Broad spectrum vasopressors: a new approach to the initial management of septic shock?

Impaired angiotensin II signaling in septic shock

Recent years have seen a resurgence of interest for the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in critically ill patients. Emerging data suggest that this vital homeostatic system, which plays a crucial role in maintaining systemic and renal hemodynamics during stressful conditions, is altered in septic shock, ultimately leading to impaired angiotensin II-angiotensin II type 1 receptor signaling. Indeed, available evidence from both experimental models and human studies indicates that alterations in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system during septic shock can occur at three distinct levels: 1. Impaired generation of angiotensin II, possibly attributable to defects in angiotensin-converting enzyme activity; 2. Enhanced degradation of angiotensin II by peptidases; and/or 3. Unavailability of angiotensin II type 1 receptor due to internalization or reduced synthesis. These alterations can occur either independently or in combination, ultimately leading to an uncoupling between the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system input and downstream angiotensin II type 1 receptor signaling. It remains unclear whether exogenous angiotensin II infusion can adequately address all these mechanisms, and additional interventions may be required. These observations open a new avenue of research and offer the potential for novel therapeutic strategies to improve patient prognosis. In the near future, a deeper understanding of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system alterations in septic shock should help to decipher patients' phenotypes and to implement targeted interventions.

asopressin nitiation as a econd-Line Vasoressor in Early eptic hock (VISPSS)

BACKGROUND

Vasopressin is recommended as a second-line vasoactive agent for the management of septic shock; however, a paucity of data to guide its optimal use remains. The aim was to evaluate the effect of time-to vasopressin initiation and norepinephrine (NE) dose at vasopressin initiation on clinical outcomes in patients presenting with septic shock.

METHODS

This was a multi-centered, retrospective, observational study conducted in patients with septic shock. Patients were divided into 2 groups: patients initiated on vasopressin when NE-equivalent dose (NEE) < 0.25 mcg/kg/min or ≥ 0.25 mcg/kg/min. The primary outcome was time-to-vasopressor discontinuation (hours). Secondary outcomes included 28-day in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), fluid balance after 72 hours, and the change in NEE at 12 hours.

RESULTS

A total of 302 patients were included in this study. After propensity-score matching, 73 patients in each group were identified for analysis. There was no significant difference in the time-to-vasopressor discontinuation (hours) between the groups (88.8 [55-187.5] vs 86.7 [47-172]); p = 0.7815). Fluid balance (mL) at 72 hours was significantly lower when vasopressin was initiated at NEE < 0.25 mcg/kg/min (1769 [71-7287] vs 5762 [1463-8813]; p = 0.0077). A multivariable linear regression showed shorter time to shock resolution with earlier vasopressin initiation, defined as within 4 hours (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In this propensity-score matched cohort, vasopressin initiation at NEE < 0.25 mcg/kg/min was not associated with shorter vasopressor duration. There was a lower fluid balance at 72 hours when vasopressin was initiated at lower NE doses.

Angiotensin ii therapy in refractory septic shock: which patient can benefit most? A narrative review

Patients with septic shock who experience refractory hypotension despite adequate fluid resuscitation and high-dose noradrenaline have high mortality rates. To improve outcomes, evidence-based guidelines recommend starting a second vasopressor, such as vasopressin, if noradrenaline doses exceed 0.5 µg/kg/min. Recently, promising results have been observed in treating refractory hypotension with angiotensin II, which has been shown to increase mean arterial pressure and has been associated with improved outcomes. This narrative review aims to provide an overview of the pathophysiology of the renin-angiotensin system and the role of endogenous angiotensin II in vasodilatory shock with a focus on how angiotensin II treatment impacts clinical outcomes and on identifying the population that may benefit most from its use.

Clinical Response to Third-Line Angiotensin-II vs Epinephrine in Septic Shock: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The appropriate third-line vasopressor in septic shock patients receiving norepinephrine and vasopressin is unknown. Angiotensin-II (AT-II) offers a unique mechanism of action to traditionally used vasopressors in septic shock.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of third-line AT-II to epinephrine in patients with septic shock.

