Association of Premorbid Blood Pressure with Vasopressor Infusion Duration in Patients with Shock

Preimplementation of Critical Care Early Mobility Clinical Decision Support: A Content Validation Study

Early mobility is a form of critical care rehabilitation ranging from in-bed exercise to ambulation and is known to limit post-intensive-care functional decline. Multiple barriers prevent widespread early mobility implementation. Clinical decision support systems can optimize the decision-making process and overcome barriers to care. However, critical care early mobility clinical decision support does not exist. Our objective was to develop and establish the content validation of the operational definitions for a novel critical care early mobility assessment instrument. Content validation was conducted in two steps: (1) development of operational definitions by the research team and (2) content validation with 10 nurse experts. Quality assessment and suitability of the operational definitions for 30 items, across four safety domains, were assessed using a 7 point-Likert scale. Item content validity index scores ranged from 0.6 to 0.1 after the first validation round. Domains containing items with item content validity index scores less than the lower limit of 0.78 were modified for clarity of language. Item content validity index scores ranged from 0.8 to 1.0, and the scale-level content validity index was 0.93 after the second content validation round. Excellent content validity of the operational definitions was achieved. This is the first methodological step in a larger project to develop clinical decision support for critical care early mobility.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities 2023

OBJECTIVES

To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome, and pathophysiology of sepsis and septic shock.

DESIGN

Shortly after publication of the most recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines, the Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, convened virtually and iteratively developed the article and recommendations, which represents an update from the 2018 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities.

METHODS

Each task force member submitted five research questions on any sepsis-related subject. Committee members then independently ranked their top three priorities from the list generated. The highest rated clinical and basic science questions were developed into the current article.

RESULTS

A total of 81 questions were submitted. After merging similar questions, there were 34 clinical and ten basic science research questions submitted for voting. The five top clinical priorities were as follows: 1) what is the best strategy for screening and identification of patients with sepsis, and can predictive modeling assist in real-time recognition of sepsis? 2) what causes organ injury and dysfunction in sepsis, how should it be defined, and how can it be detected? 3) how should fluid resuscitation be individualized initially and beyond? 4) what is the best vasopressor approach for treating the different phases of septic shock? and 5) can a personalized/precision medicine approach identify optimal therapies to improve patient outcomes? The five top basic science priorities were as follows: 1) How can we improve animal models so that they more closely resemble sepsis in humans? 2) What outcome variables maximize correlations between human sepsis and animal models and are therefore most appropriate to use in both? 3) How does sepsis affect the brain, and how do sepsis-induced brain alterations contribute to organ dysfunction? How does sepsis affect interactions between neural, endocrine, and immune systems? 4) How does the microbiome affect sepsis pathobiology? 5) How do genetics and epigenetics influence the development of sepsis, the course of sepsis and the response to treatments for sepsis?

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge advances in multiple clinical domains have been incorporated in progressive iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, allowing for evidence-based recommendations for short- and long-term management of sepsis. However, the strength of existing evidence is modest with significant knowledge gaps and mortality from sepsis remains high. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

The Timing of Initiating Hydrocortisone and Long-term Mortality in Septic Shock

BACKGROUND

Previous studies on the association between the timing of corticosteroid administration and mortality in septic shock focused only on short-term mortality and produced conflicting results. We performed a retrospective review of a large administrative database of intensive care unit (ICU) patients to evaluate the association between the timing of hydrocortisone initiation and short- and long-term mortality in septic shock. We hypothesized that a longer duration between the first vasopressor use for sepsis and steroid initiation was associated with increased mortality.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the Medical Information Mart in the Intensive Care-IV database. We included adults who met Sepsis-3 definition for septic shock and received hydrocortisone. The exposure of interest was the time in hours from vasopressor use to hydrocortisone initiation (>12 as late and ≤12 as early). The primary outcome was 1-year mortality. Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, 90-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, and length of hospital stay. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the association between exposure and mortality. Competing risk regression models were used to evaluate the association between exposure and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 844 patients were included in this cohort: 553 in the early group and 291 in the late group. The median time to hydrocortisone initiation was 7 hours (interquartile range, 2.0-19.0 hours). After multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis, we found that hydrocortisone initiation >12 hours after vasopressor use was associated with increased 1-year mortality when compared with initiation <12 hours (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.71; P = .002, E-value = 2.13). Hydrocortisone initiation >12 hours was also associated with increased 28-day, 90-day, and in-hospital mortality and prolonged length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with septic shock, initiating hydrocortisone >12 hours after vasopressor use was associated with an increased risk of both short-term and long-term mortality, and a prolonged length of hospital stay.

Blood Pressure Goals in Critically Ill Patients

Blood pressure goals in the intensive care unit (ICU) have been extensively investigated in large datasets and have been associated with various harm thresholds at or greater than a mean pressure of 65 mm Hg. While it is difficult to perform interventional randomized trials of blood pressure in the ICU, important evidence does not support defense of a higher pressure, except in retrospective database analyses. Perfusion pressure may be a more important target than mean pressure, even more so in the vulnerable patient population. In the cardiac ICU, blood pressure targets are tailored to specific cardiac pathophysiology and patient characteristics. Generally, the goal is to maintain adequate blood pressure within a certain range to support cardiac function and to ensure end organ perfusion. Individualized targets demand the use of both invasive and noninvasive monitoring modalities and frequent titration of medications and/or mechanical circulatory support where necessary. In this review, we aim to identify appropriate blood pressure targets in the ICU, recognizing special patient populations and outlining the risk factors and predictors of end organ failure.

