Effect of Early Administration of Vasopressin on New-Onset Arrhythmia Development in Patients With Septic Shock: A Retrospective, Observational Cohort Study.

Background: Adjunctive vasopressin use in septic shock reduces catecholamine requirements and is associated with a lower incidence of new-onset arrhythmias (NOAs). The association of vasopressin timing on NOA development is ill-described. Objective: To determine whether early administration of vasopressin was associated with a lower incidence of NOA in septic shock patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis of intensive care unit (ICU) patients at a large, academic medical center. Septic shock patients who required vasopressin and norepinephrine were eligible for inclusion. Patients were excluded for receipt of other vasoactive agents, history of cardiac arrhythmias, or outside hospital admission. Early vasopressin was defined as receipt within 6 hours of septic shock onset. The primary outcome was incidence of NOA. Results: In total, 436 patients, 220 (50.4%) in the early and 216 (49.6%) in the late vasopressin group, were included. Early vasopressin was not associated with a lower incidence of NOA compared with late vasopressin (9% vs 7%, median absolute difference [95% confidence interval, CI]: -2.1 [-7.2, 3.0], P = 0.41). Early vasopressin patients were observed to have shorter shock duration (2 vs 4 days, median absolute difference [95% CI]: 2 [1, 2], P < 0.001), and ICU length of stay (6 vs 7 days, median absolute difference [95% CI]: 1 [0, 2], P = 0.02). Conclusions and Relevance: Early vasopressin use was not associated with a lower incidence of NOA. Additional studies are needed to elucidate the effect of vasopressin timing on NOA and other clinical outcomes.

Clinical Response to Third-Line Angiotensin-II vs Epinephrine in Septic Shock: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate third-line vasopressor in septic shock patients receiving norepinephrine and vasopressin is unknown. Angiotensin-II (AT-II) offers a unique mechanism of action to traditionally used vasopressors in septic shock. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of third-line AT-II to epinephrine in patients with septic shock. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients was performed between April 1, 2019 and July 31, 2022. Propensity-matched (2:1) analysis compared adults with septic shock who received third-line AT-II to controls who received epinephrine following norepinephrine and vasopressin. The primary outcome was clinical response 24 hours after third-line vasopressor initiation. Additional efficacy and safety outcomes were investigated. RESULTS: Twenty-three AT-II patients were compared with 46 epinephrine patients. 47.8% of AT-II patients observed a clinical response at hour 24 compared with 28.3% of epinephrine patients (P = 0.12). In-hospital mortality (65.2% vs 73.9%, P = 0.45), cardiac arrhythmias (26.1% vs 26.1%, P = 0.21), and thromboembolism (4.3% vs 2.2%, P = 0.61) were not observed to be statistically different between groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Administration of AT-II as a third-line vasopressor agent in septic shock patients was not associated with significantly improved clinical response at hour 24 compared with epinephrine. Although underpowered to detect meaningful differences, the clinical observations of this study warrant consideration and further investigation of AT-II as a third-line vasopressor in septic shock.

Carotid Dissection Complicated by Polymorphic Ventricular Tachycardia.

In this case report, we describe a patient with fibromuscular dysplasia who suffered spontaneous bilateral carotid artery dissections. This was followed by significant variations in blood pressure and heart rates during her admission. Unfortunately, during an episode of bradycardia, a premature ventricular contraction occurred during the T wave which resulted in polymorphic ventricular tachycardia. As described in the case and in graphic depiction, this hemodynamic instability resolved after stenting of the carotid artery.

Association of Hospital Prices for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting With Hospital Quality and Reimbursement.

Although prices for medical services are known to vary markedly between hospitals, it remains unknown whether variation in hospital prices is explained by differences in hospital quality or reimbursement from major insurers. We obtained "out-of-pocket" price estimates for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) from a random sample of US hospitals for a hypothetical patient without medical insurance. We compared hospital CABG price to (1) "fair price" estimate from Healthcare Bluebook data using each hospital's zip code and (2) Society of Thoracic Surgeons composite CABG quality score and risk-adjusted mortality rate. Of 101 study hospitals, 53 (52.5%) were able to provide a complete price estimate for CABG. The mean price for CABG was $151,271 and ranged from $44,824 to $448,038. Except for geographic census region, which was weakly associated with price, hospital CABG price was not associated with other structural characteristics or CABG volume (p >0.10 for all). Likewise, there was no association between a hospital's price for CABG with average reimbursement from major insurers within the same zip code (ρ = 0.07, p value = 0.6), Society of Thoracic Surgeoncomposite quality score (ρ = 0.08, p value = 0.71), or risk-adjusted CABG mortality (ρ = -0.03 p value = 0.89). In conclusion, the price of CABG varied more than 10-fold across US hospitals. There was no correlation between price information obtained from hospitals and the average reimbursement from major insurers in the same market. We also found no evidence to suggest that hospitals that charge higher prices provide better quality of care.