Norepinephrine for Early Shock Control in Sepsis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tung M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6888656 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6888651 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe relationships between systemic hemodynamics and renal blood flow and renal microcirculation are poorly known in sepsis. Norepinephrine (NE) infusion may add another level of complexity.MethodsVentilated and anesthetized rats were submitted to various mean arterial pressure (MAP) steps by blood removal, in presence and absence of sepsis and/or NE. Renal blood flow (RBF) and blood velocity (Vm) in renal cortical capillaries (using Sidestream Dark Field Imaging) were measured. Data were analyzed using linear mixed models enabling us to display the effects of both the considered explanatory variables and their interactions.ResultsPositive correlations were found between MAP and RBF. Sepsis had no independent impact on RBF whereas norepinephrine decreased RBF, regardless of the presence of sepsis. The relationship between MAP and RBF was weaker above a MAP of 100 mmHg as opposed to below 100 mmHg, with RBF displaying a relative "plateau" above this threshold. Sepsis and NE impacted carotid blood flow (CBF) differently compared to RBF, demonstrating organ specificity. A positive relationship was observed between MAP and Vm. Sepsis increased Vm while nNE decreased Vm irrespective of MAP. Sepsis was associated with an increase in serum creatinine determined at the end of the experiments, which was prevented by NE infusion.ConclusionIn our model, sepsis at an early phase did not impact RBF over a large range of MAP. NE elicited a renal vasoconstrictive effect. Autoregulation of RBF appeared conserved in sepsis. Conversely, sepsis was associated with "hypervelocity" of blood flow in cortical peritubular capillaries reversed by NE infusion.
| S-EPMC4056525 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The rate of weaning of vasopressors drugs is usually an empirical choice made by the treating in critically ill patients. We applied fuzzy logic principles to modify intravenous norepinephrine (noradrenaline) infusion rates during norepinephrine infusion in septic patients in order to reduce the duration of shock.Septic patients were randomly assigned to norepinephrine infused either at the clinician's discretion (control group) or under closed-loop control based on fuzzy logic (fuzzy group). The infusion rate changed automatically after analysis of mean arterial pressure in the fuzzy group. The primary end-point was time to cessation of norepinephrine. The secondary end-points were 28-day survival, total amount of norepinephine infused and duration of mechanical ventilation.Nineteen patients were randomly assigned to fuzzy group and 20 to control group. Weaning of norepinephrine was achieved in 18 of the 20 control patients and in all 19 fuzzy group patients. Median (interquartile range) duration of shock was significantly shorter in the fuzzy group than in the control group (28.5 [20.5 to 42] hours versus 57.5 [43.7 to 117.5] hours; P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in duration of mechanical ventilation or survival at 28 days between the two groups. The median (interquartile range) total amount of norepinephrine infused during shock was significantly lower in the fuzzy group than in the control group (0.6 [0.2 to 1.0] microg/kg versus 1.4 [0.6 to 2.7] microg/kg; P < 0.01).Our study has shown a reduction in norepinephrine weaning duration in septic patients enrolled in the fuzzy group. We attribute this reduction to fuzzy control of norepinephrine infusion.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00763906.
| S-EPMC2646320 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWe sought to compare the outcomes of patients with cryptic versus overt shock treated with an emergency department (ED) based early sepsis resuscitation protocol.MethodsPre-planned secondary analysis of a large, multicenter ED-based randomized controlled trial of early sepsis resuscitation. All subjects were treated with a quantitative resuscitation protocol in the ED targeting 3 physiological variables: central venous pressure, mean arterial pressure and either central venous oxygen saturation or lactate clearance. The study protocol was continued until all endpoints were achieved or a maximum of 6h. Outcomes data of patients who were enrolled with a lactate ? 4mmol/L and normotension (cryptic shock) were compared to those enrolled with sustained hypotension after fluid challenge (overt shock). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.ResultsA total of 300 subjects were enrolled, 53 in the cryptic shock group and 247 in the overt shock group. The demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. The primary endpoint of in-hospital mortality was observed in 11/53 (20%, 95% CI 11-34) in the cryptic shock group and 48/247 (19%, 95% CI 15-25) in the overt shock group, difference of 1% (95% CI -10 to 14; log rank test p=0.81).ConclusionSevere sepsis with cryptic shock carries a mortality rate not significantly different from that of overt septic shock. These data suggest the need for early aggressive screening for and treatment of patients with an elevated serum lactate in the absence of hypotension.