Emerging concepts in the care of patients with cirrhosis and septic shock

Septic shock impacts approximately 6% of hospitalized patients with cirrhosis and is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Although a number of landmark clinical trials have paved the way for incremental improvements in the diagnosis and management of septic shock in the general population, patients with cirrhosis have largely been excluded from these studies and critical knowledge gaps continue to impact the care of these individuals. In this review, we discuss nuances in the care of patients with cirrhosis and septic shock using a pathophysiology-based approach. We illustrate that septic shock may be challenging to diagnose in this population in the context of factors such as chronic hypotension, impaired lactate metabolism, and concomitant hepatic encephalopathy. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the application of routine interventions such as intravenous fluids, vasopressors, antibiotics, and steroids should be carefully considered among those with decompensated cirrhosis in light of hemodynamic, metabolic, hormonal, and immunologic disturbances. We propose that future research should include and characterize patients with cirrhosis in a systematic manner, and clinical practice guidelines may need to be refined accordingly.

A plea for personalization of the hemodynamic management of septic shock

Although guidelines provide excellent expert guidance for managing patients with septic shock, they leave room for personalization according to patients' condition. Hemodynamic monitoring depends on the evolution phase: salvage, optimization, stabilization, and de-escalation. Initially during the salvage phase, monitoring to identify shock etiology and severity should include arterial pressure and lactate measurements together with clinical examination, particularly skin mottling and capillary refill time. Low diastolic blood pressure may trigger vasopressor initiation. At this stage, echocardiography may be useful to identify significant cardiac dysfunction. During the optimization phase, echocardiographic monitoring should be pursued and completed by the assessment of tissue perfusion through central or mixed-venous oxygen saturation, lactate, and carbon dioxide veno-arterial gradient. Transpulmonary thermodilution and the pulmonary artery catheter should be considered in the most severe patients. Fluid therapy also depends on shock phases. While administered liberally during the resuscitation phase, fluid responsiveness should be assessed during the optimization phase. During stabilization, fluid infusion should be minimized. In the de-escalation phase, safe fluid withdrawal could be achieved by ensuring tissue perfusion is preserved. Norepinephrine is recommended as first-line vasopressor therapy, while vasopressin may be preferred in some patients. Essential questions remain regarding optimal vasopressor selection, combination therapy, and the most effective and safest escalation. Serum renin and the angiotensin I/II ratio may identify patients who benefit most from angiotensin II. The optimal therapeutic strategy for shock requiring high-dose vasopressors is scant. In all cases, vasopressor therapy should be individualized, based on clinical evaluation and blood flow measurements to avoid excessive vasoconstriction. Inotropes should be considered in patients with decreased cardiac contractility associated with impaired tissue perfusion. Based on pharmacologic properties, we suggest as the first test a limited dose of dobutamine, to add enoximone or milrinone in the second line and substitute or add levosimendan if inefficient. Regarding adjunctive therapies, while hydrocortisone is nowadays advised in patients receiving high doses of vasopressors, patients responding to corticosteroids may be identified in the future by the analysis of selected cytokines or specific transcriptomic endotypes. To conclude, although some general rules apply for shock management, a personalized approach should be considered for hemodynamic monitoring and support.

Effects of Stress Hyperglycemia on Short-Term Prognosis of Patients Without Diabetes Mellitus in Coronary Care Unit

Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) has a high morbidity and mortality worldwide, and it is a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. Non-diabetic stress hyperglycemia is common in severely ill patients, and it could affect prognosis. This study aimed to analyze the influence of different blood glucose levels on prognosis from the perspective of stress hyperglycemia by comparing them with normal blood glucose levels and those of patients with DM.

Methods: A retrospective study of 1,401 patients in coronary care unit (CCU) from the critical care database called Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV was performed. Patients were assigned to the following groups 1–4 based on their history of DM, random blood glucose, and HbA1c levels: normal blood glucose group, moderate stress hyperglycemia group, severe stress hyperglycemia group and DM group. The main outcome of this study was 30- and 90-day mortality rates. The associations between groups and outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, Cox proportional hazard regression model and competing risk regression model.

Results: A total of 1,401 patients in CCU were enrolled in this study. The Kaplan–Meier survival curve showed that group 1 had a higher survival probability than groups 3 and 4 in terms of 30- and 90-day mortalities. After controlling the potential confounders in Cox regression, groups 3 and 4 had a statistically significant higher risk of both mortalities than group 1, while no difference in mortality risk was found between groups 2 and 1. The hazard ratios [95% confidence interval (CI)] of 30- and 90-day mortality rates for group 3 were 2.77(1.39,5.54) and 2.59(1.31,5.12), respectively, while those for group 4 were 1.92(1.08,3.40) and 1.94(1.11,3.37), respectively.

Conclusions: Severe stress hyperglycemia (≥200 mg/dL) in patients without DM in CCU may increase the risk of short-term death, which is greater than the prognostic effect in patients with diabetes. Patients with normal blood glucose levels and moderate stress hyperglycemia (140 mg/dL ≤ RBG <200 mg/dL) had no effect on short-term outcomes in patients with CCU.

Noninvasive Monitoring in the Intensive Care Unit

There has been considerable development in the field of noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring in recent years. Multiple devices have been proposed to assess blood pressure, cardiac output, and tissue perfusion. All have their own advantages and disadvantages and selection should be based on individual patient requirements and disease severity and adjusted according to ongoing patient evolution.