Scandinavian SSAI clinical practice guideline on choice of first-line vasopressor for patients with acute circulatory failure

A Clinical Review of Vasopressors in Emergency Medicine

BACKGROUND

Vasopressor medications raise blood pressure through vasoconstriction and are essential in reversing the hypotension seen in many critically ill patients. Previously, vasopressor administration was largely limited to continuous infusions through central venous access.

OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW

This review addresses the clinical use of vasopressors in various shock states, including practical considerations and innovations in vasopressor administration. The focus is on the clinical administration of vasopressors across a range of shock states, including hypovolemic, distributive, cardiogenic, and obstructive shock.

DISCUSSION

Criteria for starting vasopressors are not clearly defined, though early use may be beneficial. A number of physiologic factors affect the body's response to vasopressors, such as acidosis and adrenal insufficiency. Peripheral and push-dose administration of vasopressors are becoming more common. Distributive shock is characterized by inappropriate vasodilation and vasopressors play a crucial role in maintaining adequate blood pressure. The use of vasopressors is more controversial in hypovolemic shock, as the preferred treatment is correction of the volume deficit. Evidence for vasopressors is limited in cardiogenic shock. For obstructive shock, vasopressors can temporize a patient's blood pressure until definitive therapy can reverse the underlying cause.

CONCLUSION

Across the categories of shock states, norepinephrine has wide applicability and is a reasonable first-line agent for shock of uncertain etiology. Keeping a broad differential when hypotension is refractory to vasopressors may help to identify adjunctive treatments in physiologic states that impair vasopressor effectiveness. Peripheral administration of vasopressors is safe and facilitates early administration, which may help to improve outcomes in some shock states.

Risk of arrhythmia in post-resuscitative shock after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with epinephrine versus norepinephrine

OBJECTIVE

To determine the rates of clinically significant tachyarrhythmias and mortality in the management of post-resuscitative shock after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) who receive a continuous epinephrine versus norepinephrine infusion.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

A large multi-site health system with hospitals across the United States.

PATIENTS

Adult patients admitted for OHCA with post-resuscitative shock managed with either epinephrine or norepinephrine infusions within 6 h of ROSC.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Between May 5th, 2018, to January 31st, 2022, there were 221 patients admitted for OHCA who received post-resuscitative epinephrine or norepinephrine infusions. There was no difference in the rate of tachyarrhythmias between epinephrine and norepinephrine infusion in univariate (47.1% vs 41.7%, OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.71-2.20) or multivariable analysis (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.68-2.62). Patients treated with epinephrine were more likely to die during hospitalization than those treated with norepinephrine (90.0% vs 54.3%, OR 6.21, 95% CI 2.37-16.25, p < 0.001). Epinephrine treated patients were more likely to have re-arrest during hospital admission (55.7% vs 14.6%, OR 5.77, 95% CI 2.74-12.18, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

There was no statistically significant difference in clinically significant cardiac tachyarrhythmias in post-OHCA patients treated with epinephrine versus norepinephrine infusions after ROSC. Re-arrest rates and in-hospital mortality were higher in patients who received epinephrine infusions in the first 6 h post-ROSC. Results of this study add to the literature suggesting norepinephrine may be the vasopressor of choice in post-OHCA patients with post-resuscitative shock after ROSC.

Effect of noradrenaline on propofol-induced mitochondrial dysfunction in human skeletal muscle cells

Background

Mitochondrial dysfunction is a hallmark of both critical illness and propofol infusion syndrome and its severity seems to be proportional to the doses of noradrenaline, which patients are receiving. We comprehensively studied the effects of noradrenaline on cellular bioenergetics and mitochondrial biology in human skeletal muscle cells with and without propofol-induced mitochondrial dysfunction.

Methods

Human skeletal muscle cells were isolated from vastus lateralis biopsies from patients undergoing elective hip replacement surgery (n = 14) or healthy volunteers (n = 4). After long-term (96 h) exposure to propofol (10 µg/mL), noradrenaline (100 µM), or both, energy metabolism was assessed by extracellular flux analysis and substrate oxidation assays using [14C] palmitic and [14C(U)] lactic acid. Mitochondrial membrane potential, morphology and reactive oxygen species production were analysed by confocal laser scanning microscopy. Mitochondrial mass was assessed both spectrophotometrically and by confocal laser scanning microscopy.

