Norepinephrine supplemented with dobutamine or epinephrine for the cardiovascular support of patients with septic shock

An Update on Pharmacologic Management of Neonatal Hypotension: When, Why, and Which Medication

Anti-hypotensive treatment, which includes dopamine, dobutamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, milrinone, vasopressin, terlipressin, levosimendan, and glucocorticoids, is a long-established intervention in neonates with arterial hypotension (AH). However, there are still gaps in knowledge and issues that need clarification. The main questions and challenges that neonatologists face relate to the reference ranges of arterial blood pressure in presumably healthy neonates in relation to gestational and postnatal age; the arterial blood pressure level that potentially affects perfusion of critical organs; the incorporation of targeted echocardiography and near-infrared spectroscopy for assessing heart function and cerebral perfusion in clinical practice; the indication, timing, and choice of medication for each individual patient; the limited randomized clinical trials in neonates with sometimes conflicting results; and the sparse data regarding the potential effect of early hypotension or anti-hypotensive medications on long-term neurodevelopment. In this review, after a short review of AH definitions used in neonates and existing data on pathophysiology of AH, we discuss currently available data on pharmacokinetic and hemodynamic effects, as well as the effectiveness and safety of anti-hypotensive medications in neonates. In addition, data on the comparisons between anti-hypotensive medications and current suggestions for the main indications of each medication are discussed.

THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF VASOPRESSORS FOR SEPTIC SHOCK PATIENTS: A SYSTEMIC REVIEW AND NETWORK META-ANALYSIS

ABSTRACT

Background: Septic shock is a distributive shock with decreased systemic vascular resistance and MAP. Septic shock contributes to the most common causes of death in the intensive care unit (ICU). Current guidelines recommend the use of norepinephrine as the first-line vasopressor, whereas adrenergic agonists and vasopressin analogs are also commonly used by physicians. To date, very few studies have synthetically compared the effects of multiple types of vasoactive medications. The aim of this study was to systemically evaluate the efficacy of vasoactive agents both individually and in combination to treat septic shock. Methods: The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched up to May 12, 2022, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. A network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of different types of vasopressors. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was the ICU length of stay. Adverse events are defined as any undesirable outcomes, including myocardial infarction, cardiac arrhythmia, peripheral ischemia, or stroke and cerebrovascular events. Findings: Thirty-three randomized controlled trials comprising 4,966 patients and assessing 8 types of vasoactive treatments were included in the network meta-analysis. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve provided a ranking of vasoactive medications in terms of 28-day all-cause mortality from most effective to least effective: norepinephrine plus dobutamine, epinephrine, vasopressin, terlipressin, norepinephrine, norepinephrine plus vasopressin, dopamine, and dobutamine. Dopamine was associated with a significantly shorter ICU stay than norepinephrine, terlipressin, and vasopressin, whereas other vasoactive medications showed no definite difference in ICU length of stay. Regarding adverse events, norepinephrine was associated with the highest incidences of myocardial infarction and peripheral ischemia. Dopamine was associated with the highest incidence of cardiac arrhythmia. Epinephrine and terlipressin were associated with the highest incidences of myocardial infarction and peripheral ischemia. Interpretation: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that norepinephrine plus dobutamine is associated with a lower risk of 28-day mortality in septic shock patients than other vasoactive medications, and the use of dopamine is associated with a higher risk of 28-day mortality due to septic shock than norepinephrine, terlipressin, and vasopressin.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Effect of Continuous Epinephrine Infusion on Survival in Critically Ill Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVES

Epinephrine is frequently used as an inotropic and vasopressor agent in critically ill patients requiring hemodynamic support. Data from observational trials suggested that epinephrine use is associated with a worse outcome as compared with other adrenergic and nonadrenergic vasoactive drugs. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to investigate the effect of epinephrine administration on outcome of critically ill patients.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane central register were searched by two independent investigators up to March 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Inclusion criteria were: administration of epinephrine as IV continuous infusion, patients admitted to an ICU or undergoing major surgery, and randomized controlled trials. Studies on epinephrine administration as bolus (e.g., during cardiopulmonary resuscitation), were excluded. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up available.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent investigators examined and extracted data from eligible trials.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 5,249 studies were assessed, with a total of 12 studies (1,227 patients) finally included in the meta-analysis. The majority of the trials were performed in the setting of septic shock, and the most frequent comparator was a combination of norepinephrine plus dobutamine. We found no difference in all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up available (197/579 [34.0%] in the epinephrine group vs 219/648 [33.8%] in the control group; risk ratio = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82-1.10; p = 0.49; I = 0%). No differences in the need for renal replacement therapy, occurrence rate of myocardial ischemia, occurrence rate of arrhythmias, and length of ICU stay were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Current randomized evidence showed that continuous IV administration of epinephrine as inotropic/vasopressor agent is not associated with a worse outcome in critically ill patients.