| S-EPMC3179778 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7491400 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Optimal timing for the start of vasopressors (VP) in septic shock has not been widely studied since it is assumed that fluids must be administered in advance. We sought to evaluate whether a very early start of VP, even without completing the initial fluid loading, might impact clinical outcomes in septic shock. METHODS:A total of 337 patients with sepsis requiring VP support for at least 6 h were initially selected from a prospectively collected database in a 90-bed mixed-ICU during a 24-month period. They were classified into very-early (VE-VPs) or delayed vasopressor start (D-VPs) categories according to whether norepinephrine was initiated or not within/before the next hour of the first resuscitative fluid load. Then, VE-VPs (n = 93) patients were 1:1 propensity matched to D-VPs (n = 93) based on age; source of admission (emergency room, general wards, intensive care unit); chronic and acute comorbidities; and lactate, heart rate, systolic, and diastolic pressure at vasopressor start. A risk-adjusted Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to assess the association between VE-VPs and day 28 mortality. Finally, a sensitivity analysis was performed also including those patients requiring VP support for less than 6 h. RESULTS:Patients subjected to VE-VPs received significantly less resuscitation fluids at vasopressor starting (0[0-510] vs. 1500[650-2300] mL, p < 0.001) and during the first 8 h of resuscitation (1100[500-1900] vs. 2600[1600-3800] mL, p < 0.001), with no significant increase in acute renal failure and/or renal replacement therapy requirements. VE-VPs was related with significant lower net fluid balances 8 and 24 h after VPs. VE-VPs was also associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death compared to D-VPs (HR 0.31, CI95% 0.17-0.57, p < 0.001) at day 28. Such association was maintained after including patients receiving vasopressors for < 6 h. CONCLUSION:A very early start of vasopressor support seems to be safe, might limit the amount of fluids to resuscitate septic shock, and could lead to better clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC7023737 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Early prognostic prediction of sepsis is essential in adjusting therapeutic protocols to prevent deterioration and reduce mortality. We compared the predictive value of the serum concentration of the soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 1 (sTREM-1) for 28-day mortality and for the development of severe sepsis or septic shock on the third day with the levels of interleukin (IL)-6, C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT). The study was conducted on 85 patients with sepsis. sTREM-1, CRP, PCT and IL-6 concentrations were measured upon study inclusion (day 0) and on days 1, 2, 3 and 5. APACHE II, SAPS II and SOFA scores were analyzed. The sTREM-1 levels (pg/ml) were higher in non-survivors than in survivors at admission (773 vs. 391, p?<?0.001) and on days 1, 2, 3 and 5. In predicting the development of severe sepsis, the highest AUCs were found for PCT (0.744, 95% CI 0.638-0.85) and sTREM-1 (0.664, 95% CI 0.55-0.778); and in septic shock prediction, for PCT (0.766, 95% CI 0.665-0.867) and IL-6 (0.707, 95% CI 0.595-0.819). sTREM-1 positively correlated with APACHE II, SAPS II and SOFA scores. At inclusion, significant AUC for predicting 28-day mortality was 0.772 for the sTREM-1 (95% CI 0.672-0.871), 0.858 for APACHE II (95% CI 0.768-0.948), 0.847 for SAPS II (95% CI 0.733-0.96), 0.806 for SOFA score (95% CI 0.698-0.915). sTREM-1 can early predict the 28-day sepsis mortality, although its effectiveness is lower in comparison with clinical severity scores.
| S-EPMC6061141 | biostudies-literature
Project description:For more than two decades, sepsis was defined as a microbial infection that produces fever (or hypothermia), tachycardia, tachypnoea and blood leukocyte changes. Sepsis is now increasingly being considered a dysregulated systemic inflammatory and immune response to microbial invasion that produces organ injury for which mortality rates are declining to 15-25%. Septic shock remains defined as sepsis with hyperlactataemia and concurrent hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy, with in-hospital mortality rates approaching 30-50%. With earlier recognition and more compliance to best practices, sepsis has become less of an immediate life-threatening disorder and more of a long-term chronic critical illness, often associated with prolonged inflammation, immune suppression, organ injury and lean tissue wasting. Furthermore, patients who survive sepsis have continuing risk of mortality after discharge, as well as long-term cognitive and functional deficits. Earlier recognition and improved implementation of best practices have reduced in-hospital mortality, but results from the use of immunomodulatory agents to date have been disappointing. Similarly, no biomarker can definitely diagnose sepsis or predict its clinical outcome. Because of its complexity, improvements in sepsis outcomes are likely to continue to be slow and incremental.
