Vasopressin Compared with Norepinephrine Augments the Decline of Plasma Cytokine Levels in Septic Shock

Understanding, assessing and treating immune, endothelial and haemostasis dysfunctions in bacterial sepsis

The interplay between the immune system, coagulation, and endothelium is critical in regulating the host response to infection. However, in sepsis and other critical illnesses, a dysregulated immune response can lead to excessive alterations in these mechanisms, resulting in coagulopathy, endothelial dysfunction, and multi-organ dysfunction. This review aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the pathophysiological mechanisms that govern the complex interplay between immune dysfunction, endothelial dysfunction, and coagulation in sepsis. It emphasises clinical significance, evaluation methods, and potential therapeutic interventions. Understanding these mechanisms is essential for developing effective treatments that can modulate the immune response, mitigate thrombosis, restore endothelial function, and ultimately improve patient survival.

American Burn Association Clinical Practice Guidelines on Burn Shock Resuscitation

This Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) addresses the topic of acute fluid resuscitation during the first 48 hours following a burn injury for adults with burns ≥20% of the total body surface area (%TBSA). The listed authors formed an investigation panel and developed clinically relevant PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) questions. A systematic literature search returned 5978 titles related to this topic and after 3 levels of screening, 24 studies met criteria to address the PICO questions and were critically reviewed. We recommend that clinicians consider the use of human albumin solution, especially in patients with larger burns, to lower resuscitation volumes and improve urine output. We recommend initiating resuscitation based on providing 2 mL/kg/% TBSA burn in order to reduce resuscitation fluid volumes. We recommend selective monitoring of intra-abdominal and intraocular pressure during burn shock resuscitation. We make a weak recommendation for clinicians to consider the use of computer decision support software to guide fluid titration and lower resuscitation fluid volumes. We do not recommend the use of transpulmonary thermodilution-derived variables to guide burn shock resuscitation. We are unable to make any recommendations on the use of high-dose vitamin C (ascorbic acid), fresh frozen plasma (FFP), early continuous renal replacement therapy, or vasopressors as adjuncts during acute burn shock resuscitation. Mortality is an important outcome in burn shock resuscitation, but it was not formally included as a PICO outcome because the available scientific literature is missing studies of sufficient population size and quality to allow us to confidently make recommendations related to the outcome of survival at this time.

Validity of mental and physical stress models

Different stress models are employed to enhance our understanding of the underlying mechanisms and explore potential interventions. However, the utility of these models remains a critical concern, as their validities may be limited by the complexity of stress processes. Literature review revealed that both mental and physical stress models possess reasonable construct and criterion validities, respectively reflected in psychometrically assessed stress ratings and in activation of the sympathoadrenal system and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. The findings are less robust, though, in the pharmacological perturbations' domain, including such agents as adenosine or dobutamine. Likewise, stress models' convergent- and discriminant validity vary depending on the stressors' nature. Stress models share similarities, but also have important differences regarding their validities. Specific traits defined by the nature of the stressor stimulus should be taken into consideration when selecting stress models. Doing so can personalize prevention and treatment of stress-related antecedents, its acute processing, and chronic sequelae. Further work is warranted to refine stress models' validity and customize them so they commensurate diverse populations and circumstances.

Optimizing Vasopressin Use and Initiation Timing in Septic Shock: A Narrative Review

TOPIC IMPORTANCE

This review discusses the rationale for vasopressin use, summarizes the results of clinical trials evaluating vasopressin, and focuses on the timing of vasopressin initiation to provide clinicians guidance for optimal adjunctive vasopressin initiation in patients with septic shock.

REVIEW FINDINGS

Patients with septic shock require vasoactive agents to restore adequate tissue perfusion. After norepinephrine, vasopressin is the suggested second-line adjunctive agent in patients with persistent inadequate mean arterial pressure. Vasopressin use in practice is heterogeneous likely because of inconsistent clinical trial findings, the lack of specific recommendations for when it should be used, and the high drug acquisition cost. Despite these limitations, vasopressin has demonstrated price inelastic demand, and its use in the United States has continued to increase. However, questions remain regarding optimal vasopressin use in patients with septic shock, particularly regarding patient selection and the timing of vasopressin initiation.

SUMMARY

Experimental studies evaluating the initiation timing of vasopressin in patients with septic shock are limited, and recent observational studies have revealed an association between vasopressin initiation at lower norepinephrine-equivalent doses or lower lactate concentrations and lower mortality.

Argipressin for prevention of blood loss during liver resection: a study protocol for a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial (ARG-01)

INTRODUCTION

Liver resection carries a high risk for extensive bleeding and need for blood transfusions, which is associated with significant negative impact on outcome. In malignant disease, the most common indication for surgery, it also includes increased risk for recurrence of cancer. Argipressin decreases liver and portal blood flow and may have the potential to reduce bleeding during liver surgery, although this has not been explored.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

ARG-01 is a prospective, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study on 248 patients undergoing liver resection at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden. Patients will be randomised to one of two parallel groups, infusion of argipressin or normal saline administered peroperatively. The primary endpoint is peroperative blood loss. Secondary outcomes include need for blood transfusion, perioperative variables, length of hospital stay, the inflammatory response, organ damage markers and complications at 30 days.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study is enrolling patients since March 2022. The trial is approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Dnr 2021-03557) and the Swedish Medical Product Agency (Dnr 5.1-2021-90115). Results will be announced at scientific meetings and in international peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05293041 and EudraCT, 2021-001806-32.

The order of vasopressor discontinuation and incidence of hypotension: a retrospective cohort analysis

The optimal order of vasopressor discontinuation during shock resolution remains unclear. We evaluated the incidence of hypotension in patients receiving concomitant vasopressin (VP) and norepinephrine (NE) based on the order of their discontinuation. In this retrospective cohort study, consecutive patients receiving concomitant VP and NE infusions for shock admitted to intensive care units were evaluated. The primary outcome was hypotension incidence following discontinuation of VP or NE (VP1 and NE1 groups, respectively). Secondary outcomes included the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) and arrhythmias. Subgroup analysis was conducted by examining outcomes based on the type of shock. Of the 2,035 included patients, 952 (46.8%) were VP1 and 1,083 (53.2%) were NE1. VP1 had a higher incidence of hypotension than NE1 (42.1% vs. 14.2%; P < 0.001), longer time to shock reversal (median: 2.5 vs. 2.2 days; P = .009), higher hospital [29% (278/952) vs. 24% (258/1083); P = .006], and 28-day mortality [37% (348/952) vs. 29% (317/1,083); P < 0.001] when compared with the NE1 group. There were no differences in ICU mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, new-onset arrhythmia, or AKI incidence between the two groups. In subgroup analyses based on different types of shock, similar outcomes were observed. After adjustments, hypotension in the following 24 h and 28-day mortality were significantly higher in VP1 (Odds ratios (OR) 4.08(3.28, 5.07); p-value < .001 and 1.27(1.04, 1.55); p-value < .001, respectively). Besides, in a multivariable model, the need for renal replacement therapy (OR 1.68 (1.34, 2.12); p-value < .001) was significantly higher in VP1. Among patients with shock who received concomitant VP and NE, the VP1 group was associated with a higher incidence of hypotension in comparison with NE1. Future studies need to validate our findings and their impact on clinical outcomes.