Heart Dysfunction in Sepsis

Cardiac involvement during sepsis frequently occurs. A series of molecules induces a set of changes at the cellular level that result in the malfunction of the myocardium. The understanding of these molecular alterations has simultaneously promoted the implementation of diagnostic strategies that are much more precise and allowed the advance of the therapeutics. The heart is a vital organ for survival. Its well-being ensures the adequate supply of essential elements for organs and tissues.

Sepsis With Preexisting Heart Failure: Management of Confounding Clinical Features

Preexisting heart failure (HF) in patients with sepsis is associated with worse clinical outcomes. Core sepsis management includes aggressive volume resuscitation followed by vasopressors (and potentially inotropes) if fluid is inadequate to restore perfusion; however, large fluid boluses and vasoactive agents are concerning amid the cardiac dysfunction of HF. This review summarizes evidence regarding the influence of HF on sepsis clinical outcomes, pathophysiologic concerns, resuscitation targets, hemodynamic interventions, and adjunct management (ie, antiarrhythmics, positive pressure ventilatory support, and renal replacement therapy) in patients with sepsis and preexisting HF. Patients with sepsis and preexisting HF receive less fluid during resuscitation; however, evidence suggests traditional fluid resuscitation targets do not increase the risk of adverse events in HF patients with sepsis and likely improve outcomes. Norepinephrine remains the most well-supported vasopressor for patients with sepsis with preexisting HF, while dopamine may induce more cardiac adverse events. Dobutamine should be used cautiously given its generally detrimental effects but may have an application when combined with norepinephrine in patients with low cardiac output. Management of chronic HF medications warrants careful consideration for continuation or discontinuation upon development of sepsis, and β-blockers may be appropriate to continue in the absence of acute hemodynamic decompensation. Optimal management of atrial fibrillation may include β-blockers after acute hemodynamic stabilization as they have also shown independent benefits in sepsis. Positive pressure ventilatory support and renal replacement must be carefully monitored for effects on cardiac function when HF is present.

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.

Optimal norepinephrine-equivalent dose to initiate epinephrine in patients with septic shock

PURPOSE

The specific norepinephrine dose at which epinephrine should be added in septic shock is unclear. This study sought to determine the norepinephrine-equivalent dose at epinephrine initiation that correlated with hemodynamic stability.

METHODS

Septic shock patients receiving both norepinephrine and epinephrine were included in this study. Classification and regression tree analysis was conducted to determine breakpoints in norepinephrine-equivalent dose predicting hemodynamic stability, with two cohorts identified. The primary outcome was hemodynamic stability, and secondary outcomes were shock-free survival, time to achieve hemodynamic stability, and change in SOFA score.

RESULTS

Optimal dose group was identified as initiating epinephrine when norepinephrine-equivalent dose was between 37 and 133 μg/min. A total of 138 and 61 patients were classified in optimal and non-optimal dose groups, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups except vasopressin use was more frequent in the optimal dose group. More patients in optimal dose group versus non-optimal dose group achieved hemodynamic stability (40 [29%] vs. 9 [14.8%]), absolute risk difference 14.2% [95% CI 2.5-25.9%]; p = .03). On multivariable analysis, initiating epinephrine within the optimal norepinephrine-equivalent dose range was independently associated with higher odds of hemodynamic response (OR 3.06 [95% CI 1.2-7.6]; p = .02). No differences were observed in other secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation of epinephrine when patients were receiving norepinephrine-equivalent doses of 37-133 μg/min was associated with a higher rate of hemodynamic stability.

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.

Shock - Classification and Pathophysiological Principles of Therapeutics

The management of patients with shock is extremely challenging because of the myriad of possible clinical presentations in cardiogenic shock, septic shock and hypovolemic shock and the limitations of contemporary therapeutic options. The treatment of shock includes the administration of endogenous catecholamines (epinephrine, norepinephrine, and dopamine) as well as various vasopressor agents that have shown efficacy in the treatment of the various types of shock. In addition to the endogenous catecholamines, dobutamine, isoproterenol, phenylephrine, and milrinone have served as the mainstays of shock therapy for several decades. Recently, experimental studies have suggested that newer agents such as vasopressin, selepressin, calcium-sensitizing agents like levosimendan, cardiac-specific myosin activators like omecamtiv mecarbil (OM), istaroxime, and natriuretic peptides like nesiritide can enhance shock therapy, especially when shock presents a more complex clinical picture than normal. However, their ability to improve clinical outcomes remains to be proven. It is the purpose of this review to describe the mechanism of action, dosage requirements, advantages and disadvantages, and specific indications and contraindications for the use of each of these catecholamines and vasopressors, as well as to elucidate the most important clinical trials that serve as the basis of contemporary shock therapy.

