-
Current Cardiology Reviews 2019The management of patients with shock is extremely challenging because of the myriad of possible clinical presentations in cardiogenic shock, septic shock and... (Review)
Review
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.
Topics: Humans; Shock; Shock, Cardiogenic; Shock, Septic; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 30543176
DOI: 10.2174/1573403X15666181212125024 -
EBioMedicine Dec 2022Management of the patient with sepsis comprises three key branches: control of the underlying infection, haemodynamic stabilization, and modulation of the host response.... (Review)
Review
Management of the patient with sepsis comprises three key branches: control of the underlying infection, haemodynamic stabilization, and modulation of the host response. Each aspect should be considered in all patients and, when relevant, managed at the same time. Infection control is applicable to all patients with sepsis and will include antibiotic therapy and often surgical intervention to remove an infectious source. Haemodynamic support involves fluid administration in all patients and vasoactive agents in patients with associated circulatory shock. Noradrenaline is the first choice vasopressor agent; inotropic agents, usually dobutamine, may be added in case of myocardial depression. No interventions directed at individual components of the host response to sepsis have yet been shown to improve outcomes, but glucocorticoids and vasopressin have a global impact on the response and can thus be considered in this category. A move toward more personalized treatment is needed across all three arms of sepsis management.
Topics: Humans; Shock, Septic; Sepsis; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Hemodynamics; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 36470828
DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104318 -
Romanian Journal of Internal Medicine =... Sep 2020Sepsis is an overwhelming reaction to infection that comes with high morbidity and mortality, which requires urgent interventions in order to improve outcomes. Surviving... (Review)
Review
Sepsis is an overwhelming reaction to infection that comes with high morbidity and mortality, which requires urgent interventions in order to improve outcomes. Surviving Sepsis is an international campaign that aims to improve sepsis outcomes. The 2016 guideline modifies the previous definition of sepsis and proposes some specific diagnostic and therapeutic measures, such as the protocolized use of fluid resuscitation and antibiotics. We aim to summarize the main recommendations of the 2016 guideline that are relevant to the internist and evidence-base update them to the year 2020. In the current context, this review doesn't address patients affected by SARS-COV2 induced disease.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Biomarkers; Fluid Therapy; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Sepsis; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 32396142
DOI: 10.2478/rjim-2020-0012 -
Critical Care (London, England) Mar 2023Methylene blue (MB) has been tested as a rescue therapy for patients with refractory septic shock. However, there is a lack of evidence on MB as an adjuvant therapy,... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
PURPOSE
Methylene blue (MB) has been tested as a rescue therapy for patients with refractory septic shock. However, there is a lack of evidence on MB as an adjuvant therapy, its' optimal timing, dosing and safety profile. We aimed to assess whether early adjunctive MB can reduce time to vasopressor discontinuation in patients with septic shock.
METHODS
In this single-center randomized controlled trial, we assigned patients with septic shock according to Sepsis-3 criteria to MB or placebo. Primary outcome was time to vasopressor discontinuation at 28 days. Secondary outcomes included vasopressor-free days at 28 days, days on mechanical ventilator, length of stay in ICU and hospital, and mortality at 28 days.
RESULTS
Among 91 randomized patients, forty-five were assigned to MB and 46 to placebo. The MB group had a shorter time to vasopressor discontinuation (69 h [IQR 59-83] vs 94 h [IQR 74-141]; p < 0.001), one more day of vasopressor-free days at day 28 (p = 0.008), a shorter ICU length of stay by 1.5 days (p = 0.039) and shorter hospital length of stay by 2.7 days (p = 0.027) compared to patients in the control group. Days on mechanical ventilator and mortality were similar. There were no serious adverse effects related to MB administration.
CONCLUSION
In patients with septic shock, MB initiated within 24 h reduced time to vasopressor discontinuation and increased vasopressor-free days at 28 days. It also reduced length of stay in ICU and hospital without adverse effects. Our study supports further research regarding MB in larger randomized clinical trials. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT04446871 , June 25, 2020, retrospectively registered.
Topics: Humans; Shock, Septic; Methylene Blue; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Sepsis
PubMed: 36915146
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-023-04397-7 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Feb 2023Intravenous fluids and vasopressor agents are commonly used in early resuscitation of patients with sepsis, but comparative data for prioritizing their delivery are... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Intravenous fluids and vasopressor agents are commonly used in early resuscitation of patients with sepsis, but comparative data for prioritizing their delivery are limited.
METHODS
In an unblinded superiority trial conducted at 60 U.S. centers, we randomly assigned patients to either a restrictive fluid strategy (prioritizing vasopressors and lower intravenous fluid volumes) or a liberal fluid strategy (prioritizing higher volumes of intravenous fluids before vasopressor use) for a 24-hour period. Randomization occurred within 4 hours after a patient met the criteria for sepsis-induced hypotension refractory to initial treatment with 1 to 3 liters of intravenous fluid. We hypothesized that all-cause mortality before discharge home by day 90 (primary outcome) would be lower with a restrictive fluid strategy than with a liberal fluid strategy. Safety was also assessed.
RESULTS
A total of 1563 patients were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Resuscitation therapies that were administered during the 24-hour protocol period differed between the two groups; less intravenous fluid was administered in the restrictive fluid group than in the liberal fluid group (difference of medians, -2134 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2318 to -1949), whereas the restrictive fluid group had earlier, more prevalent, and longer duration of vasopressor use. Death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 occurred in 109 patients (14.0%) in the restrictive fluid group and in 116 patients (14.9%) in the liberal fluid group (estimated difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.4 to 2.6; P = 0.61); 5 patients in the restrictive fluid group and 4 patients in the liberal fluid group had their data censored (lost to follow-up). The number of reported serious adverse events was similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Among patients with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CLOVERS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434028.).