Increased risk of catheter-related infection in critically ill patients given catecholamine inotropes during continuous renal replacement therapy

INTRODUCTION

Previous in vitro studies have shown that catecholamine inotropes are potent stimulators of bacterial growth and biofilm formation on catheter surfaces. This study aimed to investigate the effects of administering catecholamine inotropes during continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) on catheter-related infections in critically ill patients.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective cohort study included patients requiring CRRT in an intensive care unit from 2016 to 2017, who were divided into those who received and did not receive catecholamine inotropes for ≥24 h (catecholamine and control groups, respectively). The primary endpoint was catheter-related infection, including catheter-related colonization (CRCOL) and catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI).

FINDINGS

We included 235 patients with 297 dialysis catheters. The catecholamine group had higher proportions of cardiovascular disease (p = 0.002), shock (p < 0.001), mechanical ventilation (p < 0.001), and antibiotic use (p = 0.013). There was no significant between-group difference in the CRBSI incidence (5.742 vs. 3.143 events/1000 catheter-days; p = 0.205). However, the CRCOL incidence was significantly higher in the catecholamine group than in the control group (6.221 vs. 0.898 events/1000 catheter-days; p = 0.006). The prominent pathogenic bacteria were gram-negative bacteria. After adjusting for confounding factors in multivariate logistic models, catecholamine inotropes (OR: 3.575, 95% CI: 1.422-9.912, p = 0.008) and immunosuppression (OR: 2.980, 95% CI: 1.137-7.812, p = 0.026) were independently associated with a higher risk of catheter-related infections.

DISCUSSION

We observed a similar incidence of catheter-related infection with that in other CRRT patients. Using catecholamine inotropes in those patients increased CRCOL risk, which is consistent with previous in vitro studies. Our findings suggest that catecholamine inotropes is an independent risk factor for catheter-related infections in critically ill patients undergoing CRRT.

Inhibition of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Preserves High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Improves Survival in Sepsis

BACKGROUND

The high-density lipoprotein hypothesis of atherosclerosis has been challenged by clinical trials of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitors, which failed to show significant reductions in cardiovascular events. Plasma levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) decline drastically during sepsis, and this phenomenon is explained, in part, by the activity of CETP, a major determinant of plasma HDL-C levels. We tested the hypothesis that genetic or pharmacological inhibition of CETP would preserve high-density lipoprotein levels and decrease mortality in clinical cohorts and animal models of sepsis.

METHODS

We examined the effect of a gain-of-function variant in CETP (rs1800777, p.Arg468Gln) and a genetic score for decreased CETP function on 28-day sepsis survival using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age and sex in the UK Biobank (n=5949), iSPAAR (Identification of SNPs Predisposing to Altered Acute Lung Injury Risk; n=882), Copenhagen General Population Study (n=2068), Copenhagen City Heart Study (n=493), Early Infection (n=200), St Paul's Intensive Care Unit 2 (n=203), and Vasopressin Versus Norepinephrine Infusion in Patients With Septic Shock studies (n=632). We then studied the effect of the CETP inhibitor, anacetrapib, in adult female APOE*3-Leiden mice with or without human CETP expression using the cecal-ligation and puncture model of sepsis.

RESULTS

A fixed-effect meta-analysis of all 7 cohorts found that the CETP gain-of-function variant was significantly associated with increased risk of acute sepsis mortality (hazard ratio, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.22-1.70]; P<0.0001). In addition, a genetic score for decreased CETP function was associated with significantly decreased sepsis mortality in the UK Biobank (hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.59-1.00] per 1 mmol/L increase in HDL-C) and iSPAAR cohorts (hazard ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.37-0.98] per 1 mmol/L increase in HDL-C). APOE*3-Leiden.CETP mice treated with anacetrapib had preserved levels of HDL-C and apolipoprotein-AI and increased survival relative to placebo treatment (70.6% versus 35.3%, Log-rank P=0.03), whereas there was no effect of anacetrapib on the survival of APOE*3-Leiden mice that did not express CETP (50.0% versus 42.9%, Log-rank P=0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical genetics and humanized mouse models suggest that inhibiting CETP may preserve high-density lipoprotein levels and improve outcomes for individuals with sepsis.

Vasopressin Versus Norepinephrine for the Management of Septic Shock in Cancer Patients: The VANCS II Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

Previous trials suggest that vasopressin may improve outcomes in patients with vasodilatory shock. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether vasopressin could be superior to norepinephrine to improve outcomes in cancer patients with septic shock.

DESIGN

Single-center, randomized, double-blind clinical trial, and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

SETTING

ICU of a tertiary care hospital.

PATIENTS

Two-hundred fifty patients 18 years old or older with cancer and septic shock.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were assigned to either vasopressin or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor therapy. An updated meta-analysis was also conducted including randomized trials published until October 2018.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. Prespecified secondary outcomes included 90-days all-cause mortality rate; number of days alive and free of advanced organ support at day 28; and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score 24 hours and 96 hours after randomization. We also measure the prevalence of adverse effects in 28 days. A total of 250 patients were randomized. The primary outcome was observed in 71 patients (56.8%) in the vasopressin group and 66 patients (52.8%) in the norepinephrine group (p = 0.52). There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (90 patients [72.0%] and 94 patients [75.2%], respectively; p = 0.56), number of days alive and free of advanced organ support, adverse events, or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score.

CONCLUSIONS

In cancer patients with septic shock, vasopressin as first-line vasopressor therapy was not superior to norepinephrine in reducing 28-day mortality rate.

