectively; 40% responded inadequately to fluids requiring vasoactive drugs (median time at initiation, 60 minutes; IQR, 30-135 minutes). Delay to vasoactive drug infusion was significantly longer when a central line was placed compared to a peripheral line (median time, 133 minutes [59-278 minutes] vs 42 minutes [30-70 minutes], respectively [ P < 0.001]). Adherence to all treatment goals was achieved in 13%. Mortality was 10%. An association between mortality and hypotension on admission was found (26.1% with hypotension vs 4.9% without; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We found poor adherence to the international recommendations for the treatment of PSS in the first hour at the PED in third-level hospitals in Latin America.

Use of Inotropics by Peripheral Vascular Line in the First Hour of Treatment of Pediatric Septic Shock: Experience at an Emergency Department

OBJECTIVE

Mortality in pediatric septic shock remains unacceptably high. Delays in vasopressor administration have been associated with an increased risk of mortality. Current treatment guidelines suggest the use of a peripheral vascular line (PVL) for inotropic administration in fluid-refractory septic shock when a central vascular line is not already in place. The aim of this study was to report local adverse effects associated with inotropic drug administration through a PVL at a pediatric emergency department setting in the first hour of treatment of septic shock.

METHODS

A prospective, descriptive, observational cohort study of patients with septic shock requiring PVL inotropic administration was conducted at the pediatric emergency department of a tertiary care pediatric hospital. For the infusion and postplacement care of the PVL for vasoactive drugs, an institutional nursing protocol was used.

RESULTS

We included 49 patients; 51% had an underlying disease. Eighty-four percent of the children included had a clinical "cold shock." The most frequently used vasoactive drug was epinephrine (72%). One patient presented with local complications.

CONCLUSIONS

At our center, infusion of vasoactive drugs through a PVL was shown to be safe and allowed for adherence to the current guidelines for pediatric septic shock.

Dose equivalence between metaraminol and norepinephrine in critical care

AIMS

The aim of this study was to determine the conversion dose ratio between continuous infusion metaraminol and norepinephrine in critically ill patients with shock.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in adult patients with shock admitted to an intensive care unit from 29 October 2018 to 30 October 2019 and who transitioned from metaraminol monotherapy to norepinephrine monotherapy. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and infusion doses for both drugs were collected at hourly intervals; 2 hours before to 5 hours after switching from metaraminol monotherapy to norepinephrine monotherapy. The conversion dose ratio was defined as the ratio of metaraminol (μg.kg^-1 .min^-1) : norepinephrine (μg.kg^-1 .min^-1 ) required to achieve a similar MAP.

RESULTS

A total of 43 out of 144 eligible patients were included. The median age was 68 years (IQR 56-76) and 22 (51%) were male. There was no significant difference between the baseline MAP during metaraminol monotherapy (median 71 mm Hg, IQR 66-76) and the post-transition MAP during norepinephrine monotherapy (median 70 mm Hg, IQR 66-73) (P = .09). The median conversion dose ratio between metaraminol and norepinephrine was 13 (IQR 7-24). In the sensitivity analyses, the median conversion dose ratio using the maximum and the mean norepinephrine infusion dose was 8 (IQR 5-16) and 12 (IQR 8-23), respectively.

CONCLUSION

A conversion dose ratio of 10:1 (metaraminol μg.kg^-1 .min^-1 :norepinephrine μg.kg^-1 .min^-1 ) may be used in critically ill patients with shock to account for ease of calculations and variability of the conversion ratio in the primary and sensitivity analyses.

Pharmacoepidemiology of metaraminol in critically ill patients with shock in a tertiary care hospital

BACKGROUND

Metaraminol is increasingly used as a vasopressor in critically ill patients. Nevertheless, there remains limited evidence to support its use in international guidelines for management of shock.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to describe the pharmacoepidemiology of metaraminol in critically ill patients with shock.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted in an intensive care unit (ICU) in Sydney, Australia. Patients admitted during a 1-year time frame who received metaraminol intravenous infusions for management of shock were included.

