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

Analysis of the Association Between the Number of Intensivists and the Use of Cardiovascular Agonists: An Ecological Study Using Data From National Databases of Japan

Background Previous studies have demonstrated a correlation between management by intensivists and a decrease in hospital stay and mortality, yet the underlying reason remains unknown. Using open data from the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups of Japan (NDB) and other databses, the present study aimed to explore the relationship between inotrope and vasoconstrictor use and the number of intensivists. Materials and methods Cardiovascular agonists listed in the 2020 NDB for which the total dose was known were included for analysis. Trends in cardiovascular agonist use over six years were then graphically assessed, and a linear regression model with the use of each target drug per prefecture as the objective variable in the 2020 data was created to analyze the impact of intensivists on drug use. Results A total of 61 drugs were classified into eight groups based on their composition, and drug use in each of the 47 prefectures was tabulated. Both the rate of use and cost showed a yearly decrease for dopamine but a yearly increase for norepinephrine. Multivariable analysis indicated that the number of intensivists was only significant for dopamine, which had a coefficient of -310 (95% CI: -548 to -72, p = 0.01) but that no such trend was evident for the other drugs. Conclusions The results demonstrated that an increasing number of intensivists in each prefecture correlated with decreasing use of dopamine, possibly explaining the improved outcomes observed in closed ICUs led by intensivists. Further research is warranted to establish causality.

Combination of norepinephrine with phenylephrine versus norepinephrine with vasopressin in critically ill patients with septic shock: A retrospective study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the outcomes of patients with septic shock treated with a combination of norepinephrine with phenylephrine compared to norepinephrine with vasopressin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study including adults admitted between 2002 and 2017 with septic shock according to the Sepsis 3 criteria. We compared outcomes of patients treated with norepinephrine with phenylephrine to those treated with norepinephrine with vasopressin. Multivariate analysis was carried out to evaluate the association of norepinephrine with phenylephrine compared to norepinephrine with vasopressin with in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

During the study period, 158 patients with septic shock were treated with norepinephrine with phenylephrine and 129 with norepinephrine with vasopressin. Crude in-hospital mortality was not different between the two groups [91/158 (57.6%) versus 80/129 (62.5%), p = 0.40]. There was also no difference in ICU length of stay or hospital length of stay. Multivariate analysis demonstrated no significant association of norepinephrine with phenylephrine with in-hospital mortality compared to norepinephrine with vasopressin (OR 0.62 (95% confidence interval 0.31, 1.23, p = 0.17).

CONCLUSION

Phenylephrine used as a second-line vasoactive agent combined with norepinephrine may be a reasonable option compared to vasopressin. However, this finding needs to be validated in a randomized controlled trial.

Dopamine use and its consequences in the intensive care unit: a cohort study utilizing the Japanese Intensive care PAtient Database

Background

Dopamine is used to treat patients with shock in intensive care units (ICU) throughout the world, despite recent evidence against its use. The aim of this study was to identify the latest practice of dopamine use in Japan and also to explore the consequences of dopamine use in a large Asian population.

Methods

The Japanese Intensive Care PAtient Database (JIPAD), the largest intensive care database in Japan, was utilized. Inclusion criteria included: 1) age 18 years or older, 2) admitted to the ICU for reasons other than procedures, 3) ICU length of stay of 24 h or more, and 4) treatment with either dopamine or noradrenaline within 24 h of admission. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Multivariable regression analysis was performed, followed by a propensity score-matched analysis.

Results

Of the 132,354 case records, 14,594 records from 56 facilities were included in this analysis. Dopamine was administered to 4,653 patients and noradrenaline to 11,844. There was no statistically significant difference in facility characteristics between frequent dopamine users (N = 28) and infrequent users (N = 28). Patients receiving dopamine had more cardiovascular diagnosis codes (70% vs. 42%; p < 0.01), more post-elective surgery status (60% vs. 31%), and lower APACHE III scores compared to patients given noradrenaline alone (70.7 vs. 83.0; p < 0.01). Multivariable analysis showed an odds ratio for in-hospital mortality of 0.86 [95% CI: 0.71–1.04] in the dopamine ≤ 5 μg/kg/min group, 1.46 [95% CI: 1.18–1.82] in the 5–15 μg/kg/min group, and 3.30 [95% CI: 1.19–9.19] in the > 15 μg/kg/min group. In a 1:1 propensity score matching for dopamine use as a vasopressor (570 pairs), both in-hospital mortality and ICU mortality were significantly higher in the dopamine group compared to no dopamine group (22.5% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.038; 13.3% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.018), as well as ICU length of stay (mean 9.3 days vs. 7.4 days, p = 0.004).