Results

Propofol moderately reduced mitochondrial mass and induced bioenergetic dysfunction, such as a reduction of maximum electron transfer chain capacity, ATP synthesis and profound inhibition of exogenous fatty acid oxidation. Noradrenaline exposure increased mitochondrial network size and turnover in both propofol treated and untreated cells as apparent from increased co-localization with lysosomes. After adjustment to mitochondrial mass, noradrenaline did not affect mitochondrial functional parameters in naïve cells, but it significantly reduced the degree of mitochondrial dysfunction induced by propofol co-exposure. The fatty acid oxidation capacity was restored almost completely by noradrenaline co-exposure, most likely due to restoration of the capacity to transfer long-chain fatty acid to mitochondria. Both propofol and noradrenaline reduced mitochondrial membrane potential and increased reactive oxygen species production, but their effects were not additive.

Conclusions

Noradrenaline prevents rather than aggravates propofol-induced impairment of mitochondrial functions in human skeletal muscle cells. Its effects on bioenergetic dysfunctions of other origins, such as sepsis, remain to be demonstrated.

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.

Evidence-based airway management protocol for a critical ill patient in medical intensive care unit: Systematic review

Background

Airway management outside the theatre is performed either to resuscitate a physiologically unstable critically ill patients or to secure an emergency airway in the absence of essential equipments. It is a life saving procedure for critically ill and injured patients. Delaying in securing airway or awaking the patient is not an option in case of difficult airway in intensive care unit. Therefore, developing and implementation of an evidence-based airway management protocol is important.

Objective

This review was conducted to develop a clear airway management protocol for a critical ill patient in medical intensive care unit.

Methods

After formulating the key questions, scope, and eligibility criteria for the evidences to be included, a comprehensive search strategy of electronic sources was conducted. The literatures were searched using advanced searching methods from data bases and websites to get evidences on airway management of a critical ill patient. Duplication of literatures was avoided by endnote. Screening of literatures was conducted based on the level of significance with proper appraisal. This review was carried out in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement.

Results

A total of 626 articles were identified from data bases and websites using an electronic search. Of these articles, 95 were removed for duplication and 305 studies were excluded after reviewing their titles and abstracts. At the screening stage, 79 articles were retrieved and evaluated for the eligibility. Finally, 40 studies related to airway management of a critical ill patient in medical ICU were included in this systematic review.

Conclusion

A critical ill patient needs oxygenation and ventilation support. A focused and rapid assessment, with special attention of the airway and hemodynamic status of the critical ill patient is paramount. An appropriate airway management option should be employed to resuscitate or to control an emergency airway of a critical ill patent. This could be non invasive ventilation or invasive airway intervention.

•

Airway management outside operating theatre is a common practice.

•

A critical ill patient needs oxygenation and ventilation support.

•

A focused airway assessment even in the most urgent situation is mandatory.

•

Usage of appropriate airway management intervention is paramount.

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.

Achieving Functional Outcomes after Surgical Management of Catastrophic Vasopressor-induced Limb Ischemia

Vasopressor-induced limb ischemia is an unfortunate complication that can occur in patients treated for septic shock. Current literature lacks surgical treatment recommendations for this condition, besides amputation. We describe various reconstructive surgeries and functional outcomes in patients treated surgically for vasopressor-induced limb ischemia.

Development of a core outcome set for general intensive care unit patients-A protocol

INTRODUCTION

Different outcomes are reported in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, and no core outcome set (COS) is available for ICU patients in general. Accordingly, we aim to develop a COS for ICU patients in general.

METHODS

The COS will be developed in accordance with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Handbook, using a modified Delphi consensus process and semi-structured interviews involving adults who have survived acute admission to an ICU, family members, clinicians, researchers and other stakeholders. The modified Delphi process will include two steps. Step 1: conduction of a modified Delphi survey, developed and informed by combining the outputs of a literature search of outcomes in previous COSs and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. We plan at least two survey rounds to obtain consensus and refine the COS. Step 2: a consensus process regarding instruments or definitions to be recommended for the measurements of the outcomes selected in Step 1. A 'patient and public involvement panel' consisting of a smaller group of patients, family members, clinicians and researchers will be included in the development, analysis and interpretation of the COS.

DISCUSSION

The outlined multiple method studies will establish a COS for ICU patients in general, which may be used to increase the standardisation and comparability of results of RCTs conducted in patients in the ICU setting.

