Terlipressin Versus Norepinephrine for Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The effect of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation on cognitive function outcomes in the elderly depends on the baseline omega-3 index

Both epidemiological and preclinical studies have shown the benefits of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (n-3 PUFA) on dementia and cognitive impairment, yet the results of clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed to date are conflicting. The difference in the baseline omega-3 index (O3i) of subjects is a potential cause for this disparity, yet this is usually ignored. The present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (n-3 PUFA) on cognitive function in the elderly and the role of baseline O3i. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to June 27th, 2023. The mean changes in the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score were calculated as weighted mean differences by using a fixed-effects model. Fifteen random controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that n-3 PUFA supplementation did not significantly improve the MMSE score (WMD = 0.04, [-0.08, 0.16]; Z = 0.62, P = 0.53; I2 = 0.00%, P(I2) = 0.49). Out of the 15 studies included in the meta-analysis, only 7 reported O3i at baseline and outcome, so only these 7 articles were used for subgroup analysis. Subgroup analysis showed that the MMSE score was significantly improved in the higher baseline O3i subgroup (WMD = 0.553, [0.01, 1.095]; I2 = 0.00%, P(I2) = 0.556) and higher O3i increment subgroup (WMD = 0.525, [0.023, 1.026]; I2 = 0.00%, P(I2) = 0.545). The overall effect demonstrated that n-3 PUFA supplementation exerted no improvement on global cognitive function. However, a higher baseline O3i and higher O3i increment were associated with an improvement in cognitive function in the elderly.

Review article: Emerging and current management of acute-on-chronic liver failure

BACKGROUND

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a clinically and pathophysiologically distinct condition from acutely decompensated cirrhosis and is characterised by systemic inflammation, extrahepatic organ failure, and high short-term mortality.

AIMS

To provide a narrative review of the diagnostic criteria, prognosis, epidemiology, and general management principles of ACLF. Four specific interventions that are explored in detail are intravenous albumin, extracorporeal liver assist devices, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, and liver transplantation.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Cochrane databases for articles published up to July 2023.

RESULTS

Approximately 35% of hospital inpatients with decompensated cirrhosis have ACLF. There is significant heterogeneity in the criteria used to diagnose ACLF; different definitions identify different phenotypes with varying mortality. Criteria established by the European Association for the Study of the Liver were developed in prospective patient cohorts and are, to-date, the most well validated internationally. Systemic haemodynamic instability, renal dysfunction, coagulopathy, neurological dysfunction, and respiratory failure are key considerations when managing ACLF in the intensive care unit. Apart from liver transplantation, there are no accepted evidence-based treatments for ACLF, but several different approaches are under investigation.

CONCLUSION

The recognition of ACLF as a distinct entity from acutely decompensated cirrhosis has allowed for better patient stratification in clinical settings, facilitating earlier engagement with the intensive care unit and liver transplantation teams. Research priorities over the next decade should focus on exploring novel treatment strategies with a particular focus on which, when, and how patients with ACLF should be treated.

Addition of terlipressin to norepinephrine in septic shock and effect of renal perfusion: a pilot study

Purpose

Terlipressin improves renal function in patients with septic shock. However, the mechanism remains unclear. Here, we aimed to evaluate the effects of terlipressin on renal perfusion in patients with septic shock.

Materials and Methods

This pilot study enrolled patients with septic shock in the intensive care unit of the tertiary hospital from September 2019 to May 2020. We randomly assigned patients to terlipressin and usual care groups using a 1:1 ratio. Terlipressin was intravenously pumped at a rate of 1.3 μg/kg/hour for 24 h. We monitored renal perfusion using renal contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). The primary outcome was peak sonographic signal intensity (a renal perfusion parameter monitored by CEUS) at 24 h after enrollment.

Results

22 patients were enrolled in this study with 10 in the terlipressin group and 12 in the usual care group. The baseline characteristics of patients between the two groups were comparable. The peak sonographic signal intensity at 24 h after enrollment in the terlipressin group (60.5 ± 8.6 dB) was significantly higher than that in the usual care group (52.4 ± 7.0 dB; mean difference, 7.1 dB; 95% CI, 0.4–13.9; adjusted p = .04). Patients in the terlipressin group had a lower time to peak, heart rates, norepinephrine dose, and a higher stroke volume at 24 h after enrollment. No significant difference in the urine output within 24 h and incidence of acute kidney injury within 28 days was found between the two groups.

Conclusions

Terlipressin improves renal perfusion, increases stroke volume, and decreases norepinephrine dose and heart rates in patients with septic shock.

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.

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.

