Discontinuation of Vasopressin Before Norepinephrine in the Recovery Phase of Septic Shock

Vasopressin in Sepsis and Other Shock States: State of the Art

This review of the use of vasopressin aims to be comprehensive and highly practical, based on the available scientific evidence and our extensive clinical experience with the drug. It summarizes controversies about vasopressin use in septic shock and other vasodilatory states. Vasopressin is a natural hormone with powerful vasoconstrictive effects and is responsible for the regulation of plasma osmolality by maintaining fluid homeostasis. Septic shock is defined by the need for vasopressors to correct hypotension and lactic acidosis secondary to infection, with a high mortality rate. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend vasopressin as a second-line vasopressor, added to norepinephrine. However, these guidelines do not address specific debates surrounding the use of vasopressin in real-world clinical practice.

How We Escalate Vasopressor and Corticosteroid Therapy in Patients With Septic Shock

Septic shock is defined by the need for vasopressor agents to correct hypotension and lactic acidosis resulting from infection, with 30%-40% case fatality rates. The care of patients with worsening septic shock involves multiple treatment decisions involving vasopressor choices and adjunctive treatments. In this edition of "How I Do It", we provide a case-based discussion of common clinical decisions regarding choice of first-line vasopressor, BP targets, route of vasopressor delivery, use of secondary vasopressors, and adjunctive medications. We also consider diagnostic approaches, treatment, and monitoring strategies for the patient with worsening shock, as well as approaches to difficult weaning of vasopressors.

Incidence of Hypotension Associated With Two Different Vasopressin Discontinuation Strategies in the Recovery Phase of Septic Shock

INTRODUCTION

Safe and effective vasopressor withdrawal strategies during the recovery phase of septic shock lack consensus and are not addressed in clinical practice guidelines. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of clinically relevant hypotension associated with different vasopressin (AVP) discontinuation strategies.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, cohort study, conducted at a university medical center over a three-year period. Adult patients ≥18 years with septic shock were included in the study. Patients were stratified into two groups; patients incrementally weaned from AVP and patients in which AVP was abruptly discontinued. The primary endpoint was to compare the incidence of clinically relevant hypotension between study groups up to 24 hours following discontinuation. Secondary analyses included the incidence of any hypotensive event up to 24 hours after AVP cessation, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 74 patients (n = 46 AVP wean and n = 28 AVP no-wean) met inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The primary outcome was not statistically different between groups. Clinically relevant hypotension occurred in 24 patients (52.3%) and 16 patients (57.1%) in the AVP wean and AVP no-wean groups, respectively (P = .68). There were no significant differences in any secondary clinical outcome between the two study groups.

CONCLUSION

No differences were found in the incidence of clinically relevant hypotension, length of stay, or mortality between AVP weaning and no-weaning discontinuation strategies. These findings suggest incremental weaning and abrupt withdrawal of AVP are both acceptable discontinuation strategies.

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.

Norepinephrine vs Vasopressin: Which Vasopressor Should Be Discontinued First in Septic Shock? A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with septic shock in whom norepinephrine (NE) infusion alone is insufficient to raise blood pressure require the concomitant administration of vasopressin (VP). However, current guidelines do not advise clinicians as to which vasoactive agent to discontinue first once the patient's septic shock begins to resolve. Moreover, there is controversial data guiding clinicians on how to discontinue vasopressors for septic shock patients who are receiving a combination therapy of NE and VP.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register databases were searched from the database inception until October 18, 2018. Studies were limited to adult patients with septic shock who received concomitant NE and VP treatment, that included different orders of vasopressor discontinuation. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypotension. Overall mortality, ICU mortality, and length of stay (LOS) in the ICU were secondary outcomes. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses as well as trial sequential analysis were performed.

RESULTS

One prospective randomized controlled trial and seven retrospective cohort studies were included in present meta-analysis. Compared with discontinuing VP first, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower when NE was discontinued first (odds ratio, OR 0.3, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.10 to 0.86, P = 0.02; I = 91%). No significant difference was detected in either overall mortality (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.10, P = 0.34) or ICU mortality (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.34, P = 0.96) between these two groups. Furthermore, ICU LOS was also evaluated in five studies, and no statistical significance was observed between the two groups with different orders in weaning vasopressors (mean difference 1.35, 95% CI -2.05 to 4.74, P = 0.44). The subgroup analyses suggested a significant association between hypotension and the practice of discontinuing VP first specifically in patients with a low usage rate of corticosteroids (odds ratio, OR 0.18, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.04 to 0.78, P = 0.02). The trial sequential analysis indicated a lack of sufficient evidence to draw conclusions from the current results (required information size  = 11 821).

