Selepressin, a novel selective vasopressin V1A agonist, is an effective substitute for norepinephrine in a phase IIa randomized, placebo-controlled trial in septic shock patients

Therapeutic potential of vasopressin in the treatment of neurological disorders

Vasopressin (VP) is a nonapeptide made of nine amino acids synthesized by the hypothalamus and released by the pituitary gland. VP acts as a neurohormone, neuropeptide and neuromodulator and plays an important role in the regulation of water balance, osmolarity, blood pressure, body temperature, stress response, emotional challenges, etc. Traditionally VP is known to regulate the osmolarity and tonicity. VP and its receptors are widely expressed in the various region of the brain including cortex, hippocampus, basal forebrain, amygdala, etc. VP has been shown to modulate the behavior, stress response, circadian rhythm, cerebral blood flow, learning and memory, etc. The potential role of VP in the regulation of these neurological functions have suggested the therapeutic importance of VP and its analogues in the management of neurological disorders. Further, different VP analogues have been developed across the world with different pharmacotherapeutic potential. In the present work authors highlighted the therapeutic potential of VP and its analogues in the treatment and management of various neurological disorders.

Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: What Have We Learned in the Last Two Decades?

Sepsis is a clinical syndrome encompassing physiologic and biological abnormalities caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Sepsis progression into septic shock is associated with a dramatic increase in mortality, hence the importance of early identification and treatment. Over the last two decades, the definition of sepsis has evolved to improve early sepsis recognition and screening, standardize the terms used to describe sepsis and highlight its association with organ dysfunction and higher mortality. The early 2000s witnessed the birth of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), which showed a dramatic reduction in mortality leading to its wide adoption, and the surviving sepsis campaign (SSC), which has been instrumental in developing and updating sepsis guidelines over the last 20 years. Outside of early fluid resuscitation and antibiotic therapy, sepsis management has transitioned to a less aggressive approach over the last few years, shying away from routine mixed venous oxygen saturation and central venous pressure monitoring and excessive fluids resuscitation, inotropes use, and red blood cell transfusions. Peripheral vasopressor use was deemed safe and is rising, and resuscitation with balanced crystalloids and a restrictive fluid strategy was explored. This review will address some of sepsis management's most important yet controversial components and summarize the available evidence from the last two decades.

Research Progress of Macromolecules in the Prevention and Treatment of Sepsis

Sepsis is associated with high rates of mortality in the intensive care unit and accompanied by systemic inflammatory reactions, secondary infections, and multiple organ failure. Biological macromolecules are drugs produced using modern biotechnology to prevent or treat diseases. Indeed, antithrombin, antimicrobial peptides, interleukins, antibodies, nucleic acids, and lentinan have been used to prevent and treat sepsis. In vitro, biological macromolecules can significantly ameliorate the inflammatory response, apoptosis, and multiple organ failure caused by sepsis. Several biological macromolecules have entered clinical trials. This review summarizes the sources, efficacy, mechanism of action, and research progress of macromolecular drugs used in the prevention and treatment of sepsis.

The pharmacotherapeutic options in patients with catecholamine-resistant vasodilatory shock

INTRODUCTION

Septic and vasoplegic shock are common types of vasodilatory shock (VS) with high mortality. After fluid resuscitation and the use of catecholamine-mediated vasopressors (CMV), vasopressin, angiotensin II, methylene blue (MB) and hydroxocobalamin can be added to maintain blood pressure.

AREAS COVERED

VS treatment utilizes a phased approach with secondary vasopressors added to vasopressor agents to maintain an acceptable mean arterial pressure (MAP). This review covers additional vasopressors and adjunctive therapies used when fluid and catecholamine-mediated vasopressors fail to maintain target MAP.

EXPERT OPINION

Evidence supporting additional vasopressor agents in catecholamine resistant VS is limited to case reports, series, and a few randomized control trials (RCTs) to guide recommendations. Vasopressin is the most common agent added next when MAPs are not adequately supported with CMV. VS patients failing fluids and vasopressors with cardiomyopathy may have cardiotonic agents such as dobutamine or milrinone added before or after vasopressin. Angiotensin II, another class of vasopressor is used in VS to maintain adequate MAP. MB and/or hydoxocobalamin, vitamin C, thiamine and corticosteroids are adjunctive therapies used in refractory VS. More RCTs are needed to confirm the utility of these drugs, at what doses, which combinations and in what order they should be given.

Alternatives to norepinephrine in septic shock: Which agents and when?

Vasopressors are the cornerstone of hemodynamic management in patients with septic shock. Norepinephrine is currently recommended as the first-line vasopressor in these patients. In addition to norepinephrine, there are many other potent vasopressors with specific properties and/or advantages that act on vessels through different pathways after activation of specific receptors; these could be of interest in patients with septic shock. Dopamine is no longer recommended in patients with septic shock because its use is associated with a higher rate of cardiac arrhythmias without any benefit in terms of mortality or organ dysfunction. Epinephrine is currently considered as a second-line vasopressor therapy, because of the higher rate of associated metabolic and cardiac adverse effects compared with norepinephrine; however, it may be considered in settings where norepinephrine is unavailable or in patients with refractory septic shock and myocardial dysfunction. Owing to its potential effects on mortality and renal function and its norepinephrine-sparing effect, vasopressin is recommended as second-line vasopressor therapy instead of norepinephrine dose escalation in patients with septic shock and persistent arterial hypotension. However, two synthetic analogs of vasopressin, namely, terlipressin and selepressin, have not yet been employed in the management of patients with septic shock, as their use is associated with a higher rate of digital ischemia. Finally, angiotensin Ⅱ also appears to be a promising vasopressor in patients with septic shock, especially in the most severe cases and/or in patients with acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy. Nevertheless, due to limited evidence and concerns regarding safety (which remains unclear because of potential adverse effects related to its marked vasopressor activity), angiotensin Ⅱ is currently not recommended in patients with septic shock. Further studies are needed to better define the role of these vasopressors in the management of these patients.