Practice guidance for the use of terlipressin for liver cirrhosis-related complications

BACKGROUND

Liver cirrhosis is a major global health burden worldwide due to its high risk of morbidity and mortality. Role of terlipressin for the management of liver cirrhosis-related complications has been recognized during recent years. This article aims to develop evidence-based clinical practice guidance on the use of terlipressin for liver cirrhosis-related complications.

METHODS

Hepatobiliary Study Group of the Chinese Society of Gastroenterology of the Chinese Medical Association and Hepatology Committee of the Chinese Research Hospital Association have invited gastroenterologists, hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, surgeons, and clinical pharmacists to formulate the clinical practice guidance based on comprehensive literature review and experts' clinical experiences.

RESULTS

Overall, 10 major guidance statements regarding efficacy and safety of terlipressin in liver cirrhosis were proposed. Terlipressin can be beneficial for the management of cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS). However, the evidence regarding the use of terlipressin in cirrhotic patients with ascites, post-paracentesis circulatory dysfunction, and bacterial infections and in those undergoing hepatic resection and liver transplantation remains insufficient. Terlipressin-related adverse events, mainly including gastrointestinal symptoms, electrolyte disturbance, and cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events, should be closely monitored.

CONCLUSION

The current clinical practice guidance supports the use of terlipressin for gastroesophageal variceal bleeding and HRS in liver cirrhosis. High-quality studies are needed to further clarify its potential effects in other liver cirrhosis-related complications.

Arterial Hypotension Following Norepinephrine Decrease in Septic Shock Patients Is Not Related to Preload Dependence: A Prospective, Observational Cohort Study

Background

The optimal management of hypotensive patients during norepinephrine weaning is unclear. The primary study aim was to assess the ability of preload dependence to predict hypotension following norepinephrine weaning. The secondary aims were to describe the effect of norepinephrine weaning on preload dependence, and the cardiovascular effects of fluid expansion in hypotensive patients following norepinephrine weaning.

Materials and Methods

This was a prospective observational monocentric study. We included PiCCO®-monitored patients with norepinephrine-treated septic shock, for whom the physician decided to decrease the norepinephrine dosage during the de-escalation phase. Three consecutive steps were evaluated with hemodynamic measurements: baseline, after norepinephrine decrease, and after 500 mL fluid expansion.

Results

Forty-five patients were included. Preload dependence assessed by stroke volume changes following passive leg raising was not predictive of pressure response to norepinephrine weaning [AUC of 0.42 (95%CI: 0.25–0.59, p = 0.395)]. After fluid expansion, there was no difference in the prior preload dependence between pressure-responders and non-pressure-responders (14 vs. 13%, p = 1). The pressure response to norepinephrine decrease was not associated with pressure response after fluid expansion (40 vs. 23%, p = 0.211).

Conclusion

Hypotension following norepinephrine decrease was not predicted by preload dependence, and there was no association between arterial hypotension after norepinephrine decrease and fluid response.

Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure Clinical Guidelines

In patients with cirrhosis and chronic liver disease, acute-on-chronic liver failure is emerging as a major cause of mortality. These guidelines indicate the preferred approach to the management of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure and represent the official practice recommendations of the American College of Gastroenterology. The scientific evidence for these guidelines was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation process. In instances where the evidence was not appropriate for Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, but there was consensus of significant clinical merit, key concept statements were developed using expert consensus. These guidelines are meant to be broadly applicable and should be viewed as the preferred, but not only, approach to clinical scenarios.

Vasopressor and inotrope treatment for septic shock: An umbrella review of reviews

PURPOSE

To review the characteristics, findings and quality of systematic reviews (SRs) on the effect of any vasopressor/inotrope on outcomes in adult patients with sepsis compared with either no treatment, another vasopressor or inotrope or fluids.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed and Embase (January 1993-March 2021). Descriptive statistics were used.

RESULTS

Among the 28 SRs identified, mortality was the primary outcome in most (26/28) and mortality was usually (23/28) studied using randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Fifteen SRs focused exclusively on patients with sepsis or septic shock. Sepsis and septic shock were always grouped for the analysis. Publication bias was consistently low when studied. The most consistent findings were a survival advantage with norepinephrine versus dopamine, which disappeared in analyses restricted to 28-day mortality, and more arrhythmias with dopamine. However, these analyses were dominated by a single study. Only 2 SRs were judged to be of moderate-high quality. Lack of blinding and attrition bias may have affected the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of SRs on the effect of vasopressors/inotropes on the outcomes of adult patients with sepsis can be improved, but high-quality, multicenter, RCTs should be preferred to additional SRs on this topic.