Dataset Information

Current use of inotropes in circulatory shock.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Treatment decisions on critically ill patients with circulatory shock lack consensus. In an international survey, we aimed to evaluate the indications, current practice, and therapeutic goals of inotrope therapy in the treatment of patients with circulatory shock.

Methods

From November 2016 to April 2017, an anonymous web-based survey on the use of cardiovascular drugs was accessible to members of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). A total of 14 questions focused on the profile of respondents, the triggering factors, first-line choice, dosing, timing, targets, additional treatment strategy, and suggested effect of inotropes. In addition, a group of 42 international ESICM experts was asked to formulate recommendations for the use of inotropes based on 11 questions.

Results

A total of 839 physicians from 82 countries responded. Dobutamine was the first-line inotrope in critically ill patients with acute heart failure for 84% of respondents. Two-thirds of respondents (66%) stated to use inotropes when there were persistent clinical signs of hypoperfusion or persistent hyperlactatemia despite a supposed adequate use of fluids and vasopressors, with (44%) or without (22%) the context of low left ventricular ejection fraction. Nearly half (44%) of respondents stated an adequate cardiac output as target for inotropic treatment. The experts agreed on 11 strong recommendations, all of which were based on excellent (>?90%) or good (81-90%) agreement. Recommendations include the indications for inotropes (septic and cardiogenic shock), the choice of drugs (dobutamine, not dopamine), the triggers (low cardiac output and clinical signs of hypoperfusion) and targets (adequate cardiac output) and stopping criteria (adverse effects and clinical improvement).

Conclusion

Inotrope use in critically ill patients is quite heterogeneous as self-reported by individual caregivers. Eleven strong recommendations on the indications, choice, triggers and targets for the use of inotropes are given by international experts. Future studies should focus on consistent indications for inotrope use and implementation into a guideline for circulatory shock that encompasses individualized targets and outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Scheeren TWL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7846624 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Current use of inotropes in circulatory shock.

Scheeren Thomas W L TWL Bakker Jan J Kaufmann Thomas T Annane Djillali D Asfar Pierre P Boerma E Christiaan EC Cecconi Maurizio M Chew Michelle S MS Cholley Bernard B Cronhjort Maria M De Backer Daniel D Dubin Arnaldo A Dünser Martin W MW Duranteau Jacques J Gordon Anthony C AC Hajjar Ludhmila A LA Hamzaoui Olfa O Hernandez Glenn G Kanoore Edul Vanina V Koster Geert G Landoni Giovanni G Leone Marc M Levy Bruno B Martin Claude C Mebazaa Alexandre A Monnet Xavier X Morelli Andrea A Payen Didier D Pearse Rupert M RM Pinsky Michael R MR Radermacher Peter P Reuter Daniel A DA Sakr Yasser Y Sander Michael M Saugel Bernd B Singer Mervyn M Squara Pierre P Vieillard-Baron Antoine A Vignon Philippe P Vincent Jean-Louis JL van der Horst Iwan C C ICC Vistisen Simon T ST Teboul Jean-Louis JL

Annals of intensive care 20210129 1

<h4>Background</h4>Treatment decisions on critically ill patients with circulatory shock lack consensus. In an international survey, we aimed to evaluate the indications, current practice, and therapeutic goals of inotrope therapy in the treatment of patients with circulatory shock.<h4>Methods</h4>From November 2016 to April 2017, an anonymous web-based survey on the use of cardiovascular drugs was accessible to members of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). A total of 14 qu ...[more]