Selepressin in Septic Shock

ABSTRACT

Sepsis and septic shock usually show a high mortality rate and frequently need of intensive care unit admissions. After fluid resuscitation, norepinephrine (NE) is the first-choice vasopressor in septic shock patients. However, high-NE doses are associated with increased rates of adverse effects and mortality. In this perspective, many authors have proposed the administration of non-adrenergic vasopressors (NAV). Selepressin is a selective vasopressin type 1A (V1A) receptor agonist and may be a valid option in this field, because it can decrease NE requirements and also limit the deleterious effects induced by high doses of catecholamines. Only few clinical data actually support selepressin administration in this setting. Here, we review the current literature on this topic analyzing some pathophysiological aspects, the rationale about the use of NAV, the possible use of selepressin differentiating animal, and human studies. Various issues remain unresolved and future trials should be focused on early interventions based on a multimodal activation of the vasopressive pathways using both alpha and V1A receptors pathways.

Vasopressors and Risk of Acute Mesenteric Ischemia: A Worldwide Pharmacovigilance Analysis and Comprehensive Literature Review

Vasodilatory shock, such as septic shock, requires personalized management which include adequate fluid therapy and vasopressor treatments. While these potent drugs are numerous, they all aim to counterbalance the vasodilatory effects of a systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Their specific receptors include α- and β-adrenergic receptors, arginine-vasopressin receptors, angiotensin II receptors and dopamine receptors. Consequently, these may be associated with severe adverse effects, including acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI). As the risk of AMI depends on drug class, we aimed to review the evidence of plausible associations by performing a worldwide pharmacovigilance analysis based on the World Health Organization database, VigiBase®. Among 24 million reports, 104 AMI events were reported, and disproportionality analyses yielded significant association with all vasopressors, to the exception of selepressin. Furthermore, in a comprehensive literature review, we detailed mechanistic phenomena which may enhance vasopressor selection, in the course of treating vasodilatory shock.

Pathophysiology, mechanisms, and managements of tissue hypoxia

Oxygen is needed to generate aerobic adenosine triphosphate and energy that is required to support vital cellular functions. Oxygen delivery (DO₂) to the tissues is determined by convective and diffusive processes. The ability of the body to adjust oxygen extraction (ERO₂) in response to changes in DO₂ is crucial to maintain constant tissue oxygen consumption (VO₂). The capability to increase ERO₂ is the result of the regulation of the circulation and the effects of the simultaneous activation of both central and local factors. The endothelium plays a crucial role in matching tissue oxygen supply to demand in situations of acute drop in tissue oxygenation. Tissue oxygenation is adequate when tissue oxygen demand is met. When DO₂ is severely compromised, a critical DO₂ value is reached below which VO₂ falls and becomes dependent on DO₂, resulting in tissue hypoxia. The different mechanisms of tissue hypoxia are circulatory, anaemic, and hypoxic, characterised by a diminished DO₂ but preserved capacity of increasing ERO₂. Cytopathic hypoxia is another mechanism of tissue hypoxia that is due to impairment in mitochondrial respiration that can be observed in septic conditions with normal overall DO₂. Sepsis induces microcirculatory alterations with decreased functional capillary density, increased number of stopped-flow capillaries, and marked heterogeneity between the areas with large intercapillary distance, resulting in impairment of the tissue to extract oxygen and to satisfy the increased tissue oxygen demand, leading to the development of tissue hypoxia. Different therapeutic approaches exist to increase DO₂ and improve microcirculation, such as fluid therapy, transfusion, vasopressors, inotropes, and vasodilators. However, the effects of these agents on microcirculation are quite variable.

[Vasoactive drugs in the treatment of septic shock]

Septic shock is a high mortality complication frequently associated with sepsis. Early initiation of vasopressor treatment, even before completion of initial fluid resuscitation, is a determining factor in prognosis. In this sense, norepinephrine continues to be the drug of first choice, although there is increasing evidence of benefit combining it with other non-adrenergic drugs, such as vasopressin, instead of escalating norepinephrine doses. The pathophysiology of septic shock is multifactorial, and sometimes is associated with a situation of myocardial dysfunction that contributes to hemodynamic instability. It is essential to identify this situation since it worsens the prognosis and may benefit from combined treatment with inotropic drugs. There are novel vasoactive agents under study, more selective than the classic ones that in a next future could help to design more individualized and precise treatments. In the present work, the current knowledge about vasoactive drugs and their use in the management of septic shock is summarized according to the most recent scientific evidence.

Vasopressin and Its Analogues: From Natural Hormones to Multitasking Peptides

Human neurohormone vasopressin (AVP) is synthesized in overlapping regions in the hypothalamus. It is mainly known for its vasoconstricting abilities, and it is responsible for the regulation of plasma osmolality by maintaining fluid homeostasis. Over years, many attempts have been made to modify this hormone and find AVP analogues with different pharmacological profiles that could overcome its limitations. Non-peptide AVP analogues with low molecular weight presented good affinity to AVP receptors. Natural peptide counterparts, found in animals, are successfully applied as therapeutics; for instance, lypressin used in treatment of diabetes insipidus. Synthetic peptide analogues compensate for the shortcomings of AVP. Desmopressin is more resistant to proteolysis and presents mainly antidiuretic effects, while terlipressin is a long-acting AVP analogue and a drug recommended in the treatment of varicose bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis. Recently published results on diverse applications of AVP analogues in medicinal practice, including potential lypressin, terlipressin and ornipressin in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2, are discussed.

Meeting report: 3rd workshop of the peptide ADME discussion group

Challenges and opportunities within peptide ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination) were presented and discussed at the 3rd online workshop of the Peptide ADME Discussion Group (3rd of February 2021). This article summarises the presentations and discussions from this workshop.The following topics were covered:Peptide drug-drug interactionsImpact of septic shock on PK and PD of the peptide selepressinMS processing software for metabolite identification of peptidesProfiling of peptides in preclinical drug developmentStrategy for immunogenicity testing of peptidesIn vitro stability testing of peptides for inhalation and automated LC-MS.