Metabolic acidosis in critically ill patients with cirrhosis: Epidemiology and short-term mortality risk factors

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Metabolic acidosis is a common complication in patients with cirrhosis at the intensive care units (ICUs) and associated with increased mortality. The aim of our research was to explore the epidemiology and risk factors of metabolic acidosis in critically ill patients with cirrhosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 975 patients with cirrhosis were selected into our study, and all participants were followed up for at least 28 days. Cox regression model and machine-learning algorithm were used to identify the importance of different risk factors, respectively. Finally, an improved prognostic model as Model for End-stage Liver Disease and metabolic acidosis (MELD-MA) was developed.

RESULTS

Among the 975 patients with liver cirrhosis, 506 had metabolic acidosis, including 257 patients who had decompensated metabolic acidosis at ICU admission. The 28-day mortality was 41% (206/506) in patients with metabolic acidosis. Bilirubin (hazard ratio (HR): 1.023, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.011-1.036), international normalized ratio (HR: 1.527, 95% CI: 1.332-1.750), pH (HR: 0.173, 95% CI: 0.047-0.640), BE-Lac (HR: 0.907, 95% CI: 0.868-0.948), and BE-Na (HR: 0.923, 95% CI: 0.859-0.991) were considered as independent prognostic parameters for 28-day mortality. MELD-NA had significantly higher discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.79) than MELD and Child-Pugh score.

CONCLUSION

Critically ill patients with cirrhosis have a high mortality rate and poor prognosis because of the high prevalence of metabolic acidosis. Lactic acidosis is the worst prognosis of all types of metabolic acidosis. MELD-MA performs well on the short-term mortality assessment in critically ill patients with cirrhosis and metabolic acidosis.

Model for end-stage liver disease and pneumonia: An improved scoring model for critically ill cirrhotic patients with pneumonia

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Critically ill patients with cirrhosis with pneumonia are at an increased risk for mortality. Only a few accurate predictive models are existing specific to these patients. The aim of the present study was to compare the existing prognostic models and to develop an improved mortality risk model for patients with cirrhosis and pneumonia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 231 patients were enrolled in our study (70% training and 30% validation cohorts). All participants were followed up for at least 21 days. Model for End-stage Liver Disease and Pneumonia (MELD-P) was derived by the Cox proportional hazards model. The performances of prognostic scoring systems were compared by calculation of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve.

RESULTS

MELD-P showed better discriminative capabilities than existing scoring systems. Four clinical variables, including loge bilirubin (hazard ratio (HR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.73), loge international normalized ratio (HR 3.57, 95% CI 1.30-9.78), loge pulse oxygen saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.14-0.99), and vasopressors used (HR 3.72, 95% CI 1.85-7.49), were considered as independent prognostic values associated with 21-day mortality. MELD-P had AUROC curve values of 0.78 (95% CI 0.71-0.84) in predicting in-hospital mortality, 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.84) at 21-day, 0.88 (95% CI 0.82-0.93) at 14-day, and 0.87 (95% CI 0.81-0.92) at 7-day. A similar result was obtained in validation cohort.

CONCLUSION

MELD-P, as the first model specifically designed to evaluate the risk of mortality in critically ill patients with cirrhosis and pneumonia, performs well on the mortality assessment of short-term mortality.

The apelinergic system: a perspective on challenges and opportunities in cardiovascular and metabolic disorders

The apelinergic pathway has been generating increasing interest in the past few years for its potential as a therapeutic target in several conditions associated with the cardiovascular and metabolic systems. Indeed, preclinical and, more recently, clinical evidence both point to this G protein-coupled receptor as a target of interest in the treatment of not only cardiovascular disorders such as heart failure, pulmonary arterial hypertension, atherosclerosis, or septic shock, but also of additional conditions such as water retention/hyponatremic disorders, type 2 diabetes, and preeclampsia. While it is a peculiar system with its two classes of endogenous ligand, the apelins and Elabela, its intricacies are a matter of continuing investigation to finely pinpoint its potential and how it enables crosstalk between the vasculature and organ systems of interest. In this perspective article, we first review the current knowledge on the role of the apelinergic pathway in the above systems, as well as the associated therapeutic indications and existing pharmacological tools. We also offer a perspective on the challenges and potential ahead to advance the apelinergic system as a target for therapeutic intervention in several key areas.

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.

Combination era, using combined vasopressors showed benefits in treating septic shock patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Septic shock is one of the major healthcare problems, affecting millions of people around the world every year. The object of this study is to find the best kind of regimen of vasopressors treatment in septic shock.

Methods

The PubMed, and the Web of Science were used to find the included studies. Stata 15.1 was performed to this systemic review and network meta-analysis.

Results

After searching and screening the articles, finally we included articles about 31 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 11 arms (dopamine, dopexamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, norepinephrine + dobutamine, norepinephrine + dopexamine, norepinephrine + epinephrine, norepinephrine + vasopressin, phenylephrine, terlipressin, vasopressin) and total 5,928 patients with septic shock. Compared with dopamine, the regimens (epinephrine, norepinephrine, norepinephrine + dobutamine, and vasopressin) have significantly lower 28-day mortality. Ranking the regimens in the order of estimated probabilities of each treatment by using the network meta-analysis for 28-day mortality, the result showed that norepinephrine + dopexamine was the best one (57.3%), followed by norepinephrine + epinephrine (14.8%), norepinephrine + dobutamine (10.9%), dopexamine (11.2%), terlipressin (9.8%), norepinephrine + vasopressin (2.4%), phenylephrine (1.2%), epinephrine (1.0%), vasopressin (0.5%), norepinephrine (0.0%), and dopamine (0.0%). In addition, for the results of arrhythmia and increased heart rate, the combination regimens groups did not showed inferiority to other single regimen groups.

Conclusions

Single dopamine had significantly higher 28d mortality. Combination regimens of vasopressors accounted for the best three therapeutic regimens. In treating patients with septic shock, using combining regimens probably gets more benefits.

The Specific Organism: Not Bacterial Gram Type: Drives the Inflammatory Response in Septic Shock

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

The inflammatory response was targeted by unsuccessful therapies but ignored pathogen. We hypothesized that the inflammatory response differs according to organism in human septic shock.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We measured 39 cytokines at baseline and 24 h in patients (n = 363) in the Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial (VASST). We compared cytokine profiles (cytokine functional class) at baseline and at 24 h by organism and used hierarchical clustering to classify cytokines according to 28-day outcomes.

