Understanding How Clinicians Personalize Fluid and Vasopressor Decisions in Early Sepsis Management.

Importance: Recent sepsis trials suggest that fluid-liberal vs fluid-restrictive resuscitation has similar outcomes. These trials used generalized approaches to resuscitation, and little is known about how clinicians personalize fluid and vasopressor administration in practice. Objective: To understand how clinicians personalize decisions about resuscitation in practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study of US clinicians in the Society of Critical Care Medicine membership roster was conducted from November 2022 to January 2023. Surveys contained 10 vignettes of patients with sepsis where pertinent clinical factors (eg, fluid received and volume status) were randomized. Respondents selected the next steps in management. Data analysis was conducted from February to September 2023. Exposure: Online Qualtrics clinical vignette survey. Main Outcomes and Measures: Using multivariable logistic regression, the associations of clinical factors with decisions about fluid administration, vasopressor initiation, and vasopressor route were tested. Results are presented as adjusted proportions with 95% CIs. Results: Among 11 203 invited clinicians, 550 (4.9%; 261 men [47.5%] and 192 women [34.9%]; 173 with >15 years of practice [31.5%]) completed at least 1 vignette and were included. A majority were physicians (337 respondents [61.3%]) and critical care trained (369 respondents [67.1%]). Fluid volume already received by a patient was associated with resuscitation decisions. After 1 L of fluid, an adjusted 82.5% (95% CI, 80.2%-84.8%) of respondents prescribed additional fluid and an adjusted 55.0% (95% CI, 51.9%-58.1%) initiated vasopressors. After 5 L of fluid, an adjusted 17.5% (95% CI, 15.1%-19.9%) of respondents prescribed more fluid while an adjusted 92.7% (95% CI, 91.1%-94.3%) initiated vasopressors. More respondents prescribed fluid when the patient examination found dry vs wet (ie, overloaded) volume status (adjusted proportion, 66.9% [95% CI, 62.5%-71.2%] vs adjusted proportion, 26.5% [95% CI, 22.3%-30.6%]). Medical history, respiratory status, lactate trend, and acute kidney injury had small associations with fluid and vasopressor decisions. In 1023 of 1127 vignettes (90.8%) where the patient did not have central access, respondents were willing to start vasopressors through a peripheral intravenous catheter. In cases where patients were already receiving peripheral norepinephrine, respondents were more likely to place a central line at higher norepinephrine doses of 0.5 µg/kg/min (adjusted proportion, 78.0%; 95% CI, 74.7%-81.2%) vs 0.08 µg/kg/min (adjusted proportion, 25.2%; 95% CI, 21.8%-28.5%) and after 24 hours (adjusted proportion, 59.5%; 95% CI, 56.6%-62.5%) vs 8 hours (adjusted proportion, 47.1%; 95% CI, 44.0%-50.1%). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that fluid volume received is the predominant factor associated with ongoing fluid and vasopressor decisions, outweighing many other clinical factors. Peripheral vasopressor use is common. Future studies aimed at personalizing resuscitation must account for fluid volumes and should incorporate specific tools to help clinicians personalize resuscitation.

Management of hepatorenal syndrome and associated outcomes: a systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), a multiorgan condition of acute kidney injury, is seen in advanced liver disease. This study aims to evaluate the current treatment for HRS. METHODS: The authors searched PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar literature. After quality assessment, 31 studies were included in this review. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology and the population, intervention, comparison and outcome scheme were used. We included human-controlled trials that evaluate the current treatment for HRS. Two authors independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. RESULTS: This study investigated the studies conducted on the effects of different treatments on follow-up of HRS patients. We gathered 440 articles, so 31 articles remained in our study. Of which 24 articles were conducted on terlipressin versus placebo or other treatments (midodrine/octreotide, norepinephrine, etc) that showed the higher rate of HRS reversal was detected for terlipressin in 17 studies (10 of them were significant), 2 studies achieved an insignificant lower rate of the model for end-stage liver disease score for terlipressin, 15 studies showed a decreased mortality rate in the terlipressin group (4 of them were significant). CONCLUSION: This review showed that terlipressin has a significantly higher reversal rate of HRS than the other treatments. Even the results showed that terlipressin is more efficient than midodrine/octreotide and norepinephrine as a previous medication, in reverse HRS, increasing patient survival.