Current practice and evolving concepts in septic shock resuscitation

Clinical and pathophysiological understanding of septic shock has progressed exponentially in the previous decades, translating into a steady decrease in septic shock-related morbidity and mortality. Even though large randomized, controlled trials have addressed fundamental aspects of septic shock resuscitation, many questions still exist. In this review, we will describe the current standards of septic shock resuscitation, but the emphasis will be placed on evolving concepts in different domains such as clinical resuscitation targets, adequate use of fluids and vasoactive drugs, refractory shock, and the use of extracorporeal therapies. Multiple research opportunities remain open, and collaborative endeavors should be performed to fill in these gaps.

Endothelial dysfunction: a therapeutic target in bacterial sepsis?

INTRODUCTION

Endothelial cells maintain vascular integrity, tone, and patency and have important roles in hemostasis and inflammatory responses. Although some degree of endothelial dysfunction with increased vascular permeability may be necessary to control local infection, excessive dysfunction plays a central role in the pathogenesis of sepsis-related organ dysfunction and failure as it results in dysregulated inflammation, vascular leakage, and abnormal coagulation. The vascular endothelium has thus been proposed as a potential target for therapeutic intervention in patients with sepsis.

AREAS COVERED

Different mechanisms underlying sepsis-related dysfunction of the vascular endothelium are discussed, including glycocalyx shedding, nitrosative stress, and coagulation factors. Potential therapeutic implications of each mechanism are mentioned.

EXPERT OPINION

Multiple targets to protect or restore endothelial function have been suggested, but endothelium-driven treatments remain a future potential at present. As some endothelial dysfunction and permeability may be necessary to remove infection and repair damaged tissue, targeting the endothelium may be a particular challenge. Ideally, therapies should be guided by biomarkers related to that specific pathway to ensure they are given only to patients most likely to respond. This enrichment based on biological plausibility and theragnostics will increase the likelihood of a beneficial response in individual patients and enable more personalized treatment.

New Agents in Development for Sepsis: Any Reason for Hope?

Sepsis is a syndrome which is defined as a dysregulated host response to infection leading to organ failure. Since it remains one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide, numerous drug candidates have already been tested, and continue to be developed, as potential adjunct therapies. Despite convincing mechanisms of action and robust pre-clinical data, almost all drug candidates in the field of sepsis have failed to demonstrate clinical efficacy in the past two decades. Accordingly, the development of new sepsis drugs has markedly decreased in the past few years. Nevertheless, thanks to a better understanding of sepsis pathophysiology and pathways, new promising drug candidates are currently being developed. Instead of a unique sepsis profile as initially suspected, various phenotypes have been characterised. This has  resulted in the identification of multiple targets for new drugs together with relevant biomarkers, and a better understanding of the most appropriate time to intervention. Within the entire sepsis drugs portfolio, those targeting the immune response are probably the most promising. Monoclonal antibodies targeting either cytokines or infectious agents are undoubtedly part of the potential successful therapeutic classes to come.

Vasopressor-Sparing Strategies in Patients with Shock: A Scoping-Review and an Evidence-Based Strategy Proposition

Despite the abundant literature on vasopressor therapy, few studies have focused on vasopressor-sparing strategies in patients with shock. We performed a scoping-review of the published studies evaluating vasopressor-sparing strategies by analyzing the results from randomized controlled trials conducted in patients with shock, with a focus on vasopressor doses and/or duration reduction. We analyzed 143 studies, mainly performed in septic shock. Our analysis demonstrated that several pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies are associated with a decrease in the duration of vasopressor therapy. These strategies are as follows: implementing a weaning strategy, vasopressin use, systemic glucocorticoid administration, beta-blockers, and normothermia. On the contrary, early goal directed therapies, including fluid therapy, oral vasopressors, vitamin C, and renal replacement therapy, are not associated with an increase in vasopressor-free days. Based on these results, we proposed an evidence-based vasopressor management strategy.

Novel Diagnostics and Therapeutics in Sepsis

Sepsis management demands early diagnosis and timely treatment that includes source control, antimicrobial therapy, and resuscitation. Currently employed diagnostic tools are ill-equipped to rapidly diagnose sepsis and isolate the offending pathogen, which limits the ability to offer targeted and lowest-toxicity treatment. Cutting edge diagnostics and therapeutics in development may improve time to diagnosis and address two broad management principles: (1) source control by removing the molecular infectious stimulus of sepsis, and (2) attenuation of the pathological immune response allowing the body to heal. This review addresses novel diagnostics and therapeutics and their role in the management of sepsis.

Norepinephrine in Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Introduction

Most experts recommend norepinephrine as the first-line agent in septic shock. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness and safety of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Epistemonikos, as well as MEDLINE from 1966 till August 2019. Screening of full texts, evaluation for eligibility, and data extraction were done by four independent reviewers. We estimated risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) using a random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary outcomes included the number of participants who achieved the target mean arterial pressure (MAP), time to achieve the target MAP, and number of participants with all-cause 28-day mortality. The secondary outcomes included the length of stay in the intensive care unit, length of hospital stay, incidence of arrhythmia and myocardial infarction, vasopressor-free days, and number of participants with all-cause 90-day mortality.

Results

We identified 11 randomized controlled trials with a total of 4,803 participants. There was no difference in the number of participants who achieved the target MAP between those patients receiving norepinephrine and other vasopressors (RR 1.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 6.54; P = 0.640; I² = 94%; two trials, 116 participants). There was no significant difference in time to achieve the target MAP (MD −0.05; 95%, CI, −0.32 to 0.21; P = 0.690; I² = 26%; two trials, 1763 participants) and all-cause 28-day mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.02; P = 0.160; I² = 0%; seven trials, 4,139 participants). Regarding the secondary outcome, norepinephrine may significantly reduce the incidence of arrhythmia as compared to other vasopressors (RR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.97; P = 0.030; I² = 64%; six trials, 3974 participants). There was no difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction (RR 1.28; 95% CI, 0.79 to 2.09), vasopressor-free day (RR 0.46; 95% CI, −1.82 to 2.74) and all-cause 90-day mortality (RR 1.08; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.21) between norepinephrine and vasopressors.

