Corticosteroids for Septic Shock: Another Chapter in the Saga

Timing of vasoactive agents and corticosteroid initiation in septic shock

Septic shock remains a health care concern associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock recommend early fluid resuscitation and antimicrobials. Beyond initial management, the guidelines do not provide clear recommendations on appropriate time to initiate vasoactive therapies and corticosteroids in patients who develop shock. This review summarizes the literature regarding time of initiation of these interventions. Clinical data regarding time of initiation of these therapies in relation to shock onset, sequence of treatments with regard to each other, and clinical markers evaluated to guide initiation are summarized. Early-high vasopressor initiation within first 6 h of shock onset is associated with lower mortality. Following norepinephrine initiation, the exact dose and timing of escalation to adjunctive vasopressor agents are not well elucidated in the literature. However, recent data indicate that timing may be an important factor in initiating vasopressors and adjunctive therapies, such as corticosteroids. Norepinephrine-equivalent dose and lactate concentration can aid in determining when to initiate vasopressin and angiotensin II in patients with septic shock. Future guidelines with clear recommendations on the time of initiation of septic shock therapies are warranted.

[Resuscitation strategy for patients with sepsis and septic shock]

Fluid and vasopressor resuscitation is, along with antimicrobial therapy and control of the focus of infection, a basic issue of the treatment of sepsis and septic shock. There is currently no accepted protocol that we can follow for the resuscitation of these patients and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign proposes controversial measures and without sufficient evidence support to establish firm recommendations. We propose a resuscitation strategy adapted to the situation of each patient: in the patient in whom community sepsis is suspected, we consider that the early administration of 30mL/kg of crystalloids is effective and safe; in the patient with nosocomial sepsis, we must carry out a more in-depth evaluation before initiating aggressive resuscitation. In patients who do not respond to initial resuscitation, it is necessary to increase monitoring level and, depending on the hemodynamic profile, administer more fluids, a second vasopressor or inotropes.

USER Protocol as a Guide to Resuscitation of the Patient with Septic Shock in the Emergency Department

Introduction

Sepsis is a disease that is still associated with high mortality, in which timely interventions are related to better results.

Objective

To determine if there is a difference in in-hospital mortality, fluid balances, norepinephrine initiation and recovery time of blood pressure, when comparing the resuscitation of the patient who is admitted to the emergency room in septic shock by applying the ultrasound protocol (USER) versus the standard of care.

Patients and Methods

This is a prospective, cohort study conducted in the emergency room of a highly complex hospital of patients with septic shock.

Results

83 patients recruited in total. The groups were comparable in demographics, mean baseline blood pressure, disease severity given by the SOFA value, and arterial lactate. A statistically significant difference was documented in the fluid balances at 4 hours, median 1325mL (IQR:451–2455mL) in Group C versus 900mL (IQR:440–1292) in Group U (p=0.048) and at 6 hours, median 1658mL (IQR:610–2925mL) versus 1107mL (IQR:600–1500mL), p=0.026, as well as in the total fluid balance of hospital stay, median 14,564mL (IQR:8660–18,705mL) versus 8660mL (IQR:5309–16,974mL), p=0.049. On the other hand, in the USER Group, the mean blood pressure ≥ 65mmHg was achieved in 97.4% of the patients 4 hours after the start of the protocol versus 50% in Group C (p=<0.001). Mortality with the use of the protocol compared with conventional therapy was (56.4% vs 61.36%, p=0.647).

Conclusion

The use of the USER protocol in patients with septic shock in the emergency room showed lower fluid balances at 4 and 6 hours, and of the total hospital stay, as well as earlier initiation of norepinephrine and statistically significant faster improvement in blood pressure. Although a statistically significant difference was not found in the days of ICU stay, hospitalization and in-hospital mortality, a trend was observed in the reduction of these parameters.