-
Intensive Care Medicine Jun 2018We set out to summarize the current knowledge on vasoactive drugs and their use in the management of shock to inform physicians' practices. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
We set out to summarize the current knowledge on vasoactive drugs and their use in the management of shock to inform physicians' practices.
METHODS
This is a narrative review by a multidisciplinary, multinational-from six continents-panel of experts including physicians, a pharmacist, trialists, and scientists.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Vasoactive drugs are an essential part of shock management. Catecholamines are the most commonly used vasoactive agents in the intensive care unit, and among them norepinephrine is the first-line therapy in most clinical conditions. Inotropes are indicated when myocardial function is depressed and dobutamine remains the first-line therapy. Vasoactive drugs have a narrow therapeutic spectrum and expose the patients to potentially lethal complications. Thus, these agents require precise therapeutic targets, close monitoring with titration to the minimal efficacious dose and should be weaned as promptly as possible. Moreover, the use of vasoactive drugs in shock requires an individualized approach. Vasopressin and possibly angiotensin II may be useful owing to their norepinephrine-sparing effects.
Topics: Cardiotonic Agents; Dobutamine; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Norepinephrine; Shock; Shock, Septic; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 29868972
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-018-5242-5 -
Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology... May 2015This paper summarizes the pharmacologic properties of vasoactive medications used in the treatment of shock, including the inotropes and vasopressors. The clinical... (Review)
Review
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.
Topics: Cardiotonic Agents; Dobutamine; Hemodynamics; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Milrinone; Receptors, Adrenergic; Shock; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 25432872
DOI: 10.1177/1074248414559838 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Aug 2021Cardiogenic shock is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Although inotropic support is a mainstay of medical therapy for cardiogenic shock, little... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Cardiogenic shock is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Although inotropic support is a mainstay of medical therapy for cardiogenic shock, little evidence exists to guide the selection of inotropic agents in clinical practice.
METHODS
We randomly assigned patients with cardiogenic shock to receive milrinone or dobutamine in a double-blind fashion. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death from any cause, resuscitated cardiac arrest, receipt of a cardiac transplant or mechanical circulatory support, nonfatal myocardial infarction, transient ischemic attack or stroke diagnosed by a neurologist, or initiation of renal replacement therapy. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary composite outcome.
RESULTS
A total of 192 participants (96 in each group) were enrolled. The treatment groups did not differ significantly with respect to the primary outcome; a primary outcome event occurred in 47 participants (49%) in the milrinone group and in 52 participants (54%) in the dobutamine group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.19; P = 0.47). There were also no significant differences between the groups with respect to secondary outcomes, including in-hospital death (37% and 43% of the participants, respectively; relative risk, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.21), resuscitated cardiac arrest (7% and 9%; hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.29 to 2.07), receipt of mechanical circulatory support (12% and 15%; hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.71), or initiation of renal replacement therapy (22% and 17%; hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.73 to 2.67).
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with cardiogenic shock, no significant difference between milrinone and dobutamine was found with respect to the primary composite outcome or important secondary outcomes. (Funded by the Innovation Fund of the Alternative Funding Plan for the Academic Health Sciences Centres of Ontario; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03207165.).
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Agonists; Aged; Cardiotonic Agents; Comorbidity; Dobutamine; Double-Blind Method; Female; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Milrinone; Phosphodiesterase 3 Inhibitors; Shock, Cardiogenic
PubMed: 34347952
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2026845 -
Current Opinion in Critical Care Aug 2022Despite increasing interest in the management of cardiogenic shock (CS), mortality rates remain unacceptably high. The mainstay of supportive treatment includes... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Despite increasing interest in the management of cardiogenic shock (CS), mortality rates remain unacceptably high. The mainstay of supportive treatment includes vasopressors and inotropes. These medications are recommended in international guidelines and are widely used despite limited evidence supporting safety and efficacy in CS.
RECENT FINDINGS
The OptimaCC trial further supports that norepinephrine should continue to be the first-line vasopressor of choice in CS. The CAPITAL DOREMI trial found that milrinone is not superior to dobutamine in reducing morbidity and mortality in CS. Two studies currently underway will offer the first evidence of the necessity of inotrope therapy in placebo-controlled trials: CAPITAL DOREMI2 will randomize CS patients to inotrope or placebo in the initial resuscitation of shock to evaluate the efficacy of inotrope therapy and LevoHeartShock will examine the efficacy of levosimendan against placebo in early CS requiring vasopressor therapy.
SUMMARY
Review of the current literature fails to show significant mortality benefit with any specific vasopressor or inotropic in CS patients. The upcoming DOREMI 2 and levosimendan versus placebo trials will further tackle the question of inotrope necessity in CS. At this time, inotrope selection should be guided by physician experience, availability, cost, and most importantly, individual patients' response to therapy.
Topics: Cardiotonic Agents; Dobutamine; Humans; Shock, Cardiogenic; Simendan; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 35792520
DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000957 -
Current Opinion in Critical Care Aug 2021To discuss the use of vasopressors and inotropes in cardiogenic shock. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
To discuss the use of vasopressors and inotropes in cardiogenic shock.
