Assessing the Course of Organ Dysfunction Using Joint Longitudinal and Time-to-Event Modeling in the Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial.
ABSTRACT: Non-mortality septic shock outcomes (e.g., Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score) are important clinical endpoints in pivotal sepsis trials. However, comparisons of observed longitudinal non-mortality outcomes between study groups can be biased if death is unequal between study groups or is associated with an intervention (i.e., informative censoring). We compared the effects of vasopressin versus norepinephrine on the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score in the Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial to illustrate the use of joint modeling to help minimize potential bias from informative censoring. Design:Secondary analysis of the Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial data. Setting:Twenty-seven ICUs in Canada, Australia, and United States. Subjects:Seven hundred sixty-three participants with septic shock who received blinded vasopressin (n = 389) or norepinephrine infusions (n = 374). Measurements and Main Results:Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were calculated daily until discharge, death, or day 28 after randomization. Mortality was numerically higher in the norepinephrine arm (28 d mortality of 39% vs 35%; p = 0.25), and there was a positive association between higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and patient mortality, characteristics that suggest a potential for bias from informative censoring of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores by death. The best-fitting joint longitudinal (i.e., linear mixed-effects model) and survival (i.e., Cox proportional hazards model for the time-to-death) model showed that norepinephrine was associated with a more rapid improvement in the total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score through day 4, and then the daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores converged and overlapped for the remainder of the study period. Conclusions:Short-term reversal of organ dysfunction occurred more rapidly with norepinephrine compared with vasopressin, although differences between study arms did not persist after day 4. Joint models are an accessible methodology that could be used in critical care trials to assess the effects of interventions on the longitudinal progression of key outcomes (e.g., organ dysfunction, biomarkers, or quality of life) that may be informatively truncated by death or other censoring events.
Project description:This review of vasopressin in septic shock differs from previous reviews by providing more information on the physiology and pathophysiology of vasopressin and vasopressin receptors, particularly because of recent interest in more specific AVPR1a agonists and new information from the Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial (VASST), a randomized trial of vasopressin versus norepinephrine in septic shock. Relevant literature regarding vasopressin and other AVPR1a agonists was reviewed and synthesized. Vasopressin, a key stress hormone in response to hypotension, stimulates a family of receptors: AVPR1a, AVPR1b, AVPR2, oxytocin receptors and purinergic receptors. Rationales for use of vasopressin in septic shock are as follows: first, a deficiency of vasopressin in septic shock; second, low-dose vasopressin infusion improves blood pressure, decreases requirements for norepinephrine and improves renal function; and third, a recent randomized, controlled, concealed trial of vasopressin versus norepinephrine (VASST) suggests low-dose vasopressin may decrease mortality of less severe septic shock. Previous clinical studies of vasopressin in septic shock were small or not controlled. There was no difference in 28-day mortality between vasopressin-treated versus norepinephrine-treated patients (35% versus 39%, respectively) in VASST. There was potential benefit in the prospectively defined stratum of patients with less severe septic shock (5 to 14 ?g/minute norepinephrine at randomization): vasopressin may have lowered mortality compared with norepinephrine (26% versus 36%, respectively, P = 0.04 within stratum). The result was robust: vasopressin also decreased mortality (compared with norepinephrine) if less severe septic shock was defined by the lowest quartile of arterial lactate or by use of one (versus more than one) vasopressor at baseline. Other investigators found greater hemodynamic effects of higher dose of vasopressin (0.06 units/minute) but also unique adverse effects (elevated liver enzymes and serum bilirubin). Use of higher dose vasopressin requires further evaluation of efficacy and safety. There are very few studies of interactions of therapies in critical care--or septic shock--and effects on mortality. Therefore, the interaction of vasopressin infusion, corticosteroid treatment and mortality of septic shock was evaluated in VASST. Low-dose vasopressin infusion plus corticosteroids significantly decreased 28-day mortality compared with corticosteroids plus norepinephrine (44% versus 35%, respectively, P = 0.03; P = 0.008 interaction statistic). Prospective randomized controlled trials would be necessary to confirm this interesting interaction. In conclusion, low-dose vasopressin may be effective in patients who have less severe septic shock already receiving norepinephrine (such as patients with modest norepinephrine infusion (5 to 15 ?g/minute) or low serum lactate levels). The interaction of vasopressin infusion and corticosteroid treatment in septic shock requires further study.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>We recommend using norepinephrine rather than other vasopressors as first-line treatment for the majority of adult critically ill patients with acute circulatory failure.
