Phenylephrine versus norepinephrine for initial hemodynamic support of patients with septic shock: a randomized, controlled trial.
ABSTRACT: Previous findings suggest that a delayed administration of phenylephrine replacing norepinephrine in septic shock patients causes a more pronounced hepatosplanchnic vasoconstriction as compared with norepinephrine. Nevertheless, a direct comparison between the two study drugs has not yet been performed. The aim of the present study was, therefore, to investigate the effects of a first-line therapy with either phenylephrine or norepinephrine on systemic and regional hemodynamics in patients with septic shock.We performed a prospective, randomized, controlled trial in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit in a university hospital. We enrolled septic shock patients (n = 32) with a mean arterial pressure below 65 mmHg despite adequate volume resuscitation. Patients were randomly allocated to treatment with either norepinephrine or phenylephrine infusion (n = 16 each) titrated to achieve a mean arterial pressure between 65 and 75 mmHg. Data from right heart catheterization, a thermodye dilution catheter, gastric tonometry, acid-base homeostasis, as well as creatinine clearance and cardiac troponin were obtained at baseline and after 12 hours. Differences within and between groups were analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance for repeated measurements with group and time as factors. Time-independent variables were compared with one-way analysis of variance.No differences were found in any of the investigated parameters.The present study suggests there are no differences in terms of cardiopulmonary performance, global oxygen transport, and regional hemodynamics when phenylephrine was administered instead of norepinephrine in the initial hemodynamic support of septic shock.ClinicalTrial.gov NCT00639015.
Project description:Recent clinical data suggest that early administration of vasopressin analogues may be advantageous compared to a last resort therapy. However, it is still unknown whether vasopressin and terlipressin are equally effective for hemodynamic support in septic shock. The aim of the present prospective, randomized, controlled pilot trial study was, therefore, to compare the impact of continuous infusions of either vasopressin or terlipressin, when given as first-line therapy in septic shock patients, on open-label norepinephrine requirements.We enrolled septic shock patients (n = 45) with a mean arterial pressure below 65 mmHg despite adequate volume resuscitation. Patients were randomized to receive continuous infusions of either terlipressin (1.3 microg.kg-1.h-1), vasopressin (.03 U.min-1) or norepinephrine (15 microg.min-1; n = 15 per group). In all groups, open-label norepinephrine was added to achieve a mean arterial pressure between 65 and 75 mmHg, if necessary. Data from right heart and thermo-dye dilution catheterization, gastric tonometry, as well as laboratory variables of organ function were obtained at baseline, 12, 24, 36 and 48 hours after randomization. Differences within and between groups were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA for repeated measurements with group and time as factors. Time-independent variables were compared with one-way ANOVA.There were no differences among groups in terms of systemic and regional hemodynamics. Compared with infusion of .03 U of vasopressin or 15 microg.min-1 of norepinephrine, 1.3 microg.kg-1.h-1 of terlipressin allowed a marked reduction in catecholamine requirements (0.8 +/- 1.3 and 1.2 +/- 1.4 vs. 0.2 +/- 0.4 microg.kg-1.min-1 at 48 hours; each P < 0.05) and was associated with less rebound hypotension (P < 0.05). At the end of the 48-hour intervention period, bilirubin concentrations were higher in the vasopressin and norepinephrine groups as compared with the terlipressin group (2.3 +/- 2.8 and 2.8 +/- 2.5 vs. 0.9 +/- 0.3 mg.dL-1; each P < 0.05). A time-dependent decrease in platelet count was only observed in the terlipressin group (P < 0.001 48 hours vs. BL).The present study provides evidence that continuous infusion of low-dose terlipressin--when given as first-line vasopressor agent in septic shock--is effective in reversing sepsis-induced arterial hypotension and in reducing norepinephrine requirements.