| S-EPMC5538252 | biostudies-other
Project description:INTRODUCTION: Altered pharmacokinetics (PK) in critically ill patients can result in insufficient serum ?-lactam concentrations when standard dosages are administered. Previous studies on ?-lactam PK have generally excluded the most severely ill patients, or were conducted during the steady-state period of treatment. The aim of our study was to determine whether the first dose of piperacillin-tazobactam, ceftazidime, cefepime, and meropenem would result in adequate serum drug concentrations in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. METHODS: Open, prospective, multicenter study in four Belgian intensive care units. All consecutive patients with a diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock, in whom treatment with the study drugs was indicated, were included. Serum concentrations of the antibiotics were determined by high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) before and 1, 1.5, 4.5 and 6 or 8 hours after administration. RESULTS: 80 patients were treated with piperacillin-tazobactam (n = 27), ceftazidime (n = 18), cefepime (n = 19) or meropenem (n = 16). Serum concentrations remained above 4 times the minimal inhibitory concentration (T > 4 × MIC), corresponding to the clinical breakpoint for Pseudomonas aeruginosa defined by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST), for 57% of the dosage interval for meropenem (target MIC = 8 ?g/mL), 45% for ceftazidime (MIC = 32 ?g/mL), 34% for cefepime (MIC = 32 ?g/mL), and 33% for piperacillin-tazobactam (MIC = 64 ?g/mL). The number of patients who attained the target PK profile was 12/16 for meropenem (75%), 5/18 for ceftazidime (28%), 3/19 (16%) for cefepime, and 12/27 (44%) for piperacillin-tazobactam. CONCLUSIONS: Serum concentrations of the antibiotic after the first dose were acceptable only for meropenem. Standard dosage regimens for piperacillin-tazobactam, ceftazidime and cefepime may, therefore, be insufficient to empirically cover less susceptible pathogens in the early phase of severe sepsis and septic shock.
| S-EPMC2945087 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionMost experts recommend norepinephrine as the first-line agent in septic shock. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness and safety of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Epistemonikos, as well as MEDLINE from 1966 till August 2019. Screening of full texts, evaluation for eligibility, and data extraction were done by four independent reviewers. We estimated risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) using a random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary outcomes included the number of participants who achieved the target mean arterial pressure (MAP), time to achieve the target MAP, and number of participants with all-cause 28-day mortality. The secondary outcomes included the length of stay in the intensive care unit, length of hospital stay, incidence of arrhythmia and myocardial infarction, vasopressor-free days, and number of participants with all-cause 90-day mortality.ResultsWe identified 11 randomized controlled trials with a total of 4,803 participants. There was no difference in the number of participants who achieved the target MAP between those patients receiving norepinephrine and other vasopressors (RR 1.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 6.54; P = 0.640; I2 = 94%; two trials, 116 participants). There was no significant difference in time to achieve the target MAP (MD -0.05; 95%, CI, -0.32 to 0.21; P = 0.690; I2 = 26%; two trials, 1763 participants) and all-cause 28-day mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.02; P = 0.160; I2 = 0%; seven trials, 4,139 participants). Regarding the secondary outcome, norepinephrine may significantly reduce the incidence of arrhythmia as compared to other vasopressors (RR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.97; P = 0.030; I2 = 64%; six trials, 3974 participants). There was no difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction (RR 1.28; 95% CI, 0.79 to 2.09), vasopressor-free day (RR 0.46; 95% CI, -1.82 to 2.74) and all-cause 90-day mortality (RR 1.08; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.21) between norepinephrine and vasopressors.ConclusionIn minimizing the occurrence of an arrhythmia, norepinephrine is superior to other vasopressors, making it safe to be used in septic shock. However, there was insufficient evidence concerning mortality and achievement of the target MAP outcomes.
| S-EPMC7972398 | biostudies-literature