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).

Initiating angiotensin II at lower vasopressor doses in vasodilatory shock: an exploratory post-hoc analysis of the ATHOS-3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: High dose vasopressors portend poor outcome in vasodilatory shock. We aimed to evaluate the impact of baseline vasopressor dose on outcomes in patients treated with angiotensin II (AT II). METHODS: Exploratory post-hoc analysis of the Angiotensin II for the Treatment of High-Output Shock (ATHOS-3) trial data. The ATHOS-3 trial randomized 321 patients with vasodilatory shock, who remained hypotensive (mean arterial pressure of 55-70 mmHg) despite receiving standard of care vasopressor support at a norepinephrine-equivalent dose (NED) > 0.2 µg/kg/min, to receive AT II or placebo, both in addition to standard of care vasopressors. Patients were grouped into low (≤ 0.25 µg/kg/min; n = 104) or high (> 0.25 µg/kg/min; n = 217) NED at the time of study drug initiation. The primary outcome was the difference in 28-day survival between the AT II and placebo subgroups in those with a baseline NED ≤ 0.25 µg/kg/min at the time of study drug initiation. RESULTS: Of 321 patients, the median baseline NED in the low-NED subgroup was similar in the AT II (n = 56) and placebo (n = 48) groups (median of each arm 0.21 µg/kg/min, p = 0.45). In the high-NED subgroup, the median baseline NEDs were also similar (0.47 µg/kg/min AT II group, n = 107 vs. 0.45 µg/kg/min placebo group, n = 110, p = 0.75). After adjusting for severity of illness, those randomized to AT II in the low-NED subgroup were half as likely to die at 28-days compared to placebo (HR 0.509; 95% CI 0.274-0.945, p = 0.03). No differences in 28-day survival between AT II and placebo groups were found in the high-NED subgroup (HR 0.933; 95% CI 0.644-1.350, p = 0.71). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the low-NED AT II subgroup compared to the placebo low-NED subgroup, though differences were not statistically significant, and were comparable in the high-NED subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory post-hoc analysis of phase 3 clinical trial data suggests a potential benefit of AT II introduction at lower doses of other vasopressor agents. These data may inform design of a prospective trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ATHOS-3 trial was registered in the clinicaltrials.gov repository (no. NCT02338843). Registered 14 January 2015.

Evaluating Yield of 19 Versus 21 G EBUS-TBNA Needles: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Controversy remains regarding the effect of needle size on the diagnostic yield of endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided transbronchial needle aspiration. We conducted a prospective study comparing the diagnostic yield of 19 and 21 G EBUS needles and hypothesized that the 19 G have a greater EBUS-guided transbronchial needle aspiration diagnostic yield as compared with the 21 G needle. METHODS: A total of 60 patients undergoing EBUS-guided transbronchial needle aspiration were enrolled with informed consent. Both 19 and 21 G needles were used at each lymph node station in alternating fashion, we randomized which needle, to begin with. Two rapid on-site cytology evaluation stations were present and assigned to one of the 2 needles. They reported sample adequacy and prepared a separate cell block per lymph node sampled for their assigned needle. RESULTS: A total of 141 lymph nodes were analyzed. Diagnosis included 69 benign lymph nodes, 47 malignant lymph nodes, 22 noncaseating granulomas, and 3 infected lymph nodes. Five hundred seventy-three passes (average: 4.1 passes/lymph node) were done with 19 G and 581 passes with 21 G needles (average: 4.1 passes/lymph node). Diagnostic yield was similar between 19 and 21 G needles overall (89.4% vs. 88.7%, P=0.71). The 19 G needles showed higher smear cellularity (32.6% vs. 13.0%, P=0.05), and rapid on-site cytology evaluation adequacy (84.8% vs. 63.0%, P=0.004) in lymph nodes with cancer diagnosis. In 7 of the 141 lymph nodes, samples from only one of the needles provided the final diagnosis. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in the overall diagnostic yield between 19 and 21 G needles. Further studies are needed to confirm the trend of the superiority of 19 G in cancerous lymph nodes.

Renin and Survival in Patients Given Angiotensin II for Catecholamine-Resistant Vasodilatory Shock. A Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Exogenous angiotensin II increases mean arterial pressure in patients with catecholamine-resistant vasodilatory shock (CRVS). We hypothesized that renin concentrations may identify patients most likely to benefit from such therapy.Objectives: To test the kinetic changes in renin concentrations and their prognostic value in patients with CRVS.Methods: We analyzed serum samples from patients enrolled in the ATHOS-3 (Angiotensin II for the Treatment of High-Output Shock) trial for renin, angiotensin I, and angiotensin II concentrations before the start of administration of angiotensin II or placebo and after 3 hours.Measurements and Main Results: Baseline serum renin concentration (normal range, 2.13-58.78 pg/ml) was above the upper limits of normal in 194 of 255 (76%) study patients with a median renin concentration of 172.7 pg/ml (interquartile range [IQR], 60.7 to 440.6 pg/ml), approximately threefold higher than the upper limit of normal. Renin concentrations correlated positively with angiotensin I/II ratios (r = 0.39; P < 0.001). At 3 hours after initiation of angiotensin II therapy, there was a 54.3% reduction (IQR, 37.9% to 66.5% reduction) in renin concentration compared with a 14.1% reduction (IQR, 37.6% reduction to 5.1% increase) with placebo (P < 0.0001). In patients with renin concentrations above the study population median, angiotensin II significantly reduced 28-day mortality to 28 of 55 (50.9%) patients compared with 51 of 73 patients (69.9%) treated with placebo (unstratified hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 0.88; P = 0.012) (P = 0.048 for the interaction).Conclusions: The serum renin concentration is markedly elevated in CRVS and may identify patients for whom treatment with angiotensin II has a beneficial effect on clinical outcomes.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02338843).

