ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers differentially alter the response to angiotensin II treatment in vasodilatory shock.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) medications are widely prescribed. We sought to assess how pre-admission use of these medications might impact the response to angiotensin-II treatment during vasodilatory shock. METHODS: In a post-hoc subgroup analysis of the randomized, placebo-controlled, Angiotensin Therapy for High Output Shock (ATHOS-3) trial, we compared patients with chronic angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) use, and patients with angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) use, to patients without exposure to either ACEi or ARB. The primary outcome was mean arterial pressure after 1-h of treatment. Additional clinical outcomes included mean arterial pressure and norepinephrine equivalent dose requirements over time, and study-drug dose over time. Biological outcomes included baseline RAS biomarkers (renin, angiotensin-I, angiotensin-II, and angiotensin-I/angiotensin-II ratio), and the change in renin from 0 to 3 h. RESULTS: We included n = 321 patients, of whom, 270 were ACEi and ARB-unexposed, 29 were ACEi-exposed and 22 ARB-exposed. In ACEi/ARB-unexposed patients, angiotensin-treated patients, compared to placebo, had higher hour-1 mean arterial pressure (9.1 mmHg [95% CI 7.6-10.1], p < 0.0001), lower norepinephrine equivalent dose over 48-h (p = 0.0037), and lower study-drug dose over 48-h (p < 0.0001). ACEi-exposed patients treated with angiotensin-II showed similarly higher hour-1 mean arterial pressure compared to ACEi/ARB-unexposed (difference in treatment-effect: - 2.2 mmHg [95% CI - 7.0-2.6], pinteraction = 0.38), but a greater reduction in norepinephrine equivalent dose (pinteraction = 0.0031) and study-drug dose (pinteraction < 0.0001) over 48-h. In contrast, ARB-exposed patients showed an attenuated effect of angiotensin-II on hour-1 mean arterial pressure versus ACEi/ARB-unexposed (difference in treatment-effect: - 6.0 mmHg [95% CI - 11.5 to - 0.6], pinteraction = 0.0299), norepinephrine equivalent dose (pinteraction < 0.0001), and study-drug dose (pinteraction = 0.0008). Baseline renin levels and angiotensin-I/angiotensin-II ratios were highest in ACEi-exposed patients. Finally, angiotensin-II treatment reduced hour-3 renin in ACEi/ARB-unexposed and ACEi-exposed patients but not in ARB-exposed patients. CONCLUSIONS: In vasodilatory shock patients, the cardiovascular and biological RAS response to angiotensin-II differed based upon prior exposure to ACEi and ARB medications. ACEi-exposure was associated with increased angiotensin II responsiveness, whereas ARB-exposure was associated with decreased responsiveness. These findings have clinical implications for patient selection and dosage of angiotensin II in vasodilatory shock. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.Gov Identifier: NCT02338843 (Registered January 14th 2015).

Angiotensin II treatment is associated with improved oxygenation in ARDS patients with refractory vasodilatory shock.

BACKGROUND: The physiological effects of renin-angiotensin system modulation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain controversial and have not been investigated in randomized trials. We sought to determine whether angiotensin-II treatment is associated with improved oxygenation in shock-associated ARDS. METHODS: Post-hoc subgroup analysis of the Angiotensin Therapy for High Output Shock (ATHOS-3) trial. We studied patients who met modified Berlin ARDS criteria at enrollment. The primary outcome was PaO2/FiO2-ratio (P:F) at 48-h adjusted for baseline P:F. Secondary outcomes included oxygenation index, ventilatory ratio, PEEP, minute-ventilation, hemodynamic measures, patients alive and ventilator-free by day-7, and mortality. RESULTS: Of 81 ARDS patients, 34 (42%) and 47 (58%) were randomized to angiotensin-II or placebo, respectively. In angiotensin-II patients, mean P:F increased from 155 mmHg (SD: 69) at baseline to 265 mmHg (SD: 160) at hour-48 compared with no change with placebo (148 mmHg (SD: 63) at baseline versus 164 mmHg (SD: 74) at hour-48)(baseline-adjusted difference: + 98.4 mmHg [95%CI 35.2-161.5], p = 0.0028). Similarly, oxygenation index decreased by - 6.0 cmH2O/mmHg at hour-48 with angiotensin-II versus - 0.4 cmH2O/mmHg with placebo (baseline-adjusted difference: -4.8 cmH2O/mmHg, [95%CI - 8.6 to - 1.1], p = 0.0273). There was no difference in PEEP, minute ventilation, or ventilatory ratio. Twenty-two (64.7%) angiotensin-II patients had sustained hemodynamic response to treatment at hour-3 versus 17 (36.2%) placebo patients (absolute risk-difference: 28.5% [95%CI 6.5-47.0%], p = 0.0120). At day-7, 7/34 (20.6%) angiotensin-II patients were alive and ventilator-free versus 5/47(10.6%) placebo patients. Day-28 mortality was 55.9% in the angiotensin-II group versus 68.1% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In post-hoc analysis of the ATHOS-3 trial, angiotensin-II was associated with improved oxygenation versus placebo among patients with ARDS and catecholamine-refractory vasodilatory shock. These findings provide a physiologic rationale for trials of angiotensin-II as treatment for ARDS with vasodilatory shock. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov Identifier: NCT02338843 (Registered January 14th 2015).

