Variation in Fluid and Vasopressor Use in Shock With and Without Physiologic Assessment: A Multicenter Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the association between the use of physiologic assessment (central venous pressure, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, stroke volume variation, pulse pressure variation, passive leg raise test, and critical care ultrasound) with fluid and vasopressor administration 24 hours after shock onset and with in-hospital mortality. DESIGN: Multicenter prospective cohort study between September 2017 and February 2018. SETTINGS: Thirty-four hospitals in the United States and Jordan. PATIENTS: Consecutive adult patients requiring admission to the ICU with systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 90 mm Hg, mean arterial blood pressure less than or equal to 65 mm Hg, or need for vasopressor. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 1,639 patients enrolled, 39% had physiologic assessments. Use of physiologic assessment was not associated with cumulative fluid administered within 24 hours of shock onset, after accounting for baseline characteristics, etiology and location of shock, ICU types, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III, and hospital (beta coefficient, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.15). In multivariate analysis, the use of physiologic assessment was associated with a higher likelihood of vasopressor use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.45-2.71) and higher 24-hour cumulative vasopressor dosing as norepinephrine equivalent (beta coefficient, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.55). The use of vasopressor was associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27-2.78). In-hospital mortality was not associated with the use of physiologic assessment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.63-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: The use of physiologic assessment in the 24 hours after shock onset is associated with increased use of vasopressor but not with fluid administration.

Medication as a risk factor for hospitalization due to heart failure and shock: a series of case-crossover studies in Swiss claims data.

PURPOSE: Heart failure is among the leading causes for hospitalization in Europe. In this study, we evaluate potential precipitating factors for hospitalization for heart failure and shock. METHODS: Using Swiss claims data (2014-2015), we evaluated the association between hospitalization for heart failure and shock, and prescription of oral potassium supplements, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. We conducted case-crossover analyses, where exposure was compared for the hazard period and the primary control period (e.g., 1-30 days before hospitalization vs. 31-60 days, respectively). Conditional logistic regression was applied and subsequently adjusted for addressing potential confounding by disease progression. Sensitivity analyses were conducted and stratification for co-medication was performed. RESULTS: We identified 2185 patients hospitalized with heart failure or shock. Prescription of potassium supplements, NSAIDs, and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid was significantly associated with an increased risk for hospitalization for heart failure and shock with crude odds ratios (OR) of 2.04 for potassium (95% CI 1.24-3.36, p = 0.005, 30 days), OR 1.8 for NSAIDs (95% CI 1.39-2.33, p < 0.0001, 30 days), and OR 3.25 for amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (95% CI 2.06-5.14, p < 0.0001, 15 days), respectively. Adjustment attenuated odds ratios, while the significant positive association remained (potassium OR 1.70 (95% CI 1.01-2.86, p = 0.046), NSAIDs OR 1.50 (95% CI 1.14-1.97, p = 0.003), and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid OR 2.26 (95% CI 1.41-3.62, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Prescription of potassium supplements, NSAIDs, and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid is associated with increased risk for hospitalization. Underlying conditions such as pain, electrolyte imbalances, and infections are likely contributing risk factors. Physicians may use this knowledge to better identify patients at risk and adapt patient management.

Angiotensin II for the treatment of distributive shock in the intensive care unit: A US cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with distributive shock who are unresponsive to traditional vasopressors are commonly considered to have severe distributive shock and are at high mortality risk. Here, we assess the cost-effectiveness of adding angiotensin II to the standard of care (SOC) for severe distributive shock in the US critical care setting from a US payer perspective. METHODS: Short-term mortality outcomes were based on 28-day survival rates from the ATHOS-3 study. Long-term outcomes were extrapolated to lifetime survival using individually estimated life expectancies for survivors. Resource use and adverse event costs were drawn from the published literature. Health outcomes evaluated were lives saved, life-years gained, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained using utility estimates for the US adult population weighted for sepsis mortality. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed uncertainty around results. We analyzed patients with severe distributive shock from the ATHOS-3 clinical trial. RESULTS: The addition of angiotensin II to the SOC saved .08 lives at Day 28 compared to SOC alone. The cost per life saved was estimated to be $108,884. The addition of angiotensin II to the SOC was projected to result in a gain of .96 life-years and .66 QALYs. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $12,843 per QALY. The probability of angiotensin II being cost-effective at a threshold of $50,000 per QALY was 86 percent. CONCLUSIONS: For treatment of severe distributive shock, angiotensin II is cost-effective at acceptable thresholds.

Cardio-renal syndrome: an entity cardiologists and nephrologists should be dealing with collegially.