Inotrope Use and Intensive Care Unit Mortality in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: An Analysis of a Large Electronic Intensive Care Unit Database

Purpose: To determine whether inotrope administration is associated with increased all-cause mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients and to identify inotropes superior for improving mortality.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data retrieved from the Philips Electronic ICU (eICU) database, a clinical database of 200,859 patients from over 208 hospitals located throughout the United States. The database was searched for patients admitted with CS to the intensive care unit (ICU) between 2014 and 2015. We evaluated 34,381 CS patients. They were classified into the inotrope and non-inotrope groups based on whether inotropes were administered during hospitalization. The primary endpoint was all-cause hospital mortality.

Findings: In total, 15,021 (43.69%) patients received inotropes during hospitalization. The in-hospital mortality rate was significantly higher in the inotrope group than in the non-inotrope group (2,999 [24.03%] vs. 1,547 [12.40%], adjusted hazard ratio: 2.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.09–2.39; p < 0.0001). After propensity score matching according to the cardiac index, 359 patients were included in each group. The risk of ICU (OR 5.65, 95% CI, 3.17–10.08, p < 0.001) and hospital (OR 2.63, 95% CI: 1.75–3.95, p < 0.001) mortality in the inotrope group was significantly higher. In the inotrope group, the administration of norepinephrine ≤0.1 μg/kg/min and dopamine ≤15 μg/kg/min did not increase the risk of hospital mortality, and milrinone administration was associated with a lower mortality risk (odds ratio: 0.559, 95% CI: 0.430–0.727, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, the administration of >0.1 μg/kg/min dobutamine, epinephrine, and norepinephrine and dopamine >15 μg/kg/min was associated with a higher risk of hospital mortality.

Conclusions: Inotropes should be used cautiously because they may be associated with a higher risk of mortality in CS patients. Low-dose norepinephrine and milrinone may associated with lower risk of hospital mortality in these patients, and supportive therapies should be considered when high-dose inotropes are administered.

Treatment With Vasopressor Agents for Cardiovascular Shock Patients With Poor Renal Function; Results From the Japanese Circulation Society Cardiovascular Shock Registry

According to the guidelines for cardiogenic shock, norepinephrine is associated with fewer arrhythmias than dopamine and may be the better first-line vasopressor agent. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of norepinephrine vs. dopamine as first-line vasopressor agent for cardiovascular shock depending on the presence and severity of renal dysfunction at hospitalization. This was a secondary analysis of the prospective, multicenter Japanese Circulation Society Cardiovascular Shock Registry (JCS Shock Registry) conducted between 2012 and 2014, which included patients with shock complicating emergency cardiovascular disease at hospital arrival. The analysis included 240 adult patients treated with norepinephrine alone (n = 98) or dopamine alone (n = 142) as the first-line vasopressor agent. Primary endpoint was mortality at 30 days after hospital arrival. The two groups had similar baseline characteristics, including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and similar 30-day mortality rates. The analysis of the relationship between 30-day mortality rate after hospital arrival and vasopressor agent used in patients categorized according to the eGFR-based chronic kidney disease classification revealed that norepinephrine as the first-line vasopressor agent might be associated with better prognosis of cardiovascular shock in patients with mildly compromised renal function at admission (0.0 vs. 22.6%; P = 0.010) and that dopamine as the first-line vasopressor agent might be beneficial for cardiovascular shock in patients with severely compromised renal function [odds ratio; 0.22 (95% confidence interval 0.05-0.88; P = 0.032)]. Choice of first-line vasopressor agent should be based on renal function at hospital arrival for patients in cardiovascular shock. Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/, Unique identifier: 000008441.

Characteristics, management and survival of ICU patients with coronavirus disease-19 in Norway, March-June 2020. A prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Norwegian hospitals have operated within capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. We present patient and management characteristics, and outcomes for the entire cohort of adult (>18 years) COVID-19 patients admitted to Norwegian intensive care units (ICU) from 10 March to 19 June 2020.

METHODS

Data were collected from The Norwegian intensive care and pandemic registry (NIPaR). Demographics, co-morbidities, management characteristics and outcomes are described. ICU length of stay (LOS) was analysed with linear regression, and associations between risk factors and mortality were quantified using Cox regression.

