-
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Chest Mar 2023Septic shock is defined by the need for vasopressor agents to correct hypotension and lactic acidosis resulting from infection, with 30%-40% case fatality rates. The... (Review)
Review
Septic shock is defined by the need for vasopressor agents to correct hypotension and lactic acidosis resulting from infection, with 30%-40% case fatality rates. The care of patients with worsening septic shock involves multiple treatment decisions involving vasopressor choices and adjunctive treatments. In this edition of "How I Do It", we provide a case-based discussion of common clinical decisions regarding choice of first-line vasopressor, BP targets, route of vasopressor delivery, use of secondary vasopressors, and adjunctive medications. We also consider diagnostic approaches, treatment, and monitoring strategies for the patient with worsening shock, as well as approaches to difficult weaning of vasopressors.
Topics: Humans; Shock, Septic; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Hypotension; Causality; Adrenal Cortex Hormones
PubMed: 36162481
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2022.09.019 -
Pharmacotherapy Apr 2023Extravasation is the leakage of intravenous solutions into surrounding tissues, which can be influenced by drug properties, infusion techniques, and patient-related risk... (Review)
Review
Management of noncytotoxic extravasation injuries: A focused update on medications, treatment strategies, and peripheral administration of vasopressors and hypertonic saline.
Extravasation is the leakage of intravenous solutions into surrounding tissues, which can be influenced by drug properties, infusion techniques, and patient-related risk factors. Although peripheral administration of vesicants may increase the risk of extravasation injuries, the time and resources required for central venous catheter placement may delay administration of time-sensitive therapies. Recent literature gathered from the growing use of peripheral vasopressors and hypertonic sodium suggests low risk of harm for initiating these emergent therapies peripherally, which may prevent delays and improve patient outcomes. Physiochemical causes of tissue injury include vasoconstriction, pH-mediated, osmolar-mediated, and cytotoxic mechanisms of extravasation injuries. Acidic agents, such as promethazine, amiodarone, and vancomycin, may cause edema, sloughing, and necrosis secondary to cellular desiccation. Alternatively, basic agents, such as phenytoin and acyclovir, may be more caustic due to deeper tissue penetration of the dissociated hydroxide ions. Osmotically active agents cause cellular damage as a result of osmotic shifts across cellular membranes in addition to agent-specific toxicities, such as calcium-induced vasoconstriction and calcifications or arginine-induced leakage of potassium causing apoptosis. A new category has been proposed to identify absorption-refractory mechanisms of injury in which agents such as propofol and lipids may persist in the extravasated space and cause necrosis or compartment syndrome. Pharmacological antidotes may be useful in select extravasations but requires prompt recognition and frequently complex administration strategies. Historically, intradermal phentolamine has been the preferred agent for vasopressor extravasations, but frequent supply shortages have led to the emergence of terbutaline, a β -agonist, as an acceptable alternative treatment option. For hyperosmolar and pH-related mechanisms of injuries, hyaluronidase is most commonly used to facilitate absorption and dispersion of injected agents. However, extravasation management is largely supportive and requires a protocolized multidisciplinary approach for early detection, treatment, and timely surgical referral when required to minimize adverse events.
Topics: Vasoconstrictor Agents; Saline Solution, Hypertonic; Extravasation of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Materials; Risk Factors; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Vasoconstriction; Humans
PubMed: 36938775
DOI: 10.1002/phar.2794 -
Emergency Medicine Clinics of North... Feb 2022Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening, multisystem allergic reaction that can cause airway, breathing, or circulatory compromise. Intramuscular epinephrine is... (Review)
Review
Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening, multisystem allergic reaction that can cause airway, breathing, or circulatory compromise. Intramuscular epinephrine is the immediate treatment of all patients. Intravenous epinephrine should be used in patients in shock, either as a bolus or infusion, along with fluid resuscitation. Airway obstruction must be recognized, and early intubation may be necessary. For shock that is refractory to epinephrine, additional vasopressors may be needed. Disposition depends on patient presentation and response to treatment. Mandatory observation periods are not necessary, because biphasic reactions are difficult to predict and may occur outside of typical observation periods.
Topics: Airway Management; Anaphylaxis; Emergency Medicine; Epinephrine; Fluid Therapy; Humans; Risk Factors; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 34782088
DOI: 10.1016/j.emc.2021.08.004 -
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine Aug 2021Patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) are often in shock and require hemodynamic support. Identifying and addressing the pathophysiology mechanisms... (Review)
Review
Patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) are often in shock and require hemodynamic support. Identifying and addressing the pathophysiology mechanisms operating in an individual patient is crucial to achieving a successful outcome, while initiating circulatory support therapy to restore adequate tissue perfusion. Vasopressors and inotropes are the cornerstone of supportive medical therapy for shock, in addition to fluid resuscitation when indicated. Timely initiation of optimal vasopressor and inotrope therapy is essential for patients with shock, with the ultimate goals of restoring effective tissue perfusion in order to normalize cellular metabolism. Use of vasoactive agents for hemodynamic support of patients with shock should take both arterial pressure and tissue perfusion into account when choosing therapeutic interventions. For most patients with shock, including cardiogenic or septic shock, norepinephrine (NE) is an appropriate choice as a first-line vasopressor titrated to achieve an adequate arterial pressure due to a lower risk of adverse events than other catecholamine vasopressors. If tissue and organ perfusion remain inadequate, an inotrope such as dobutamine may be added to increase cardiac output to a sufficient level that meets tissue demand. Low doses of epinephrine or dopamine may be used for inotropic support, but high doses of these drugs carry an excessive risk of adverse events when used for vasopressor support and should be avoided. When NE alone is inadequate to achieve an adequate arterial pressure, addition of a noncatecholamine vasopressor such as vasopressin or angiotensin-II is reasonable, in addition to rescue therapies that may improve vasopressor responsiveness. In this review, we discuss the pharmacology and evidence-based use of vasopressor and inotrope drugs in critically ill patients, with a focus on the CICU population.
Topics: Critical Care; Epinephrine; Humans; Norepinephrine; Shock, Septic; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 32281470
DOI: 10.1177/0885066620917630