The Minnesota mobile extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation consortium for treatment of out-of-hospital refractory ventricular fibrillation: Program description, performance, and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: We describe implementation, evaluate performance, and report outcomes from the first program serving an entire metropolitan area designed to rapidly deliver extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)-facilitated resuscitation to patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia (VF/VT) out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). METHODS: This observational cohort study analyzed consecutive patients prospectively enrolled in the Minnesota Mobile Resuscitation Consortium's ECMO-facilitated resuscitation program. Entry criteria included: 1) adults (aged 18-75), 2) VF/VT OHCA, 3) no return of spontaneous circulation following 3 shocks, 4) automated cardiopulmonary resuscitation with a Lund University Cardiac Arrest System (LUCAS™), and 5) estimated transfer time of < 30 min. The primary endpoint was functionally favorable survival to hospital discharge with Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) 1 or 2. Secondary endpoints included 3-month functionally favorable survival, program benchmarks, ECMO cannulation rate, and safety. Essential program components included emergency medical services, 3 community ECMO Initiation Hospitals with emergency department ECMO cannulation sites and 24/7 cardiac catheterization laboratories, a 24/7 mobile ECMO cannulation team, and a single, centralized ECMO intensive care unit. FINDINGS: From December 1, 2019 to April 1, 2020, 63 consecutive patients were transported and 58 (97%) met criteria and were treated by the mobile ECMO service. Mean age was 57 ± 1.8 years; 46/58 (79%) were male. Program benchmarks were variably met, 100% of patients were successfully cannulated, and no safety issues were identified. Of the 58 patients, 25/58 (43% [CI:31-56%]) were both discharged from the hospital and alive at 3 months with CPC 1 or 2. INTERPRETATION: This first, community-wide ECMO-facilitated resuscitation program in the US demonstrated 100% successful cannulation, 43% functionally favorable survival rates at hospital discharge and 3 months, as well as safety. The program provides a potential model of this approach for other communities. FUNDING: The Helmsley Charitable Trust.

Sensitivity to angiotensin II dose in patients with vasodilatory shock: a prespecified analysis of the ATHOS-3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Early clinical data showed that some patients with vasodilatory shock are responsive to low doses of angiotensin II. The objective of this analysis was to compare clinical outcomes in patients requiring ≤ 5 ng kg-1 min-1 angiotensin II at 30 min (≤ 5 ng kg-1 min-1 subgroup) to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥ 75 mmHg versus patients receiving > 5 ng kg-1 min-1 angiotensin II at 30 min (> 5 ng kg-1 min-1 subgroup). Data from angiotensin II-treated patients enrolled in the ATHOS-3 trial were used. RESULTS: The subgroup of patients whose angiotensin II dose was down-titrated from 20 ng kg-1 min-1 at treatment initiation to ≤ 5 ng kg-1 min-1 at 30 min (79/163) had significantly lower endogenous serum angiotensin II levels and norepinephrine-equivalent doses and significantly higher MAP versus the > 5 ng kg-1 min-1 subgroup (84/163). Patients in the ≤ 5 ng kg-1 min-1 subgroup were more likely to have a MAP response at 3 h versus those in the > 5 ng kg-1 min-1 subgroup (90% vs. 51%, respectively; odds ratio, 8.46 [95% CI 3.63-19.7], P < 0.001). Day 28 survival was also higher in the ≤ 5 ng kg-1 min-1 subgroup versus the > 5 ng kg-1 min-1 subgroup (59% vs. 33%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI 0.28-0.72], P = 0.0007); multivariate analyses supported the survival benefit in patients with lower angiotensin II levels. The ≤ 5 ng kg-1 min-1 subgroup had a more favorable safety profile and lower treatment discontinuation rate than the > 5 ng kg-1 min-1 subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: This prespecified analysis showed that down-titration to ≤ 5 ng kg-1 min-1 angiotensin II at 30 min is an early predictor of favorable clinical outcomes which may be related to relative angiotensin II insufficiency.