RESULTS

A total of 152 patients were included. When metaraminol was used, it was the most common first-line vasopressor started for management of shock (97%, n = 147) and was used as monotherapy in 53% (n = 81) of patients. The median duration of metaraminol infusion in the ICU was 7 h (interquartile range [IQR] = 3 to 19), and the median maximum metaraminol infusion rate in the ICU was 4.0 mg/h (IQR = 2.5 to 6.0). Peripheral vasopressor infusions were used in 96% (n = 146/152) of patients for a median duration of 7 h (IQR = 2 to 18). In all these cases, the peripheral vasopressor used was metaraminol (100%, n = 146/146). Patients were commonly switched from metaraminol to noradrenaline infusions after insertion of a central venous catheter (R2 = 0.89). Patients treated with metaraminol monotherapy had a lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III score (58 vs 68; median difference = -9, 95% confidence interval = -16 to -3; p < 0.01) and a shorter duration of overall vasopressor use in the ICU (12 vs 39 h, median difference = -24 h, 95% confidence interval = -31 to -18; p < 0.01) than those treated with combination vasopressors. No extravasation injury was reported in the study cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Metaraminol is often administered as a first-line peripheral vasopressor in the ICU and is used as a single agent in patients with lower severity of shock.

Sepsis and Cerebral Dysfunction: BBB Damage, Neuroinflammation, Oxidative Stress, Apoptosis and Autophagy as Key Mediators and the Potential Therapeutic Approaches

Sepsis-associated cerebral dysfunction is complex pathophysiology, generated from primary infections that are developed elsewhere in the body. The neonates, elderly population and chronically ill and long-term hospitalized patients are predominantly vulnerable to sepsis and related cerebral damage. Generally, electrophysiological recordings, severity and sedation scales, computerized imaging and spectroscopy techniques are used for its detection and diagnosis. About the underlying mechanisms, enhanced blood-brain barrier permeability and metalloprotease activity, tight junction protein loss and endothelial cell degeneration promote the influx of inflammatory and toxic mediators into the brain, triggering cerebrovascular damage. An altered neutrophil count and phenotype further dysregulate the normal neuroimmune responses and neuroendocrine stability via modulated activation of protein kinase C-delta, nuclear factor kappa-B and sphingolipid signaling. Glial activation, together with pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines and the Toll-like receptor, destabilize the immune system. Moreover, superoxides and hydroperoxides generate oxidative stress and perturb mitochondrial dynamics and ATP synthesis, propagating neuronal injury cycle. Activated mitochondrial apoptotic pathway, characterized by increased caspase-3 and caspase-9 cleavage and Bax/Bcl2 ratio in the hippocampal and cortical neurons, stimulate neurocognitive impairments. Additionally, altered LC3-II/I and P62/SQSTM1, p-mTOR, p-AMPK1 and p-ULK1 levels and dysregulated autophagosome-lysosome fusion decrease neuronal and glial energy homeostasis. The therapies and procedures for attenuating sepsis-induced brain damage include early resuscitation, cerebral blood flow autoregulation, implantable electric vagus nerve stimulation, antioxidants, statins, glucocorticoids, neuroimmune axis modulators and PKCδ inhibitors. The current review enumerates the pathophysiology of sepsis-induced brain damage, its diagnosis, the role of critical inducers and mediators and, ultimately, therapeutic measures attenuating cerebrovascular degeneration.

Vasopressor Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit

After fluid administration for vasodilatory shock, vasopressors are commonly infused. Causes of vasodilatory shock include septic shock, post-cardiovascular surgery, post-acute myocardial infarction, postsurgery, other causes of an intense systemic inflammatory response, and drug -associated anaphylaxis. Therapeutic vasopressors are hormones that activate receptors-adrenergic: α1, α2, β1, β2; angiotensin II: AG1, AG2; vasopressin: AVPR1a, AVPR1B, AVPR2; dopamine: DA1, DA2. Vasopressor choice and dose vary widely because of patient and physician practice heterogeneity. Vasopressor adverse effects are excessive vasoconstriction causing organ ischemia/infarction, hyperglycemia, hyperlactatemia, tachycardia, and tachyarrhythmias. To date, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) of vasopressors has shown a decreased 28-day mortality rate. There is a need for evidence regarding alternative vasopressors as first-line vasopressors. We emphasize that vasopressors should be administered simultaneously with fluid replacement to prevent and decrease duration of hypotension in shock with vasodilation. Norepinephrine is the first-choice vasopressor in septic and vasodilatory shock. Interventions that decrease norepinephrine dose (vasopressin, angiotensin II) have not decreased 28-day mortality significantly. In patients not responsive to norepinephrine, vasopressin or epinephrine may be added. Angiotensin II may be useful for rapid resuscitation of profoundly hypotensive patients. Inotropic agent(s) (e.g., dobutamine) may be needed if vasopressors decrease ventricular contractility. Dopamine has fallen to almost no-use recommendation because of adverse effects; angiotensin II is available clinically; there are potent vasopressors with scant literature (e.g., methylene blue); and the novel V1a agonist selepressin missed on its pivotal RCT primary outcome. In pediatric septic shock, vasopressors, epinephrine, and norepinephrine are recommended equally because there is no clear evidence that supports the use of one vasoactive agent. Dopamine is recommended when epinephrine or norepinephrine is not available. New strategies include perhaps patients will be started on several vasopressors with complementary mechanisms of action, patients may be selected for particular vasopressors according to predictive biomarkers, and novel vasopressors may emerge with fewer adverse effects.