Norepinephrine versus phenylephrine on cerebral tissue oxygen saturation during prophylactic infusion to prevent spinal hypotension for Caesarean birth.

BACKGROUND: Phenylephrine may cause a reduction in maternal cerebral tissue oxygen saturation (SctO2) during Caesarean birth to prevent spinal hypotension; however, the effect of norepinephrine has not been assessed. We hypothesized that norepinephrine was more effective than phenylephrine in maintaining SctO2 when preventing spinal hypotension during Caesarean birth. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, controlled study. Sixty patients were randomly assigned to prophylactic norepinephrine or phenylephrine to maintain blood pressure during spinal anesthesia for Caesarean birth. SctO2, systolic blood pressure, and heart rate were recorded. The primary outcome was the incidence of a 10% reduction of intraoperative SctO2 from baseline or more during Caesarean birth. RESULTS: The norepinephrine group had a lower incidence of more than 10% reduction of intraoperative SctO2 from baseline than that of the phenylephrine group (13.3% vs 40.0%, P = .02). The change in SctO2 after 5 minutes of norepinephrine infusion was higher than that after phenylephrine infusion (-3.4 ±â€…4.7 vs -6.2 ±â€…5.6, P = .04). The change in SctO2 after 10 minutes of norepinephrine infusion was higher than that after phenylephrine infusion (-2.5 ±â€…4.4 vs -5.4 ±â€…4.6, P = .006). The norepinephrine group showed greater left- and right-SctO2 values than the phenylephrine group at 5 to 10 minutes. However, the change in systolic blood pressure was comparable between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Norepinephrine was more effective than phenylephrine in maintaining SctO2 when preventing spinal hypotension during Caesarean birth. However, the changes in clinical outcomes caused by differences in SctO2 between the 2 medications warrant further studies.

Predicting septic shock in patients with sepsis at emergency department triage using systolic and diastolic shock index.

INTRODUCTION: Identifying patients with at a high risk of progressing to septic shock is essential. Due to systemic vasodilation in the pathophysiology of septic shock, the use of diastolic blood pressure (DBP) has emerged. We hypothesized that the initial shock index (SI) and diastolic SI (DSI) at the emergency department (ED) triage can predict septic shock. METHOD: This observational study used the prospectively collected sepsis registry. The primary outcome was progression to septic shock. Secondary outcomes were the time to vasopressor requirement, vasopressor dose, and severity according to SI and DSI. Patients were classified by tertiles according to the first principal component of shock index and diastolic shock index. RESULTS: A total of 1267 patients were included in the analysis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for predicting progression to septic shock for DSI was 0.717, while that for SI was 0.707. The AUC for predicting progression to septic shock for DSI and SI were significantly higher than those for conventional early warning scores. Middle tertile showed adjusted Odd ratio (aOR) of 1.448 (95% CI 1.074-1.953), and that of upper tertile showed 3.704 (95% CI 2.299-4.111). CONCLUSION: The SI and DSI were significant predictors of progression to septic shock. Our findings suggest an association between DSI and vasopressor requirement. We propose stratifying lower tertile as being at low risk, middle tertile as being at intermediate risk, and upper tertile as being at high risk of progression to septic shock. This system can be applied simply at the ED triage.

Effects of Endotracheal Epinephrine on Pharmacokinetics and Survival in a Swine Pediatric Cardiac Arrest Model.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the endotracheal tube (ET) and intravenous (IV) administration of epinephrine relative to concentration maximum, time to maximum concentration, mean concentration over time (MC), area under the curve, odds, and time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in a normovolemic pediatric cardiac arrest model. METHODS: Male swine weighing 24-37 kg were assigned to 4 groups: ET (n = 8), IV (n = 7), cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) + defibrillation (CPR + Defib) (n = 5), and CPR only (n = 3). Swine were placed arrest for 2 minutes, and then CPR was initiated for 2 minutes. Epinephrine (0.1 mg/kg) for the ET group or 0.01 mg/kg for the IV was administered every 4 minutes or until ROSC. Defibrillation started at 3 minutes and continued every 2 minutes for 30 minutes or until ROSC for all groups except the CPR-only group. Blood samples were collected over a period of 5 minutes. RESULTS: The MC of plasma epinephrine for the IV group was significantly higher at the 30- and 60-second time points (P = 0.001). The ET group had a significantly higher MC of epinephrine at the 180- and 240-second time points (P < 0.05). The concentration maximum of plasma epinephrine was significantly lower for the ET group (195 ± 32 ng/mL) than for the IV group (428 ± 38 ng/mL) (P = 0.01). The time to maximum concentration was significantly longer for the ET group (145 ± 26 seconds) than for the IV group (42 ± 16 seconds) (P = 0.01). No significant difference existed in area under the curve between the 2 groups (P = 0.62). The odds of ROSC were 7.7 times greater for the ET versus IV group. Time to ROSC was not significantly different among the IV, ET, and CPR + Defib groups (P = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this study, the ET route of administration should be considered a first-line intervention.