Timing of administration of epinephrine predicts the responsiveness to epinephrine in norepinephrine-refractory septic shock: a retrospective study

Background

Currently, the appropriate method of management of patients with refractory septic shock remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the factors associated with response to epinephrine in norepinephrine-refractory septic shock.

Methods

A retrospective single-center observational study was performed using data from adult patients (≥ 18 years old) admitted to our emergency and medical intensive care unit (ICU) from January 2014 to December 2017 who had received epinephrine to treat norepinephrine-refractory septic shock. The response was considered positive if there was increase in mean arterial pressure of 10 mmHg or decrease in arterial lactate level 3 h after epinephrine administration.

Results

Forty-one patients were included: 24 responders (59%) and 17 non-responders (41%). Responders showed higher rate of survival from shock (92% vs. 18%; P < 0.001), and 28-day survival (83% vs. 18%; P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, time of epinephrine administration after ICU admission (odds ratio [OR] 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27–0.87; P = 0.011) and SOFA score (OR 0.19; 95% CI 0.04–0.88; P = 0.034) were associated with epinephrine response. Time of epinephrine administration was also significantly associated with survival from shock (OR 0.42; P = 0.005) and 28-day survival (OR 0.14; P = 0.006), while SOFA score did not. Using inverse probability of treatment weighing (IPTW) adjustment of propensity score, epinephrine administration later than 24 h after ICU admission was associated with poor response (OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.02–0.21; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Early administration of epinephrine after ICU admission (i.e., within 24 h) is associated with better hemodynamic status in patients with refractory septic shock.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40560-019-0377-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Haemodynamic assessment and support in sepsis and septic shock in resource-limited settings

Background

Recommendations for haemodynamic assessment and support in sepsis and septic shock in resource-limited settings are largely lacking.

Methods

A task force of six international experts in critical care medicine, all of them members of the Global Intensive Care Working Group of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and with extensive bedside experience in resource-limited intensive care units, reviewed the literature and provided recommendations regarding haemodynamic assessment and support, keeping aspects of efficacy and effectiveness, availability and feasibility and affordability and safety in mind.

Results

We suggest using capillary refill time, skin mottling scores and skin temperature gradients; suggest a passive leg raise test to guide fluid resuscitation; recommend crystalloid solutions as the initial fluid of choice; recommend initial fluid resuscitation with 30 ml/kg in the first 3 h, but with extreme caution in settings where there is a lack of mechanical ventilation; recommend against an early start of vasopressors; suggest starting a vasopressor in patients with persistent hypotension after initial fluid resuscitation with at least 30 ml/kg, but earlier when there is lack of vasopressors and mechanical ventilation; recommend using norepinephrine (noradrenaline) as a first-line vasopressor; suggest starting an inotrope with persistence of plasma lactate >2 mmol/L or persistence of skin mottling or prolonged capillary refill time when plasma lactate cannot be measured, and only after initial fluid resuscitation; suggest the use of dobutamine as a first-line inotrope; recommend administering vasopressors through a central venous line and suggest administering vasopressors and inotropes via a central venous line using a syringe or infusion pump when available.

Conclusion

Recommendations for haemodynamic assessment and support in sepsis and septic shock in resource-limited settings have been developed by a task force of six international experts in critical care medicine with extensive practical experience in resource-limited settings.

Effect of Intra-arterial Balloon Pumping for Refractory Septic Cardiomyopathy: A Case Series

Background and aims

Patients with septic cardiomyopathy (SCM) occasionally develop refractory cardiogenic shock, which is difficult to resolve even with the administration of standard dose of catecholamines. Although venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has recently been reported with good treatment results, there have been no evidence-based practices. Furthermore, severe SCM may be fatal if the blood pressure cannot be increased. This case series explored whether the application of intra-arterial balloon pumping (IABP) is an effective method for increasing blood pressure in patients with severe SCM.

Subjects and methods

Over a 58-month period, all patients who were admitted in the emergency and critical care center and managed with IABP were investigated. Among these, data sets of patients diagnosed with SCM were evaluated retrospectively.

