Predictors of Vasopressin Responsiveness in Critically Ill Adults

Optimizing Vasopressin Use and Initiation Timing in Septic Shock: A Narrative Review

TOPIC IMPORTANCE

This review discusses the rationale for vasopressin use, summarizes the results of clinical trials evaluating vasopressin, and focuses on the timing of vasopressin initiation to provide clinicians guidance for optimal adjunctive vasopressin initiation in patients with septic shock.

REVIEW FINDINGS

Patients with septic shock require vasoactive agents to restore adequate tissue perfusion. After norepinephrine, vasopressin is the suggested second-line adjunctive agent in patients with persistent inadequate mean arterial pressure. Vasopressin use in practice is heterogeneous likely because of inconsistent clinical trial findings, the lack of specific recommendations for when it should be used, and the high drug acquisition cost. Despite these limitations, vasopressin has demonstrated price inelastic demand, and its use in the United States has continued to increase. However, questions remain regarding optimal vasopressin use in patients with septic shock, particularly regarding patient selection and the timing of vasopressin initiation.

SUMMARY

Experimental studies evaluating the initiation timing of vasopressin in patients with septic shock are limited, and recent observational studies have revealed an association between vasopressin initiation at lower norepinephrine-equivalent doses or lower lactate concentrations and lower mortality.

Vasopressin Response and Clinical Trajectory in Septic Shock Patients

BACKGROUND

In septic shock, vasopressors aim to improve tissue perfusion and prevent persistent organ dysfunction, a characteristic of chronic critical illness (CCI). Adjunctive vasopressin is often used to decrease catecholamine dosage, but the association of vasopressin response with subsequent patient outcomes is unclear. We hypothesized vasopressin response is associated with favorable clinical trajectory.

METHODS

We included patients with septic shock receiving vasopressin as a catecholamine adjunct in this retrospective cohort study. We defined vasopressin response as a lowering of the catecholamine dose required to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mm Hg, 6 h after vasopressin initiation. Clinical trajectories were adjudicated as early death (ED; death before day 14), CCI (ICU stay ≥14 days with persistent organ dysfunction), or rapid recovery (RR; not meeting ED or CCI criteria). Trajectories were placed on an ordinal scale with ED the worst outcome, CCI next, and RR the best outcome. The association of vasopressin response with clinical trajectory was assessed with multivariable ordinal logistic regression.

RESULTS

In total 938 patients were included; 426 (45.4%) were vasopressin responders. The most frequent trajectory was ED (49.8%), 29.7% developed CCI, and 20.5% had rapid recovery. In survivors to ICU day 14 (those without ED), 59.2% had CCI and 40.8% experienced RR. Compared with vasopressin non-responders, vasopressin responders less frequently experienced ED (42.5% vs. 55.9%) and more frequently experienced RR (24.6% vs. 17.0%; P < 0.01). After controlling for confounders, vasopressin response was independently associated with higher odds of developing a better clinical trajectory (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.26-2.10). Medical patients most frequently developed ED and survivors more commonly developed CCI than RR; surgical patients developed the three trajectories with similar frequency (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Vasopressin responsive status was associated with improved clinical trajectory in septic shock patients. Early vasopressin response is a potential novel prognostic marker for short-term clinical trajectory.

Machine learning to predict vasopressin responsiveness in patients with septic shock

STUDY OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to develop and externally validate a model to predict adjunctive vasopressin response in patients with septic shock being treated with norepinephrine for bedside use in the intensive care unit.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective analysis of two adult tertiary intensive care unit septic shock populations.

SETTING

Barnes-Jewish Hospital (BJH) from 2010 to 2017 and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) from 2001 to 2012.

PATIENTS

Two septic shock populations (548 BJH patients and 464 BIDMC patients) that received vasopressin as second-line vasopressor.

INTERVENTION

Patients who were vasopressin responsive were compared with those who were nonresponsive. Vasopressin response was defined as survival with at least a 20% decrease in maximum daily norepinephrine requirements by one calendar day after vasopressin initiation, without a third-line vasopressor.

MEASUREMENTS

Two supervised machine learning models (gradient-boosting machine [XGBoost] and elastic net penalized logistic regression [EN]) were trained in 1000 bootstrap replications of the BJH data and externally validated in the BIDMC data to predict vasopressin responsiveness.

MAIN RESULTS

Vasopressin responsiveness was similar among each cohort (BJH 45% and BIDMC 39%). Mortality was lower for vasopressin responders compared with nonresponders in the BJH (51% vs. 73%) and BIDMC (45% vs. 83%) cohorts, respectively. Both models demonstrated modest discrimination in the training (XGBoost area under receiver operator curve [AUROC] 0.61 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.61], EN 0.59 [95% CI 0.58-0.59]) and external validation (XGBoost 0.68 [95% CI 0.63-0.73], EN 0.64 [95% CI 0.59-0.69]) datasets.

CONCLUSION

Vasopressin nonresponsiveness is common and associated with increased mortality. The models' modest performances highlight the complexity of septic shock and indicate that more research will be required before clinical decision support tools can aid in anticipating patient-specific responsiveness to vasopressin.