Project description:Septic shock is a major burden to healthcare with mortality rates remaining high. Blood purification techniques aim to reduce cytokine levels and resultant organ failure. Regarding septic shock, hemoadsorption via CytoSorb seems promising, but the main effects on organ failure and mortality remain unclear. In this retrospective single-center study, septic shock patients receiving CytoSorb in addition to renal replacement therapy (n = 42) were analyzed and compared to matched controls (n = 42). A generalized propensity-score and Mahalanobis distance matching method ('genetic' matching) was applied. Baseline comparability was high. Differences were merely present in higher initial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (median and interquartile range: 13.0 (12.0-14.75) vs. 12.0 (9.0-14.0)) and requirements of norepinephrine equivalents (0.54 (0.25-0.81) vs. 0.25 (0.05-0.54) µg/kg/min) in the CytoSorb group. While remaining fairly constant in the controls, the catecholamines decreased to 0.26 (0.11-0.40) µg/kg/min within 24 h after initiation of CytoSorb therapy. In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the CytoSorb group (35.7% vs. 61.9%; <i>p</i> = 0.015). Risk factors for mortality within the CytoSorb group were high lactate levels and low thrombocyte counts prior to initiation. Hereby, a cut-off value of 7.5 mmol/L lactate predicted mortality with high specificity (88.9%). Thus, high lactate levels may indicate absent benefits when confronted with septic shock patients considered eligible for CytoSorb therapy.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Septic shock is a major public health problem that is associated with up to 50% mortality. Unfavorable outcomes are mainly attributed to multiple organ failure (MOF) resulting from an uncontrolled inflammatory response and ischemia-reperfusion processes. REmote ischemic COnditioning (RECO) is a promising intervention to prevent ischemia-reperfusion injury. We hypothesize that RECO would reduce the severity of septic shock-induced MOF. METHODS/DESIGN:RECO in septic shock patients (RECO-Sepsis study) is an ongoing, prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial, testing whether RECO, as an adjuvant therapy to conventional treatment in septic shock, decreases the severity of MOF as assessed by the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. Adult patients admitted to an intensive care unit with documented or suspected infection, lactatemia >?2?mmol/l, and treated with norepinephrine for less than 12?h are potentially eligible for the study. Non-inclusion criteria are: having expressed the wish not to be resuscitated, contraindication for the use of a brachial cuff on both arms, intercurrent disease with an expected life expectancy of less than 24?h, cardiac arrest, and pregnant or breastfeeding women. After enrollment, patients are randomized (n?=?180) 1:1 to receive RECO or no adjunctive intervention. RECO consists of four cycles of cuff inflation to 200?mmHg for 5 min and then deflation to 0?mmHg for another 5 min. RECO is performed at inclusion and repeated 12 and 24?h later. The primary endpoint is the mean daily SOFA score up to day 4 after inclusion. Secondary outcomes include the need for organ support, hospital length of stay, and 90-day mortality. DISCUSSION:Results of this proof-of-concept trial should provide information on the efficacy of RECO in patients with septic shock. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: identifier: NCT03201575 . Registered on 28 June 2017.