Hardware preservation after sternal wound infection in a lung transplant recipient.

Sternal wound infections can result in significant morbidity and mortality. Managing these complications is particularly challenging when infected hardware is involved. Traditional thinking mandates removal of infected hardware, yet this hardware is often essential to chest wall stability in the early postoperative period. Here, we present a case of an infected transverse sternotomy wound involving hardware in a lung transplant patient whose treatment included successful hardware preservation. Our experience and other experiences reported in the literature highlight the alternatives in the management of this complication.

Lung transplantation and interstitial lung disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Interstitial lung disease includes a heterogeneous group of disorders that leads to respiratory insufficiency and death in a significant number of patients. Lung transplantation is a therapeutic option in select candidates. RECENT FINDINGS: The indications, transplant procedure options, and outcomes continue to evolve. Various recipient comorbidities influence the choice of procedure in patients with interstitial lung disease. Single lung transplants are used as the procedure of choice and bilateral transplants are reserved for patients with suppurative lung disease and patients with pulmonary hypertension. Issues unique to patients with interstitial lung disease affect the morbidity, mortality and recurrence of the disease. SUMMARY: Lung transplantation is an effective therapy for respiratory failure in interstitial lung disease with survival following transplant being similar to that achieved in transplant recipients with other diseases.

Following universal prophylaxis with intravenous ganciclovir and cytomegalovirus immune globulin, valganciclovir is safe and effective for prevention of CMV infection following lung transplantation.

We prospectively determined the safety and efficacy of valganciclovir for prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) in at-risk (donor positive/recipient negative [D+/R-] or R+) lung transplant recipients. We also determined the length of prophylaxis required to significantly decrease both CMV infection and disease. Consecutive lung transplant recipients surviving >30 days (n = 90) received combination prophylaxis with intravenous (i.v.) ganciclovir (GCV) 5 mg/kg/day and cytomegalovirus immune globulin (CMV-IVIG) followed by valganciclovir (450 mg twice-daily) to complete 180, 270 or 365 days of prophylaxis. This group was compared to a historical group (n = 140) who received high-dose oral acyclovir following i.v. GCV and CMV-IVIG. CMV disease was significantly lower in patients receiving valganciclovir compared to acyclovir (2.2% vs. 20%; p < 0.0001). Freedom from CMV infection and disease was significantly greater (p < 0.02) in patients receiving 180, 270 or 365 days of prophylaxis (90%, 95% and 90%, respectively) compared to those receiving 100-179 days (64%) or < 100 days (59%). No patient receiving valganciclovir died during the study. Following prophylaxis with i.v. GCV and CMV-IVIG, valganciclovir is safe and effective for prevention of CMV infection and disease in at-risk lung transplant recipients. The required length of prophylaxis was at least 180 days.

Lobar torsion complicating bilateral lung transplantation.

We report a case of left lower lobe torsion in a patient who had undergone bilateral lung transplantation for alpha(1)-antitrypsin deficiency. The patient experienced acute pulmonary hypertension and hypoxemia on post-operative Day 3 and the chest X-ray showed bilateral alveolar infiltrates and a new focal consolidation of the left lower lobe. Fiberoptic bronchoscopy showed complete obstruction of the left lower lobe bronchus and abnormal rotation of the left upper lobe bronchus suggesting torsion, which was confirmed by pulmonary angiography and ultimately at thoracotomy. The possibility of acute lobar torsion should be considered in lung transplant recipients who demonstrate evidence of acute respiratory insufficiency in the early post-operative period.

The value of polymerase chain reaction for the diagnosis of viral respiratory tract infections in lung transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory viruses cause severe infections in lung transplant recipients, which require rapid and accurate diagnosis for appropriate management. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the added benefit of a multiplex PCR for respiratory viruses (influenza [FLU] A and B, respiratory syncytial virus [RSV] A and B and parainfluenza virus [PIV] 1, 2, and 3) complementing rapid respiratory viral culture (RRV) and FLU-A antigen detection (EIA) in this transplant population. RESULTS: Over 6 months, 116 nasal washes and bronchoalveolar lavages, obtained from 72 lung transplant recipients with symptoms of upper or lower respiratory tract infections, were tested in real time by RRV and FLU-A EIA, and batched frozen by PCR. One or more methods recognized a respiratory virus in 31 (27%) specimens, including 15 FLU-A, nine RSV and seven PIV. PCR identified 26 of 31 positive samples demonstrating a sensitivity of 84%, higher than RRV (67%) or EIA (54%). PCR, RRV and EIA detected 60, 80 and 54%, respectively, FLU-A samples. PCR and RRV were equivalent for RSV-A, PIV-2 and 3, but PCR found a significantly higher number of RSV-B and PIV-1. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that routine use of PCR will enhance the number and speed with which viral respiratory tract infections are diagnosed in lung transplant recipients.