Project description:The effect of mean arterial pressure titration to a higher level on microcirculation in septic shock patients with previous hypertension remains unknown. Our goal is to assess the effect of mean arterial pressure titration to a higher level on microcirculation in hypertensive septic shock patients.This is a single-center, open-label study. Hypertensive patients with septic shock for less than 24 hours after adequate fluid resuscitation and requiring norepinephrine to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mmHg were enrolled. Mean arterial pressure was then titrated by norepinephrine from 65 mmHg to the normal level of the patient. In addition to hemodynamic variables, sublingual microcirculation was evaluated by sidestream dark field imaging.Nineteen patients were enrolled in the study. Increasing mean arterial pressure from 65 mmHg to normal levels was associated with increased central venous pressure (from 11?±?4 to 13?±?4 mmHg, P?=?0.002), cardiac output (from 5.4?±?1.4 to 6.4?±?2.1 l/minute, P?=?0.001), and central venous oxygen saturation (from 81?±?7 to 83?±?7%, P?=?0.001). There were significant increases in small perfused vessel density (from 10.96?±?2.98 to 11.99?±?2.55 vessels/mm(2), P?=?0.009), proportion of small perfused vessels (from 85?±?18 to 92?±?14%, P?=?0.002), and small microvascular flow index (from 2.45?±?0.61 to 2.80?±?0.68, P?=?0.009) when compared with a mean arterial pressure of 65 mmHg.Increasing mean arterial pressure from 65 mmHg to normal levels is associated with improved microcirculation in hypertensive septic shock patients.Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01443494; registered 28 September 2011.
Project description:Adrenomedullin (ADM) has been referred to as a double-edged sword during septic shock: On one hand, ADM supplementation improved organ perfusion and function, attenuated systemic inflammation, and ultimately reduced tissue apoptosis and mortality. On the other hand, ADM overproduction can cause circulatory collapse and organ failure due to impaired vasoconstrictor response and reduced myocardial contractility. Since most of these data originate from un-resuscitated shock models, we tested the hypothesis whether the newly developed anti-ADM antibody HAM1101 may improve catecholamine responsiveness and thus attenuate organ dysfunction during resuscitated murine, cecal ligation and puncture (CLP)-induced septic shock.Immediately after CLP, mice randomly received vehicle (phosphate-buffered saline, n = 11) or HAM1101 (n = 9; 2 ?g·g(-1)). Fifteen hours after CLP, animals were anesthetized, mechanically ventilated, instrumented, and resuscitated with hydroxyethylstarch and continuous i.v. norepinephrine to achieve normotensive hemodynamics (mean arterial pressure > 50 to 60 mmHg).HAM1101 pretreatment reduced the norepinephrine infusion rates required to achieve hemodynamic targets, increased urine flow, improved creatinine clearance, and lowered neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin blood levels, which coincided with reduced expression of the inducible nitric oxide synthase and formation of peroxynitrite (nitrotyrosine immunostaining) in the kidney and aorta, ultimately resulting in attenuated systemic inflammation and tissue apoptosis.During resuscitated murine septic shock, early ADM binding with HAM1101 improved catecholamine responsiveness, blunted the shock-related impairment of energy metabolism, reduced nitrosative stress, and attenuated systemic inflammatory response, which was ultimately associated with reduced kidney dysfunction and organ injury.
Project description:Septic shock is associated with high mortality. Aged and multimorbid patients are not always eligible for intensive care units. Norepinephrine is an accepted treatment for hypotension in septic shock. It is unknown whether norepinephrine has a place in treatment outside an intensive care unit and when given peripherally.To describe mortality, Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE-II), time to mean arterial pressure >65 mmHg, and adverse events in patients with septic shock receiving norepinephrine peripherally in an intermediate care unit.From a retrospective chart review of 91 patients with septic shock treated with norepinephrine for hypotension, ward mortality, 30-, 60- and 90-day mortality, standardized mortality ratio (SMR) and adverse events (necrosis and arrhythmia) were analysed. Administration route via peripheral venous catheter or central venous catheter was registered.Median age was 81 (43-96) years and median APACHE-II score was 26 (12-42). Observed ward mortality was 27.5% (SMR 0.443, 95% CI: 0.287-0.654), and 30-day and 90-day mortality were 47.2% and 58.2%, respectively.Elderly patients with septic shock treated with norepinephrine displayed a better survival in the ward and at 30 days than expected. Our retrospective study did not indicate frequent complications when administering norepinephrine via a peripheral venous catheter.