Conclusion

In minimizing the occurrence of an arrhythmia, norepinephrine is superior to other vasopressors, making it safe to be used in septic shock. However, there was insufficient evidence concerning mortality and achievement of the target MAP outcomes.

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.

Protective Mechanism of the Selective Vasopressin V1A Receptor Agonist Selepressin against Endothelial Barrier Dysfunction

Sepsis and septic shock are among the most common causes of death in the intensive care unit; advanced therapeutic approaches are thus urgently needed. Vascular hyperpermeability represents a major manifestation of severe sepsis and is responsible for the ensuing organ dysfunction and failure. Vasopressin V_1A receptor (V_1AR) agonists have shown promise in the treatment of sepsis, increasing blood pressure, and reducing vascular hyperpermeability. The effects of the selective V_1AR-selective agonist selepressin have been investigated in an in vitro model of thrombin-, vascular endothelial growth factor-, angiopoietin 2-, and lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced pulmonary microvascular endothelial hyperpermeability. Results suggest that selepressin counteracts the effects of all four endothelial barrier disruptors in a concentration-dependent manner, as reflected in real-time measurements of vascular permeability by means of transendothelial electrical resistance. Further, selepressin protected the barrier integrity against the LPS-mediated corruption of the endothelial monolayer integrity, as captured by VE-cadherin and actin staining. The protective effects of selepressin were abolished by silencing of the vasopressin V_1AR, as well as by atosiban, an antagonist of the human V_1AR. p53 appears to be involved in mediating these palliative effects, since selepressin strongly induced its expression levels, suppressed the inflammatory RhoA/myosin light chain2 pathway, and triggered the barrier-protective effects of the GTPase Rac1. We conclude that V_1AR-selective agonists, such as selepressin, may prove useful in the improvement of endothelial barrier function in the management of severe sepsis. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: A cardinal sign of sepsis, a serious disease with significant mortality and no specific treatment, is pulmonary endothelial barrier dysfunction that leads to pulmonary edema. Here, we present evidence that in cultured human lung microvascular endothelial cells, the synthetic, selective vasopressin V_1A receptor agonist selepressin protects against endothelial barrier dysfunction caused by four different edemogenic agents, suggesting a potential role of selepressin in the clinical management of sepsis.

WITHDRAWN: Selepressin in septic shock: A wake-up call for new drugs

The Publisher regrets that this article is an accidental duplication of an article that has already been published, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accpm.2019.10.009. The duplicate article has therefore been withdrawn. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal.

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.

Selepressin, a novel selective V1A receptor agonist: Effect on mesenteric flow and gastric mucosa perfusion in the endotoxemic rabbit

Intestinal or mesenteric ischemia generally leads to inflammation and injury, potentially developing hypoxia, causing cell death and tissue necrosis. This in turn can lead to sepsis and shock. Conversely, following shock, the intestinal tract is a main organ to experience ischemic/reperfusion injury. Increased intestinal cell-membrane permeability through mesenteric ischemia provoking bacterial translocation and gut-barrier injury can lead to sepsis and multi-organ failure. Hypotension induced by systemic vasodilation and vascular leak in systemic inflammatory response syndrome and sepsis is countered by immediate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor administration, primarily norepinephrine (NE), with possible arginine vasopressin (AVP) supplementation, an agonist of vasopressin V_1A and V₂ receptors. Selepressin is a selective V_1A-receptor agonist, avoiding potential V₂ receptor-associated adverse effects. Selepressin, non-selective AVP, and NE effects on mesenteric blood flow (MBF) and gastric mucosa perfusion (GMP) were compared in control rabbits and a lipopolysaccharide-induced, fluid-resuscitated rabbit endotoxemia model. AVP induced a pronounced decrease in MBF and GMP in non-endotoxemic and endotoxemic rabbits, whereas the reduction after selepressin treatment was significantly less for both indicators in the endotoxemic animals. By contrast, NE increased the MBF and did not affect GMP in both groups. Selepressin and AVP induced a pronounced dose-dependent increase in mesenteric vascular resistance in non-endotoxemic and endotoxemic rabbits, tending to be less in endotoxemic animals, whereas a minor increase in both groups was observed with NE. Therefore, in this safety study, the risk for mesenteric ischemia on selepressin treatment was not inferior to AVP, being less in endotoxemic than in non-endotoxemic animals.

Vasopressors in septic shock: which, when, and how much?

In addition to fluid resuscitation, the vasopressor therapy is a fundamental treatment of septic shock-induced hypotension as it aims at correcting the vascular tone depression and then at improving organ perfusion pressure. Experts’ recommendations currently position norepinephrine (NE) as the first-line vasopressor in septic shock. Vasopressin and its analogues are only second-line vasopressors as strong recent evidence suggests no benefit of their early administration in spite of promising preliminary data. Early administration of NE may allow achieving the initial mean arterial pressure (MAP) target faster and reducing the risk of fluid overload. The diastolic arterial pressure (DAP) as a marker of vascular tone, helps identifying the patients who need NE urgently. Available data suggest a MAP of 65 mmHg as the initial target but a more individualized approach is often required depending on several factors such as history of chronic hypertension or value of central venous pressure (CVP). In cases of refractory hypotension, increasing NE up to doses ≥1 µg/kg/min could be an option. However, current experts’ guidelines suggest to combine NE with other vasopressors such as vasopressin, with the intent to rising the MAP to target or to decrease the NE dosage.

Clinical Efficiency of Vasopressin or Its Analogs in Comparison With Catecholamines Alone on Patients With Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Vasopressin is an efficient remedy for septic shock patients as its great capacity in promoting hemodynamic stabilization. The aim of current systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the clinical efficiency of vasopressin or its analogs with sole catecholamines on patients with septic shock.

METHODS

A systematic search of Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed online databases was performed up to 30 Oct 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing use of vasopressin or its analogs (e.g., terlipressin, selepressin) with administration of catecholamines alone.

RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs with 4,225 patients in the current study. Compared with solely use of catecholamines, administration of vasopressin or its analogs was not associated with reduced 28-day or 30-day mortality among patients with septic shock [RR=0.94 (95% CI, 0.87-1.01), P=0.08, I2 = 0%]. The result of primary endpoint remained unchanged after conducting sensitivity analysis. Despite a significantly higher risk of digital ischemia in patients receiving vasopressin or its analogs [RR=2.65 (95% CI, 1.26-5.56), P < 0.01, I2 = 48%], there was no statistical significance in the pooled estimate for other secondary outcomes, including total adverse events, arrhythmia, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiac arrest, acute mesenteric ischemia, ICU/hospital length of stay, and mechanical ventilation (MV) duration.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of vasopressin or its analogs was not associated with reduced 28-day or 30-day mortality among patients with septic shock, while an increased incidence of digital ischemia should be noted in patients receiving agonists for vasopressin receptors.

Angiotensin II and Vasopressin for Vasodilatory Shock: A Critical Appraisal of Catecholamine-Sparing Strategies

Vasodilatory shock is a serious medical condition that increases the morbidity and mortality of perioperative and critically ill patients. Norepinephrine is an established first-line therapy for this condition, but at high doses, it may lead to diminishing returns. Oftentimes, secondary noncatecholamine agents are required in those whose hypotension persists. Angiotensin II and vasopressin are both noncatecholamine agents available for the treatment of hypotension in vasodilatory shock. They have distinct modes of action and unique pharmacologic properties when compared to norepinephrine. Angiotensin II and vasopressin have shown promise in certain subsets of the population, such as those with acute kidney injury, high Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores, or those receiving cardiac surgery. Any benefit from these drugs must be weighed against the risks, as overall mortality has not been shown to decrease mortality in the general population. The aims of this narrative review are to provide insight into the historical use of noncatecholamine vasopressors and to compare and contrast their unique modes of action, physiologic rationale for administration, efficacy, and safety profiles.

Identifying Clinical Research Priorities in Adult Pulmonary and Critical Care: NHLBI Working Group Report

Preventing, treating, and promoting recovery from critical illness due to pulmonary disease are foundational goals of the critical care community and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Decades of clinical research in acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute respiratory failure, pneumonia, and sepsis have yielded improvements in supportive care, which have translated into improved patient outcomes. Novel therapeutics have largely failed to translate from promising pre-clinical findings into improved patient outcomes in late-phase clinical trials. Recent advances in personalized medicine, "big data", causal inference using observational data, novel clinical trial designs, pre-clinical disease modeling, and understanding recovery from acute illness promise to transform the methods of pulmonary and critical care clinical research. To assess the current state, research priorities, and future directions for adult pulmonary and critical care research, the NHLBI assembled a multidisciplinary working group of investigators. This working group identified recommendations for future research, including: (1) focusing on understanding the clinical, physiological, and biological underpinnings of heterogeneity in syndromes, diseases, and treatment-response with the goal of developing targeted, personalized interventions; (2) optimizing pre-clinical models by incorporating comorbidities, co-interventions, and organ support; (3) developing and applying novel clinical trial designs; and (4) advancing mechanistic understanding of injury and recovery in order to develop and test interventions targeted at achieving long-term improvements in the lives of patients and families. Specific areas of research are highlighted as especially promising for making advances in pneumonia, acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Canadian Critical Care Society clinical practice guideline: The use of vasopressin and vasopressin analogues in critically ill adults with distributive shock

PURPOSE

Hemodynamic management of adults with distributive shock often includes the use of catecholamine-based vasoconstricting medications. It is unclear whether adding vasopressin or vasopressin analogues to catecholamine therapy is beneficial in the management of patients with distributive shock. The purpose of this guideline was to develop an evidence-based recommendation regarding the addition of vasopressin to catecholamine vasopressors in the management of adults with distributive shock.

METHODS

We summarized the evidence informing this recommendation by updating a recently published meta-analysis. Then, a multidisciplinary panel from the Canadian Critical Care Society developed the recommendation using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

RESULTS

The updated systematic review identified 25 randomized controlled trials including a total of 3,737 patients with distributive shock. Compared with catecholamine therapy alone, the addition of vasopressin or its analogues was associated with a reduced risk of mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 0.99; low certainty), reduced risk of atrial fibrillation (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.88; high certainty), and increased risk of digital ischemia (RR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.24 to 5.25; moderate certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

After considering certainty in the evidence, values and preferences, cost, and other factors, the expert guideline panel suggests using vasopressin or vasopressin analogues in addition to catecholamines over catecholamine vasopressors alone for the management of distributive shock (conditional recommendation, low certainty evidence).

From a pressure-guided to a perfusion-centered resuscitation strategy in septic shock: Critical literature review and illustrative case

PURPOSE

To support a paradigm shift in the management of septic shock from pressure-guided to perfusion-centered, expected to improve outcome while reducing adverse effects from vasopressor therapy and aggressive fluid resuscitation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Critical review of the literature cited in support of vasopressor use to achieve a predefined mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mmHg and review of pertinent clinical trials and studies enabling deeper understanding of the hemodynamic pathophysiology supportive of a perfusion-centered approach, accompanied by an illustrative case.

RESULTS

Review of the literature cited by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign revealed lack of controlled clinical trials supporting outcome benefits from vasopressors. Additional literature review revealed adverse effects associated with vasopressors and worsened outcome in some studies. Vasopressors increase MAP primarily by peripheral vasoconstriction and in occasions by a modest increase in cardiac output when using norepinephrine. Thus, achieving the recommended MAP of 65 mmHg using vasopressors should not be presumed indicative that organ perfusion has been restored. It may instead create a false sense of hemodynamic stability hampering shock resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose focusing the hemodynamic management of septic shock on reversing organ hypoperfusion instead of attaining a predefined MAP target as the key strategy for improving outcome.