Project description:Septic shock is associated with a strong inflammatory response that induces vasodilation and vascular hyporeactivity. We investigated the role for tryptophan-pathway catabolites of proinflammatory cytokines in septic shock.We prospectively included 30 patients with very recent-onset septic shock and 30 healthy volunteers. The following were assayed once in the controls and on days 1, 2, 3, 7, and 14 in each patient: plasma free and total tryptophan, platelet and plasma serotonin, total blood serotonin, urinary serotonin, plasma and urinary 5-hydroxyindolacetic acid, plasma kynurenine, monoamine oxidase activity, and total indole amine 2,3-dioxygenase activity. Organ-system failure and mortality were recorded.Compared with the healthy controls, the patients with septic shock had 2-fold to 3-fold lower total tryptophan levels throughout the 14-day study period. Platelet serotonin was substantially lower, while monoamine oxidase activity and 5-hydroxyindolacetic acid were markedly higher in the patients than in the controls, consistent with the known conversion of tryptophan to serotonin, which is then promptly and largely degraded to 5-hydroxyindolacetic acid. Plasma kynurenine was moderately increased and indole amine 2,3-dioxygenase activity markedly increased in the patients versus the volunteers, reflecting conversion of tryptophan to kynurenine. Changes over time in tryptophan metabolites were not associated with survival in the patients but were associated with the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and hemodynamic variables including hypotension and norepinephrine requirements.Our results demonstrate major tryptophan pathway alterations in septic shock. Marked alterations were found compared with healthy volunteers, and tryptophan metabolite levels were associated with organ failure and hemodynamic alterations. Tryptophan metabolite levels were not associated with surviving septic shock, although this result might be ascribable to the small sample size.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; No: NCT00684736; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.
Project description:INTRODUCTION: Catecholamines are the most used vasopressors in vasodilatory shock. However, the development of adrenergic hyposensitivity and the subsequent loss of catecholamine pressor activity necessitate the search for other options. Our aim was to evaluate the effects of vasopressin and its analog terlipressin compared with catecholamine infusion alone in vasodilatory shock. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of publications between 1966 and 2011 was performed. The Medline and CENTRAL databases were searched for studies on vasopressin and terlipressin in critically ill patients. The meta-analysis was limited to randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of vasopressin and/or terlipressin compared with catecholamine in adult patients with vasodilatory shock. The assessed outcomes were: overall survival, changes in the hemodynamic and biochemical variables, a decrease of catecholamine requirements, and adverse events. RESULTS: Nine trials covering 998 participants were included. A meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model showed a reduction in norepinephrine requirement among patients receiving terlipressin or vasopressin infusion compared with control (standardized mean difference, -1.58 (95% confidence interval, -1.73 to -1.44); P < 0.0001). Overall, vasopressin and terlipressin, as compared with norepinephrine, reduced mortality (relative risk (RR), 0.87 (0.77 to 0.99); P = 0.04). Vasopressin compared with norepinephrine decreased mortality in adult patients (RR, 0.87 (0.76 to 1.00); P = 0.05) and in patients with septic shock (42.5% vs. 49.2%, respectively; RR, 0.87 (0.75 to 1.00); P = 0.05; number needed to treat, 1 to 15). There was no difference in adverse events between the vasopressin and control groups (RR, 0.98 (0.65 to 1.47); P = 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Vasopressin use in vasodilatory shock is safe, associated with reduced mortality, and facilitates weaning of catecholamines. In patients with septic shock, use of vasopressin compared with norepinephrine may also decrease mortality.