Project description:Several studies have investigated a survival benefit for levosimendan treatment in patients with septic shock. However, data are conflicting. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of levosimendan treatment on mortality in patients with septic shock.We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library Databases up to March 27, 2017, without language restrictions. We searched for terms related to septic shock, levosimendan, randomized clinical trial. Randomized controlled trials reported the effect of levosimendan on mortality were included. Moreover, we constructed the trial sequential analysis (TSA) to determine the reliability of the outcomes. Furthermore, secondary outcomes were cardiac index(CI), mean arterial pressure (MAP), blood lactate, norepinephrine dose and length of ICU stay.Ten studies with a total of 816 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in the mortality between the levosimendan group and the standard inotropic therapy group [RR = 0.96, 95% CI (0.81-1.12), I2 = 0]. However, methods adapted from formal interim monitoring boundaries applied to TSA indicated that the cumulative evidence was unreliable and inconclusive. Blood lactate was significantly reduced in the levosimendan group while there was no difference in MAP, CI, norepinephrine dose and length of ICU stay.Findings from this meta-analysis demonstrated that levosimendan treatment may not reduce mortality in patients with septic shock. The result remains inclusive and further randomized controlled trials were needed to confirm these conclusions.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Recent clinical studies have confirmed the strong prognostic value of persistent hyperlactatemia and delayed lactate clearance in septic shock. Several potential hypoxic and nonhypoxic mechanisms have been associated with persistent hyperlactatemia, but the relative contribution of these factors has not been specifically addressed in comprehensive clinical physiological studies. Our goal was to determine potential hemodynamic and perfusion-related parameters associated with 6-hour lactate clearance in a cohort of hyperdynamic, hyperlactatemic, septic shock patients. METHODS:We conducted an acute clinical physiological pilot study that included 15 hyperdynamic, septic shock patients undergoing aggressive early resuscitation. Several hemodynamic and perfusion-related parameters were measured immediately after preload optimization and 6 hours thereafter, with 6-hour lactate clearance as the main outcome criterion. Evaluated parameters included cardiac index, mixed venous oxygen saturation, capillary refill time and central-to-peripheral temperature difference, thenar tissue oxygen saturation (StO2) and its recovery slope after a vascular occlusion test, sublingual microcirculatory assessment, gastric tonometry (pCO2 gap), and plasma disappearance rate of indocyanine green (ICG-PDR). Statistical analysis included Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS:Five patients presented a 6-hour lactate clearance <10%. Compared with 10 patients with a 6-hour lactate clearance ?10%, they presented a worse hepatosplanchnic perfusion as represented by significantly more severe derangements of ICG-PDR (9.7 (8-19) vs. 19.6 (9-32)%/min, p < 0.05) and pCO2 gap (33 (9.1-62) vs. 7.7 (3-58) mmHg, p < 0.05) at 6 hours. No other systemic, hemodynamic, metabolic, peripheral, or microcirculatory parameters differentiated these subgroups. We also found a significant correlation between ICG-PDR and pCO2 gap (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:Impaired 6-hour lactate clearance could be associated with hepatosplanchnic hypoperfusion in some hyperdynamic septic shock patients. Improvement of systemic, metabolic, and peripheral perfusion parameters does not rule out the persistence of hepatosplanchnic hypoperfusion in this setting. Severe microcirculatory abnormalities can be detected in hyperdynamic septic shock patients, but their role on lactate clearance is unclear. ICG-PDR may be a useful tool to evaluate hepatosplanchnic perfusion in septic shock patients with persistent hyperlactatemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01271153.