Dietary Management of Blood Glucose in Medical Critically Ill Overweight and Obese Patients: An Open-Label Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Enteral nutrition (EN) increases hyperglycemia due to high carbohydrate concentrations while providing insufficient protein. The study tested whether an EN formula with very high-protein- and low-carbohydrate-facilitated glucose control delivered higher protein concentrations within a hypocaloric protocol. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, open-label clinical trial with parallel design in overweight/obese mechanically ventilated critically ill patients prescribed 1.5 g protein/kg ideal body weight/day. Patients received either an experimental very high-protein (37%) and low-carbohydrate (29%) or control high-protein (25%) and conventional-carbohydrate (45%) EN formula. RESULTS: A prespecified interim analysis was performed after enrollment of 105 patients (52 experimental, 53 control). Protein and energy delivery for controls and experimental groups on days 1-5 were 1.2 ± 0.4 and 1.1 ± 0.3 g/kg ideal body weight/day (P = .83), and 18.2 ± 6.0 and 12.5 ± 3.7 kcals/kg ideal body weight/day (P < .0001), respectively. The combined rate of glucose events outside the range of >110 and ≤150 mg/dL were not different (P = .54, primary endpoint); thereby the trial was terminated. The mean blood glucose for the control and the experimental groups were 138 (-SD 108, +SD 177) and 126 (-SD 99, +SD 160) mg/dL (P = .004), respectively. Mean rate of glucose events >150 mg/dL decreased (Δ = -13%, P = .015), whereas that of 80-110 mg/dL increased (Δ = 14%, P = .0007). Insulin administration decreased 10.9% (95% CI, -22% to 0.1%; P = .048) in the experimental group relative to the controls. Glycemic events ≤80 mg/dL and rescue dextrose use were not different (P = .23 and P = .53). CONCLUSIONS: A very high-protein and low-carbohydrate EN formula in a hypocaloric protocol reduces hyperglycemic events and insulin requirements while increasing glycemic events between 80-110 mg/dL.

Outcomes in Patients with Vasodilatory Shock and Renal Replacement Therapy Treated with Intravenous Angiotensin II.

OBJECTIVE: Acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy in severe vasodilatory shock is associated with an unfavorable prognosis. Angiotensin II treatment may help these patients by potentially restoring renal function without decreasing intrarenal oxygenation. We analyzed the impact of angiotensin II on the outcomes of acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of the Angiotensin II for the Treatment of High-Output Shock 3 trial. SETTING: ICUs. PATIENTS: Patients with acute kidney injury treated with renal replacement therapy at initiation of angiotensin II or placebo (n = 45 and n = 60, respectively). INTERVENTIONS: IV angiotensin II or placebo. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary end point: survival through day 28; secondary outcomes included renal recovery through day 7 and increase in mean arterial pressure from baseline of ≥ 10 mm Hg or increase to ≥ 75 mm Hg at hour 3. Survival rates through day 28 were 53% (95% CI, 38%-67%) and 30% (95% CI, 19%-41%) in patients treated with angiotensin II and placebo (p = 0.012), respectively. By day 7, 38% (95% CI, 25%-54%) of angiotensin II patients discontinued RRT versus 15% (95% CI, 8%-27%) placebo (p = 0.007). Mean arterial pressure response was achieved in 53% (95% CI, 38%-68%) and 22% (95% CI, 12%-34%) of patients treated with angiotensin II and placebo (p = 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy at study drug initiation, 28-day survival and mean arterial pressure response were higher, and rate of renal replacement therapy liberation was greater in the angiotensin II group versus the placebo group. These findings suggest that patients with vasodilatory shock and acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy may preferentially benefit from angiotensin II.

Angiotensin II for the Treatment of Vasodilatory Shock.

BACKGROUND: Vasodilatory shock that does not respond to high-dose vasopressors is associated with high mortality. We investigated the effectiveness of angiotensin II for the treatment of patients with this condition. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with vasodilatory shock who were receiving more than 0.2 µg of norepinephrine per kilogram of body weight per minute or the equivalent dose of another vasopressor to receive infusions of either angiotensin II or placebo. The primary end point was a response with respect to mean arterial pressure at hour 3 after the start of infusion, with response defined as an increase from baseline of at least 10 mm Hg or an increase to at least 75 mm Hg, without an increase in the dose of background vasopressors. RESULTS: A total of 344 patients were assigned to one of the two regimens; 321 received a study intervention (163 received angiotensin II, and 158 received placebo) and were included in the analysis. The primary end point was reached by more patients in the angiotensin II group (114 of 163 patients, 69.9%) than in the placebo group (37 of 158 patients, 23.4%) (odds ratio, 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.76 to 13.3; P<0.001). At 48 hours, the mean improvement in the cardiovascular Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe dysfunction) was greater in the angiotensin II group than in the placebo group (-1.75 vs. -1.28, P=0.01). Serious adverse events were reported in 60.7% of the patients in the angiotensin II group and in 67.1% in the placebo group. Death by day 28 occurred in 75 of 163 patients (46%) in the angiotensin II group and in 85 of 158 patients (54%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.07; P=0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Angiotensin II effectively increased blood pressure in patients with vasodilatory shock that did not respond to high doses of conventional vasopressors. (Funded by La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company; ATHOS-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02338843 .).