Evaluation of Evidence, Pharmacology, and Interplay of Fluid Resuscitation and Vasoactive Therapy in Sepsis and Septic Shock

RESTRICTIVE FLUID RESUSCITATION IN SEPTIC SHOCK PATIENTS HAS LOWER MORTALITY AND ORGAN DYSFUNCTION RATES THAN STANDARD THERAPY

ABSTRACT

Background : The influence of restrictive fluid resuscitation and the early administration of vasopressors on the clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock are not fully understood. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of restrictive fluid management on mortality and organ dysfunction in patients with septic shock. Methods : This study included consecutive patients with septic shock in need of fluid resuscitation. Based on the fluid management provided in the initial resuscitation phase, a comparison was made between a restrictive group and a standard fluid management group. The primary outcome was in-hospital death, whereas secondary outcomes included organ dysfunction and other adverse events. Results : A total of 238 patients were included in this study. Restrictive fluid management was administered to 59.2% of patients, whereas 40.8% received standard fluid management. Restrictive resuscitation was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality rate (24.8% vs. 52.6%), as well as a shorter median intensive care unit stay (8.0 vs. 11.0 days). The restrictive strategy was associated with a significantly lower prevalence of new-onset acute kidney injury (25.5% vs. 51.5%) and a decrease in the incidence of renal replacement therapy (20.6% vs. 40.2%). The standard group had a higher risk of the need for mechanical ventilation and a significantly lower median number of days without a ventilator than the restrictive group. The median duration of vasopressor-free days in the restrictive group was significantly longer than that in the standard group (25.0 vs. 18.0). The administration rate of inotropes in the restrictive group was significantly lower than that in the standard group. A multivariate logistic regression model showed that restrictive fluid management (odds ratio [OR], 0.312; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.098-0.994) and vasopressor-free days (OR, 0.807; 95% CI, 0.765-0.851) protect against in-hospital death, whereas Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores (OR, 1.121; 95% CI, 1.018-1.234) were independent risk factors for in-hospital death. Conclusions : Restrictive fluid resuscitation and early vasopressor protocol in patients with septic shock are associated with better outcomes, indicating that this regimen is feasible and safe.

Arterial Hypotension Following Norepinephrine Decrease in Septic Shock Patients Is Not Related to Preload Dependence: A Prospective, Observational Cohort Study

Background

The optimal management of hypotensive patients during norepinephrine weaning is unclear. The primary study aim was to assess the ability of preload dependence to predict hypotension following norepinephrine weaning. The secondary aims were to describe the effect of norepinephrine weaning on preload dependence, and the cardiovascular effects of fluid expansion in hypotensive patients following norepinephrine weaning.

Materials and Methods

This was a prospective observational monocentric study. We included PiCCO®-monitored patients with norepinephrine-treated septic shock, for whom the physician decided to decrease the norepinephrine dosage during the de-escalation phase. Three consecutive steps were evaluated with hemodynamic measurements: baseline, after norepinephrine decrease, and after 500 mL fluid expansion.

Results

Forty-five patients were included. Preload dependence assessed by stroke volume changes following passive leg raising was not predictive of pressure response to norepinephrine weaning [AUC of 0.42 (95%CI: 0.25–0.59, p = 0.395)]. After fluid expansion, there was no difference in the prior preload dependence between pressure-responders and non-pressure-responders (14 vs. 13%, p = 1). The pressure response to norepinephrine decrease was not associated with pressure response after fluid expansion (40 vs. 23%, p = 0.211).

Conclusion

Hypotension following norepinephrine decrease was not predicted by preload dependence, and there was no association between arterial hypotension after norepinephrine decrease and fluid response.