Characteristics of resuscitation, and association between use of dynamic tests of fluid responsiveness and outcomes in septic patients: results of a multicenter prospective cohort study in Argentina

BACKGROUND

Resuscitation of septic patients regarding goals, monitoring aspects and therapy is highly variable. Our aim was to characterize cardiovascular and fluid management of sepsis in Argentina, a low and middle-income country (LMIC). Furthermore, we sought to test whether the utilization of dynamic tests of fluid responsiveness, as a guide for fluid therapy after initial resuscitation in patients with persistent or recurrent hypoperfusion, was associated with decreased mortality.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of a national, multicenter prospective cohort study (n = 787) fulfilling Sepsis-3 definitions. Epidemiological characteristics, hemodynamic management data, type of fluids and vasopressors administered, physiological variables denoting hypoperfusion, use of tests of fluid responsiveness, and outcomes, were registered. Independent predictors of mortality were identified with logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Initially, 584 of 787 patients (74%) had mean arterial pressure (MAP) < 65 mm Hg and/or signs of hypoperfusion and received 30 mL/kg of fluids, mostly normal saline (53%) and Ringer lactate (35%). Vasopressors and/or inotropes were administered in 514 (65%) patients, mainly norepinephrine (100%) and dobutamine (9%); in 22%, vasopressors were administered before ending the fluid load. After this, 413 patients (53%) presented persisting or recurrent hypotension and/or hypoperfusion, which prompted administration of additional fluid, based on: lactate levels (66%), urine output (62%), heart rate (54%), central venous O₂ saturation (39%), central venous-arterial PCO₂ difference (38%), MAP (31%), dynamic tests of fluid responsiveness (30%), capillary-refill time (28%), mottling (26%), central venous pressure (24%), cardiac index (13%) and/or pulmonary wedge pressure (3%). Independent predictors of mortality were SOFA and Charlson scores, lactate, requirement of mechanical ventilation, and utilization of dynamic tests of fluid responsiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective observational study assessing the characteristics of resuscitation of septic patients in Argentina, a LMIC, the prevalent use of initial fluid bolus with normal saline and Ringer lactate and the use of norepinephrine as the most frequent vasopressor, reflect current worldwide practices. After initial resuscitation with 30 mL/kg of fluids and vasopressors, 413 patients developed persistent or recurrent hypoperfusion, which required further volume expansion. In this setting, the assessment of fluid responsiveness with dynamic tests to guide fluid resuscitation was independently associated with decreased mortality.

Vasopressor therapy in critically ill patients with shock

BACKGROUND

Vasopressors are administered to critically ill patients with vasodilatory shock not responsive to volume resuscitation, and less often in cardiogenic shock, and hypovolemic shock.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives are to review safety and efficacy of vasopressors, pathophysiology, agents that decrease vasopressor dose, predictive biomarkers, β1-blockers, and directions for research.