RESULTS

In total, 217 patients were included. The male to female ratio was 3:1 and the median age was 63 years. A majority (70%) had one or more co-morbidities, most frequently cardiovascular disease (39%), chronic lung disease (22%), diabetes mellitus (20%), and obesity (17%). Most patients were admitted for acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF) (91%) and invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) was used in 86%, prone ventilation in 38% and 25% of patients received a tracheostomy. Vasoactive drugs were used in 79% and renal replacement therapy in 15%. Median ICU LOS and time of MV was 14.0 and 12.0 days. At end of follow-up 45 patients (21%) were dead. Age, co-morbidities and severity of illness at admission were predictive of death. Severity of AHRF and male gender were associated with LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this national cohort of COVID-19 patients, mortality was low and attributable to known risk factors. Importantly, prolonged length-of-stay must be taken into account when planning for resource allocation for any next surge.

[39-Year-Old Woman with Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: Successful Weaning after Septic Shock and Forefoot Amputation after Microvascular Complications]

We present the case of a slightly obese 39-year-old patient with a severe course of COVID-19 pneumonia. The patient was referred from a hospital to regular care with suspected COVID-19 pneumonia. The initial clinical symptoms consisted of dysuria and fever. A bilateral infiltrate was seen in the chest x-ray. In the CT thorax, advanced COVID-19 typical changes were found on both sides. The COVID-19 infection was confirmed by a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR from the nasopharynx smear. In the case of progressive ARDS with respiratory exhaustion, the patient was intubated and invasively ventilated. When a bacterial superinfection was suspected, we initiated empirical antibiotic therapy. In addition, a therapy with dexamethasone was applied. Therapy with ASA and weight-adapted semi-therapeutic low molecular weight heparin was also carried out. During the intensive care treatment the patient developed a fulminant septic shock with consecutive severe thrombocytopenia. A dilated tracheotomy was performed. The weaning progress was hampered by recurrent septic attacks. Necrosis in the area of ​​the right foot was identified as the cause of the septic relapses. As there was no alternative focus, surgical rehabilitation with partial amputation was carried out. The patient then remained infection-free and could be weaned from the respirator.

Multidisciplinary Approach to the Diagnosis and In-Hospital Management of COVID-19 Infection: A Narrative Review

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 disease) was declared a pandemic on 11th March 2020 by the World Health Organization. This unprecedented circumstance has challenged hospitals' response capacity, requiring significant structural and organizational changes to cope with the surge in healthcare demand and to minimize in-hospital risk of transmission. As our knowledge advances, we now understand that COVID-19 is a multi-systemic disease rather than a mere respiratory tract infection, therefore requiring holistic care and expertise from various medical specialties. In fact, the clinical spectrum of presentation ranges from respiratory complaints to gastrointestinal, cardiac or neurological symptoms. In addition, COVID-19 pandemic has created a global burden of mental illness that affects the general population as well as healthcare practitioners. The aim of this manuscript is to provide a comprehensive and multidisciplinary insight into the complexity of this disease, reviewing current scientific evidence on COVID-19 management and treatment across several medical specialties involved in the in-hospital care of these patients.

Effect of Continuous Epinephrine Infusion on Survival in Critically Ill Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVES

Epinephrine is frequently used as an inotropic and vasopressor agent in critically ill patients requiring hemodynamic support. Data from observational trials suggested that epinephrine use is associated with a worse outcome as compared with other adrenergic and nonadrenergic vasoactive drugs. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to investigate the effect of epinephrine administration on outcome of critically ill patients.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane central register were searched by two independent investigators up to March 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Inclusion criteria were: administration of epinephrine as IV continuous infusion, patients admitted to an ICU or undergoing major surgery, and randomized controlled trials. Studies on epinephrine administration as bolus (e.g., during cardiopulmonary resuscitation), were excluded. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up available.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent investigators examined and extracted data from eligible trials.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 5,249 studies were assessed, with a total of 12 studies (1,227 patients) finally included in the meta-analysis. The majority of the trials were performed in the setting of septic shock, and the most frequent comparator was a combination of norepinephrine plus dobutamine. We found no difference in all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up available (197/579 [34.0%] in the epinephrine group vs 219/648 [33.8%] in the control group; risk ratio = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82-1.10; p = 0.49; I = 0%). No differences in the need for renal replacement therapy, occurrence rate of myocardial ischemia, occurrence rate of arrhythmias, and length of ICU stay were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Current randomized evidence showed that continuous IV administration of epinephrine as inotropic/vasopressor agent is not associated with a worse outcome in critically ill patients.