RESULTS

In 363 patients, 88 and 176 patients had at least 1 species isolated from blood and other sites, respectively. Cytokine levels differed significantly according to organism: Neisseria meningitidis and Streptococcus pneumoniae had the highest (baseline and at 24 h), while Enterococcus faecalis (blood) had the lowest mean cytokine levels. N. meningitidis and Klebsiella pneumoniae had significantly higher cytokine levels at baseline versus 24 h (p = 0.01 and 0.02, respectively); E. faecalis had significantly higher cytokine levels at 24 h versus baseline. Hierarchical clustering heat maps showed that pathogens elicited similar cytokine responses not related to the functional cytokine class.

CONCLUSION

The organism type induces different cytokine profiles in septic shock. Specific gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens stimulated similar plasma cytokine-level patterns.

Shock - Classification and Pathophysiological Principles of Therapeutics

The management of patients with shock is extremely challenging because of the myriad of possible clinical presentations in cardiogenic shock, septic shock and hypovolemic shock and the limitations of contemporary therapeutic options. The treatment of shock includes the administration of endogenous catecholamines (epinephrine, norepinephrine, and dopamine) as well as various vasopressor agents that have shown efficacy in the treatment of the various types of shock. In addition to the endogenous catecholamines, dobutamine, isoproterenol, phenylephrine, and milrinone have served as the mainstays of shock therapy for several decades. Recently, experimental studies have suggested that newer agents such as vasopressin, selepressin, calcium-sensitizing agents like levosimendan, cardiac-specific myosin activators like omecamtiv mecarbil (OM), istaroxime, and natriuretic peptides like nesiritide can enhance shock therapy, especially when shock presents a more complex clinical picture than normal. However, their ability to improve clinical outcomes remains to be proven. It is the purpose of this review to describe the mechanism of action, dosage requirements, advantages and disadvantages, and specific indications and contraindications for the use of each of these catecholamines and vasopressors, as well as to elucidate the most important clinical trials that serve as the basis of contemporary shock therapy.

Arginine vasopressin attenuates the effects of TNF-α in aortic endothelial cells by inducing ectodomain shedding of TNF receptor 1

In septic shock, arginine vasopressin (AVP) is commonly used as a vasopressor to restore blood pressure. Exogenous AVP may have anti-inflammatory effects as well. We investigated whether AVP modulates the effects of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) in human aortic endothelial cells (HAECs). TNF-α stimulated intercellular adhesion molecule-1 expression, while AVP pretreatment attenuated this effect of TNF-α. Upon treatment with AVP, extracellular Ca²⁺ entered the cells rapidly through L-type calcium channels, which in turn induced cell surface translocation of a disintegrin and metalloprotease 10 (ADAM10) and ectodomain shedding of tumor necrosis factor receptor 1 (TNFR1). On the other hand, siRNA depletion of ADAM10 suppressed AVP-induced ectodomain shedding of TNFR1 and eliminated the inhibitory effect of AVP against TNF-α. Depletion of oxytocin receptor also abolished AVP-induced extracellular Ca²⁺ influx, AVP-induced ectodomain shedding of TNFR1 and the inhibitory effect of AVP against TNF-α. These findings suggest that AVP decreases the responsiveness of HAECs to TNF-α by inducing ADAM10-dependent ectodomain shedding of TNFR1. Extracellular Ca²⁺ influx through L-type calcium channels was essential for ADAM10 activation. This effect of AVP was mediated through the oxytocin receptor.

Vasopressin versus norepinephrine in septic shock: a propensity score matched efficiency retrospective cohort study in the VASST coordinating center hospital

Purpose

It is not clear whether vasopressin versus norepinephrine changed mortality in clinical practice in the Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial (VASST) coordinating center hospital after VASST was published. We tested the hypothesis that vasopressin changed mortality compared to norepinephrine using propensity matching of vasopressin to norepinephrine-treated patients in the VASST coordinating center hospital before (SPH1) and after (SPH2) VASST was published.

Methods

Vasopressin-treated patients were propensity score matched to norepinephrine-treated patients based on age, APACHE II, respiratory, renal, and hematologic dysfunction, mechanical ventilation status, medical/surgical status, infection site, and norepinephrine dose. The propensity score estimated the probability that a patient would have received vasopressin given baseline characteristics. For sensitivity analysis, we then excluded patients who had underlying severe congestive heart failure. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality.

Results

Vasopressin- and norepinephrine-treated patients were similar after matching in SPH1 (pre-VASST); vasopressin-treated patients (n = 158) had a significantly higher mortality than norepinephrine-treated patients (n = 158) (60.8 vs. 46.2%, p = 0.009). In SPH2 after matching, the 28-day mortality rates were not significantly different; 31.2% and 26.9% in the vasopressin (n = 93) and norepinephrine (n = 93) groups, respectively (p = 0.518). The day 1 vasopressin dose in SPH1 vs. SPH2 was 0.036 units/min (SD 0.009) vs. 0.032 units/min (SD 0.005), p = 0.001, significantly lower in SPH2 after VASST.

Conclusions

Before VASST, vasopressin use was associated with increased mortality compared to norepinephrine in the VASST coordinating center hospital. After VASST, there was no difference in mortality between vasopressin- and norepinephrine-treated patients. This may be the first retrospective propensity-matched cohort study of a sepsis treatment in a center that had previously coordinated a large pivotal randomized controlled trial of that treatment and could be a useful approach for other sepsis therapies.

Trial registration

Registration: ISRCTN94845869

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40560-018-0344-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Immune therapy in sepsis: Are we ready to try again?

Immune therapy to ease the burden of sepsis has thus far failed to consistently improve patient outcomes. Advances in cancer immune therapy and awareness that prolonged immune-suppression in sepsis can leave patients vulnerable to secondary infection and death have driven resurgence in the field of sepsis immune-therapy investigation. As we develop and evaluate these novel therapies, we must learn from past experiences where single-mediator targeted immune therapies were blindly delivered to heterogeneous patient cohorts with complex and evolving immune responses. Advances in genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and point-of-care technology, coupled with a better understanding of sepsis pathogenesis, have meant that personalised immune-therapy is on the horizon. Here, we review the complex immune pathogenesis in sepsis and the contemporary immune therapies that are being investigated to manipulate this response. An outline of the immune biomarkers that may be used to support this approach is also provided.