Results

Ten patients were included in this analysis. Their mean APACHE II and SOFA scores were 26.8±7.9 and 13.9±1.7, respectively. A mean arterial pressure (MAP) increase of more than 30% was achieved in six patients, and a decrease in catecholamine index was observed in five. The effective group consisted of seven patients. The stroke volume increased in 83% of patients who were equipped with pulmonary artery or transpulmonary thermodilution catheter. Low heart rate and regular heart rhythm may be important factors for the effectiveness of IABP for cardiogenic shock caused by refractory SCM.

Conclusion

Intra-arterial balloon pumping may be able to raise MAP in refractory SCM patients even with septic shock by an increase in cardiac output.

How to cite this article

Takahashi Y, Sonoo T, et al. Effect of Intra-arterial Balloon Pumping for Refractory Septic Cardiomyopathy: A Case Series. Indian J Crit Care Med 2019;23(4):182–185.

Scandinavian SSAI clinical practice guideline on choice of inotropic agent for patients with acute circulatory failure

Background

Adult critically ill patients often suffer from acute circulatory failure and those with low cardiac output may be treated with inotropic agents. The aim of this Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine guideline was to present patient‐important treatment recommendations on this topic.

Methods

This guideline was developed according to GRADE. We assessed the following subpopulations of patients with shock: (1) shock in general, (2) septic shock, (3) cardiogenic shock, (4) hypovolemic shock, (5) shock after cardiac surgery, and (6) other types of shock, including vasodilatory shock. We assessed patient‐important outcome measures, including mortality and serious adverse reactions.

Results

For all patients, we suggest against the routine use of any inotropic agent, including dobutamine, as compared to placebo/no treatment (very low quality of evidence). For patients with shock in general, and in those with septic and other types of shock, we suggest using dobutamine rather than levosimendan or epinephrine (very low quality of evidence). For patients with cardiogenic shock and in those with shock after cardiac surgery, we suggest using dobutamine rather than milrinone (very low quality of evidence). For the other clinical questions, we refrained from giving any recommendations or suggestions.

Conclusions

We suggest against the routine use of any inotropic agent in adult patients with shock. If used, we suggest using dobutamine rather than other inotropic agents for the majority of patients, however, the quality of evidence was very low, implying high uncertainty on the balance between the benefits and harms of inotropic agents.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 and published in the Journal of JSICM, [2017; Volume 24 (supplement 2)] 10.3918/jsicm.24S0001 and Journal of Japanese Association for Acute Medicine [2017; Volume 28, (supplement 1)] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jja2.2017.28.issue-S1/issuetoc.This abridged English edition of the J-SSCG 2016 was produced with permission from the Japanese Association of Acute Medicine and the Japanese Society for Intensive Care Medicine.

METHODS

Members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ) and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two-thirds (> 66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members.

RESULTS

A total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J-SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation, and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta-analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty-seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for five CQs.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese-specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non-specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals.

Vasopressors in Sepsis

BACKGROUND

Sepsis accounts for 10% of intensive care unit admissions and significant healthcare costs. Although the mortality rate from sepsis has been decreasing with better critical care, early identification of septic patients, and prompt interventions, the mortality rate remains 20%-30%.

METHOD

Review of the English-language literature.

RESULTS

Norepinephrine is the first-line vasopressor in shock and is associated with a lower mortality rate as well as fewer adverse effects. Dopamine has similar actions but is associated with significantly more tachydysrhythmias and should be reserved for patients with bradycardia. Epinephrine and vasopressin are appropriate second-line vasopressors and may enable use of lower doses of norepinephrine while improving hemodynamics. Inotropes may be added in patients with cardiac dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

Appropriate treatment of sepsis includes prompt identification, early antimicrobial drug therapy, appropriate fluid resuscitation, and initiation of vasopressors in the presence of continued septic shock. Further research needs to be done to better understand the ideal timing of the addition of a second agent and the optimal combinations of vasopressors for individual patients.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016)

Background and Purpose

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 in Japanese. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version.

Methods

Members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ), and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two-thirds (>66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members.

Results

A total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J-SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta-analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for 5 CQs.

Conclusions

Based on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese-specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non-specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals.

Comparative safety and efficacy of vasopressors for mortality in septic shock: A network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Septic shock is a life-threatening condition requiring vasopressor agents to support the circulatory system. Several agents exist with choice typically guided by the specific clinical scenario. We used a network meta-analysis approach to rate the comparative efficacy and safety of vasopressors for mortality and arrhythmia incidence in septic shock patients.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive electronic database search including Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and the Cochrane database. Randomised trials investigating vasopressor agents in septic shock patients and specifically assessing 28-day mortality or arrhythmia incidence were included. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials of low to moderate risk of bias in which 3146 patients were randomised were included. There was no pairwise evidence to suggest one agent was superior over another for mortality. In the network meta-analysis, vasopressin was significantly superior to dopamine (OR 0.68 (95% CI 0.5 to 0.94)) for mortality. For arrhythmia incidence, standard pairwise meta-analyses confirmed that dopamine led to a higher incidence of arrhythmias than norepinephrine (OR 2.69 (95% CI 2.08 to 3.47)). In the network meta-analysis, there was no evidence of superiority of one agent over another.