Influence of Timing and Catecholamine Requirements on Vasopressin Responsiveness in Critically ill Patients with Septic Shock

Introduction: Despite its widespread use, there is a paucity of data to guide the optimal use of arginine vasopressin (AVP) in critically ill patients with septic shock. Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort study conducted in critically ill adults sought to evaluate the role of catecholamine requirements and timing on responsiveness to AVP. Responsiveness was defined as both a decrease in ≥ 50% of catecholamine requirements and no decrease in mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 4 hours post-AVP initiation. Primary outcomes of interest included the proportion of patients who started AVP within 4 hours after starting catecholamine therapy, as well as baseline norepinephrine (NE) equivalents (< 15, 15-39, or ≥ 40 mcg/min). Multivariate analyses and logistic regression were performed to identify other factors associated with AVP responsiveness. Results: There were 300 patients included in this study, with 74 patients being responders and 226 being non-responders. There was no significant difference in the number of patients who received AVP within 4 hours from catecholamine initiation between responders and non-responders (35% vs. 42%, P = 0.29). There were more patients in the non-responder group requiring ≥ 40 mcg/min of NE equivalents at AVP initiation (30% vs. 16%, P = 0.023). Stress dose steroid use was less common in responders (35% vs. 52%, P = 0.011), which was consistent with logistic regression analysis (OR 0.56, 95% 0.32-0.98, P = 0.044). Clinical outcomes between responders and non-responders were similar, apart from ICU (5.4% vs. 19.5%) and hospital (5.4% vs. 20.4%) mortality being lower in responders (P = 0.0032 and P = 0.0002, respectively). Conclusion: Shorter times to AVP initiation was not associated with responsiveness at 4 hours post-catecholamine initiation, although non-responders tended to require higher doses of NE equivalents at time of AVP initiation. Concomitant corticosteroids were associated with a lower likelihood of AVP responsiveness.

Non-catecholamine vasopressors in the treatment of adult patients with septic shock-evidence from meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Norepinephrine (NE) has currently been the first-choice vasopressor in treating septic shock despite generally insufficient for patients with refractory septic shock. The aim of this update meta-analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of a combination of non-catecholamine vasopressors (vasopressin/pituitrin/terlipressin/selepressin/angiotensin II) and NE versus NE in managing adult septic shock patients.

METHODS

We conducted this study of literatures published from the inception to April 30, 2020, using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases without language restriction. Randomized controlled trials comparing NE with non-catecholamine vasopressors among adult septic shock patients were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled effects of relative risk (RR) or standard mean difference (SMD) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies covering 4380 participants were finally enrolled. The combined analysis of non-catecholamine vasopressors resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in 90-day/ICU/hospital mortality except for a decreased in 28-day mortality (n = 4217; RR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.86-0.99; P = 0.02). This favorable result was subsequently verified by the subgroup analyses of low risk of bias studies (RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.84 to 0.98; P = 0.02) and catecholamine-resistant refractory shock patients group (RR, 0.84; 95% CI = 0.70-1.00; P = 0.048). The pooled analysis of non-catecholamine vasopressors showed a 14% higher success rate of shock reversal at 6 h, a 29% decreased risk of continuous renal replacement therapy, but a 51% increased risk of hyponatremia and a 2.43 times higher risk of digital ischemia. Besides, the pooled data showed that non-catecholamine vasopressors decreased heart rate (HR) (SMD, - 0.43; 95% CI - 0.66 - - 0.19; P < 0.001), serum creatinine (- 0.15; 95% CI - 0.29 - - 0.01; P = 0.04), and the length of mechanical ventilation (MV) (- 0.19; 95% CI - 0.31 - - 0.07; P < 0.01, but there was no significant difference in other parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Current pooled results suggest that the addition of NE to non-catecholamine vasopressors was associated with a marginally significant reduction in 28-day mortality. Moreover, they were able to shorten the length of MV, improved renal function, decreased HR, and increased the 6-h shock reversal success rate at the expense of increased the risk of hyponatremia and digital ischemia.

Catecholamine Vasopressor Support Sparing Strategies in Vasodilatory Shock

Shock syndromes are associated with unacceptably high rates of mortality in critically ill patients despite advances in therapeutic options. Vasodilatory shock is the most common type encountered in the intensive care unit. It is manifested by cardiovascular failure, peripheral vasodilatation, and arterial hypotension leading to tissue hypoperfusion and organ failure. Hemodynamic support is typically initiated with fluid resuscitation strategies and administration of adrenergic vasopressor agents in nonresponsive patients to restore arterial pressure with subsequent adequate organ reperfusion. Unfortunately, high catecholamine dosing requirements may be necessary to achieve targeted hemodynamic goals that may increase the risk of vasopressor-induced adverse events. The purpose of this article is to review the clinical efficacy and safety data and potential role in therapy for catecholamine-sparing agents in vasodilatory shock. Adjunctive therapeutic options to reduce vasoactive support requirements without compromising arterial pressure include arginine vasopressin and analogs, corticosteroids, midodrine, methylene blue, and angiotensin II. Although concomitant vasopressin and corticosteroids have a more defined role in evidence-based guidelines for managing shock, clinicians may consider other potential catecholamine-sparing agents.