METHODS

A single-center, retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients was performed between April 1, 2019 and July 31, 2022. Propensity-matched (2:1) analysis compared adults with septic shock who received third-line AT-II to controls who received epinephrine following norepinephrine and vasopressin. The primary outcome was clinical response 24 hours after third-line vasopressor initiation. Additional efficacy and safety outcomes were investigated.

RESULTS

Twenty-three AT-II patients were compared with 46 epinephrine patients. 47.8% of AT-II patients observed a clinical response at hour 24 compared with 28.3% of epinephrine patients (P = 0.12). In-hospital mortality (65.2% vs 73.9%, P = 0.45), cardiac arrhythmias (26.1% vs 26.1%, P = 0.21), and thromboembolism (4.3% vs 2.2%, P = 0.61) were not observed to be statistically different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Administration of AT-II as a third-line vasopressor agent in septic shock patients was not associated with significantly improved clinical response at hour 24 compared with epinephrine. Although underpowered to detect meaningful differences, the clinical observations of this study warrant consideration and further investigation of AT-II as a third-line vasopressor in septic shock.

Precision fluid and vasoactive drug therapy for critically ill patients

There are several clinical practice guidelines concerning the use of fluid and vasoactive drug therapies in critically ill adult patients, but the recommendations in these guidelines are often based on low-quality evidence. Further, some were compiled prior to the publication of landmark clinical trials, particularly in the comparison of balanced crystalloid and normal saline. An important consideration in the treatment of critically ill patients is the application of precision medicine to provide the most effective care to groups of patients most likely to benefit from the therapy. Although not currently widely integrated into these practice guidelines, the utility of precision medicine in critical illness is a recognized research priority for fluid and vasoactive therapy management. The purpose of this narrative review was to illustrate the evaluation and challenges of providing precision fluid and vasoactive therapies to adult critically ill patients. The review includes a discussion of important investigations published after the release of currently available clinical practice guidelines to provide insight into how recommendations and research priorities may change future guidelines and bedside care for critically ill patients.

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.

Early administration of multiple vasopressors is associated with better survival in patients with sepsis: a propensity score-weighted study

BACKGROUND

The association between the timing of administration of multiple vasopressors and patient outcomes has not been investigated.

METHODS

This study used data from the MIMIC-IV database. Patients with sepsis who were administered two or more vasopressors were included. The principal exposure was the last norepinephrine dose when adding a second vasopressor. The cohort was divided into early (last norepinephrine dose < 0.25 μg/kg/min) and normal (last norepinephrine dose ≥ 0.25 μg/kg/min) groups. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Multivariable Cox analyses, propensity score matching, stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (sIPTW), and restricted cubic spline (RCS) curves were used.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,437 patients who received multiple vasopressors were included. Patients in the early group had lower 28-day mortality (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.65-0.89; p < 0.001) than those in the single group, with similar results in the propensity score-matched (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.68-0.94; p = 0.006) and sIPTW (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.63-0.88; p < 0.001) cohorts. RCS curves showed that the risk of 28-day mortality increased as the last norepinephrine dose increased.

CONCLUSIONS

The timing of secondary vasopressor administration is strongly associated with the outcomes of patients with sepsis.

Fluids and Early Vasopressors in the Management of Septic Shock: Do We Have the Right Answers Yet?

