Vasopressin Initiation as a Second-Line VasoPressor in Early Septic Shock (VISPSS).

BACKGROUND: Vasopressin is recommended as a second-line vasoactive agent for the management of septic shock; however, a paucity of data to guide its optimal use remains. The aim was to evaluate the effect of time-to vasopressin initiation and norepinephrine (NE) dose at vasopressin initiation on clinical outcomes in patients presenting with septic shock. METHODS: This was a multi-centered, retrospective, observational study conducted in patients with septic shock. Patients were divided into 2 groups: patients initiated on vasopressin when NE-equivalent dose (NEE) < 0.25 mcg/kg/min or ≥ 0.25 mcg/kg/min. The primary outcome was time-to-vasopressor discontinuation (hours). Secondary outcomes included 28-day in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), fluid balance after 72 hours, and the change in NEE at 12 hours. RESULTS: A total of 302 patients were included in this study. After propensity-score matching, 73 patients in each group were identified for analysis. There was no significant difference in the time-to-vasopressor discontinuation (hours) between the groups (88.8 [55-187.5] vs 86.7 [47-172]); p = 0.7815). Fluid balance (mL) at 72 hours was significantly lower when vasopressin was initiated at NEE < 0.25 mcg/kg/min (1769 [71-7287] vs 5762 [1463-8813]; p = 0.0077). A multivariable linear regression showed shorter time to shock resolution with earlier vasopressin initiation, defined as within 4 hours (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this propensity-score matched cohort, vasopressin initiation at NEE < 0.25 mcg/kg/min was not associated with shorter vasopressor duration. There was a lower fluid balance at 72 hours when vasopressin was initiated at lower NE doses.

Safety and Tolerability of Intravenous Push Lacosamide and Levetiracetam.

Background: Lacosamide and levetiracetam are antiseizure medications (ASMs) commonly utilized in the treatment and prevention of seizures. Historically, these agents have been administered as slow IV infusions after further dilution. Recent literature suggests that rapid administration via undiluted IV push may be safe and may increase efficiency of administration. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of undiluted IV push lacosamide and levetiracetam over 5 min. Methods: This study was conducted as a single-centered, retrospective, observational cohort that analyzed the rapid administration of undiluted lacosamide and levetiracetam. Adult patients admitted from September 1st, 2019, to May 31st, 2020, receiving at least one administration of IV push lacosamide at any dose or levetiracetam at doses ≤ 1500 mg were evaluated. The primary safety outcomes were the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia. Results: A total of 86 subjects were evaluated; 36 patients were administered lacosamide, and 50 patients were administered levetiracetam. Hypotension or bradycardia occurred in 6 patients in the lacosamide group (16.6%) and 6 patients in the levetiracetam group (12.0%). There were no reported infusion site reactions. Among the subjects who received lacosamide and had a 12-lead electrocardiogram (EKG), there were no reported incidences of a prolonged PR interval. Conclusions: In this safety-analysis cohort, undiluted lacosamide and levetiracetam were not associated with significant adverse events when administered via IV push over 5 min. This seems to be a safe alternative method of administration to intermittent infusion. A larger, prospective cohort is needed to confirm these findings.

Unanswered questions on the use of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine therapy in sepsis and septic shock.

PURPOSE: To evaluate current evidence on the utility of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine (HAT) therapy for the management of septic shock. SUMMARY: The following keyword search terms were utilized in PubMed to identify relevant articles: ascorbic acid, thiamine, hydrocortisone, shock, and critical care. Articles relevant to HAT therapy in patients with septic shock were selected. Retrospective cohorts and randomized controlled trials were included in this review; case reports/series were excluded. Data from included studies illustrating the use of HAT therapy for the management of sepsis and septic shock, including data on time to HAT therapy initiation, severity of illness at baseline, duration of vasopressor therapy, progression of organ failure, and mortality, were evaluated. CONCLUSION: The utilization of HAT therapy for the management of sepsis and septic shock remains controversial. Hemodynamic benefits have been shown to be most pronounced when HAT therapy is initiated earlier. Future studies directed at earlier initiation may be necessary to confirm this theory.