RECENT FINDINGS
The classic form or cardiogenic shock requires administration of inotropic and/or vasopressor agents to try to improve the impaired tissue perfusion. Among vasopressors various alpha-adrenergic agents, vasopressin derivatives and angiotensin can be used. The first-line therapy remains norepinephrine as it is associated with minimal adverse effects and appears to be associated by the best outcome in network meta-analyses. On the contrary, epinephrine is associated with an increased incidence of refractory shock and observational studies suggest an increased risk of death. Vasopressin may be an excellent alternative in tachycardiac patients or in the presence of pulmonary hypertension. Concerning inotropic agents, dobutamine is the first-line agent but levosimendan is an excellent alternative or additional agent in cases not responding to dobutamine. The impact on outcome of inotropic agents remains controversial.
SUMMARY
Recent studies have refined the position of the various vasopressor and inotropic agents. Norepinephrine is recommended as first-line vasopressor agent by various guidelines. Among inotropic agents, selection between the agents should be individualized and based on the hemodynamic response.
Topics: Cardiotonic Agents; Cardiovascular Agents; Dobutamine; Humans; Shock; Shock, Cardiogenic; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 33797431
DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000822 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Oct 2014Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) has been endorsed in the guidelines of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign as a key strategy to decrease mortality among patients presenting... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) has been endorsed in the guidelines of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign as a key strategy to decrease mortality among patients presenting to the emergency department with septic shock. However, its effectiveness is uncertain.
METHODS
In this trial conducted at 51 centers (mostly in Australia or New Zealand), we randomly assigned patients presenting to the emergency department with early septic shock to receive either EGDT or usual care. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 90 days after randomization.
RESULTS
Of the 1600 enrolled patients, 796 were assigned to the EGDT group and 804 to the usual-care group. Primary outcome data were available for more than 99% of the patients. Patients in the EGDT group received a larger mean (±SD) volume of intravenous fluids in the first 6 hours after randomization than did those in the usual-care group (1964±1415 ml vs. 1713±1401 ml) and were more likely to receive vasopressor infusions (66.6% vs. 57.8%), red-cell transfusions (13.6% vs. 7.0%), and dobutamine (15.4% vs. 2.6%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). At 90 days after randomization, 147 deaths had occurred in the EGDT group and 150 had occurred in the usual-care group, for rates of death of 18.6% and 18.8%, respectively (absolute risk difference with EGDT vs. usual care, -0.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -4.1 to 3.6; P=0.90). There was no significant difference in survival time, in-hospital mortality, duration of organ support, or length of hospital stay.
CONCLUSIONS
In critically ill patients presenting to the emergency department with early septic shock, EGDT did not reduce all-cause mortality at 90 days. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Alfred Foundation; ARISE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00975793.).
Topics: Adult; Aged; Combined Modality Therapy; Critical Illness; Dobutamine; Emergency Service, Hospital; Erythrocyte Transfusion; Female; Fluid Therapy; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Renal Replacement Therapy; Respiration, Artificial; Shock, Septic; Survival Analysis; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 25272316
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1404380 -
Circulation May 2023Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have emerged as a paramount treatment for patients with heart failure (HF), irrespective of underlying reduced or... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have emerged as a paramount treatment for patients with heart failure (HF), irrespective of underlying reduced or preserved ejection fraction. However, a definite cardiac mechanism of action remains elusive. Derangements in myocardial energy metabolism are detectable in all HF phenotypes, and it was proposed that SGLT2i may improve energy production. The authors aimed to investigate whether treatment with empagliflozin leads to changes in myocardial energetics, serum metabolomics, and cardiorespiratory fitness.
METHODS
EMPA-VISION (Assessment of Cardiac Energy Metabolism, Function and Physiology in Patients With Heart Failure Taking Empagliflozin) is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, mechanistic trial that enrolled 72 symptomatic patients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; n=36; left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%; New York Heart Association class ≥II; NT-proBNP [N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide] ≥125 pg/mL) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF; n=36; left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%; New York Heart Association class ≥II; NT-proBNP ≥125 pg/mL). Patients were stratified into respective cohorts (HFrEF versus HFpEF) and randomly assigned to empagliflozin (10 mg; n=35: 17 HFrEF and 18 HFpEF) or placebo (n=37: 19 HFrEF and 18 HFpEF) once daily for 12 weeks. The primary end point was a change in the cardiac phosphocreatine:ATP ratio (PCr/ATP) from baseline to week 12, determined by phosphorus magnetic resonance spectroscopy at rest and during peak dobutamine stress (65% of age-maximum heart rate). Mass spectrometry on a targeted set of 19 metabolites was performed at baseline and after treatment. Other exploratory end points were investigated.