Pathophysiology of Septic Shock

Fundamental features of septic shock are vasodilation, increased permeability, hypovolemia, and ventricular dysfunction. Vasodilation owing to increased nitric oxide and prostaglandins is treated with vasopressors (norepinephrine first). Increased permeability relates to several pathways (Slit/Robo4, vascular endothelial growth factor, angiopoietin 1 and 2/Tie2 pathway, sphingosine-1-phosphate, and heparin-binding protein), some of which are targets for therapies. Hypovolemia is common and crystalloid is recommended for fluid resuscitation. Cardiomyocyte-inflammatory interactions decrease contractility and dobutamine is recommended to increase cardiac output. There is benefit in decreasing heart rate in selected patients with esmolol. Ivabradine is a novel agent for heart rate reduction without decreasing contractility.

A global perspective on vasoactive agents in shock

PURPOSE

We set out to summarize the current knowledge on vasoactive drugs and their use in the management of shock to inform physicians' practices.

METHODS

This is a narrative review by a multidisciplinary, multinational-from six continents-panel of experts including physicians, a pharmacist, trialists, and scientists.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Vasoactive drugs are an essential part of shock management. Catecholamines are the most commonly used vasoactive agents in the intensive care unit, and among them norepinephrine is the first-line therapy in most clinical conditions. Inotropes are indicated when myocardial function is depressed and dobutamine remains the first-line therapy. Vasoactive drugs have a narrow therapeutic spectrum and expose the patients to potentially lethal complications. Thus, these agents require precise therapeutic targets, close monitoring with titration to the minimal efficacious dose and should be weaned as promptly as possible. Moreover, the use of vasoactive drugs in shock requires an individualized approach. Vasopressin and possibly angiotensin II may be useful owing to their norepinephrine-sparing effects.

Non-Hemodynamic Effects of Catecholamines

Circulatory shock is defined as an imbalance between tissue oxygen supply and demand, and mostly results from a loss of blood volume, cardiac pump failure, and/or reduction of vasomotor tone. The clinical hallmarks of circulatory shock are arterial hypotension and lactate acidosis. Since the degree and duration of hypotension are major determinants of outcome, vasopressor administration represents a cornerstone therapy to treat these patients. Current guidelines recommend the use of catecholamines as the drug of first choice. However, apart from their hemodynamic effects, which depend on the different receptor profile, receptor affinity, receptor density, and the relative potency of the individual molecule, catecholamines have numerous other biological effects as a result of the ubiquitous presence of their receptors. In shock states, catecholamines aggravate hypermetabolism by promoting hyperglycemia and hyperlactatemia, and further increase oxygen demands, which can contribute to further organ damage. In the mitochondria, catecholamines may promote mitochondrial uncoupling, and aggravate oxidative stress, thereby contributing to the progression of mitochondrial dysfunction. Immunological side effects have also gained specific attention. Although both pro- and anti-inflammatory effects have been described, current evidence strongly indicates an immunosuppressive effect, thereby making patients potentially vulnerable to secondary infections. Catecholamines may not only decrease splanchnic perfusion due to their vasoconstrictor properties, but can also directly impair gastrointestinal motility. This article reviews the non-hemodynamic effects of different catecholamines, both under physiologic and pathophysiologic conditions, with a special focus on energy metabolism, mitochondrial function, immune response, and the gastrointestinal system.

Association of Vasopressin Plus Catecholamine Vasopressors vs Catecholamines Alone With Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Distributive Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Vasopressin is an alternative to catecholamine vasopressors for patients with distributive shock-a condition due to excessive vasodilation, most frequently from severe infection. Blood pressure support with a noncatecholamine vasopressor may reduce stimulation of adrenergic receptors and decrease myocardial oxygen demand. Atrial fibrillation is common with catecholamines and is associated with adverse events, including mortality and increased length of stay (LOS).

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether treatment with vasopressin + catecholamine vasopressors compared with catecholamine vasopressors alone was associated with reductions in the risk of adverse events.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to February 2018. Experts were asked and meta-registries searched to identify ongoing trials.

STUDY SELECTION

Pairs of reviewers identified randomized clinical trials comparing vasopressin in combination with catecholamine vasopressors to catecholamines alone for patients with distributive shock.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers abstracted data independently. A random-effects model was used to combine data.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was atrial fibrillation. Other outcomes included mortality, requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT), myocardial injury, ventricular arrhythmia, stroke, and LOS in the intensive care unit and hospital. Measures of association are reported as risk ratios (RRs) for clinical outcomes and mean differences for LOS.

RESULTS

Twenty-three randomized clinical trials were identified (3088 patients; mean age, 61.1 years [14.2]; women, 45.3%). High-quality evidence supported a lower risk of atrial fibrillation associated with vasopressin treatment (RR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.88]; risk difference [RD], -0.06 [95% CI, -0.13 to 0.01]). For mortality, the overall RR estimate was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.97; RD, -0.04 [95% CI, -0.07 to 0.00]); however, when limited to trials at low risk of bias, the RR estimate was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.11). The overall RR estimate for RRT was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08; RD, -0.07 [95% CI, -0.12 to -0.01]). However, in an analysis limited to trials at low risk of bias, RR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.92, P for interaction = .77). There were no significant differences in the pooled risks for other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the addition of vasopressin to catecholamine vasopressors compared with catecholamines alone was associated with a lower risk of atrial fibrillation. Findings for secondary outcomes varied.

Neuroendocrine Derangements in Early Septic Shock: Pharmacotherapy for Relative Adrenal and Vasopressin Insufficiency

Septic shock is a leading cause of mortality in intensive care units throughout the world. While this disease state represents a highly complex pathophysiology involving numerous organ systems, the early approach to care includes adequate hemodynamic support traditionally achieved via infusions of vasoactive medications after adequate fluid resuscitation. Relative adrenal and vasopressin deficiencies are a common feature of septic shock that contribute to impaired hemodynamics. Hydrocortisone and vasopressin are endocrine system hormone analogues that target the acute neuroendocrine imbalance associated with septic shock. This clinically focused annotated review describes the pathophysiological mechanisms behind their use and explores the potential clinical roles of early administration and synergy when combined.