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with septic shock treated with concomitant VP and NE therapy, discontinuing VP first may lead to a higher incidence of hypotension but is not associated with mortality or ICU LOS. Further prospective studies with larger sample sizes are warranted.

Analysis of Vasopressor Discontinuation and the Incidence of Rebound Hypotension in Patients With Septic Shock

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the incidence of rebound hypotension in patients with septic shock requiring both norepinephrine and vasopressin infusions once discontinuation of 1 of these agents is warranted. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective study was conducted in 3 hospitals within a single health system between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017. The study population included adults, 18 years and older, diagnosed with septic shock and requiring concurrent infusions of norepinephrine and vasopressin. The primary outcome evaluated the incidence of rebound hypotension within 24 hours after the first vasopressor was discontinued. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, total vasopressor duration, and the time to rebound hypotension after first vasopressor discontinuation. Results: A total of 69 patients were included in the study, 38 in the vasopressin discontinued first group and 31 in the norepinephrine discontinued first group. Rebound hypotension occurred in 82% of patients in the vasopressin discontinued first group compared with 48% in the norepinephrine discontinued first group ( P = .004). No differences were observed in secondary outcomes, including intensive care unit or hospital length of stay, total vasopressor duration, or the time to rebound hypotension. Conclusions: Discontinuation of norepinephrine before vasopressin may lead to less incidence of rebound hypotension in patients with septic shock who require concurrent norepinephrine and vasopressin infusions. Similar to previous studies, this study found no difference in secondary outcomes.

Abrupt Discontinuation Versus Down-Titration of Vasopressin in Patients Recovering from Septic Shock

PURPOSE

To compare patient outcomes based on management of arginine vasopressin (AVP) during the recovery phase of septic shock (abrupt vs. tapering discontinuation).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients receiving AVP with concomitant norepinephrine for septic shock. Primary outcome measure was time to intensive care unit (ICU) discharge (from decision to titrate or stop AVP). Secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital mortality, and incidence of hypotension.

RESULTS

A total of 958 (73%) abrupt discontinuation and 360 (27%) down-titration patients were included. Patient characteristics and septic shock treatment courses were similar between groups. Median time to ICU discharge was similar between abrupt discontinuation (7.9 days, 95% CI 7.2-8.7 days) and tapered patients (7.3 days, 95% CI 6.3-9.3 days, P = 0.60). After controlling for baseline discrepancies, down-titration was not an independent predictor of time to ICU discharge (HR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.85-1.15, P = 0.91). There was no difference in ICU mortality (21.8% vs. 18.0%, P = 0.13) or hospital mortality (28.9% vs. 31.1%, P = 0.44). Although incidence of hypotension was similar (39.7% vs. 41.7%, P = 0.53), patients in the down-titration group more frequently required an escalation of AVP dose (5.7% vs. 11.1%, P < 0.001). Median AVP duration was shorter in the abrupt discontinuation group (1.4 days [IQR: 0.6-2.6 days] vs. 1.8 days [IQR: 1.1-3.2 days], P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A difference in time to ICU discharge was not detected between abrupt AVP discontinuation and down-titration in patients recovering from septic shock. In patients recovering from septic shock, abrupt discontinuation of AVP appears to be safe and may lead to shortened AVP duration.