RESULTS
Empagliflozin treatment did not change cardiac energetics (ie, PCr/ATP) at rest in HFrEF (adjusted mean treatment difference [empagliflozin - placebo], -0.25 [95% CI, -0.58 to 0.09]; =0.14) or HFpEF (adjusted mean treatment difference, -0.16 [95% CI, -0.60 to 0.29]; =0.47]. Likewise, there were no changes in PCr/ATP during dobutamine stress in HFrEF (adjusted mean treatment difference, -0.13 [95% CI, -0.35 to 0.09]; =0.23) or HFpEF (adjusted mean treatment difference, -0.22 [95% CI, -0.66 to 0.23]; =0.32). No changes in serum metabolomics or levels of circulating ketone bodies were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with either HFrEF or HFpEF, treatment with 10 mg of empagliflozin once daily for 12 weeks did not improve cardiac energetics or change circulating serum metabolites associated with energy metabolism when compared with placebo. Based on our results, it is unlikely that enhancing cardiac energy metabolism mediates the beneficial effects of SGLT2i in HF.
REGISTRATION
URL: https://www.
CLINICALTRIALS
gov; Unique identifier: NCT03332212.
Topics: Humans; Heart Failure; Stroke Volume; Ventricular Function, Left; Prospective Studies; Dobutamine; Energy Metabolism; Adenosine Triphosphate
PubMed: 37070436
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.062021 -
Current Problems in Cardiology Aug 2023This study aims to evaluate the difference between dobutamine and milrinone in patients presenting with acute decompensated heart failure (AHF). Inotropes are indicated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study aims to evaluate the difference between dobutamine and milrinone in patients presenting with acute decompensated heart failure (AHF). Inotropes are indicated for treating AHF, especially in patients with concomitant hypoperfusion indicative of cardiogenic shock. However, previous studies have not identified the optimal inotrope. We sought to compare outcomes associated with milrinone versus dobutamine in patients with AHF. A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant trials from inception to August 2021. Our primary outcome of interest was mortality. Analysis was sub-categorized according to subpopulation, including AHF, AHF with cardiogenic shock (AHF-shock), AHF with a bridge to transplantation, and AHF with destination therapy. Summary effects were calculated using a fixed-effects model as risk ratio or mean difference with 95% confidence intervals for all the clinical endpoints. Ten studies, including one randomized controlled trial with 21,106 patients, were included in the analysis (4918 patients were in the Milrinone group, while 15188 were in the Dobutamine group). Milrinone was associated with a lower risk of mortality in patients with AHF (relative risk 0.87; confidence interval :0.79-0.97; P < 0.05, heterogeneity I² = 0%) with event rates of 9.4% vs 9.8% (number needed to treat of 250). Milrinone was also associated with improved mortality with relative risk 0.76 (0.79-0.95; P < 0.05) in patients with AHF with destination therapy. There was a non-significant trend towards improved mortality in AHF-shock patients. However, AHF with a bridge to transplantation patients had a non-significant trend towards improved mortality with dobutamine. There was no difference between the 2 strategies for the outcomes of acute kidney injury, initiation of renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilation, arrhythmias, symptomatic hypotension, and length of hospital stay in the overall population. Intensive care unit length of hospital stay was lower in AHF-shock patients in the milrinone group, whereas dobutamine was associated with a lower length of intensive care unit stay in AHF patients. The cumulative data comparing milrinone with dobutamine indicate an overall marginal benefit of milrinone compared to dobutamine in the totality of patients with AFH with or without cardiogenic shock, and whether or not they are bridged to transplantation or destination assist device. More appropriately powered prospective studies are needed to identify a conclusive benefit of one inotrope over another.
Topics: Humans; Dobutamine; Milrinone; Shock, Cardiogenic; Cardiotonic Agents; Retrospective Studies; Heart Failure; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35545181
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2022.101245 -
Shock (Augusta, Ga.) Dec 2023Background: 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... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
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.
Topics: Humans; Shock, Septic; Dopamine; Terlipressin; Dobutamine; Network Meta-Analysis; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Epinephrine; Norepinephrine; Vasopressins; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Ischemia; Myocardial Infarction
PubMed: 37548686
DOI: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000002193 -
Clinics in Perinatology Sep 2020Primary function of cardiovascular system is to meet body's metabolic demands. The aim of inotrope therapy is to minimise adverse impact of cardiovascular compromise.... (Review)
Review
Primary function of cardiovascular system is to meet body's metabolic demands. The aim of inotrope therapy is to minimise adverse impact of cardiovascular compromise. Current use of inotropes is primarily guided by the pathophysiology of cardiovascular compromise and anticipated actions of inotropes. Lack of significant reduction in morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular compromise despite inotrope use, highlights major gaps in our understanding of circulatory targets, thresholds and choices of inotrope therapy. Thus far, prevention of cardiovascular compromise remains the most effective strategy to optimize outcomes. Studies of alternative design are needed for further advancement in cardiovascular therapy in neonates.
Topics: Cardiac Output; Cardiotonic Agents; Dobutamine; Dopamine; Echocardiography; Epinephrine; Heart; Humans; Hypotension; Infant, Newborn; Lactic Acid; Milrinone; Norepinephrine; Perfusion Index; Skin; Spectroscopy, Near-Infrared; Ultrasonography; Urination; Vasopressins
PubMed: 32713449
DOI: 10.1016/j.clp.2020.05.010