Corticosteroids in critically ill patients: A narrative review.

Corticosteroids have been utilized in modern medicine for decades. Many indications have been investigated across various treatment settings with both benefit and harm observed. Given the instability of critically ill patients, the increased risk of corticosteroid-related complications, and the pervasive comorbidities, patients who receive corticosteroids must be carefully managed. Common critical care disease states in which corticosteroids have been studied and are routinely utilized include acute respiratory distress syndrome, adrenal insufficiency, angioedema, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, community-acquired pneumonia, coronavirus disease 2019, septic shock, and spinal cord injury. Benefits of corticosteroids include an improvement in disease state-specific outcomes, decreased hospital length of stay, decreased mechanical ventilatory support, and decreased mortality. The harm of corticosteroids is well documented through adverse effects that include, but are not limited to, hyperglycemia, tachycardia, hypertension, agitation, delirium, anxiety, immunosuppression, gastrointestinal bleeding, fluid retention, and muscle weakness. Furthermore, corticosteroids are associated with increased health care costs through adverse effects as well as drug acquisition and administration costs. Given the assortment of agents, dosing, benefits, risks, and utilization in the critical care setting, there may be difficulty with identifying the appropriate places for use of corticosteroids in therapy. There currently exists no comprehensive report detailing the use of corticosteroids in the aforementioned disease states within the critical care setting. This narrative review sets out to describe these in detail.

Efficacy and Safety of Vasopressin as First-Line Treatment of Distributive and Hemorrhagic Shock States.

Background: Norepinephrine remains the first-line option to manage patients with circulatory shock. Limited evidence exists evaluating noncatecholamine compounds as first-line monotherapy for managing noncardiogenic shock. Objective: To compare vasopressin monotherapy with norepinephrine monotherapy for reversal of distributive and hemorrhagic shock. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study including adult patients who were diagnosed with hypovolemic or septic shock, received fluids, and received norepinephrine or vasopressin monotherapy for at least 1 hour. Patients excluded lacked a clear diagnosis, were initiated on 2 or more vasopressors at once, or underwent cardiac surgery. The primary outcome was time to shock reversal. Secondary outcomes included mortality, lengths of stay, and safety end points. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was performed incorporating baseline and treatment variables. Results: A total of 85 and 160 patients were treated with vasopressin and norepinephrine, respectively. A decrease in time to shock reversal was observed in the vasopressin group (58.32 hours [95% CI, 50.88-66.00] vs 74.64 hours [95% CI, 60.96-88.32], P = 0.004). Mortality was lower in the vasopressin group (25% vs 41%, P = 0.01), and intensive care unit length of stay was longer (13 days [interquartile range, IQR = 7-19] vs 7 days [IQR = 5-9], P = 0.006). Remaining secondary outcomes were similar. The multivariable analysis revealed no difference in time to shock reversal. Conclusion and Relevance: First-line vasopressin exhibited faster time to distributive shock reversal in the unadjusted analysis but failed to maintain this difference in the multivariable analysis. These findings support safe use of vasopressin as first-line therapy or as an alternative to norepinephrine in distributive shock.

Increased Enoxaparin Dosing Requirements for Treatment of Deep Vein Thrombosis in a Severely Burned Patient: Case Report and Literature Review.

Dosing of enoxaparin for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis in acutely burned patients has been shown to result in anti-Xa levels below target range. We describe the first case report, to our knowledge, of a severely burned patient who, despite prophylactic dosing of enoxaparin 30 mg subcutaneously twice daily, developed an acute DVT that required high-dose enoxaparin (100 mg [1.5 mg/kg] subcutaneously every 8 hours) to maintain anti-Xa levels within the therapeutic range (0.6-1 IU/ml). Pharmacokinetic evaluations were performed using anti-Xa levels measured throughout the patient's hospital stay to validate the appropriateness of this high-dose regimen based on established therapeutic anti-Xa level ranges. These results suggest that routine anti-Xa level monitoring, regardless of enoxaparin dosing, is necessary for burn patients who are receiving enoxaparin given their hypermetabolic state following injury.