Sepsis and septic shock: current approaches to management

Sepsis, defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction due to a dysregulated host response to infection, is recognised by the World Health Organization as a global health priority. Each year, 5000 of the 18 000 adults with sepsis treated in Australian intensive care units die, with survivors suffering long-term physical, cognitive and psychological dysfunction, which is poorly recognised and frequently untreated. There are currently no effective pharmacological treatments for sepsis, making early recognition, resuscitation and immediate treatment with appropriate antibiotics the key to reducing the burden of resulting disease. The majority of sepsis, around 70-80%, is community acquired making emergency departments and primary care key targets to improve recognition and early management. Case fatality rates for sepsis are decreasing in many countries with the reduction attributed to national or regional screening and quality improvement programmes focused on early identification and immediate treatment. The optimum approach to treating established sepsis has been informed by high-quality, multicentre investigator initiated randomised trials with much of the valuable data coming from National Health and Medical Research Council-funded trials run from Australia. While early recognition and improved management of the acute episode are important steps in reducing death and disability from sepsis, a substantial reduction in the burden of sepsis-related disease requires action across the entire healthcare system. In this narrative review, we provide a summary of current knowledge on epidemiology of sepsis and septic shock and recommendations on the optimum approach to the management of these conditions in adults.

Vasopressor therapy in critically ill patients with shock

BACKGROUND

Vasopressors are administered to critically ill patients with vasodilatory shock not responsive to volume resuscitation, and less often in cardiogenic shock, and hypovolemic shock.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives are to review safety and efficacy of vasopressors, pathophysiology, agents that decrease vasopressor dose, predictive biomarkers, β1-blockers, and directions for research.

METHODS

The quality of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

Vasopressors bind adrenergic: α1, α2, β1, β2; vasopressin: AVPR1a, AVPR1B, AVPR2; angiotensin II: AG1, AG2; and dopamine: DA1, DA2 receptors inducing vasoconstriction. Vasopressor choice and dose vary because of patients and physician practice. Adverse effects include excessive vasoconstriction, organ ischemia, hyperglycemia, hyperlactatemia, tachycardia, and tachyarrhythmias. No randomized controlled trials of vasopressors showed a significant difference in 28-day mortality rate. Norepinephrine is the first-choice vasopressor in vasodilatory shock after adequate volume resuscitation. Some strategies that decrease norepinephrine dose (vasopressin, angiotensin II) have not decreased 28-day mortality while corticosteroids have decreased 28-day mortality significantly in some (two large trials) but not all trials. In norepinephrine-refractory patients, vasopressin or epinephrine may be added. A new vasopressor, angiotensin II, may be useful in profoundly hypotensive patients. Dobutamine may be added because vasopressors may decrease ventricular contractility. Dopamine is recommended only in bradycardic patients. There are potent vasopressors with limited evidence (e.g. methylene blue, metaraminol) and novel vasopressors in development (selepressin).

CONCLUSIONS

Norepinephrine is first choice followed by vasopressin or epinephrine. Angiotensin II and dopamine have limited indications. In future, predictive biomarkers may guide vasopressor selection and novel vasopressors may emerge.

[Causes, diagnosis and treatments of circulatory shocks]

Shock states are the leading causes of intensive care admission and are nowadays associated with high morbidity and mortality. They are driven by a complex physiopathology and most frequently a multifactorial mechanism. They can be separated in whether a decrease of oxygen delivery (quantitative shock) or an abnormal cell distribution of cardiac output (distributive shock). Septic, cardiogenic and hypovolemic shocks represent more than 80% of shock etiologies. Clinical presentation is mostly characterized by frequent arterial hypotension and sign of poor clinical perfusion. Hyperlactatemia occurs in most of shock states. The diagnostic of shock or earlier reversible "pre-shock" states is urgent in order to initiate adequate therapy. Therefore, orientation and therapies must be discussed with intensive care physiologists in a multidisciplinary approach. Etiologic investigation and correction is a primary concern. Hemodynamic and respiratory support reflect another part of initial therapy toward normalization of cell oxygenation. Fluid resuscitation is the corner stone part of initial therapy of any form of shock. Vasoconstrictive drugs or inotropic support still often remain necessary. The primary goal of initial resuscitation should be not only to restore blood arterial pressure but also to improve clinical perfusion markers. On the biological side, decrease of lactate concentration is associated with better outcome.

Vasopressor therapy in critically ill patients with shock

BACKGROUND

Vasopressors are administered to critically ill patients with vasodilatory shock not responsive to volume resuscitation, and less often in cardiogenic shock, and hypovolemic shock.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives are to review safety and efficacy of vasopressors, pathophysiology, agents that decrease vasopressor dose, predictive biomarkers, β1-blockers, and directions for research.

METHODS

The quality of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

Vasopressors bind adrenergic: α1, α2, β1, β2; vasopressin: AVPR1a, AVPR1B, AVPR2; angiotensin II: AG1, AG2; and dopamine: DA1, DA2 receptors inducing vasoconstriction. Vasopressor choice and dose vary because of patients and physician practice. Adverse effects include excessive vasoconstriction, organ ischemia, hyperglycemia, hyperlactatemia, tachycardia, and tachyarrhythmias. No randomized controlled trials of vasopressors showed a significant difference in 28-day mortality rate. Norepinephrine is the first-choice vasopressor in vasodilatory shock after adequate volume resuscitation. Some strategies that decrease norepinephrine dose (vasopressin, angiotensin II) have not decreased 28-day mortality while corticosteroids have decreased 28-day mortality significantly in some (two large trials) but not all trials. In norepinephrine-refractory patients, vasopressin or epinephrine may be added. A new vasopressor, angiotensin II, may be useful in profoundly hypotensive patients. Dobutamine may be added because vasopressors may decrease ventricular contractility. Dopamine is recommended only in bradycardic patients. There are potent vasopressors with limited evidence (e.g. methylene blue, metaraminol) and novel vasopressors in development (selepressin).