Vasopressor Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit

After fluid administration for vasodilatory shock, vasopressors are commonly infused. Causes of vasodilatory shock include septic shock, post-cardiovascular surgery, post-acute myocardial infarction, postsurgery, other causes of an intense systemic inflammatory response, and drug -associated anaphylaxis. Therapeutic vasopressors are hormones that activate receptors-adrenergic: α1, α2, β1, β2; angiotensin II: AG1, AG2; vasopressin: AVPR1a, AVPR1B, AVPR2; dopamine: DA1, DA2. Vasopressor choice and dose vary widely because of patient and physician practice heterogeneity. Vasopressor adverse effects are excessive vasoconstriction causing organ ischemia/infarction, hyperglycemia, hyperlactatemia, tachycardia, and tachyarrhythmias. To date, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) of vasopressors has shown a decreased 28-day mortality rate. There is a need for evidence regarding alternative vasopressors as first-line vasopressors. We emphasize that vasopressors should be administered simultaneously with fluid replacement to prevent and decrease duration of hypotension in shock with vasodilation. Norepinephrine is the first-choice vasopressor in septic and vasodilatory shock. Interventions that decrease norepinephrine dose (vasopressin, angiotensin II) have not decreased 28-day mortality significantly. In patients not responsive to norepinephrine, vasopressin or epinephrine may be added. Angiotensin II may be useful for rapid resuscitation of profoundly hypotensive patients. Inotropic agent(s) (e.g., dobutamine) may be needed if vasopressors decrease ventricular contractility. Dopamine has fallen to almost no-use recommendation because of adverse effects; angiotensin II is available clinically; there are potent vasopressors with scant literature (e.g., methylene blue); and the novel V1a agonist selepressin missed on its pivotal RCT primary outcome. In pediatric septic shock, vasopressors, epinephrine, and norepinephrine are recommended equally because there is no clear evidence that supports the use of one vasoactive agent. Dopamine is recommended when epinephrine or norepinephrine is not available. New strategies include perhaps patients will be started on several vasopressors with complementary mechanisms of action, patients may be selected for particular vasopressors according to predictive biomarkers, and novel vasopressors may emerge with fewer adverse effects.

Diabetes Insipidus After Discontinuation of Vasopressin Infusion for Treatment of Shock

OBJECTIVES

Vasopressin has achieved common usage for the treatment of catecholamine-requiring and catecholamine-resistant shock. Diabetes insipidus is a syndrome characterized by excretion of abnormally large volumes of dilute urine. To date, very few reports of diabetes insipidus after discontinuation of vasopressin infusion have been published; the majority of previous reports describe neurosurgical patients. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the occurrence rate of diabetes insipidus after discontinuation of vasopressin infusion among patients treated with vasopressin infusion for shock.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of electronic health records of patients receiving continuous vasopressin infusion for the treatment of shock within a 5-year period (2012-2016).

SETTING

Medical, surgical, and cardiothoracic ICUs within one academic medical center.

PATIENTS

One-thousand eight-hundred ninety-six patients received vasopressin infusion for the treatment of shock.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The occurrence rate of diabetes insipidus after discontinuation of vasopressin infusion was 1.53% among all patients. Sixteen of 29 patients with diabetes insipidus after discontinuation of vasopressin infusion had undergone cardiothoracic intervention, such as coronary artery bypass graft and valve replacement surgery, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and placement of ventricular assist devices. No neurosurgical patients were identified in our cohort. In a control group of patients receiving norepinephrine but not vasopressin infusion for treatment of shock, criteria for diabetes insipidus were observed in two of 1,320 subjects (0.15%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a paucity of published reports, diabetes insipidus after discontinuation of vasopressin infusion appears not to be a rare phenomenon, and is likely to be encountered by intensivists who regularly employ vasopressin for the treatment of vasoplegic shock. Previous reports consisted predominantly of neurosurgical patients. Our findings demonstrate the occurrence of diabetes insipidus after discontinuation of vasopressin infusion among patients with septic shock as well as vasoplegic shock after cardiothoracic intervention. The mechanism of diabetes insipidus after discontinuation of vasopressin infusion remains to be elucidated but may involve transient downregulation of V2 receptors induced by exposure to supraphysiological doses of vasopressin.

Vasopressin for Septic Shock in a Medical-Surgical Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients often need vasopressors to treat hypotension related to septic shock and to maintain adequate systemic perfusion. Although the 2017 guidelines of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommend norepinephrine as first-line therapy, they also state that vasopressin may be considered as an adjunctive agent for patients with refractory shock. Limited evidence is available for directing optimal administration of vasopressin. As such, prescribing practices are not standardized and may vary according to the particular clinician, the clinical scenario, and various patient-specific factors.

OBJECTIVES

To review the current practice of administering concomitant norepinephrine and vasopressin therapy to patients with septic shock, to describe variability in vasopressin administration, and to evaluate effects on patient safety in a medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

This single-centre retrospective chart review involved 100 adult patients admitted to the ICU who received vasopressin and norepinephrine for septic shock between April and December 2017. The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The mean time to initiation of vasopressin was 12.0 (standard deviation [SD] 21.6) h after initiation of norepinephrine. The mean dose of norepinephrine at the time of vasopressin initiation was 29.5 (SD 19.7) μg/min. The mean vasopressin dose prescribed was 0.04 (SD 0.03) units/min, with a range of tapering and discontinuation regimens. The mean duration of vasopressin therapy was 49.1 (SD 65.2) h, and vasopressin was discontinued before norepinephrine in 49 of the patients. A total of 60 hypotensive events occurred after vasopressor discontinuation and were more common when vasopressin was discontinued before norepinephrine.