Conclusion

Dopamine is still widely used in Japan. The results of this study suggest detrimental effects of dopamine use specifically at a high dose.

Trial registration Retrospectively registered upon approval of the Institutional Review Board and the administration office of JIPAD.

Effects of Inotropes on the Mortality in Patients With Septic Shock

BACKGROUND

Although surviving sepsis campaign guidelines recommend the use of inotropes in the presence of myocardial dysfunction, the effects of inotropes, including epinephrine, dobutamine, and milrinone, on in-hospital mortality in patients with septic shock remains unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted an international,2-center, retrospective cohort study. The Cox proportional hazards regression model with time-varying covariates was used to investigate whether epinephrine, milrinone, or dobutamine reduces in-hospital mortality in patients with septic shock. Sensitivity analysis was performed using propensity score matching. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcome included atrial fibrillation (Afib) with a rapid ventricular response (RVR) in the intensive care unit (ICU) and ICU-free days.

RESULTS

A total of 417 patients with septic shock were included, 72 (17.3%) of whom received inotropes. The use of epinephrine and dobutamine was associated with significantly higher in-hospital mortality (epinephrine, hazard ratio [HR]: 4.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.12-10.82, P = .001; dobutamine, HR: 2.53, 95% CI: 1.30-4.95, P = .046). The effects of epinephrine and dobutamine were time- and dose-dependent. The use of milrinone was not associated with increased mortality (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.42-2.68, P = .345). The use of epinephrine, dobutamine, and milrinone was associated with significantly increased odds of Afib with RVR (epinephrine, odds ratio [OR]: 3.88, 95% CI: 1.11-13.61, P = .034; dobutamine, OR: 3.95, 95% CI: 1.14-13.76; and milrinone, OR: 3.77, 95% CI: 1.05-13.59). On the other hand, the use of epinephrine, dobutamine, and milrinone was not associated with less ICU-free days (epinephrine, adjusted OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.09-1.01, P = .053; dobutamine, adjusted OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.29-2.84; and milrinone, adjusted OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.19-1.87).

CONCLUSION

The present study showed that the use of epinephrine and dobutamine was associated with significantly increased in-hospital mortality in patients with septic shock. These effects were both time- and dose-dependent. On the other hand, the use of milrinone was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality.

Optimal norepinephrine-equivalent dose to initiate epinephrine in patients with septic shock

PURPOSE

The specific norepinephrine dose at which epinephrine should be added in septic shock is unclear. This study sought to determine the norepinephrine-equivalent dose at epinephrine initiation that correlated with hemodynamic stability.

METHODS

Septic shock patients receiving both norepinephrine and epinephrine were included in this study. Classification and regression tree analysis was conducted to determine breakpoints in norepinephrine-equivalent dose predicting hemodynamic stability, with two cohorts identified. The primary outcome was hemodynamic stability, and secondary outcomes were shock-free survival, time to achieve hemodynamic stability, and change in SOFA score.

RESULTS

Optimal dose group was identified as initiating epinephrine when norepinephrine-equivalent dose was between 37 and 133 μg/min. A total of 138 and 61 patients were classified in optimal and non-optimal dose groups, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups except vasopressin use was more frequent in the optimal dose group. More patients in optimal dose group versus non-optimal dose group achieved hemodynamic stability (40 [29%] vs. 9 [14.8%]), absolute risk difference 14.2% [95% CI 2.5-25.9%]; p = .03). On multivariable analysis, initiating epinephrine within the optimal norepinephrine-equivalent dose range was independently associated with higher odds of hemodynamic response (OR 3.06 [95% CI 1.2-7.6]; p = .02). No differences were observed in other secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation of epinephrine when patients were receiving norepinephrine-equivalent doses of 37-133 μg/min was associated with a higher rate of hemodynamic stability.

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.