Septic shock is a common condition associated with hypotension and organ dysfunction. It is associated with high mortality rates of up to 60% despite the best recommended resuscitation strategies in international guidelines. Patients with septic shock generally have a Mean Arterial Pressure below 65 mmHg and hypotension is the most important determinant of mortality among this group of patients. The extent and duration of hypotension are important. The two initial options that we have are 1) administration of intravenous (IV) fluids and 2) vasopressors, The current recommendation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines to administer 30 ml/kg fluid cannot be applied to all patients. Complications of fluid over-resuscitation further delay organ recovery, prolong ICU and hospital length of stay, and increase mortality. The only reason for administering intravenous fluids in a patient with circulatory shock is to increase the mean systemic filling pressure in a patient who is volume-responsive, such that cardiac output also increases. The use of vasopressors seems to be a more appropriate strategy, the very early administration of vasopressors, preferably during the first hour after diagnosis of septic shock, may have a multimodal action and potential advantages, leading to lower morbidity and mortality in the management of septic patients. Vasopressor therapy should be initiated as soon as possible in patients with septic shock.

Tendency of dynamic vasoactive and inotropic medications data as a robust predictor of mortality in patients with septic shock: An analysis of the MIMIC-IV database

Background

Septic shock patients fundamentally require delicate vasoactive and inotropic agent administration, which could be quantitatively and objectively evaluated by the vasoactive–inotropic score (VIS); however, whether the dynamic trends of high-time-resolution VIS alter the clinical outcomes remains unclear. Thus, this study proposes the term VIS Reduction Rate (VRR) to generalise the tendency of dynamic VIS, to explore the association of VRR and mortality for patients with septic shock.

Methods

We applied dynamic and static VIS data to predict ICU mortality by two models: the long short-term memory (LSTM) deep learning model, and the extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), respectively. The specific target cohort was extracted from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) database by the sophisticated structured query language (SQL). Enrolled patients were divided into four groups by VRR value: ≥50%, 0 ~ 50%, −50% ~ 0, and &lt; −50%. Statistical approaches included pairwise propensity score matching (PSM), Cox proportional hazards regression, and two doubly robust estimation models to ensure the robustness of the results. The primary and secondary outcomes were ICU mortality and in-hospital mortality, respectively.

Results

VRR simplifies the dosing trends of vasoactive and inotropic agents represented by dynamic VIS data while requiring fewer data. In total, 8,887 septic shock patients were included. Compared with the VRR ≥50% group, the 0 ~ 50%, −50% ~ 0, and &lt; −50% groups had significantly higher ICU mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17–1.50, p &lt; 0.001; HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.44–2.22, p &lt; 0.001; HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.61–2.66, p &lt; 0.001, respectively] and in-hospital mortality [HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.28–1.60, p &lt; 0.001; HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.45–2.11, p &lt; 0.001; HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.61–2.49, p &lt; 0.001, respectively]. Similar findings were observed in two doubly robust estimation models.

Conclusion

The trends of dynamic VIS in ICU might help intensivists to stratify the prognosis of adult patients with septic shock. A lower decline of VIS was remarkably associated with higher ICU and in-hospital mortality among septic shock patients receiving vasoactive–inotropic therapy for more than 24 h.

How Effective is Angiotensin II in Decreasing Mortality of Vasodilatory Shock? A Systematic Review

Background

Patients with severe vasodilation accompanied by refractory hypotension despite high doses of vasopressors were associated with a high mortality rate. The Ang-2 for the Treatment of High-Output Shock (ATHOS) 3 trial demonstrated that angiotensin 2 (Ang-2) could effectively increase MAP and blood pressure in vasodilatory shock patients. This systematic review aims to summarize the impact of Ang-2 for the treatment of vasodilatory shock on clinical outcomes, including length of stay, MAP level (before and after), and mortality also Ang-2 dose needed.

Methods

A systematic search in PubMed, Sage, ScienceDirect, Scopus and Gray literature was conducted to obtain studies about the use of Ang-2 in vasodilatory shock patients.

Results

In all of the studies that we obtained, there were different results regarding mortality in patients with vasodilatory shock with Ang-2. Mortality was significantly lower when Ang-2 was administered to patients with elevated renin. The initial dose of Ang-2 can be started at 10-20 ng/kg/min, but there is no agreement on the maximum dose. Ang-2 may be considered a third-line vasopressor if the targeted MAP has not been achieved after administration of norepinephrine >200 ng/kg/min for more than 6 hours. Although not statistically significant, the use of Ang-2 can reduce the length of stay in the ICU and in the hospital when compared to patients without Ang-2 therapy, in addition to reducing the dose of vasopressor.