CONCLUSIONS

Vasopressin dosing was comparable to that reported elsewhere; however, discontinuation practices were inconsistent. These results show that variability in the literature supporting vasopressin use has led to variability in vasopressin administration and discontinuation practices; however, correlation with improvement in clinical outcomes, such as mortality or ICU length of stay, is unclear, and further research is required to determine the ideal approach to vasopressin use.

Impact of the Sequence of Norepinephrine and Vasopressin Discontinuation in Patients Recovering From Septic Shock

Background: Septic shock is a serious medical condition affecting millions of people each year and guidelines direct vasopressor use in these patients. However, there is little information as to which vasopressor should be discontinued first. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the sequence of norepinephrine and vasopressin discontinuation on intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. Methods: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study conducted at The University of Tennessee Medical Center in Knoxville, Tennessee. Patients included in this study were adults 18 years of age and older with a diagnosis of septic shock who received norepinephrine in combination with vasopressin. Patients were excluded if norepinephrine or vasopressin were not the last 2 vasoactive agents used or if the patient expired or care was withdrawn. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 86 patients were included in this study, with 34 patients in the norepinephrine discontinued first group (NDF) and 52 in the vasopressin discontinued first group (VDF). For the primary outcome of ICU length of stay, no statistically significant difference was found between the NDF and the VDF groups (9.38 days vs 11.07 days, P = .313). The secondary outcome of the dose of norepinephrine at which vasopressin was initiated was also found to not be significant between the NDF and VDF groups (22 µg/min vs 31.1 µg/min, P = .11). The rates of hypotension within 24 hours of discontinuation of the first agent were also not significant between the NDF and VDF groups (17% vs 31%, P = .38). Conclusions: Based on the results of this study, there was significant no difference in ICU length of stay based on the sequence of discontinuation between norepinephrine and vasopressin in patients recovering from septic shock.

Narrative Review of Controversies Involving Vasopressin Use in Septic Shock and Practical Considerations

Objective: To summarize literature evaluating vasopressin use, focusing on clinical controversies regarding initiation, dosing, and discontinuation and interaction of vasopressin with other therapies in septic shock patients. Data Sources: A PubMed English-language literature search (January 2008 to December 2019) was performed using these terms: arginine vasopressin, septic, shock, and sepsis. Citations, including controlled trials, observational studies, review articles, guidelines, and consensus statements, were reviewed. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Relevant clinical data focusing on specific controversial questions regarding the utility of vasopressin in patients with septic shock were narratively summarized. Data Synthesis: Current literature does not strongly support the use of vasopressin as a first-line initial therapy for septic shock. Additionally, there are conflicting data for weight-based dosing of vasopressin in overweight patients. Evidence for vasopressin renal protection and interaction with corticosteroids is minimal. However, vasopressin has the ability to reduce catecholamine requirements in septic shock patients and may provide a mortality benefit in specific subgroups. Discontinuation of vasopressin last, not second to last, in resolving septic shock may reduce hypotension development. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review addresses specific clinical controversies that drive vasopressin use in septic shock patients in real-world practice. Conclusion: Vasopressin should remain second-line adjunct to norepinephrine to augment mean arterial pressures. Dosing should be initiated at 0.03 U/min, and higher doses offer minimal benefit. There are conflicting data on the impact of weight on vasopressin response. Studies have failed to show renal benefit with vasopressin use or an interaction with corticosteroid therapy.

Incidence of Hypotension after Discontinuation of Norepinephrine or Arginine Vasopressin in Patients with Septic Shock: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

There has been no consensus regarding the discontinuation order of vasopressors in patients recovering from septic shock treated with concomitant norepinephrine (NE) and arginine vasopressin (AVP). The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of hypotension within 24 hours based on whether NE or AVP was discontinued first in order to determine the optimal sequence for discontinuation of vasopressors.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register. The primary end-point was incidence of hypotension within 24 hours after discontinuation of the first vasopressor.