Inflammatory Mediator Profiles Differ in Sepsis Patients With and Without Bacteremia

Systemic levels of cytokines are altered during infection and sepsis. This prospective observational study aimed to investigate whether plasma levels of multiple inflammatory mediators differed between sepsis patients with and those without bacteremia during the initial phase of hospitalization. A total of 80 sepsis patients with proven bacterial infection and no immunosuppression were included in the study. Plasma samples were collected within 24 h of hospitalization, and Luminex^® analysis was performed on 35 mediators: 16 cytokines, six growth factors, four adhesion molecules, and nine matrix metalloproteases (MMPs)/tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMPs). Forty-two patients (52.5%) and 38 (47.5%) patients showed positive and negative blood cultures, respectively. There were significant differences in plasma levels of six soluble mediators between the two “bacteremia” and “non-bacteremia” groups, using Mann–Whitney U test (p < 0.0014): tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), CCL4, E-selectin, vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1), intracellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), and TIMP-1. Ten soluble mediators also significantly differed in plasma levels between the two groups, with p-values ranging between 0.05 and 0.0014: interleukin (IL)-1ra, IL-10, CCL2, CCL5, CXCL8, CXCL11, hepatocyte growth factor, MMP-8, TIMP-2, and TIMP-4. VCAM-1 showed the most robust results using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Using unsupervised hierarchical clustering, we found that TNFα, CCL4, E-selectin, VCAM-1, ICAM-1, and TIMP-1 could be used to discriminate between patients with and those without bacteremia. Patients with bacteremia were mainly clustered in two separate groups (two upper clusters, 41/42, 98%), with higher levels of the mediators. One (2%) patient with bacteremia was clustered in the lower cluster, which compromised most of the patients without bacteremia (23/38, 61%) (χ² test, p < 0.0001). Our study showed that analysis of the plasma inflammatory mediator profile could represent a potential strategy for early identification of patients with bacteremia.

Vasoplegia treatments: the past, the present, and the future

Vasoplegia is a ubiquitous phenomenon in all advanced shock states, including septic, cardiogenic, hemorrhagic, and anaphylactic shock. Its pathophysiology is complex, involving various mechanisms in vascular smooth muscle cells such as G protein-coupled receptor desensitization (adrenoceptors, vasopressin 1 receptors, angiotensin type 1 receptors), alteration of second messenger pathways, critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency, and increased production of nitric oxide. This review, based on a critical appraisal of the literature, discusses the main current treatments and future approaches. Our improved understanding of these mechanisms is progressively changing our therapeutic approach to vasoplegia from a standardized to a personalized multimodal treatment with the prescription of several vasopressors. While norepinephrine is confirmed as first line therapy for the treatment of vasoplegia, the latest Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines also consider that the best therapeutic management of vascular hyporesponsiveness to vasopressors could be a combination of multiple vasopressors, including norepinephrine and early prescription of vasopressin. This new approach is seemingly justified by the need to limit adrenoceptor desensitization as well as sympathetic overactivation given its subsequent deleterious impacts on hemodynamics and inflammation. Finally, based on new pathophysiological data, two potential drugs, selepressin and angiotensin II, are currently being evaluated.

The apelinergic system as an alternative to catecholamines in low-output septic shock

Catecholamines, in concert with fluid resuscitation, have long been recommended in the management of septic shock. However, not all patients respond positively and controversy surrounding the efficacy-to-safety profile of catecholamines has emerged, trending toward decatecholaminization. Contextually, it is time to re-examine the “maintaining blood pressure” paradigm by identifying safer and life-saving alternatives. We put in perspective the emerging and growing knowledge on a promising alternative avenue: the apelinergic system. This target exhibits invaluable pleiotropic properties, including inodilator activity, cardio-renal protection, and control of fluid homeostasis. Taken together, its effects are expected to be greatly beneficial for patients in septic shock.

Does Vasopressin Exacerbate Cerebral Edema in Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury?

Arginine vasopressin (AVP) is often used as an alternative pressor to catecholamines (CATs). However, unlike CATs, AVP is a powerful antidiuretic that could promote edema. We tested the hypothesis that AVP promoted cerebral edema and/or increased requirements for osmotherapy, relative to those who received CATs, for cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) management after traumatic brain injury (TBI). This is a retrospective review of 286 consecutive TBI patients with intracranial pressure monitoring at a single institution from September 2008 to January 2015. Cerebral edema was quantitated using CT attenuation in prespecified areas of gray and white matter. Results: To maintain CPP >60 mm Hg, 205 patients required no vasopressors, 41 received a single CAT, 12 received AVP, and 28 required both. Those who required no pressors were generally less injured; required less hyperosmolar therapy and less total fluid; and had lower plasma Na, lower intracranial pressure, less edema, and lower mortality (all P < 0.05). Edema; daily mean, minimum, and maximum Na levels; and mortality were similar with AVP versus CATs, but the daily requirement of mannitol and 3 per cent NaCl were reduced by 45 and 35 per cent (both P < 0.05). In patients with TBI who required CPP therapy, AVP reduced the requirements for hyperosmolar therapy and did not delay resolution or increase cerebral edema compared with CATs.

The Septic Shock 3.0 Definition and Trials: A Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial Experience

OBJECTIVES

The Septic Shock 3.0 definition could alter treatment comparisons in randomized controlled trials in septic shock. Our first hypothesis was that the vasopressin versus norepinephrine comparison and 28-day mortality of patients with Septic Shock 3.0 definition (lactate > 2 mmol/L) differ from vasopressin versus norepinephrine and mortality in Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial. Our second hypothesis was that there are differences in plasma cytokine levels in Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial for lactate less than or equal to 2 versus greater than 2 mmol/L.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Multicenter ICUs.

METHODS

We compared vasopressin-to-norepinephrine group 28- and 90-day mortality in Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial in lactate subgroups. We measured 39 cytokines to compare patients with lactate less than or equal to 2 versus greater than 2 mmol/L.

PATIENTS

Patients with septic shock with lactate greater than 2 mmol/L or less than or equal to 2 mmol/L, randomized to vasopressin or norepinephrine.

INTERVENTIONS

Concealed vasopressin (0.03 U/min.) or norepinephrine infusions.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The Septic Shock 3.0 definition would have decreased sample size by about half. The 28- and 90-day mortality rates were 10-12 % higher than the original Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial mortality. There was a significantly (p = 0.028) lower mortality with vasopressin versus norepinephrine in lactate less than or equal to 2 mmol/L but no difference between treatment groups in lactate greater than 2 mmol/L. Nearly all cytokine levels were significantly higher in patients with lactate greater than 2 versus less than or equal to 2 mmol/L.

CONCLUSIONS

The Septic Shock 3.0 definition decreased sample size by half and increased 28-day mortality rates by about 10%. Vasopressin lowered mortality versus norepinephrine if lactate was less than or equal to 2 mmol/L. Patients had higher plasma cytokines in lactate greater than 2 versus less than or equal to 2 mmol/L, a brisker cytokine response to infection. The Septic Shock 3.0 definition and our findings have important implications for trial design in septic shock.