Project description:Vasopressin is widely used for vasopressor support in septic shock patients, but experimental evidence suggests that selective V1A agonists are superior. The initial pharmacodynamic effects, pharmacokinetics, and safety of selepressin, a novel V1A-selective vasopressin analogue, was examined in a phase IIa trial in septic shock patients.This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial in 53 patients in early septic shock (aged ?18 years, fluid resuscitation, requiring vasopressor support) who received selepressin 1.25 ng/kg/minute (n?=?10), 2.5 ng/kg/minute (n?=?19), 3.75 ng/kg/minute (n?=?2), or placebo (n?=?21) until shock resolution or a maximum of 7 days. If mean arterial pressure (MAP) ?65 mmHg was not maintained, open-label norepinephrine was added. Co-primary endpoints were maintenance of MAP >60 mmHg without norepinephrine, norepinephrine dose, and proportion of patients maintaining MAP >60 mmHg with or without norepinephrine over 7 days. Secondary endpoints included cumulative fluid balance, organ dysfunction, pharmacokinetics, and safety.A higher proportion of the patients receiving 2.5 ng/kg/minute selepressin maintained MAP >60 mmHg without norepinephrine (about 50% and 70% at 12 and 24 h, respectively) vs. 1.25 ng/kg/minute selepressin and placebo (p?<?0.01). The 7-day cumulative doses of norepinephrine were 761, 659, and 249 ?g/kg (placebo 1.25 ng/kg/minute and 2.5 ng/kg/minute, respectively; 2.5 ng/kg/minute vs. placebo; p?<?0.01). Norepinephrine infusion was weaned more rapidly in selepressin 2.5 ng/kg/minute vs. placebo (0.04 vs. 0.18 ?g/kg/minute at 24 h, p?<?0.001), successfully maintaining target MAP and reducing norepinephrine dose vs. placebo (first 24 h, p?<?0.001). Cumulative net fluid balance was lower from day 5 onward in the selepressin 2.5 ng/kg/minute group vs. placebo (p?<?0.05). The selepressin 2.5 ng/kg/minute group had a greater proportion of days alive and free of ventilation vs. placebo (p?<?0.02). Selepressin (2.5 ng/kg/minute) was well tolerated, with a similar frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events for selepressin 2.5 ng/kg/minute and placebo. Two patients were infused at 3.75 ng/kg/minute, one of whom had the study drug infusion discontinued for possible safety reasons, with subsequent discontinuation of this dose group.In septic shock patients, selepressin 2.5 ng/kg/minute was able to rapidly replace norepinephrine while maintaining adequate MAP, and it may improve fluid balance and shorten the time of mechanical ventilation.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01000649 . Registered on September 30, 2009.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:International guidelines recommend dopamine or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor agents in septic shock. Phenylephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin and terlipressin are considered second-line agents. Our objective was to assess the evidence for the efficiency and safety of all vasopressors in septic shock. METHODS:Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched electronic database of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, LILACS and conference proceedings up to June 2014. We included randomized controlled trials comparing different vasopressors for the treatment of adult patients with septic shock. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Other clinical and hemodynamic measurements were extracted as secondary outcomes. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled. RESULTS:Thirty-two trials (3,544 patients) were included. Compared to dopamine (866 patients, 450 events), norepinephrine (832 patients, 376 events) was associated with decreased all-cause mortality, RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.81-0.98), corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 11% and number needed to treat of 9. Norepinephrine was associated with lower risk for major adverse events and cardiac arrhythmias compared to dopamine. No other mortality benefit was demonstrated for the comparisons of norepinephrine to epinephrine, phenylephrine and vasopressin / terlipressin. Hemodynamic data were similar between the different vasopressors, with some advantage for norepinephrine in central venous pressure, urinary output and blood lactate levels. CONCLUSIONS:Evidence suggests a survival benefit, better hemodynamic profile and reduced adverse events rate for norepinephrine over dopamine. Norepinephrine should be regarded as the first line vasopressor in the treatment of septic shock.