CONCLUSIONS

Norepinephrine is first choice followed by vasopressin or epinephrine. Angiotensin II and dopamine have limited indications. In future, predictive biomarkers may guide vasopressor selection and novel vasopressors may emerge.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line vasopressors for the treatment of septic shock

PURPOSE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of escalating doses of norepinephrine or norepinephrine plus the adjunctive use of vasopressin or angiotensin II as a second-line vasopressor for septic shock.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Decision tree analysis was performed to compare costs and outcomes associated with norepinephrine monotherapy or the two adjunctive second-line vasopressors. Short- and long-term outcomes modeled included ICU survival and lifetime quality-adjusted-life-years (QALY) gained. Costs were modeled from a payer's perspective, with a willingness-to-pay threshold set at $100,000/unit gained. One-way (tornado diagrams) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Adjunctive vasopressin was the most cost-effective therapy, and dominated both norepinephrine monotherapy and adjunctive angiotensin II by producing higher ICU survival at less cost. For the lifetime horizon, while norepinephrine monotherapy was least expensive, adjunctive vasopressin was the most cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,762 / QALY gained. Although adjunctive angiotensin II produced more QALYs compared to norepinephrine monotherapy, it was dominated in the long-term evaluation by second-line vasopressin. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated model robustness and medication costs were not significant drivers of model results.

CONCLUSIONS

Vasopressin is the most cost-effective second-line vasopressor in both the short- and long-term evaluations. Vasopressor price is a minor contributor to overall cost.

Current management of Gram-negative septic shock

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sepsis is a common condition in critically ill patients and associated with high morbidity and mortality. Sepsis is the result of infection by many potential pathogens, including Gram-negative bacteria. There are no specific antisepsis therapies and management relies largely on infection control and organ support, including hemodynamic stabilization. We discuss these key aspects and briefly mention potential immunomodulatory strategies.

RECENT FINDINGS

New aspects of sepsis management include the realization that early treatment is important and that fluids and vasopressor agents should be administered simultaneously to insure rapid restoration of an adequate perfusion pressure to limit development and worsening of organ dysfunction. New immunomodulatory therapies, both suppressive and stimulatory, are being tested.

SUMMARY

Early diagnosis enabling rapid treatment can optimize outcomes. The multiple components of adequate sepsis management necessitate a team approach.

Adrenergic Downregulation in Critical Care: Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Evidence

Catecholamines remain the mainstay of therapy for acute cardiovascular dysfunction. However, adrenergic receptors quickly undergo desensitization and downregulation after prolonged stimulation. Moreover, prolonged exposure to high circulating catecholamines levels is associated with several adverse effects on different organ systems. Unfortunately, in critically ill patients, adrenergic downregulation translates into progressive reduction of cardiovascular response to exogenous catecholamine administration, leading to refractory shock. Accordingly, there has been a growing interest in recent years toward use of noncatecholaminergic inotropes and vasopressors. Several studies investigating a wide variety of catecholamine-sparing strategies (eg, levosimendan, vasopressin, β-blockers, steroids, and use of mechanical circulatory support) have been published recently. Use of these agents was associated with improvement in hemodynamics and decreased catecholamine use but without a clear beneficial effect on major clinical outcomes. Accordingly, additional research is needed to define the optimal management of catecholamine-resistant shock.

Effect of Selepressin vs Placebo on Ventilator- and Vasopressor-Free Days in Patients With Septic Shock: The SEPSIS-ACT Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Norepinephrine, the first-line vasopressor for septic shock, is not always effective and has important catecholaminergic adverse effects. Selepressin, a selective vasopressin V1a receptor agonist, is a noncatecholaminergic vasopressor that may mitigate sepsis-induced vasodilatation, vascular leakage, and edema, with fewer adverse effects.

OBJECTIVE

To test whether selepressin improves outcome in septic shock.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An adaptive phase 2b/3 randomized clinical trial comprising 2 parts that included adult patients (n = 868) with septic shock requiring more than 5 μg/min of norepinephrine. Part 1 used a Bayesian algorithm to adjust randomization probabilities to alternative selepressin dosing regimens and to trigger transition to part 2, which would compare the best-performing regimen with placebo. The trial was conducted between July 2015 and August 2017 in 63 hospitals in Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and the United States, and follow-up was completed by May 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

Random assignment to 1 of 3 dosing regimens of selepressin (starting infusion rates of 1.7, 2.5, and 3.5 ng/kg/min; n = 585) or to placebo (n = 283), all administered as continuous infusions titrated according to hemodynamic parameters.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary end point was ventilator- and vasopressor-free days within 30 days (deaths assigned zero days) of commencing study drug. Key secondary end points were 90-day mortality, kidney replacement therapy-free days, and ICU-free days.

RESULTS

Among 868 randomized patients, 828 received study drug (mean age, 66.3 years; 341 [41.2%] women) and comprised the primary analysis cohort, of whom 562 received 1 of 3 selepressin regimens, 266 received placebo, and 817 (98.7%) completed the trial. The trial was stopped for futility at the end of part 1. Median study drug duration was 37.8 hours (IQR, 17.8-72.4). There were no significant differences in the primary end point (ventilator- and vasopressor-free days: 15.0 vs 14.5 in the selepressin and placebo groups; difference, 0.6 [95% CI, -1.3 to 2.4]; P = .30) or key secondary end points (90-day mortality, 40.6% vs 39.4%; difference, 1.1% [95% CI, -6.5% to 8.8%]; P = .77; kidney replacement therapy-free days: 18.5 vs 18.2; difference, 0.3 [95% CI, -2.1 to 2.6]; P = .85; ICU-free days: 12.6 vs 12.2; difference, 0.5 [95% CI, -1.2 to 2.2]; P = .41). Adverse event rates included cardiac arrhythmias (27.9% vs 25.2% of patients), cardiac ischemia (6.6% vs 5.6%), mesenteric ischemia (3.2% vs 2.6%), and peripheral ischemia (2.3% vs 2.3%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with septic shock receiving norepinephrine, administration of selepressin, compared with placebo, did not result in improvement in vasopressor- and ventilator-free days within 30 days. Further research would be needed to evaluate the potential role of selepressin for other patient-centered outcomes in septic shock.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02508649.

Combination era, using combined vasopressors showed benefits in treating septic shock patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Septic shock is one of the major healthcare problems, affecting millions of people around the world every year. The object of this study is to find the best kind of regimen of vasopressors treatment in septic shock.

Methods

The PubMed, and the Web of Science were used to find the included studies. Stata 15.1 was performed to this systemic review and network meta-analysis.