Control of mean arterial pressure using a closed-loop system for norepinephrine infusion in severe brain injury patients: the COMAT randomized controlled trial.

Brain injury patients require precise blood pressure (BP) management to maintain cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) and avoid intracranial hypertension. Nurses have many tasks and norepinephrine titration has been shown to be suboptimal. This can lead to limited BP control in patients that are in critical need of cerebral perfusion optimization. We have designed a closed-loop vasopressor (CLV) system capable of maintaining mean arterial pressure (MAP) in a narrow range and we aimed to assess its performance when treating severe brain injury patients. Within the first 48 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 18 patients with a severe brain injury underwent either CLV or manual norepinephrine titration. In both groups, the objective was to maintain MAP in target (within ± 5 mmHg of a predefined target MAP) to achieve optimal CPP. Fluid administration was standardized in the two groups. The primary objective was the percentage of time patients were in target. Secondary outcomes included time spent over and under target. Over the four-hour study period, the mean percentage of time with MAP in target was greater in the CLV group than in the control group (95.8 ± 2.2% vs. 42.5 ± 27.0%, p < 0.001). Severe undershooting, defined as MAP < 10 mmHg of target value was lower in the CLV group (0.2 ± 0.3% vs. 7.4 ± 14.2%, p < 0.001) as was severe overshooting defined as MAP > 10 mmHg of target (0.0 ± 0.0% vs. 22.0 ± 29.0%, p < 0.001). The CLV system can maintain MAP in target better than nurses caring for severe brain injury patients.

Terlipressin for hepatorenal syndrome.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The definition and diagnostic criteria of hepatorenal syndrome-acute kidney injury (HRS-AKI) has undergone recent changes. A major vasoconstrictor, terlipressin, has recently been approved as pharmacotherapy for HRS-AKI in the United States. The purpose of this review is to familiarize the readers with these new diagnostic criteria of HRS-AKI, and how best to use terlipressin. RECENT FINDINGS: Terlipressin is effective either as bolus dosing or continuous infusion and can achieve reversal of HRS-AKI in approximately 40% of patients. Continuous infusion allows lower daily dose with equal efficacy and less side effects but not an approved mode of administration in the United States. Response to terlipressin in the randomized controlled trials was defined as repeat reduction of serum creatinine to less than 1.5 mg/dl. Newer studies will likely require response to treatment to be defined as a repeat serum creatinine to be less than 0.3 mg/dl from baseline. Terlipressin use is associated with ischemic side effects and potential for respiratory failure development. SUMMARY: Careful patient selection and close monitoring are necessary for its use. Response to terlipressin with HRS-AKI reversal is associated with improved outcomes with better survival and less requirement for renal replacement therapy.

Cardiac Agents during Neonatal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: Epinephrine (adrenaline) is currently the only cardiac agent recommended during neonatal resuscitation. The inability to predict which newborns are at risk of requiring resuscitative efforts at birth has prevented the collection of large, high-quality human data. SUMMARY: Information on the optimal dosage and route of epinephrine administration is extrapolated from neonatal animal studies and human adult and pediatric studies. Adult resuscitation guidelines have previously recommended vasopressin use; however, neonatal studies needed to create guidelines are lacking. A review of the literature demonstrates conflicting results regarding epinephrine efficacy through various routes of access as well as vasopressin during asystolic cardiac arrest in animal models. Vasopressin appears to improve hemodynamic and post-resuscitation outcomes compared to epinephrine in asystolic cardiac arrest animal models. KEY MESSAGES: The current neonatal resuscitation guidelines recommend epinephrine be primarily given via the intravenous or intraosseous route, with the endotracheal route as an alternative if these routes are not feasible or unsuccessful. The intravenous or intraosseous dose ranges between 0.01 and 0.03 mg/kg, which should be repeated every 3-5 min during chest compressions. However, the optimal dosing and route of administration of epinephrine remain unknown. There is evidence from adult and pediatric studies that vasopressin might be an alternative to epinephrine; however, the neonatal data are scarce.