[Perioperative pharmacological circulatory support in daily clinical routine]

Perioperative phases of hypotension are associated with an increase in postoperative complications and organ damage. Whereas some years ago hemodynamic stabilization was primarily carried out by volume supplementation, in recent years the use and dosing of cardiovascular-active substances has significantly increased. But like intravascular volume therapy, also substances with a cardiovascular effect have therapeutic margins, and thus, potential side effects. This review article discusses indications for each cardiovascular-active agent, weighing up advantages and disadvantages. Special attention is paid to the question how to administrate them: central venous catheter vs. peripheral indwelling venous cannula. The authors come to the conclusion that it is not a question of whether it is principally allowed to apply cardiovascular-active drugs via peripheral veins but more importantly, what should be taken into consideration if a peripheral venous access is used. This article provides concise recommendations.

Recommendations for fluid management of adults with sepsis in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review of guidelines

BACKGROUND

Sepsis guidelines are widely used in high-income countries and intravenous fluids are an important supportive treatment modality. However, fluids have been harmful in intervention trials in low-income countries, most notably in sub-Saharan Africa. We assessed the relevance, quality and applicability of available guidelines for the fluid management of adult patients with sepsis in this region.

METHODS

We identified sepsis guidelines by systematic review with broad search terms, duplicate screening and data extraction. We included peer-reviewed publications with explicit relevance to sepsis and fluid therapy. We excluded those designed exclusively for specific aetiologies of sepsis, for limited geographic locations, or for non-adult populations. We used the AGREE II tool to assess the quality of guideline development, performed a narrative synthesis and used theoretical case scenarios to assess practical applicability to everyday clinical practice in resource-constrained settings.

RESULTS

Published sepsis guidelines are heterogeneous in sepsis definition and in quality: 8/10 guidelines had significant deficits in applicability, particularly with reference to resource considerations in low-income settings. Indications for intravenous fluid were hypotension (8/10), clinical markers of hypoperfusion (6/10) and lactataemia (3/10). Crystalloids were overwhelmingly recommended (9/10). Suggested volumes varied; 5/10 explicitly recommended "fluid challenges" with reassessment, totalling between 1 L and 4 L during initial resuscitation. Fluid balance, including later de-escalation of therapy, was not specifically described in any. Norepinephrine was the preferred initial vasopressor (5/10), specifically targeted to MAP > 65 mmHg (3/10), with higher values suggested in pre-existing hypertension (1/10). Recommendations for guidelines were almost universally derived from evidence in high-income countries. None of the guidelines suggested any refinement for patients with malnutrition.

CONCLUSIONS

Widely used international guidelines contain disparate recommendations on intravenous fluid use, lack specificity and are largely unattainable in low-income countries given available resources. A relative lack of high-quality evidence from sub-Saharan Africa increases reliance on recommendations which may not be relevant or implementable.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

BACKGROUND

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed.

METHODS

We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations.

RESULTS

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy.

CONCLUSION

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

Preconditioning with levosimendan reduces postoperative low cardiac output in moderate-severe systolic dysfunction patients who will undergo elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a cost-effective strategy

Background

Patients with moderate-severe systolic dysfunction undergoing coronary artery bypass graft have a higher incidence of postoperative low cardiac output. Preconditioning with levosimendan may be a useful strategy to prevent this complication. In this context, design cost-effective strategies like preconditioning with levosimendan may become necessary.

Methods

In a sequential assignment of patients with Left Ventricle Ejection Fraction less than 40%, two strategies were compared in terms of cost-effectiveness: standard care (n = 41) versus preconditioning with Levosimendan (n = 13). The adverse effects studied included: postoperative new-onset atrial fibrillation, low cardiac output, renal failure and prolonged mechanical ventilation. The costs were evaluated using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and Monte Carlo simulations were performed.