Association between serum osmolarity and mortality in patients who are critically ill: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This research aims to explore the association between serum osmolarity and mortality in patients who are critically ill with specific categories of disease.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Data were extracted from an online database named 'Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care II'. 16 598 patients were included.

METHODS

Patients were divided into six disease subgroups based on the diagnosis at admission: cardiac, cerebral, vascular, gastrointestinal, respiratory and non-respiratory. The association between maximum osmolarity (osmolarity_max) and hospital mortality in each subgroup was evaluated using osmolarity_max as a design variable (six levels).

RESULTS

Analysis of the 16 598 patients revealed a 'U'-shaped relationship between osmolarity and mortality with a threshold of 300 mmoL/L. For patients with non-respiratory disease, both hypo-osmolarity and hyperosmolarity_max were associated with increased mortality, with the OR increasing from osmolarity_max level 3 (OR: 1.98, 95% CI 1.69 to 2.33, p<0.001) to level 6 (OR: 4.45, 95% CI 3.58 to 5.53, p<0.001), using level 2 (290-309 mmoL/L) as the reference group. For patients with respiratory disease, however, neither hypo-osmolarity nor hyperosmolarity_max was significantly associated with mortality (levels 1 to 5) except for extreme hyperosmolarity_max (≥340 mmoL/L, OR: 2.03, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.42, p=0.007). ORs of mortality in the other four subgroups (cardiac, cerebral, vascular, gastrointestinal) were similar, with OR progressively increasing from level 3 to 6. In all six subgroups, vasopressin use was consistently associated with increased mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Hyperosmolarity is associated with increased mortality in patients who are critically ill with cardiac, cerebral, vascular and gastrointestinal admission diagnoses, with thresholds at 300 mmoL/L. For patients with respiratory disease, however, no significant association was detected.

Vasopressin in Septic Shock; Assessment of Sepsis Biomarkers: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Background and Aims:

Vasopressin (VP) in sepsis apart from vasoconstrictive effect may have some immunomodulatory effects. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of VP on different aspect of sepsis by measuring of sepsis biomarkers.

Materials and Methods:

In this trial, a total number of 42 septic shock patients were included. The first group received norepinephrine (NE) infusion to reach the target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of ≥ 65 mm Hg and the second group received arginine vasopressin (AVP) infusion in addition to NE. Serum lactate, C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-10, pentraxin 3 (PTX3), angiopoietin 1 and 2 (Ang 1 and 2) levels were assessed.

Results:

Level of IL-6 and IL-10 decreased, but there was no significant difference between the two groups after 48 h. CRP and PTX3 levels were not also significantly different between groups. Although Angs were not statistically different, there was a trend toward higher Ang-1 in and lower Ang 2 in AVP group after 24 and 48 h. In addition, lactate level did not differ between NE and AVP groups. There was no interaction between VP and hydrocortisone use on IL-6, IL-10, and PTX3, but a significant statistical interaction on Ang 1 and Ang 2 were observed.

Conclusions:

Although analysis of sepsis biomarkers showed no significant difference between two groups, no immunomodulatory effect for VP alone, subgroup analysis of hydrocortisone used in this study showed that the combination of glucocorticoids and AVP had a significant effect on Angs level which eventually causes less endothelial permeability and higher MAP in this group of patients.

Comparative Effectiveness of Second Vasoactive Agents in Septic Shock Refractory to Norepinephrine

OBJECTIVE

We aim to identify the appropriate vasoactive agent in patients with septic shock who are refractory to optimal doses of norepinephrine.

METHODS

In this retrospective observational cohort study over a 4-year period, patients who received norepinephrine within 24 hours of ICU admission and a second agent within 48 hours were enrolled.

RESULTS

Among 2640 patients screened, 234 patients were enrolled, aged 60.8 ± 17.8 years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV 98.3 ± 27.5, 81.6% mechanically ventilated, and 65.8% in-hospital mortality. Within 96 hours, 2.8 ± 1.0 vasoactive agents were administered. Fifty, 50, 66, and 68 patients received dobutamine, dopamine, phenylephrine, and vasopressin as the second agent, with crude in-hospital mortality 40.0%, 66.0%, 74.2%, and 76.5%, respectively, P < .001. Survival analysis showed a statistically significant difference in survival time by second vasoactive agent, P < .001. After adjusting for confounding variables, dobutamine showed significant decreased odds ratio (OR) for mortality compared to vasopressin: OR 0.34 (95% confidence interval 0.14-0.84, P = .04). The relative risk of dying was 55.8% lower in patients receiving dobutamine versus vasopressin, P < .01.

CONCLUSION

Dobutamine is associated with decreased mortality compared to other second vasoactive agents in septic shock when norepinephrine is not sufficient. A prospective randomized trial examining the outcome impact of the second vasoactive agent is needed.

Does vasopressin improve the mortality of septic shock patients treated with high-dose NA

Aim of Study:

In Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines 2012, noradrenalin (NA) is recommended as a first choice vasopressor. Although vasopressin (VP) is recommended for the treatment of NA-resistant septic shock, the optimal parameters for its administration remain unclear.

Materials and Methods:

We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the clinical outcomes of the administration of VP to adult septic shock patients who were undergoing high-dose NA (≥0.25 μg/kg/min) therapy in our Intensive Care Unit between January 2010 and December 2013. We defined high-dose NA as a dose of >0.25 μg/kg/min, based on the definition of low-dose NA as a dose of 5–14 μg/min because the average body weight of the patients in this study was 53.0 kg.

Results:

Among 29 patients who required the administration of high-dose NA, 18 patients received VP. Although the patient background physiological conditions and NA dose did not differ between the two groups, the survival rate of the VP-treated patients was significantly lower (33%) than that of the patients who were managed with a high-dose of NA-alone (82%) (P = 0.014). The lactate clearance did not change after the administration of VP, whereas it improved when in NA treatment alone.

Conclusion:

The results suggest that the administration of VP did not improve the mortality among septic shock patients when administered in addition to high-dose NA.

Plasma cytokine levels predict response to corticosteroids in septic shock

PURPOSE

To investigate if plasma cytokine concentrations predict a beneficial response to corticosteroid treatment in septic shock patients.