Project description:INTRODUCTION: V(2)-receptor (V(2)R) stimulation potentially aggravates sepsis-induced vasodilation, fluid accumulation and microvascular thrombosis. Therefore, the present study was performed to determine the effects of a first-line therapy with the selective V(2)R-antagonist (Propionyl(1)-D-Tyr(Et)(2)-Val(4)-Abu(6)-Arg(8,9))-Vasopressin on cardiopulmonary hemodynamics and organ function vs. the mixed V(1a)R/V(2)R-agonist arginine vasopressin (AVP) or placebo in an established ovine model of septic shock. METHODS: After the onset of septic shock, chronically instrumented sheep were randomly assigned to receive first-line treatment with the selective V(2)R-antagonist (1 ?g/kg per hour), AVP (0.05 ?g/kg per hour), or normal saline (placebo, each n = 7). In all groups, open-label norepinephrine was additionally titrated up to 1 ?g/kg per minute to maintain mean arterial pressure at 70 ± 5 mmHg, if necessary. RESULTS: Compared to AVP- and placebo-treated animals, the selective V(2)R-antagonist stabilized cardiopulmonary hemodynamics (mean arterial and pulmonary artery pressure, cardiac index) as effectively and increased intravascular volume as suggested by higher cardiac filling pressures. Furthermore, left ventricular stroke work index was higher in the V(2)R-antagonist group than in the AVP group. Notably, metabolic (pH, base excess, lactate concentrations), liver (transaminases, bilirubin) and renal (creatinine and blood urea nitrogen plasma levels, urinary output, creatinine clearance) dysfunctions were attenuated by the V(2)R-antagonist when compared with AVP and placebo. The onset of septic shock was associated with an increase in AVP plasma levels as compared to baseline in all groups. Whereas AVP plasma levels remained constant in the placebo group, infusion of AVP increased AVP plasma levels up to 149 ± 21 pg/mL. Notably, treatment with the selective V(2)R-antagonist led to a significant decrease of AVP plasma levels as compared to shock time (P < 0.001) and to both other groups (P < 0.05 vs. placebo; P < 0.001 vs. AVP). Immunohistochemical analyses of lung tissue revealed higher hemeoxygenase-1 (vs. placebo) and lower 3-nitrotyrosine concentrations (vs. AVP) in the V(2)R-antagonist group. In addition, the selective V(2)R-antagonist slightly prolonged survival (14 ± 1 hour) when compared to AVP (11 ± 1 hour, P = 0.007) and placebo (11 ± 1 hour, P = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Selective V(2)R-antagonism may represent an innovative therapeutic approach to attenuate multiple organ dysfunction in early septic shock.
Project description:Adult critically ill patients often suffer from acute circulatory failure, necessitating use of vasopressor therapy. The aim of the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (SSAI) task force for Acute Circulatory Failure was to present clinically relevant, evidence-based treatment recommendations on this topic.This guideline was developed according to standards for trustworthy guidelines, including a systematic review of the literature and use of the GRADE methodology for assessment of the quality of evidence and for moving from evidence to recommendations. We assessed the following subpopulations of patients with acute circulatory failure: 1) shock in general, 2) septic shock, 3) cardiogenic shock, 4) hypovolemic shock and 5) other types of shock, including vasodilatory shock. We assessed patient-important outcome measures, including mortality, serious adverse reactions and quality-of-life.For patients with shock in general and those with septic shock, we recommend using norepinephrine rather than dopamine, and we suggest using norepinephrine rather than epinephrine, vasopressin analogues, and phenylephrine. For patients with cardiogenic shock and those with hypovolemic shock, we suggest using norepinephrine rather than dopamine, and we provide no recommendations/suggestions of norepinephrine vs. epinephrine, vasopressin analogues, and phenylephrine. For patients with other types of shock, including vasodilatory shock, we suggest using norepinephrine rather than dopamine, epinephrine, vasopressin analogues, and phenylephrine.We recommend using norepinephrine rather than other vasopressors as first-line treatment for the majority of adult critically ill patients with acute circulatory failure.