CONCLUSIONS

In this network meta-analysis, vasopressin was superior to dopamine for 28-day mortality in septic shock. Existing pairwise information supports the use of norepinephrine over dopamine. Our findings suggest that dopamine should be avoided in patients with septic shock and that other vasopressor agents should continue to be based on existing guidelines and clinical judgement of the specific presentation of the patient.

Vasopressors in septic shock: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective

Vasopressor agents are often prescribed in septic shock. However, their effects remain controversial. We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the effects among different types of vasopressor agents.

Data sources

We searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from database inception until December 2014.

Study selection

Randomized controlled trials in adults with septic shock that evaluated different vasopressor agents were selected.

Data extraction

Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes.

Data synthesis

Twenty-one trials (n=3,819) met inclusion criteria, which compared eleven vasopressor agents or vasopressor combinations (norepinephrine [NE], dopamine [DA], vasopressin [VP], epinephrine [EN], terlipressin [TP], phenylephrine [PE], TP+NE, TP + dobutamine [DB], NE+DB, NE+EN, and NE + dopexamine [DX]). Except for the superiority of NE over DA, the mortality of patients treated with any vasopressor agent or vasopressor combination was not significantly different. Compared to DA, NE was found to be associated with decreased cardiac adverse events, heart rate (standardized mean difference [SMD]: −2.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −3.95, −0.25; P=0.03), and cardiac index (SMD: −0.73; 95% CI: −1.14, −0.03; P=0.004) and increased systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) (SMD: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.61, 1.45; P<0.0001). This Bayesian meta-analysis revealed a possible rank of probability of mortality among the eleven vasopressor agents or vasopressor combinations; from lowest to highest, they are NE+DB, EN, TP, NE+EN, TP+NE, VP, TP+DB, NE, PE, NE+DX, and DA.

Conclusion

In terms of survival, NE may be superior to DA. Otherwise, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that any other vasopressor agent or vasopressor combination is superior to another. When compared to DA, NE is associated with decreased heart rate, cardiac index, and cardiovascular adverse events, as well as increased SVRI. The effects of vasopressor agents or vasopressor combinations on mortality in patients with septic shock require further investigation.

Vasopressor and Inotropic Management Of Patients With Septic Shock

Numerous studies have evaluated the role of vasopressors and inotropes in the management of septic shock. This review assesses available evidence for the use of specific vasopressors in the management of septic shock. Use of adjunctive vasopressor therapy is also evaluated, examining the potential value of individual agents. Lastly, inotropic agents are evaluated for use in patients with myocardial dysfunction.

Pharmacotherapy Update on the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes in the Intensive Care Unit

This paper summarizes the pharmacologic properties of vasoactive medications used in the treatment of shock, including the inotropes and vasopressors. The clinical application of these therapies is discussed and recent studies describing their use and associated outcomes are also reported. Comprehension of hemodynamic principles and adrenergic and non-adrenergic receptor mechanisms are salient to the appropriate therapeutic utility of vasoactive medications for shock. Vasoactive medications can be classified based on their direct effects on vascular tone (vasoconstriction or vasodilation) and on the heart (presence or absence of positive inotropic effects). This classification highlights key similarities and differences with respect to pharmacology and hemodynamic effects. Vasopressors include pure vasoconstrictors (phenylephrine and vasopressin) and inoconstrictors (dopamine, norepinephrine, and epinephrine). Each of these medications acts as vasopressors to increase mean arterial pressure by augmenting vascular tone. Inotropes include inodilators (dobutamine and milrinone) and the aforementioned inoconstrictors. These medications act as inotropes by enhancing cardiac output through enhanced contractility. The inodilators also reduce afterload from systemic vasodilation. The relative hemodynamic effect of each agent varies depending on the dose administered, but is particularly apparent with dopamine. Recent large-scale clinical trials have evaluated vasopressors and determined that norepinephrine may be preferred as a first-line therapy for a broad range of shock states, most notably septic shock. Consequently, careful selection of vasoactive medications based on desired pharmacologic effects that are matched to the patient's underlying pathophysiology of shock may optimize hemodynamics while reducing the potential for adverse effects.