Results

Preconditioning with levosimendan in moderate to severe systolic dysfunction (Left Ventricle Ejection Fraction < 40%), was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative low cardiac output in elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery 2(15.4%) vs 25(61%) (P < 0.01) and lesser intensive care unit length of stay 2(1–4) vs 4(3–6) days (P = 0.03). Average cost on levosimendan group was 14,792€ while the average cost per patient without levosimendan was 17,007€. Patients with no complications represented 53.8% of the total in the levosimendan arm, as compared to 31.7% in the non-levosimendan arm. In all Montecarlo simulations for sensitivity analysis, use of levosimendan was less expensive and more effective.

Conclusions

Preconditioning with levosimendan, is a cost-effective strategy preventing postoperative low cardiac output in patients with moderate-severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

Long-term outcome of perioperative low cardiac output syndrome in cardiac surgery: 1-year results of a multicenter randomized trial

PURPOSE

Perioperative myocardial dysfunction occurs frequently in cardiac surgery, and is a risk factor for morbidity and mortality. Levosimendan has been suggested to reduce mortality of patients with perioperative myocardial dysfunction. However, long-term outcome data on its efficacy in cardiac surgery are lacking.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cardiac surgery patients with perioperative myocardial dysfunction were randomized to levosimendan or placebo, in addition to standard inotropic care. One-year mortality data were collected.

RESULTS

We randomized 506 patients (248 to levosimendan 258 to placebo). At 1-year follow-up, 41 patients (16.5%) died in the levosimendan group, while 47 (18.3%) died in the placebo group (absolute risk difference -1.8; 95% CI -8.4 to 4.9; P = .60). Female sex, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, previous myocardial infarction, serum creatinine, hematocrit, mean arterial pressure, and duration of cardiopulmonary bypass were independently associated with 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan administration does not improve 1-year survival in cardiac surgery patients with perioperative myocardial dysfunction. One-year mortality in these patients is 17%. Six predictive factors for long-term mortality were identified.

STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00994825 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: guidelines on the management of critically ill adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Background

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed.

Methods

We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations.

Results

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy.

Conclusion

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-020-06022-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Inotropes and vasopressors use in cardiogenic shock: when, which and how much?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Data and interventional trials regarding vasopressor and inotrope use during cardiogenic shock are scarce. Their use is limited by their side-effects and the lack of solid evidence regarding their effectiveness in improving outcomes. In this article, we review the current use of vasopressor and inotrope agents during cardiogenic shock.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two recent Cochrane analyses concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that any one vasopressor or inotrope was superior to another in terms of mortality. A recent RCT and a meta-analysis on individual data suggested that norepinephrine may be preferred over epinephrine in patients with cardiogenic shock . For inotrope agents, when norepinephrine fails to restore perfusion, dobutamine represents the first-line agent. Levosimendan is a calcium sensitizer agent, which improves acute hemodynamics, albeit with uncertain effects on mortality.

SUMMARY

When blood pressure needs to be restored, norepinephrine is a reasonable first-line agent. Dobutamine is the first-line inotrope agent wheraes levosimendan can be used as a second-line agent or preferentially in patients previously treated with beta-blockers. Current information regarding comparative effective outcomes is nonetheless sparse and their use should be limited as a temporary bridge to recovery, mechanical circulatory support or heart transplantation.

Basic Critical Care for Management of COVID-19 Patients: Position Paper of the Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, Part II

In a resource-limited country like India, rationing of scarce critical care resources might be required to ensure appropriate delivery of care to the critically ill patients suffering from COVID-19 infection. Most of these patients require critical care support because of respiratory failure or presence of multiorgan dysfunction syndrome. As there is no pharmacological therapy available, respiratory support in the form of supplemental oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, and invasive mechanical ventilation remains mainstay of care in intensive care units. As there is still dearth of direct evidence, most of the data are extrapolated from the experience gained from the management of general critical care patients.

How to cite this article: Juneja D, Savio RD, Srinivasan S, Pandit RA, Ramasubban S, Reddy PK, et al. Basic Critical Care for Management of COVID-19 Patients: Position Paper of the Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, Part II. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(Suppl 5):S254–S262.