Heart failure may lead to acute kidney injury and vice versa. Chronic kidney disease may affect the clinical outcome in terms of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality while chronic heart failure may cause CKD. All these disorders contribute to the composite definition of cardio-renal syndromes. Renal impairment in HF patients has been increasingly recognized as an independent risk factor for morbidity and mortality; however, the most important clinical trials in HF tend to exclude patients with significant renal dysfunction. The mechanisms whereby renal insufficiency worsens the outcome in HF are not known, and several pathways could contribute to the "vicious heart/kidney circle." Traditionally, renal impairment has been attributed to the renal hypoperfusion due to reduced cardiac output and decreased systemic pressure. The hypovolemia leads to sympathetic activity, increased renin-angiotensin-aldosterone pathways and arginine-vasopressin release. All these mechanisms cause fluid and sodium retention, peripheral vasoconstriction and an increased congestion as well as cardiac workload. Therapy addressed to improve renal dysfunction, reduce neurohormonal activation and ameliorate renal blood flow could lead to a reduction in mortality and hospitalization in patients with cardio-renal syndrome.

Vasopressin in vasodilatory shock: hemodynamic stabilization at the cost of the liver and the kidney?

Infusing arginine vasopressin (AVP) in advanced vasodilatory shock is usually accompanied by a decrease in cardiac index and systemic oxygen transport. Whether or not such a vasoconstriction impedes regional blood flow and thus visceral organ function, even when low AVP is used, is still a matter of debate. Krejci and colleagues now report, in this issue of Critical Care, that infusing 'low-dose' AVP during early, short-term, normotensive and normodynamic fecal peritonitis-induced porcine septicemia markedly reduced both renal and portal blood flow, and consequently total hepatic blood flow, whereas hepatic arterial flow was not affected. This macrocirculatory response was concomitant with reduced kidney microcirculatory perfusion, whereas liver micro-circulation remained unchanged. From these findings the authors conclude that the use of AVP to treat hypotension should be cautioned against in patients with septic shock. Undoubtedly, given its powerful vasoconstrictor properties, which are not accompanied by positive inotropic qualities (in contrast with most of the equally potent standard care 'competitors', namely catecholamines), the safety of AVP is still a matter of concern. Nevertheless, the findings reported by Krejci and colleagues need to be discussed in the context of the model design, the timing and dosing of AVP as well as the complex interaction between visceral organ perfusion and function.

Quantitative assessment of a circulating depolarizing factor in shock.

Sustained depolarization of cell membranes and cellular edema are known to accompany various forms of circulatory shock and probably contribute to hypovolemia and cellular dysfunction. It has been proposed that a circulating protein is responsible for these effects. In the present study we have confirmed the existence of a circulating depolarizing factor (CDF) in hemorrhagic shock, burn shock, sepsis, and cardiopulmonary bypass. Plasma samples from pigs or sheep in shock were quantitatively assayed for depolarizing activity using a microelectrode method on rat diaphragm in vitro. The depolarizing effect of CDF in vitro was similar in magnitude to that of shock in situ. We conclude that CDF can entirely account for membrane depolarization during shock. The depolarizing effect of CDF was dose-dependent and saturable; it could be reversed by rinsing the diaphragm with Ringer's or control plasma. CDF activity was detectable in plasma within 5 min after a severe scald and gradually increased over the next 25 min. Resuscitation of hemorrhaged pigs, but not burned sheep, eliminated plasma CDF activity.

The use of colloids in clinical practice.

The use of colloid solutions for fluid resuscitation in hypovolaemic patients is widespread in clinical practice. This article describes the types of colloid agents which are currently available, their physicochemical properties, and adverse effects which may follow their administration. The relative merits of colloids compared with crystalloid solutions are discussed.

Cimetidine therapy for burn shock: a quantitative assessment.

Optimal cardiac output (CO) resuscitation for severely burned guinea pigs is obtained with intravenous volumes of lactated Ringer's (LR) calculated at 4 cc/kg/%burn/24 hr. When one half this volume of LR is given (2 cc/kg/%burn/24 hr) CO is significantly (p less than 0.05) reduced at 2, 4, and 8 hours after injury. When early postburn cimetidine therapy (0.5 hours after injury) is added to only 1 cc/kg/%burn/24 hr LR, CO is significantly elevated for the same time periods and is not significantly different from CO values of LR at 4 cc/kg/%burn/24 hr for the first 24 hours after injury. However, postburn cimetidine therapy delayed until 1 hour after burn injury did not improve CO compared to treatment with LR at 2 cc/kg/%burn/24 hr. These observations suggest that early postburn cimetidine therapy administered within 1/2-hour of severe scald injury will result in significant CO improvement while simultaneously reducing resuscitative fluid volume requirements by as much as 70% for the first 24 hours after injury.