Results

After searching and screening the articles, finally we included articles about 31 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 11 arms (dopamine, dopexamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, norepinephrine + dobutamine, norepinephrine + dopexamine, norepinephrine + epinephrine, norepinephrine + vasopressin, phenylephrine, terlipressin, vasopressin) and total 5,928 patients with septic shock. Compared with dopamine, the regimens (epinephrine, norepinephrine, norepinephrine + dobutamine, and vasopressin) have significantly lower 28-day mortality. Ranking the regimens in the order of estimated probabilities of each treatment by using the network meta-analysis for 28-day mortality, the result showed that norepinephrine + dopexamine was the best one (57.3%), followed by norepinephrine + epinephrine (14.8%), norepinephrine + dobutamine (10.9%), dopexamine (11.2%), terlipressin (9.8%), norepinephrine + vasopressin (2.4%), phenylephrine (1.2%), epinephrine (1.0%), vasopressin (0.5%), norepinephrine (0.0%), and dopamine (0.0%). In addition, for the results of arrhythmia and increased heart rate, the combination regimens groups did not showed inferiority to other single regimen groups.

Conclusions

Single dopamine had significantly higher 28d mortality. Combination regimens of vasopressors accounted for the best three therapeutic regimens. In treating patients with septic shock, using combining regimens probably gets more benefits.

Vascular Effects of Adrenomedullin and the Anti-Adrenomedullin Antibody Adrecizumab in Sepsis

Sepsis remains a major scientific and medical challenge, for which, apart from significant refinements in supportive therapy, treatment has barely changed over the last few decades. During sepsis, both vascular tone and vascular integrity are compromised, and contribute to the development of shock. The free circulating peptide adrenomedullin (ADM) is involved in the regulation of the endothelial barrier function and tone of blood vessels. Several animal studies have shown that ADM administration improves outcome of sepsis. However, in higher dosages, ADM administration may cause hypotension, limiting its clinical applicability. Moreover, ADM has a very short half-life and easily adheres to surfaces, further hampering its clinical use. The non-neutralizing anti-ADM antibody Adrecizumab (HAM8101) which causes a long-lasting increase of plasma ADM has shown promising results in animal models of systemic inflammation and sepsis; it reduced inflammation, attenuated vascular leakage, and improved hemodynamics, kidney function, and survival. Combined with an excellent safety profile derived from animal and phase I human studies, Adrecizumab represents a promising candidate drug for the adjunctive treatment of sepsis. In this review, we first provide a brief overview of the currently available data on the role of adrenomedullin in sepsis and describe its effects on endothelial barrier function and vasodilation. Furthermore, we provide a novel hypothesis concerning the mechanisms of action through which Adrecizumab may exert its beneficial effects in sepsis.

Vasodilatory shock in the ICU and the role of angiotensin II

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are limited vasoactive options to utilize for patients presenting with vasodilatory shock. This review discusses vasoactive agents in vasodilatory, specifically, septic shock and focuses on angiotensin II as a novel, noncatecholamine agent and describes its efficacy, safety, and role in the armamentarium of vasoactive agents utilized in this patient population.

RECENT FINDINGS

The Angiotensin II for the Treatment of High-Output Shock 3 study evaluated angiotensin II use in patients with high-output, vasodilatory shock and demonstrated reduced background catecholamine doses and improved ability to achieve blood pressure goals associated with the use of angiotensin II. A subsequent analysis showed that patients with a higher severity of illness and relative deficiency of intrinsic angiotensin II and who received angiotensin II had improved mortality rates. In addition, a systematic review showed infrequent adverse reactions with angiotensin II demonstrating its safety for use in patients with vasodilatory shock.

SUMMARY

With the approval and release of angiotensin II, a new vasoactive agent is now available to utilize in these patients. Overall, the treatment for vasodilatory shock should not be a one-size fits all approach and should be individualized to each patient. A multimodal approach, integrating angiotensin II as a noncatecholamine option should be considered for patients presenting with this disease state.

Comparative efficacy of vasoactive medications in patients with septic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Catecholamines, especially norepinephrine, are the most frequently used vasopressors for treating patients with septic shock. During the recent decades, terlipressin, vasopressin V1A agonist, and even Ca²⁺ sensitizer were increasingly used by physicians. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of such different kinds of vasoactive medications on mortality among patients with septic shock.

Methods

Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials updated to February 22, 2018. A network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of different types of vasoactive medications. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS), and adverse events were also assessed.

Results

A total of 43 trials with 5767 patients assessing 17 treatment modalities were included. Treatments ranking based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve values from largest to smallest were NE/DB 85.9%, TP 75.1%, NE/EP 74.6%, PI 74.1%, EP 72.5%, VP 66.1%, NE 59.8%, PE 53.0%, DA 42.1%, DX 38.2%, SP 27.0%, PA 24.3%, EX 22.8%, LE 21.5%, and DB 13.3% for 28-day mortality. Treatments ranking for ICU mortality were TP/NE 86.4%, TP 80.3%, TP/DB/NE 65.7%, VP/NE 62.8%, NE 57.4%, VP 56.5%, PE 48.4%, DA 33.0%, PA 27.5%, LE 22.1%, and DB 9.9%. The incidence of myocardial infarction was reported with NE/EP 3.33% (n = 1 of 30), followed by EP 3.11% (n = 5 of 161), and then VP 3.10% (n = 19 of 613), NE 3.03% (n = 43 of 1417), DA 2.21% (n = 19 of 858), NE/DB 2.01% (n = 4 of 199), LE 1.16% (n = 3 of 258), and PA 0.39% (n = 1 of 257). The incidence of arrhythmia was reported with DA 26.01% (n = 258 of 992), followed by EP 22.98% (n = 37 of 161), and then NE/DB 20.60% (n = 41 of 199), NE/EP 20.0% (n = 6 of 30), NE 8.33% (n = 127 of 1525), LE 5.81% (n = 15 of 258), PA 2.33% (n = 6 of 257), and VP 1.67% (n = 10 of 600).

Conclusions

The use of norepinephrine plus dobutamine was associated with lower 28-day mortality for septic shock, especially among patients with lower cardiac output.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-019-2427-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.