RESULTS

We identified five studies comprising 930 patients, of whom 631 (67.8%) discontinued NE first and 299 (32.2%) discontinued AVP first. In pooled estimates, a random-effect model showed that discontinuation of NE first was associated with a significant reduction of the incidence of hypotension compared to discontinuing AVP first (31.8% vs. 54.8%; risk ratios, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.76; P = 0.008; I² = 90.7%). Although a substantial degree of heterogeneity existed among the trials, we could not identify the significant source of bias. In addition, there were no significant differences in intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, or ICU length of stay between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Discontinuing NE prior to AVP was associated with a lower incidence of hypotension in patients recovering from septic shock. However, our results should be interpreted with caution, due to the considerable between-study heterogeneity.

Prescribing of Pressor Agents in Septic Shock: A Survey of Critical Care Pharmacists

Background: Pressor agents are recognized as high-alert medications by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, but little evidence is available to guide their use in septic shock. Objective: Characterize the use of pressor agents for septic shock in clinical practice. Methods: A cross-sectional electronic survey assessing demographics, institutional practices, and respondent perceptions related to pressor agents was distributed to the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Critical Care Practice and Research Network. The primary outcome was the use of a weight-based dosing (WBD) strategy versus non-WBD strategy for norepinephrine. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize survey results. Binary logistic regression was performed to determine variables associated with dosing strategies. Results: The survey was completed by 223 respondents. The typical respondent worked in a medical or mixed intensive care unit at a teaching hospital and had training and/or board certification beyond the Doctor of Pharmacy degree. Nearly all respondents (n = 221, 99%) reported norepinephrine as the first-line vasopressor for septic shock; however, 38% used WBD and 60% used non-WBD. In logistic regression, respondents located in the South and practicing at institutions with larger numbers of intensive care unit beds were more likely to use WBD for norepinephrine infusions. Similar findings were observed with epinephrine and phenylephrine. Conclusion: Wide variability exists in prescribing patterns of pressor agents and in pharmacist perceptions regarding best practices. The use of WBD varied based on institutional characteristics and resulted in higher maximum allowable infusion rates of pressor agents. Future research should compare dosing strategies to identify associations with patient outcomes.

Perceptions regarding vasopressin use and practices in septic shock, and cost containment strategies

Background

Clinician preferences and practices regarding appropriate vasopressin use in light of its increased acquisition cost secondary to rebranding has not been evaluated or described since the most recent iteration of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline was published.

Objective

To assess vasopressin cost containment initiatives and pharmacists' opinions regarding appropriate vasopressin use.

Methods

A scenario-based survey was distributed to critical care and emergency medicine pharmacists. Responses were characterized using frequency and descriptive statistics. Categorical variables between those who implemented changes (Vasopressin Cost Consideration) and those who did not (Usual Care) were compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. McNemar's test was used to compare responses in clinical scenarios between Vasopressin Cost Consideration and Usual Care groups.

Results

Among 1757 pharmacists surveyed, 200 (11.3%) responded. When respondents considered vasopressin cost and evidence (vs evidence alone), fewer respondents would use vasopressin adjunctively with norepinephrine (21% vs 26.6%, P = 0.031), to raise mean arterial pressure compared with epinephrine (65.2% vs 72.3%, P = 0.012), or to reduce norepinephrine infusion rates (71.4% vs 81.4%, P < 0.001), but would use with steroids (62.4% vs 28.3%, P < 0.001). Most (72%) respondents had implemented vasopressin cost containment and/or education initiatives. The Vasopressin Cost Consideration group respondents were more likely to initiate vasopressin at 0.03 units/minute without titrating (47.9% vs 33.9%, P = 0.045).

Conclusion

Since vasopressin was generically rebranded, most institutions have implemented at least one initiative to reduce vasopressin use and/or educate clinicians about its appropriate use. When vasopressin acquisition costs were considered, pharmacists recommended its use less frequently, particularly in clinical scenarios where its use is controversial.

Norepinephrine and Vasopressin Compared With Norepinephrine and Epinephrine in Adults With Septic Shock

