Does Switching Norepinephrine to Phenylephrine in Septic Shock Complicated by Atrial Fibrillation With Rapid Ventricular Response Improve Time to Rate Control?

Diagnosis and Treatment of New-Onset Perioperative Atrial Fibrillation

This article reviews medical and surgical risk factors for developing atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained dysrhythmia in the United States. Evidence for assessment and management of patients with AF, including AF newly identified in the preoperative clinic, immediately preoperatively, intraoperatively, and unstable AF, is presented. A stepwise approach to guide anesthetic decision-making in the assessment of newly identified preoperative AF is proposed. Anesthetic considerations, including the potential impacts of anesthetic and vasopressor selection, and current evidence related to rate control and rhythm control via pharmacologic or electrical cardioversion as well as anticoagulation strategies are discussed.

Norepinephrine combined with phenylephrine versus norepinephrine in patients with septic shock: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Phenylephrine (PE) and norepinephrine (NE) may be used to maintain adequate blood pressure and tissue perfusion in patients with septic shock, but the effect of NE combined with PE (NE-PE) on mortality remains unclear. We hypothesized that NE-PE would not inferior to NE alone for all-cause hospital mortality in patients with septic shock.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective cohort study included adult patients with septic shock. According to the infusion type, patients were divided into the NE-PE or NE group. Multivariate logistic regression, propensity score matching and doubly robust estimation were used to analyze the differences between groups. The primary outcome was the all-cause hospital mortality rate after NE-PE or NE infusion.

RESULTS

Among 1, 747 included patients, 1, 055 received NE and 692 received NE-PE. For the primary outcome, the hospital mortality rate was higher in patients who received NE-PE than in those who received NE (49.7% vs. 34.5%, p < 0.001), and NE-PE was independently associated with higher hospital mortality (odds ratio = 1.76, 95% confidence interval = 1.36-2.28, p < 0.001). Regarding secondary outcomes, patients in the NE-PE group had longer lengths of stay in ICU and hospitals. Patients in the NE-PE group also received mechanical ventilation for longer durations.

CONCLUSIONS

NE combined with PE was inferior to NE alone in patients with septic shock, and it was associated with a higher hospital mortality rate.

Comparison of Heart Rate After Phenylephrine vs Norepinephrine Initiation in Patients With Septic Shock and Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common complication of sepsis. It is unclear whether norepinephrine, an α- and β-agonist, and phenylephrine, an α-agonist, are associated with different heart rates among patients with sepsis and AF.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Among patients with sepsis and AF, what is the difference in heart rate after phenylephrine initiation vs norepinephrine initiation?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

With the use of an extensive database, we identified patients with sepsis and AF at the time of norepinephrine or phenylephrine initiation. We estimated the difference in heart rate between patients who received phenylephrine or norepinephrine 1 and 6 h after vasopressor initiation with the use of multivariable-adjusted linear regression, tested for effect modification by heart rate, and stratified by baseline heart rate ≥ 110 or < 110 beats/min. Secondary outcomes included conversion to sinus rhythm, bradycardia, vasopressor duration, ICU and hospital length of stay, and hospital death. Exploratory analyses were adjusted for practices that occurred after vasopressor initiation; sensitivity analyses used interrupted time series to estimate the difference in average heart rate between patients who received phenylephrine or norepinephrine.

RESULTS

Among 1847 patients with sepsis and AF, 946 patients (51%) received norepinephrine, and 901 patients (49%) received phenylephrine. After multivariable adjustment, phenylephrine was associated with a lower heart rate at 1 h (-4 beats/min; 95% CI, -6 to -1; P < .001) and 6 h (-4 beats/min; 95% CI, -6 to -1; P = .004). Higher heart rate before vasopressor administration was associated with larger heart rate reduction in patients who received phenylephrine compared with norepinephrine. There were no differences in secondary outcomes. Results were similar in exploratory and sensitivity analyses.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with sepsis and AF, the initiation of phenylephrine was associated with modestly lower heart rate compared with norepinephrine. Heart rate at vasopressor initiation appeared to be an important effect modifier. Whether modest reductions in heart rate are associated with clinical outcomes requires further study.

Effects of Collagen Antibacterial Functional Dressing plus Continuous Nursing on Lower Extremity Skin Injury Caused by Norepinephrine in Patients with Septic Shock

Background

This study was designed to explore the effects of collagen antibacterial functional dressing plus continuous care on norepinephrine-induced lower extremity skin injury in patients with septic shock.

Methods

In this prospective, randomized, controlled study, 120 patients with septic shock receiving norepinephrine in our hospital from February 2020 to February 2021 were recruited. All the enrollments were randomized into the experimental group (n = 60) and the control group (n = 60). The control group received continuous care, while the experimental group additionally received collagen antibacterial functional dressing. Outcome measures included skin sensation scores, incidence of lower extremity skin injuries, recovery time, inflammatory factor levels, and care satisfaction.

Results

Collagen antibacterial functional dressing plus continuous care resulted in significantly lower skin sensation scores and a lower incidence of skin injuries versus continuous care alone. Patients in the experimental group had faster recovery of lower extremity skin injury than those in the control group. Collagen antibacterial functional dressing plus continuous care was associated with significantly lower levels of inflammatory factors and a higher satisfaction rate than continuous care alone.

Conclusion

Collagen antibacterial functional dressing plus continuous care improves the local skin condition of patients with septic shock receiving norepinephrine, regulates the levels of inflammatory factors, reduces the risk of skin injuries, and enhances care satisfaction.