Conclusion

Overall, the use of Ang-2 has potential to be a regimen for patients with vasodilatory shock. Further study is needed to obtain more data.

A plea for personalization of the hemodynamic management of septic shock

Although guidelines provide excellent expert guidance for managing patients with septic shock, they leave room for personalization according to patients' condition. Hemodynamic monitoring depends on the evolution phase: salvage, optimization, stabilization, and de-escalation. Initially during the salvage phase, monitoring to identify shock etiology and severity should include arterial pressure and lactate measurements together with clinical examination, particularly skin mottling and capillary refill time. Low diastolic blood pressure may trigger vasopressor initiation. At this stage, echocardiography may be useful to identify significant cardiac dysfunction. During the optimization phase, echocardiographic monitoring should be pursued and completed by the assessment of tissue perfusion through central or mixed-venous oxygen saturation, lactate, and carbon dioxide veno-arterial gradient. Transpulmonary thermodilution and the pulmonary artery catheter should be considered in the most severe patients. Fluid therapy also depends on shock phases. While administered liberally during the resuscitation phase, fluid responsiveness should be assessed during the optimization phase. During stabilization, fluid infusion should be minimized. In the de-escalation phase, safe fluid withdrawal could be achieved by ensuring tissue perfusion is preserved. Norepinephrine is recommended as first-line vasopressor therapy, while vasopressin may be preferred in some patients. Essential questions remain regarding optimal vasopressor selection, combination therapy, and the most effective and safest escalation. Serum renin and the angiotensin I/II ratio may identify patients who benefit most from angiotensin II. The optimal therapeutic strategy for shock requiring high-dose vasopressors is scant. In all cases, vasopressor therapy should be individualized, based on clinical evaluation and blood flow measurements to avoid excessive vasoconstriction. Inotropes should be considered in patients with decreased cardiac contractility associated with impaired tissue perfusion. Based on pharmacologic properties, we suggest as the first test a limited dose of dobutamine, to add enoximone or milrinone in the second line and substitute or add levosimendan if inefficient. Regarding adjunctive therapies, while hydrocortisone is nowadays advised in patients receiving high doses of vasopressors, patients responding to corticosteroids may be identified in the future by the analysis of selected cytokines or specific transcriptomic endotypes. To conclude, although some general rules apply for shock management, a personalized approach should be considered for hemodynamic monitoring and support.

Angiotensin II - A Brief Review and Role in Severe SARS-COV-2 Sepsis

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), whose major vasopressor effector is angiotensin II (ATII), has multiple activities and regulates sodium-water homeostasis and fluid and blood pressure homeostasis. RAAS plays a crucial role in cardiocirculatory shock because it counteracts hypotension and hypovolemia by activating different physiologic responses. Based on the encouraging results of the ATHOS-3 trial, the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency approved the use of ATII for catecholamine-resistant vasodilatory shock. More recently, ATII was used for the compassionate treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Beyond its vasopressor properties, ATII was hypothesized to have antiviral activity because it induces internalization and degradation of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors used by SARS-Cov-2 to infect cells. Overall, the use of ATII in patients with COVID-19 showed promising results because its administration was associated with the achievement and maintenance of target mean arterial pressure, increased P_aO₂/F_IO₂ ratio, and decreased F_IO₂. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the available knowledge on the use of ATII in patients with COVID-19.

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.

[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.