METHODS

The quality of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

Vasopressors bind adrenergic: α1, α2, β1, β2; vasopressin: AVPR1a, AVPR1B, AVPR2; angiotensin II: AG1, AG2; and dopamine: DA1, DA2 receptors inducing vasoconstriction. Vasopressor choice and dose vary because of patients and physician practice. Adverse effects include excessive vasoconstriction, organ ischemia, hyperglycemia, hyperlactatemia, tachycardia, and tachyarrhythmias. No randomized controlled trials of vasopressors showed a significant difference in 28-day mortality rate. Norepinephrine is the first-choice vasopressor in vasodilatory shock after adequate volume resuscitation. Some strategies that decrease norepinephrine dose (vasopressin, angiotensin II) have not decreased 28-day mortality while corticosteroids have decreased 28-day mortality significantly in some (two large trials) but not all trials. In norepinephrine-refractory patients, vasopressin or epinephrine may be added. A new vasopressor, angiotensin II, may be useful in profoundly hypotensive patients. Dobutamine may be added because vasopressors may decrease ventricular contractility. Dopamine is recommended only in bradycardic patients. There are potent vasopressors with limited evidence (e.g. methylene blue, metaraminol) and novel vasopressors in development (selepressin).

CONCLUSIONS

Norepinephrine is first choice followed by vasopressin or epinephrine. Angiotensin II and dopamine have limited indications. In future, predictive biomarkers may guide vasopressor selection and novel vasopressors may emerge.

Vasopressor therapy in critically ill patients with shock

BACKGROUND

Vasopressors are administered to critically ill patients with vasodilatory shock not responsive to volume resuscitation, and less often in cardiogenic shock, and hypovolemic shock.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives are to review safety and efficacy of vasopressors, pathophysiology, agents that decrease vasopressor dose, predictive biomarkers, β1-blockers, and directions for research.

METHODS

The quality of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

Vasopressors bind adrenergic: α1, α2, β1, β2; vasopressin: AVPR1a, AVPR1B, AVPR2; angiotensin II: AG1, AG2; and dopamine: DA1, DA2 receptors inducing vasoconstriction. Vasopressor choice and dose vary because of patients and physician practice. Adverse effects include excessive vasoconstriction, organ ischemia, hyperglycemia, hyperlactatemia, tachycardia, and tachyarrhythmias. No randomized controlled trials of vasopressors showed a significant difference in 28-day mortality rate. Norepinephrine is the first-choice vasopressor in vasodilatory shock after adequate volume resuscitation. Some strategies that decrease norepinephrine dose (vasopressin, angiotensin II) have not decreased 28-day mortality while corticosteroids have decreased 28-day mortality significantly in some (two large trials) but not all trials. In norepinephrine-refractory patients, vasopressin or epinephrine may be added. A new vasopressor, angiotensin II, may be useful in profoundly hypotensive patients. Dobutamine may be added because vasopressors may decrease ventricular contractility. Dopamine is recommended only in bradycardic patients. There are potent vasopressors with limited evidence (e.g. methylene blue, metaraminol) and novel vasopressors in development (selepressin).

CONCLUSIONS

Norepinephrine is first choice followed by vasopressin or epinephrine. Angiotensin II and dopamine have limited indications. In future, predictive biomarkers may guide vasopressor selection and novel vasopressors may emerge.

Current use of vasopressors in septic shock

Background

Vasopressors are commonly applied to restore and maintain blood pressure in patients with sepsis. We aimed to evaluate the current practice and therapeutic goals regarding vasopressor use in septic shock as a basis for future studies and to provide some recommendations on their use.

Methods

From November 2016 to April 2017, an anonymous web-based survey on the use of vasoactive drugs was accessible to members of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). A total of 17 questions focused on the profile of respondents, triggering factors, first choice agent, dosing, timing, targets, additional treatments, and effects of vasopressors. We investigated whether the answers complied with current guidelines. In addition, a group of 34 international ESICM experts was asked to formulate recommendations for the use of vasopressors based on 6 questions with sub-questions (total 14).

Results

A total of 839 physicians from 82 countries (65% main specialty/activity intensive care) responded. The main trigger for vasopressor use was an insufficient mean arterial pressure (MAP) response to initial fluid resuscitation (83%). The first-line vasopressor was norepinephrine (97%), targeting predominantly a MAP > 60–65 mmHg (70%), with higher targets in patients with chronic arterial hypertension (79%). The experts agreed on 10 recommendations, 9 of which were based on unanimous or strong (≥ 80%) agreement. They recommended not to delay vasopressor treatment until fluid resuscitation is completed but rather to start with norepinephrine early to achieve a target MAP of ≥ 65 mmHg.

Conclusion

Reported vasopressor use in septic shock is compliant with contemporary guidelines. Future studies should focus on individualized treatment targets including earlier use of vasopressors.