Topics: Humans; Fluid Therapy; Sepsis; Hypotension; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 36688507
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2212663 -
Internal and Emergency Medicine Sep 2021Early management of sepsis and septic shock is crucial for patients' prognosis. As the Emergency Department (ED) is the place where the first medical contact for septic... (Review)
Review
Early management of sepsis and septic shock is crucial for patients' prognosis. As the Emergency Department (ED) is the place where the first medical contact for septic patients is likely to occur, emergency physicians play an essential role in the early phases of patient management, which consists of accurate initial diagnosis, resuscitation, and early antibiotic treatment. Since the issuing of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines in 2016, several studies have been published on different aspects of sepsis management, adding a substantial amount of new information on the pathophysiology and treatment of sepsis and septic shock. In light of this emerging evidence, the present narrative review provides a comprehensive account of the recent advances in septic patient management in the ED.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Disease Management; Emergency Service, Hospital; Fluid Therapy; Humans; Monitoring, Physiologic; Resuscitation; Sepsis; Shock, Septic; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 33890208
DOI: 10.1007/s11739-021-02735-7 -
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 -
Critical Care (London, England) Dec 2022Although guidelines provide excellent expert guidance for managing patients with septic shock, they leave room for personalization according to patients' condition.... (Review)
Review
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.
Topics: Humans; Angiotensin II; Hemodynamic Monitoring; Hemodynamics; Lactates; Shock, Septic; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Precision Medicine
PubMed: 36457089
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-022-04255-y -
American Journal of Respiratory and... May 2023Sepsis causes significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Resuscitation is a cornerstone of management. This review covers five areas of evolving practice in the... (Review)
Review
Sepsis causes significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Resuscitation is a cornerstone of management. This review covers five areas of evolving practice in the management of early sepsis-induced hypoperfusion: fluid resuscitation volume, timing of vasopressor initiation, resuscitation targets, route of vasopressor administration, and use of invasive blood pressure monitoring. For each topic, we review the seminal evidence, discuss the evolution of practice over time, and highlight questions for additional research. Intravenous fluids are a core component of early sepsis resuscitation. However, with growing concerns about the harms of fluid, practice is evolving toward smaller-volume resuscitation, which is often paired with earlier vasopressor initiation. Large trials of fluid-restrictive, vasopressor-early strategies are providing more information about the safety and potential benefit of these approaches. Lowering blood pressure targets is a means to prevent fluid overload and reduce exposure to vasopressors; mean arterial pressure targets of 60-65 mm Hg appear to be safe, at least in older patients. With the trend toward earlier vasopressor initiation, the need for central administration of vasopressors has been questioned, and peripheral vasopressor use is increasing, although it is not universally accepted. Similarly, although guidelines suggest the use of invasive blood pressure monitoring with arterial catheters in patients receiving vasopressors, blood pressure cuffs are less invasive and often sufficient. Overall, the management of early sepsis-induced hypoperfusion is evolving toward fluid-sparing and less-invasive strategies. However, many questions remain, and additional data are needed to further optimize our approach to resuscitation.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Sepsis; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Fluid Therapy; Blood Pressure; Hypotension; Resuscitation; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 36812500
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.202209-1831CI -
Emergency Medicine Australasia : EMA Apr 2020Vasopressor medications have traditionally been administered via central venous catheters (CVCs), primarily due to concerns of peripheral extravasation of...
OBJECTIVE
Vasopressor medications have traditionally been administered via central venous catheters (CVCs), primarily due to concerns of peripheral extravasation of vasoconstrictive medications. Recent studies have suggested that vasopressor administration via peripheral intravenous catheters (PiVCs) may be a feasible and safe alternative. This systematic review evaluates the safety of delivering vasopressor medications via PiVCs.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review to assess the frequency of complications associated with the delivery of vasopressors via PiVCs. A literature search for prospective and retrospective studies of vasopressor infusions in adults was performed. We included studies of continuous infusions of vasopressor medications (noradrenaline, adrenaline, metaraminol, phenylephrine, dopamine and vasopressin) delivered via a PiVCs that included at least 20 patients. Data on patient factors, cannulation approach, monitoring protocols, vasopressor dosing and dilutions and adverse events were collected and summarised.
RESULTS
Seven studies were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including 1382 patients. No study fulfilled all of the validity criteria. Noradrenaline was the most commonly administered agent (n = 702 episodes of administration), followed by phenylephrine (n = 546), dopamine (n = 108), metaraminol (n = 74) and vasopressin and adrenaline (<5 patients). Mean duration of infusion was 22 h (95% confidence interval [CI] 8-36 h). Extravasation occurred in 3.4% (95% CI 2.5-4.7%) of patients. There were no reported episodes of tissue necrosis or limb ischaemia. All extravasation events were successfully managed conservatively or with vasodilatory medications.
CONCLUSIONS
Reports of the administration of vasopressors via PiVCs, when given for a limited duration, under close observation, suggest that extravasation is uncommon and is unlikely to lead to major complications.
Topics: Adult; Catheterization, Peripheral; Humans; Hypotension; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 31698544
DOI: 10.1111/1742-6723.13406