Comparison of Octreotide and Vasopressors as First-Line Treatment for Intraoperative Carcinoid Crisis.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative carcinoid crisis is typically sudden onset of profound hypotension during operations on patients with neuroendocrine tumors. The crisis was thought to be due to massive release of hormones, and perioperative octreotide was recommended as a prophylaxis against the crisis and as first-line treatment. Recent studies show that octreotide does not prevent the crisis and that no massive release of hormones occurs. Therefore, the authors hypothesized that octreotide is not effective for treating the crisis. METHODS: A prospective carcinoid anesthesia database was analyzed for occurrences of crisis. Outcomes were compared between protocols when first-line therapy was bolus octreotide and when it was vasopressors without octreotide. Significance was determined by Student's t test, the Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Among operations performed with octreotide as first-line treatment (n = 150), crisis occurred for 45 (30 %) patients, the median crisis duration was 6 min, 12 (27 %) patients had crises longer than 10 min, 42 patients (93 %) required subsequent vasopressor administration to resolve the crisis, and 3 (2 %) operations were aborted. Among operations performed with vasopressors as the first-line treatment (n = 195), crisis occurred for 49 (25 %) patients (p = 0.31), the median crisis duration was 3 min (p < 0.001), and no crisis lasted longer than 10 min (p = 0.001). Patients treated with vasopressors were less likely to have multiple crises and had a shorter total time in crisis, a shorter anesthesia time, and no aborted operations (p < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: First-line octreotide was ineffective treatment for carcinoid crisis, with patients requiring vasopressors to resolve the crisis, and many crises lasting longer than 10 min. First-line vasopressor treatment resulted in significantly shorter crisis durations, fewer crises and aborted operations, and shorter anesthesia times. Vasopressors should be used as first-line treatment for intraoperative crisis, and treatment guidelines should be changed.

Perioperative Fluid and Vasopressor Therapy in 2050: From Experimental Medicine to Personalization Through Automation.

Intravenous (IV) fluids and vasopressor agents are key components of hemodynamic management. Since their introduction, their use in the perioperative setting has continued to evolve, and we are now on the brink of automated administration. IV fluid therapy was first described in Scotland during the 1832 cholera epidemic, when pioneers in medicine saved critically ill patients dying from hypovolemic shock. However, widespread use of IV fluids only began in the 20th century. Epinephrine was discovered and purified in the United States at the end of the 19th century, but its short half-life limited its implementation into patient care. Advances in venous access, including the introduction of the central venous catheter, and the ability to administer continuous infusions of fluids and vasopressors rather than just boluses, facilitated the use of fluids and adrenergic agents. With the advent of advanced hemodynamic monitoring, most notably the pulmonary artery catheter, the role of fluids and vasopressors in the maintenance of tissue oxygenation through adequate cardiac output and perfusion pressure became more clearly established, and hemodynamic goals could be established to better titrate fluid and vasopressor therapy. Less invasive hemodynamic monitoring techniques, using echography, pulse contour analysis, and heart-lung interactions, have facilitated hemodynamic monitoring at the bedside. Most recently, advances have been made in closed-loop fluid and vasopressor therapy, which apply computer assistance to interpret hemodynamic variables and therapy. Development and increased use of artificial intelligence will likely represent a major step toward fully automated hemodynamic management in the perioperative environment in the near future. In this narrative review, we discuss the key events in experimental medicine that have led to the current status of fluid and vasopressor therapies and describe the potential benefits that future automation has to offer.

Does Early Vasopressin in Septic Shock Improve Outcomes? An Important Piece to This Emerging Puzzle Has Arrived.

In this month's Annals of Pharmacotherapy, the largest observational study assessing the early versus later use of vasopressin has been published. When this new study is combined with the other available observational studies, there are 2 important outcomes to focus on. When all the observational studies are pooled together, no reduction in new onset arrhythmias is seen (odds ratio [OR] = 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.41-1.95) with early versus late vasopressin use while the reduction in renal replacement therapy just missed statistical significance (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.32-1.00). Early vasopressin likely does not reduce new onset arrhythmias versus later use but might reduce the need for renal replacement therapy.