Andexanet alfa versus four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for the reversal of apixaban- or rivaroxaban-associated intracranial hemorrhages.

BACKGROUND: Existing research recommends either andexanet alfa (AA) or four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) as an antidote for major bleeding events due to apixaban or rivaroxaban. Currently, there is limited published research that directly compares the risks and benefits of the two agents in patients with oral factor Xa inhibitor related traumatic and spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhages. Additional head-to-head data is needed to support favoring either AA or 4F-PCC when it comes to efficacy, safety, and cost. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted to assess patients admitted to a multi-center healthcare system and a stand-alone teaching hospital in central Florida from June 2016 to December 2020. Patients included in the study were at least 18 years of age, taking apixaban or rivaroxaban prior to admission, had radiographical evidence of an intracranial hemorrhage, and received either AA or 4F-PCC as a reversal agent. The primary outcome analyzed was the level of excellent hemostasis achieved, based on a standardized rating system for effective hemostasis defined by the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH), after administration of AA or 4F-PCC. Secondary outcomes analyzed included changes in the initial hemorrhage volume as reported on computed tomography (CT) scan and at 12 to 24 h post treatment, rate of thromboembolic events, rate of inpatient mortality, and total cost of treatment after AA or 4F-PCC administration. RESULTS: A total of 109 patients were included in the study with 47 in the AA group (43.1%) and 62 in the 4F-PCC group (56.9%). There were no statistically significant differences between AA and 4F-PCC in terms of the primary and secondary outcomes with the exception of total cost of treatment. The level of excellent hemostasis achieved after reversal administration of AA was seen in 27 patients (71.1%) and 41 patients (70.7%) after 4F-PCC administration (p = 1, p adjusted = 0.654 after controlling for age, ICH score, regional mass effect, and midline shift). There was no statistically significant difference in the median percentage change in hemorrhagic volume from baseline to 12-24 h after reversal treatment (0 [-0.17--0.24] vs. 0 [-0.021-0.29], p = 0.439, adjusted p = 0.601) in the AA and 4F-PCC groups, respectively. The total incidence of thromboembolic events (4 [8.5%] vs. 6 [9.7%], p = 1, adjusted p = 0.973) and rate of inpatient mortality was similar between the two groups (16 [34.0%] vs. 13 [21.0%], p = 0.134, adjusted p = 0.283). A statistically significant difference was observed with the total cost of reversal treatment: $23,602 for treatment with AA and $6692 for treatment with 4F-PCC. CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences were identified in primary or secondary outcomes between the two agents with the exception of total treatment cost. There is insufficient evidence based on this study to recommend AA over 4F-PCC for patients with intracranial hemorrhages associated with the use of apixaban or rivaroxaban.

Comparison of Early Versus Late Initiation of Hydrocortisone in Patients With Septic Shock in the ICU Setting.

BACKGROUND: Multiple publications demonstrate an association between time to initiation of corticosteroids and outcomes such as mortality and reversal of shock. However, the optimal time to initiate hydrocortisone remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of early versus late initiation of hydrocortisone in septic shock patients. METHODS: A retrospective, multicentered, observational study was conducted. Adults admitted from July 1, 2014, to August 31, 2019, diagnosed with septic shock receiving vasopressors and low-dose hydrocortisone were evaluated. Participants were divided into the "early" group if hydrocortisone was initiated within 12 hours or "late" group if initiated after 12 hours of vasopressor initiation. The primary outcome was time to vasopressor discontinuation. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), vasopressor utilization, fluids administered, and need for renal replacement therapy. RESULTS: A total of 198 patients were identified for inclusion in this propensity score-weighted cohort: 99 in the early group and 99 in the late group. Early initiation was associated with shorter time to vasopressor discontinuation compared with late initiation (40.7 vs 60.6 hours; P = 0.0002). There was also a reduction in ICU LOS (3.6 vs 5.1 days; P = 0.0147) and hospital LOS (8.9 vs 10.9 days; P = 0.0220) seen in the early group. There was no difference in mortality between groups. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In this propensity-matched cohort, administration of hydrocortisone within 12 hours from the onset of septic shock was associated with improved time to vasopressor discontinuation and reduced ICU and hospital LOS.