Resuscitation Fluids in Septic Shock: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of various resuscitation fluids in septic shock by adopting a network meta-analysis (NMA). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing resuscitation fluids in septic shock were carried out by retrieving electronic databases. NMAs of 28-day mortality, 90-day mortality, incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) were conducted using the STATA 15.0 software. Probability-based ranking and surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) were performed to identify the optimal resuscitation fluid. Inconsistencies were evaluated by node-splitting analysis and a loop-specific approach. Furthermore, publication bias was analyzed by funnel plots. A total of 13 RCTs were enrolled in the analysis. The NMA results revealed that no significant differences were detected in the outcomes of 28-day mortality and 90-day mortality among various resuscitation fluids. The SUCRAs (the first indicates the best) of 28-day mortality showed that the hypertonic sodium chloride/hydroxyethyl starch 40 solution ranked the highest (93.8%), followed by the balanced solution (BS) (69.6%), and albumin (61.9%). On the other hand, the SUCRAs of 90-day mortality revealed that gelatin (GEL) ranked the highest (75.1%), followed by BS (55.1%), and NS (52.4%). The NMA results of AKI demonstrated that high-molecular-weight hydroxyethyl starch (H-HES) was associated with increased risk of AKI in comparison with GEL, BS, and L-HES. The SUCRAs of AKI showed that GEL ranked the highest (74.4%), followed by NS (64.9%), and BS (58.3%). In addition, the NMA results of RRT revealed that H-HES was associated with an increased need for RRT in comparison with BS and NS, and L-HES was associated with increased need of RRT in comparison with BS. The SUCRAs of RRT revealed that NS ranked the highest (91.6%), followed by BS (74.4%) and L-HES (36.1%). No significant inconsistencies were shown by the node-splitting analysis and no publication bias was demonstrated in the funnel plots. In conclusion, BS was determined as the preferred resuscitation fluid for septic shock. Moreover, the use of GEL requires further evaluation. H-HES was associated with a significant risk of AKI and RRT, whereas L-HES with an increased need for RRT compared with BS. Thus, both resuscitation fluids should be avoided for septic shock.

Resuscitative Effect of Centhaquine (Lyfaquin®) in Hypovolemic Shock Patients: A Randomized, Multicentric, Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Centhaquine (Lyfaquin®) showed significant efficacy as a resuscitative agent in animal models of haemorrhagic shock. Its safety and tolerability were confirmed in healthy human volunteers. In this study, our primary objective was to determine the safety, and the secondary objective was to assess the efficacy of centhaquine in patients with hypovolemic shock.

METHODS

A prospective, multicentre, randomized phase II study was conducted in male and female patients aged 18-70 years with hypovolemic shock having systolic BP ≤ 90 mmHg. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the control or centhaquine group. The control group received 100 ml of normal saline infusion over 1 h, while the centhaquine group received 0.01 mg/kg of centhaquine in 100 ml normal saline infusion over 1 h. Every patient received standard of care (SOC) and was followed for 28 days.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were included, and 45 completed the trial: 22 in the control group and 23 in the centhaquine group. The demographics of patients in both groups were comparable. No adverse event related to centhaquine was recorded in the 28-day observation period. The baseline, Injury Scoring System score, haemoglobin, and haematocrit were similar in both groups. However, 91% of the patients in the centhaquine group needed major surgery, whereas only 68% in the control group (p = 0.0526). Twenty-eight-day all-cause mortality was 0/23 in the centhaquine group and 2/22 in the control group. The percent time in ICU and ventilator support was less in the centhaquine group than in the control group. The total amount of vasopressors needed in the first 48 h of resuscitation was lower in the centhaquine group than in the control group (3.12 ± 2.18 vs. 9.39 ± 4.28 mg). An increase in systolic and diastolic BP from baseline through 48 h was more marked in the centhaquine group than in the control group. Compared with the control group, blood lactate level was lower by 1.75 ± 1.07 mmol/l in the centhaquine group on day 3 of resuscitation. Improvements in base deficit, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) score and adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) were greater in the centhaquine group than in the control group.

CONCLUSION

When added to SOC, centhaquine is a well-tolerated and effective resuscitative agent. It improves the clinical outcome of patients with hypovolemic shock.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier number: NCT04056065.