Background: The optimal adjuvant vasopressor to norepinephrine in septic shock remains controversial. Objective: To compare durations of shock-free survival between adjuvant vasopressin and epinephrine. Methods: A retrospective, single-center, matched cohort study of adults with septic shock refractory to norepinephrine was conducted. Patients receiving norepinephrine not at target mean arterial pressure (MAP; 65 mm Hg) were initiated on vasopressin or epinephrine to raise MAP to target. Vasopressin-exposed patients were matched to epinephrine-exposed patients using propensity scores. Mortality outcomes were examined using multivariable Poisson regression with robust variance estimation. Results: Of 166 patients, 96 (entire cohort) were included in the propensity score-matched cohort. Shock-free survival durations in the first 7 days were similar between epinephrine- and vasopressin-exposed patients in the matched cohort (median = 13.2 hours, interquartile range [IQR] = 0-121.0, vs median = 41.3 hours, IQR = 0-125.9; P = 0.51). Seven- and 28-day mortality rates were similar in the matched cohort (7-day: 47.9% vs 39.6%, P = 0.35; 28-day: 56.3% vs 58.3%, P = 0.84). Mortality rates were similar between epinephrine- and vasopressin-exposed patients in propensity score-matched regression models with and without adjustments at 7 (relative risk [RR] = 1.28, 95% CI = 0.92-1.79; RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.81-1.81) and 28 days (RR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.81-1.34; RR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.69-1.34). Conclusion and Relevance: Shock-free survival durations were similar in matched epinephrine- and vasopressin-exposed groups. Adjuvant epinephrine or vasopressin alongside norepinephrine to raise MAP to target requires further investigation.

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.

Incidence of hypotension according to the discontinuation order of vasopressors in the management of septic shock: a prospective randomized trial (DOVSS)

BACKGROUND

Vasopressin (AVP) is commonly added to norepinephrine (NE) to reverse shock in patients with sepsis. However, there are no data to support the appropriate strategy of vasopressor tapering in patients on concomitant NE and AVP who are recovering from septic shock. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of hypotension while tapering vasopressors in patients on concomitant NE and AVP recovering from septic shock.

METHODS

Patients with septic shock receiving concomitant NE and AVP were randomly assigned to taper NE first (NE group) or AVP first (AVP group). The primary end point was the incidence of hypotension within one hour of tapering of the first vasopressor. We also evaluated the association between serum copeptin levels and the occurrence of hypotension.

RESULTS

The study was stopped early due to a significant difference in the incidence of hypotension after 38 and 40 patients were enrolled in the NE group and the AVP group, respectively. There were 26 patients (68.4%) in the NE group versus 9 patients (22.5%) in the AVP group who developed hypotension after tapering the first vasopressor (p < 0.001). There was a similar finding during the subsequent tapering of the second vasopressor (64.5% in the NE vs 25.0% in the AVP group, p = 0.020). Finally, NE tapering was significantly associated with hypotension during the study period (hazard ratio, 2.221; 95% confidence interval, 1.106-4.460; p = 0.025). The serum copeptin level was lower in patients in whom hypotension developed during tapering of AVP than it was in those without hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

Tapering NE rather than AVP may be associated with a higher incidence of hypotension in patients recovering from septic shock who are on concomitant NE and AVP. However, further studies with larger sample sizes are required to better determine the appropriate strategy for vasopressor tapering.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01493102 . Registered on 15 December 2011.

Evaluating Vasopressor Discontinuation Strategies in Patients With Septic Shock on Concomitant Norepinephrine and Vasopressin Infusions

BACKGROUND

There is little data guiding clinicians on how to discontinue vasopressors among septic shock patients on concomitant norepinephrine (NE) and vasopressin (VP).

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence of hypotension within 24 hours of discontinuing NE (NE DC first) versus VP (VP DC first) first in septic shock patients.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated septic shock patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU) and surgical ICU (SICU) receiving concomitant NE and VP. Receipt of additional vasopressors, mixed shock states, expired or care withdrawn, and NE and VP discontinued simultaneously were exclusion criteria. The primary outcome was incidence of hypotension within 24 hours of first vasopressor discontinuation. Secondary outcomes included time to hypotension, hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, and ICU mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 80 patients were included (NE DC first [n = 35]; VP DC first [n = 45]), with a median age of 73 years and median modified Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores of 21 and 7, respectively. More patients in the NE DC first group were in the SICU (42.9% vs 20.0%; P = 0.048) with more intra-abdominal infections (40.0% vs 15.6%; P = 0.021) and fewer appropriate empirical antibiotics (62.9% vs 86.7%; P = 0.018). Hypotension within 24 hours of first agent discontinuation was higher in the VP DC first group (28.6% vs 62.2%; P = 0.004), with similar hospital LOS and ICU mortality. Multivariate analysis identified VP DC first as an independent predictor of hypotension (odds ratio = 7.2; CI = 2.3-22.7).

CONCLUSION

Among septic shock patients on concomitant NE and VP, discontinuation of VP first was associated with an increased incidence of hypotension; future prospective control trials are warranted.