Adrenergic Downregulation in Critical Care: Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Evidence

Catecholamines remain the mainstay of therapy for acute cardiovascular dysfunction. However, adrenergic receptors quickly undergo desensitization and downregulation after prolonged stimulation. Moreover, prolonged exposure to high circulating catecholamines levels is associated with several adverse effects on different organ systems. Unfortunately, in critically ill patients, adrenergic downregulation translates into progressive reduction of cardiovascular response to exogenous catecholamine administration, leading to refractory shock. Accordingly, there has been a growing interest in recent years toward use of noncatecholaminergic inotropes and vasopressors. Several studies investigating a wide variety of catecholamine-sparing strategies (eg, levosimendan, vasopressin, β-blockers, steroids, and use of mechanical circulatory support) have been published recently. Use of these agents was associated with improvement in hemodynamics and decreased catecholamine use but without a clear beneficial effect on major clinical outcomes. Accordingly, additional research is needed to define the optimal management of catecholamine-resistant shock.

Causes and outcomes of finger ischemia in hospitalized patients in the intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE

Vascular surgeons may be consulted to evaluate hospitalized patients with finger ischemia. We sought to characterize causes and outcomes of finger ischemia in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

METHODS

All ICU patients who underwent evaluation for finger ischemia from 2008 to 2015 were reviewed. All were evaluated with finger photoplethysmography. The patients' demographics, comorbidities, ICU care (ventilator status, arterial lines, use of vasoactive medications), finger amputations, and survival were also recorded. ICU patients were compared with concurrently evaluated non-ICU inpatients with finger ischemia.

RESULTS

There were 98 ICU patients (55 male, 43 female) identified. The mean age was 57.1 ± 16.8 years. Of these patients, 42 (43%) were in the surgical ICU and 56 (57%) in the medical ICU. Seventy (72%) had abnormal findings on finger photoplethysmography, 40 (69%) unilateral and 30 (31%) bilateral. Thirty-six (37%) had ischemia associated with an arterial line. Twelve (13%) had concomitant toe ischemia. Eighty (82%) were receiving vasoactive medications at the time of diagnosis, with the most frequent being phenylephrine (55%), norepinephrine (47%), ephedrine (31%), epinephrine (26%), and vasopressin (24%). Treatment was with anticoagulation in 88 (90%; therapeutic, 48%; prophylactic, 42%) and antiplatelet agents in 59 (60%; aspirin, 51%; clopidogrel, 15%). Other frequently associated conditions included mechanical ventilation at time of diagnosis (37%), diabetes (34%), peripheral arterial disease (32%), dialysis dependence (31%), cancer (24%), and sepsis (20%). Only five patients (5%) ultimately required finger amputation. The 30-day, 1-year, and 3-year survival was 84%, 69%, and 59%. By Cox proportional hazards modeling, cancer (hazard ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-5.6; P = .035) was an independent predictor of mortality. There were 50 concurrent non-ICU patients with finger ischemia. Non-ICU patients were more likely to have connective tissue disorders (26% vs 13%; P = .05) and hyperlipidemia (42% vs 24%; P = .03) and to undergo finger amputations (16% vs 5%; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Finger ischemia in the ICU is frequently associated with the presence of arterial lines and the use of vasopressor medications, of which phenylephrine and norepinephrine are most frequent. Anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy is appropriate treatment. Whereas progression to amputation is rare, patients with finger ischemia in the ICU have a high rate of mortality, particularly in the presence of cancer. Non-ICU patients hospitalized with finger ischemia more frequently require finger amputations, probably because of more frequent connective tissue disorders.

Endorsement of clinical practice guidelines by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

Clinical practice guidelines from other organizations or societies with assumed clinical and contextualized relevance for Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (SSAI) members, may trigger a formal evaluation by The Clinical Practice Committee (CPC) for possible SSAI endorsement. This avoids unnecessary duplicate processes and minimizes resource-waste. Identified guidelines are assessed for endorsement using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. The SSAI CPC utilizes the AGREE II online coordinated group appraisal platform to assess the methodological rigor and transparency in which the guideline was developed. The results of the assessment, including the decision to endorse or not, are presented to the SSAI Board for sanctioning. This document briefly outlines the process for evaluation of non-SSAI guidelines by the CPC for possible SSAI endorsement.

Scandinavian SSAI clinical practice guideline on choice of inotropic agent for patients with acute circulatory failure

Background

Adult critically ill patients often suffer from acute circulatory failure and those with low cardiac output may be treated with inotropic agents. The aim of this Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine guideline was to present patient‐important treatment recommendations on this topic.

Methods

This guideline was developed according to GRADE. We assessed the following subpopulations of patients with shock: (1) shock in general, (2) septic shock, (3) cardiogenic shock, (4) hypovolemic shock, (5) shock after cardiac surgery, and (6) other types of shock, including vasodilatory shock. We assessed patient‐important outcome measures, including mortality and serious adverse reactions.