Hemodynamic support in septic shock

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current article reviews recent findings on the monitoring and hemodynamic support of septic shock patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

The ultimate goal of hemodynamic resuscitation is to restore tissue oxygenation. A multimodal approach combining global and regional markers of tissue hypoxia seems appropriate to guide resuscitation. Several multicenter clinical trials have provided evidence against an aggressive fluid resuscitation strategy. Fluid administration should be personalized and based on the evidence of fluid responsiveness. Dynamic indices have proven to be highly predictive of responsiveness. Recent data suggest that balanced crystalloids may be associated with less renal failure. When fluid therapy is insufficient, a multimode approach with different types of vasopressors has been suggested as an initial approach. Dobutamine remains the firs inotropic option in patients with persistent hypotension and decrease ventricular systolic function. Calcium sensitizer and phosphodiesterase inhibitors may be considered, but evidence is still limited. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may be considered in selected unresponsive patients, particularly with myocardial depression, and in a highly experienced center.

SUMMARY

Resuscitation should be personalized and based on global and regional markers of tissue hypoxia as well as the fluid responsiveness indices. The beneficial effect of multimode approach with different types of vasopressors, remains to be determined.

COVID-19 and haemodynamic failure: a point of view on mechanisms and treatment

The SARS-CoV-2-related disease has an undoubted impact on the healthcare system. In the treatment of severe COVID-19 cases, the main focus is on respiratory failure. However, available data suggest an important contribution of haemodynamic impairment in the course of this disease. SARS-CoV-2 may affect the circulatory system in various ways that are universal for septic conditions. Nonetheless, unique features of this pathogen, e.g. direct insult leading to myocarditis and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis dysregulation, must be taken into account. Although current recommendations on COVID-19 resemble previous septic shock guidelines, special attention to haemodynamic monitoring and treatment is necessary. Regarding treatment, one must take into account the potential profound hypovolaemia of severe COVID-19 patients. Pharmacological cardiovascular support should follow existing guidelines and practice. Interesting concepts of decatecholaminisation and the effect of vasopressors on pulmonary circulation are also presented in this review on COVID-19-related haemodynamic failure.

Angiotensin II Infusion for Shock: A Multicenter Study of Postmarketing Use

BACKGROUND

Vasodilatory shock refractory to catecholamine vasopressors and arginine vasopressin is highly morbid and responsible for significant mortality. Synthetic angiotensin II is a potent vasoconstrictor that may be suitable for use in these patients.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the safety and effectiveness of angiotensin II and what variables are associated with a favorable hemodynamic response?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We performed a multicenter, retrospective study at five tertiary medical centers in the United States. The primary end point of hemodynamic responsiveness to angiotensin II was defined as attainment of mean arterial pressure (MAP) of ≥ 65 mm Hg with a stable or reduced total vasopressor dosage 3 h after drug initiation.

RESULTS

Of 270 included patients, 181 (67%) demonstrated hemodynamic responsiveness to angiotensin II. Responders showed a greater increase in MAP (+10.3 mm Hg vs +1.6 mm Hg, P < .001) and reduction in vasopressor dosage (-0.20 μg/kg/min vs +0.04 μg/kg/min; P < .001) compared with nonresponders at 3 h. Variables associated with favorable hemodynamic response included lower lactate concentration (OR 1.11; 95% CI, 1.05-1.17, P < .001) and receipt of vasopressin (OR, 6.05; 95% CI, 1.98-18.6; P = .002). In severity-adjusted multivariate analysis, hemodynamic responsiveness to angiotensin II was associated with reduced likelihood of 30-day mortality (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35-0.71; P < .001). Arrhythmias occurred in 28 patients (10%) and VTE was identified in 4 patients.

INTERPRETATION

In postmarketing use for vasopressor-refractory shock, 67% of angiotensin II recipients demonstrated a favorable hemodynamic response. Patients with lower lactate concentrations and those receiving vasopressin were more likely to respond to angiotensin II. Patients who responded to angiotensin II experienced reduced mortality.