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:The current consensus definition of septic shock requires hypotension after adequate fluid challenge or vasopressor requirement. Some patients with septic shock present with hypotension and hyperlactatemia greater than 2 mmol/L (tissue dysoxic shock), whereas others have hypotension alone with normal lactate (vasoplegic shock).The objective of this study was to determine differences in outcomes of patients with tissue dysoxic versus vasoplegic septic shock.This was a secondary analysis of a large, multicenter randomized controlled trial. Inclusion criteria were suspected infection, two or more systemic inflammatory response criteria, and systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg after a fluid bolus. Patients were categorized by presence of vasoplegic or tissue dysoxic shock. Demographics and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were evaluated between the groups. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.A total of 247 patients were included, 90 patients with vasoplegic shock and 157 with tissue dysoxic shock. There were no significant differences in age, race, or sex between the vasoplegic and tissue dysoxic shock groups. The group with vasoplegic shock had a lower initial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score than did the group with tissue dysoxic shock (5.5 vs. 7.0 points; P = 0.0002). The primary outcome of in-hospital mortality occurred in 8 (9%) of 90 patients with vasoplegic shock compared with 41 (26%) of 157 in the group with tissue dysoxic shock (proportion difference, 17%; 95% confidence interval, 7%-26%; P < 0.0001; log-rank test P = 0.02). After adjusting for confounders, tissue dysoxic shock remained an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality.In this analysis of patients with septic shock, we found a significant difference in in-hospital mortality between patients with vasoplegic versus tissue dysoxic septic shock. These findings suggest a need to consider these differences when designing future studies of septic shock therapies.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>We evaluated the characteristics and outcomes of culture-negative versus culture-positive septic shock.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a retrospective observational study of data from a prospective registry from 2014 to 2018. A total of 2,499 adult patients with septic shock were enrolled. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality, and the secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay, a requirement for mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy, and in-hospital mortality.<h4>Results</h4>Of 1,718 patients with septic shock, 1,012 (58.9%) patients were culture-positive (blood 803, urine 302, sputum 102, others 204) and the median pathogen detection time was 9.5 h (aerobic 10.2 h and anaerobic 9.0 h). The most common site of culture-positive infection was the hepatobiliary tract (39.5%), while for the culture-negative it was the lower respiratory tract (38.2%). The culture-negative group had a lower mean body temperature (37.3 vs 37.7 ?), lactate (2.5 vs. 3.2 mmol/L), C-reactive protein (11.1 vs 11.9 mg/dL), and sequential organ failure assessment score (7.0 vs. 8.0) than that of the culture-positive group. However, 90-day mortality between the groups was not significantly different (32.7 vs 32.2%, p?=?0.83), and the other clinical outcomes also did not differ significantly. Moreover, a shorter culture detection time was correlated with a higher sequential organ failure assessment score but not with mortality.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Patients with septic shock are frequently culture-negative, especially in cases where the infection focus is in the lower respiratory tract. Although culture-negative was associated with a degree of organ dysfunction, it was not an independent predictor of death.
Project description:Patients with distributive shock who require high dose vasopressors have a high mortality. Angiotensin II (ATII) may prove useful in patients who remain hypotensive despite catecholamine and vasopressin therapy. The appropriate dose of parenteral angiotensin II for shock is unknown.In total, 20 patients with distributive shock and a cardiovascular Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 4 were randomized to either ATII infusion (N =10) or placebo (N =10) plus standard of care. ATII was started at a dose of 20 ng/kg/min, and titrated for a goal of maintaining a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mmHg. The infusion (either ATII or placebo) was continued for 6 hours then titrated off. The primary endpoint was the effect of ATII on the standing dose of norepinephrine required to maintain a MAP of 65 mmHg.ATII resulted in marked reduction in norepinephrine dosing in all patients. The mean hour 1 norepinephrine dose for the placebo cohort was 27.6?±?29.3 mcg/min versus 7.4?±?12.4 mcg/min for the ATII cohort (P =0.06). The most common adverse event attributable to ATII was hypertension, which occurred in 20% of patients receiving ATII. 30-day mortality for the ATII cohort and the placebo cohort was similar (50% versus 60%, P =1.00).Angiotensin II is an effective rescue vasopressor agent in patients with distributive shock requiring multiple vasopressors. The initial dose range of ATII that appears to be appropriate for patients with distributive shock is 2 to 10 ng/kg/min.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01393782. Registered 12 July 2011.