Results

For all patients, we suggest against the routine use of any inotropic agent, including dobutamine, as compared to placebo/no treatment (very low quality of evidence). For patients with shock in general, and in those with septic and other types of shock, we suggest using dobutamine rather than levosimendan or epinephrine (very low quality of evidence). For patients with cardiogenic shock and in those with shock after cardiac surgery, we suggest using dobutamine rather than milrinone (very low quality of evidence). For the other clinical questions, we refrained from giving any recommendations or suggestions.

Conclusions

We suggest against the routine use of any inotropic agent in adult patients with shock. If used, we suggest using dobutamine rather than other inotropic agents for the majority of patients, however, the quality of evidence was very low, implying high uncertainty on the balance between the benefits and harms of inotropic agents.

Common Sense Approach to Managing Sepsis

Sepsis results in many deaths, prolonged suffering among survivors and relatives, and high use of resources both in developed and developing countries. The updated Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines should aid clinicians in improving the identification and management of these patients, but many uncertainties remain because most of the guidance is based on low-quality evidence. This article discusses how to use some of the specific items of the guidelines together with a common-sense approach to aid clinical management of patients with sepsis while trying to balance the potential benefit and harm of the items.

Dopamine versus norepinephrine in the treatment of cardiogenic shock: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend that norepinephrine (NA) should be used to reach the target mean arterial pressure (MAP) during cardiogenic shock (CS), rather than epinephrine and dopamine (DA). However, there has actually been few studies on comparing norepinephrine with dopamine and their results conflicts. These studies raise a heat discussion. This study aimed to validate the effectiveness of norepinephrine for treating CS in comparison with dopamine.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess pooled estimates of risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for 28-day mortality, incidence of arrhythmic events, gastrointestinal reaction, and some indexes after treatment.

RESULTS

Compared with dopamine, patients receiving norepinephrine had a lower 28-day mortality (RR 1.611 [95% CI 1.219-2.129]; P < .001; P heterogeneity = .01), a lower risk of arrhythmic events (RR 3.426 [95% CI 2.120-5.510]; P < .001; P heterogeneity = .875) and a lower risk of gastrointestinal reaction (RR 5.474 [95% CI 2.917-10.273]; P < .001; P heterogeneity = 0). In subgroup analyses on 28-day mortality by causes of CS, there were more benefits from norepinephrine than dopamine in 2 subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis revealed that norepinephrine was associated with a lower 28-day mortality, a lower risk of arrhythmic events, and gastrointestinal reaction. No matter whether CS is caused by coronary heart disease or not, norepinephrine is superior to dopamine for correcting CS on the 28-day mortality.

Scandinavian SSAI clinical practice guideline on choice of first-line vasopressor for patients with acute circulatory failure

Background

Adult critically ill patients often suffer from acute circulatory failure, necessitating use of vasopressor therapy. The aim of the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (SSAI) task force for Acute Circulatory Failure was to present clinically relevant, evidence‐based treatment recommendations on this topic.

Methods

This guideline was developed according to standards for trustworthy guidelines, including a systematic review of the literature and use of the GRADE methodology for assessment of the quality of evidence and for moving from evidence to recommendations. We assessed the following subpopulations of patients with acute circulatory failure: 1) shock in general, 2) septic shock, 3) cardiogenic shock, 4) hypovolemic shock and 5) other types of shock, including vasodilatory shock. We assessed patient‐important outcome measures, including mortality, serious adverse reactions and quality‐of‐life.

Results

For patients with shock in general and those with septic shock, we recommend using norepinephrine rather than dopamine, and we suggest using norepinephrine rather than epinephrine, vasopressin analogues, and phenylephrine. For patients with cardiogenic shock and those with hypovolemic shock, we suggest using norepinephrine rather than dopamine, and we provide no recommendations/suggestions of norepinephrine vs. epinephrine, vasopressin analogues, and phenylephrine. For patients with other types of shock, including vasodilatory shock, we suggest using norepinephrine rather than dopamine, epinephrine, vasopressin analogues, and phenylephrine.

Conclusions

We recommend using norepinephrine rather than other vasopressors as first‐line treatment for the majority of adult critically ill patients with acute circulatory failure.