METHODS

A cohort of septic shock patients in whom a panel of 39 cytokines had been measured at baseline (n = 363) was included. Patients who received corticosteroids were propensity score matched to non-corticosteroid-treated patients. An optimal threshold to identify responders to corticosteroid treatment for each cytokine was defined as the concentration above which the odds ratio for 28-day survival between corticosteroid- and non-corticosteroid-treated patients was highest.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching partitioned 165 patients into 61 sets; each set contained matched corticosteroid- and non-corticosteroid-treated patients. For 13 plasma cytokines threshold concentrations were found where the odds ratio for survival between corticosteroid- and non-corticosteroid-treated patients was significant (P < 0.05). CD40 ligand was associated with the highest odds ratio and identified 21 % of the patients in the propensity score matched cohort as responders to corticosteroid treatment. Combinations of triplets of cytokines with a significant odds ratio, using the thresholds identified above, were tested to find a higher proportion of responders. IL3, IL6, and CCL4 identified 50 % of the patients in the propensity score matched cohort as responders to corticosteroid treatment. The odds ratio for 28-day survival was 19 (95 % CI 3.5-140, P = 0.02) with a concentration above threshold for a least one of these cytokines.

CONCLUSION

Plasma concentration of selected cytokines is a potential predictive biomarker to identify septic shock patients that may benefit from treatment with corticosteroids.

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.

Vasopressin Infusion with Small-Volume Fluid Resuscitation during Hemorrhagic Shock Promotes Hemodynamic Stability and Survival in Swine

Introduction

Current management of hemorrhagic shock (HS) in the battlefield and civilian settings favors small-volume fluid resuscitation before controlling the source of bleeding. We investigated in a swine model of HS the effects of vasopressin infusion along with small-volume fluid resuscitation; with erythropoietin (EPO) and HS severity as additional factors.

Methods

HS was induced in 24 male domestic pigs (36 to 41 kg) by blood withdrawal (BW) through a right atrial cannula modeling spontaneous bleeding by a mono-exponential decay function. The initial 12 pigs received no fluids; the last 12 pigs received normal saline (NS) half the BW volume. Pigs were randomized 2:1 to receive intraosseously vasopressin (0.04 U/kg·min^-1) or vehicle control from minute 7 to minute 210. Pigs assigned to vasopressin were further randomized 1:1 to receive EPO (1,200 U/kg) or vehicle control and 1:1 to have 65% or 75% BW of their blood volume. Shed blood was reinfused at 210 minutes and the pigs recovered from anesthesia.

Results

Survival at 72 hours was influenced by vasopressin and NS but not by EPO or % BW. Vasopressin with NS promoted the highest survival (8/8) followed by vasopressin without NS (3/8), NS without vasopressin (1/4), and neither treatment (0/4) with overall statistical significance (log-rank test, p = 0.009) and each subset different from vasopressin with NS by Holm-Sidak test. Vasopressin increased systemic vascular resistance whereas NS increased cardiac output.

Conclusion

Vasopressin infusion with small-volume fluid resuscitation during severe HS was highly effective enabling critical hemodynamic stabilization and improved 72 hour survival.

Pharmacotherapy Update on the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes in the Intensive Care Unit

This paper summarizes the pharmacologic properties of vasoactive medications used in the treatment of shock, including the inotropes and vasopressors. The clinical application of these therapies is discussed and recent studies describing their use and associated outcomes are also reported. Comprehension of hemodynamic principles and adrenergic and non-adrenergic receptor mechanisms are salient to the appropriate therapeutic utility of vasoactive medications for shock. Vasoactive medications can be classified based on their direct effects on vascular tone (vasoconstriction or vasodilation) and on the heart (presence or absence of positive inotropic effects). This classification highlights key similarities and differences with respect to pharmacology and hemodynamic effects. Vasopressors include pure vasoconstrictors (phenylephrine and vasopressin) and inoconstrictors (dopamine, norepinephrine, and epinephrine). Each of these medications acts as vasopressors to increase mean arterial pressure by augmenting vascular tone. Inotropes include inodilators (dobutamine and milrinone) and the aforementioned inoconstrictors. These medications act as inotropes by enhancing cardiac output through enhanced contractility. The inodilators also reduce afterload from systemic vasodilation. The relative hemodynamic effect of each agent varies depending on the dose administered, but is particularly apparent with dopamine. Recent large-scale clinical trials have evaluated vasopressors and determined that norepinephrine may be preferred as a first-line therapy for a broad range of shock states, most notably septic shock. Consequently, careful selection of vasoactive medications based on desired pharmacologic effects that are matched to the patient's underlying pathophysiology of shock may optimize hemodynamics while reducing the potential for adverse effects.

Effects of intraosseous erythropoietin during hemorrhagic shock in swine

Objective

To determine whether erythropoietin given during hemorrhagic shock (HS) ameliorates organ injury while improving resuscitation and survival.

Methods

Three series of 24 pigs each were studied. In an initial series, 50% of the blood volume (BV) was removed in 30 minutes and normal saline (threefold the blood removed) started at minute 90 infusing each third in 30, 60, and 150 minutes with shed blood reinfused at minute 330 (HS-50_BV). In a second series, the same HS-50_BV protocol was used but removing an additional 15% of BV from minute 30 to 60 (HS-65_BV). In a final series, blood was removed as in HS-65_BV and intraosseous vasopressin given from minute 30 (0.04 U/kg min⁻¹) until start of shed blood reinfusion at minute 150 (HS-65_BV+VP). Normal saline was reduced to half the blood removed and given from minute 90 to 120 in half of the animals. In each series, animals were randomized 1∶1 to receive erythropoietin (1,200 U/kg) or control solution intraosseously after removing 10% of the BV.

Results

In HS-50_BV, O₂ consumption remained near baseline yielding minimal lactate increases, 88% resuscitability, and 60% survival at 72 hours. In HS-65_BV, O₂ consumption was reduced and lactate increased yielding 25% resuscitability. In HS-65_BV+VP, vasopressin promoted hemodynamic stability yielding 92% resuscitability and 83% survival at 72 hours. Erythropoietin did not affect resuscitability or subsequent survival in any of the series but increased interleukin-10, attenuated lactate increases, and ameliorated organ injury based on lesser troponin I, AST, and ALT increases and lesser neurological deficits in the HS-65_BV+VP series.

Conclusions

Erythropoietin given during HS in swine failed to alter resuscitability and 72 hour survival regardless of HS severity and concomitant treatment with fluids and vasopressin but attenuated acute organ injury. The studies also showed the efficacy of vasopressin and restrictive fluid resuscitation for hemodynamic stabilization and survival.