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.

Vasopressin Versus Norepinephrine for the Management of Septic Shock in Cancer Patients: The VANCS II Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

Previous trials suggest that vasopressin may improve outcomes in patients with vasodilatory shock. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether vasopressin could be superior to norepinephrine to improve outcomes in cancer patients with septic shock.

DESIGN

Single-center, randomized, double-blind clinical trial, and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

SETTING

ICU of a tertiary care hospital.

PATIENTS

Two-hundred fifty patients 18 years old or older with cancer and septic shock.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were assigned to either vasopressin or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor therapy. An updated meta-analysis was also conducted including randomized trials published until October 2018.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. Prespecified secondary outcomes included 90-days all-cause mortality rate; number of days alive and free of advanced organ support at day 28; and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score 24 hours and 96 hours after randomization. We also measure the prevalence of adverse effects in 28 days. A total of 250 patients were randomized. The primary outcome was observed in 71 patients (56.8%) in the vasopressin group and 66 patients (52.8%) in the norepinephrine group (p = 0.52). There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (90 patients [72.0%] and 94 patients [75.2%], respectively; p = 0.56), number of days alive and free of advanced organ support, adverse events, or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score.

CONCLUSIONS

In cancer patients with septic shock, vasopressin as first-line vasopressor therapy was not superior to norepinephrine in reducing 28-day mortality rate.

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.

Angiotensin II for the emergency physician

Refractory hypotension is one of the most common and difficult clinical problems faced by acute care clinicians, and it poses a particularly large problem to the emergency physician when a patient in undifferentiated shock arrives in the department. Angiotensin II (Ang-2) has been previously used as a vasopressor to combat shock; the feasibility of its clinical use has been reinvigorated after approval of a human synthetic formulation of the medication by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2017 and the European Medicines Agency in 2019. A thorough literature search was completed, and in this review, we discuss the discovery and development of Ang-2, its complex mechanisms of vasoconstriction, its potential adverse effects and its potential role in clinical practice for emergency physicians.

Organ Dysfunction in Sepsis: An Ominous Trajectory From Infection To Death

Sepsis is a highly complex and lethal syndrome with highly heterogeneous clinical manifestations that makes it difficult to detect and treat. It is also one of the major and most urgent global public health challenges. More than 30 million people are diagnosed with sepsis each year, with 5 million attributable deaths and long-term sequalae among survivors. The current international consensus defines sepsis as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to an infection. Over the past decades substantial research has increased the understanding of its pathophysiology. The immune response induces a severe macro and microcirculatory dysfunction that leads to a profound global hypoperfusion, injuring multiple organs. Consequently, patients with sepsis might present dysfunction of virtually any system, regardless of the site of infection. The organs more frequently affected are kidneys, liver, lungs, heart, central nervous system, and hematologic system. This multiple organ failure is the hallmark of sepsis and determines patients' course from infection to recovery or death. There are tools to assess the severity of the disease that can also help to guide treatment, like the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. However, sepsis disease process is vastly heterogeneous, which could explain why interventions targeted to directly intervene its mechanisms have shown unsuccessful results and predicting outcomes with accuracy is still elusive. Thus, it is required to implement strong public health strategies and leverage novel technologies in research to improve outcomes and mitigate the burden of sepsis and septic shock worldwide.

Angiotensin II in Decompensated Cirrhosis Complicated by Septic Shock

This case describes the first reported use of human-derived synthetic angiotensin II (Ang-2) in a patient with decompensated cirrhosis and septic shock. The patient presented in vasodilatory shock from Enterobacter cloacae bacteremia with a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score of 14 and a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 36. This case is significant because liver failure was an exclusion criterion in the Angiotensin II for the Treatment of Vasodilatory Shock (ATHOS-3) trial, but the liver produces angiotensinogen, which is key precursor to Ang-2 in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Resuscitation with Ang-2 is a potentially beneficial medication when conventional vasopressors have failed to control mean arterial pressure in this population.