PMID: 33512597

Similar Datasets

Project description:Vasopressors and inotropes remain a cornerstone in stabilization of the severely impaired hemodynamics and cardiac output in cardiogenic shock (CS). The aim of this study was to analyze current real-life use of these medications, and their impact on outcome and on changes in cardiac and renal biomarkers over time in CS.The multinational CardShock study prospectively enrolled 219 patients with CS. The use of vasopressors and inotropes was analyzed in relation to the primary outcome, i.e., 90-day mortality, with propensity score methods in 216 patients with follow-up data available. Changes in cardiac and renal biomarkers over time until 96 hours from baseline were analyzed with linear mixed modeling.Patients were 67 (SD 12) years old, 26 % were women, and 28 % had been resuscitated from cardiac arrest prior to inclusion. On average, systolic blood pressure was 78 (14) and mean arterial pressure 57 (11) mmHg at detection of shock. 90-day mortality was 41 %. Vasopressors and/or inotropes were administered to 94 % of patients and initiated principally within the first 24 hours. Noradrenaline and adrenaline were given to 75 % and 21 % of patients, and 30 % received several vasopressors. In multivariable logistic regression, only adrenaline (21 %) was independently associated with increased 90-day mortality (OR 5.2, 95 % CI 1.88, 14.7, p?=?0.002). The result was independent of prior cardiac arrest (39 % of patients treated with adrenaline), and the association remained in propensity-score-adjusted analysis among vasopressor-treated patients (OR 3.0, 95 % CI 1.3, 7.2, p?=?0.013); this was further confirmed by propensity-score-matched analysis. Adrenaline was also associated, independent of prior cardiac arrest, with marked worsening of cardiac and renal biomarkers during the first days. Dobutamine and levosimendan were the most commonly used inotropes (49 % and 24 %). There were no differences in mortality, whether noradrenaline was combined with dobutamine or levosimendan.Among vasopressors and inotropes, adrenaline was independently associated with 90-day mortality in CS. Moreover, adrenaline use was associated with marked worsening in cardiac and renal biomarkers. The combined use of noradrenaline with either dobutamine or levosimendan appeared prognostically similar.

Project description:ImportanceMechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices, including intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs), are used in patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock despite limited evidence of their clinical benefit.ObjectiveTo examine trends in the use of MCS devices among patients who underwent PCI for AMI with cardiogenic shock, hospital-level use variation, and factors associated with use.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used the CathPCI and Chest Pain-MI Registries of the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Patients who underwent PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, were identified from both registries. Data were analyzed from October 2018 to August 2020.ExposuresTherapies to provide hemodynamic support were categorized as intravascular microaxial LVAD, IABP, TandemHeart, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, LVAD, other devices, combined IABP and intravascular microaxial LVAD, combined IABP and other device (defined as TandemHeart, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, LVAD, or another MCS device), or medical therapy only.Main outcomes and measuresUse of MCS devices overall and specific MCS devices, including intravascular microaxial LVAD, at both patient and hospital levels and variables associated with use.ResultsAmong the 28 304 patients included in the study, the mean (SD) age was 65.4 (12.6) years and 18 968 were men (67.0%). The overall MCS device use was constant from the fourth quarter of 2015 to the fourth quarter of 2017, although use of intravascular microaxial LVADs significantly increased (from 4.1% to 9.8%; P < .001), whereas use of IABPs significantly decreased (from 34.8% to 30.0%; P < .001). A significant hospital-level variation in MCS device use was found. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) proportion of patients who received MCS devices was 42% (30%-54%), and the median proportion of patients who received intravascular microaxial LVADs was 1% (0%-10%). In multivariable analyses, cardiac arrest at first medical contact or during hospitalization (odds ratio [OR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.58-2.09) and severe left main and/or proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.20-1.54) were patient characteristics that were associated with higher odds of receiving intravascular microaxial LVADs only compared with IABPs only.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that, among patients who underwent PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock, overall use of MCS devices was constant, and a 2.5-fold increase in intravascular microaxial LVAD use was found along with a corresponding decrease in IABP use and a significant hospital-level variation in MCS device use. These trends were observed despite limited clinical trial evidence of improved outcomes associated with device use.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To review temporary percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for the treatment of cardiogenic shock, including current evidence, contraindications, complications, and future directions. DATA SOURCES:A MEDLINE search was conducted with MeSH terms: cardiogenic shock, percutaneous mechanical circulatory support, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, and TandemHeart. STUDY SELECTION:Selected publications included randomized controlled trial data and observational studies describing experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. DATA EXTRACTION:Studies were chosen based on strength of association with and relevance to cardiogenic shock. DATA SYNTHESIS:Until recently, there were few options if cardiogenic shock was refractory to vasopressors or intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation. Now, several percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices, including Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA), TandemHeart (CardiacAssist, Pittsburgh, PA), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, are more accessible. Compared with intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella provides greater hemodynamic support but no reduction in mortality. Similarly, TandemHeart improves hemodynamic variables but not survival. Comparative studies have been underpowered for mortality because of small sample size. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation offers the advantage of biventricular circulatory support and oxygenation, but there are significant vascular complications. Comparative studies with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation have not been completed. Despite lack of randomized controlled data, there has been a substantial increase in use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. Several ongoing prospective studies with larger sample sizes may provide answers, and newer devices may become smaller, easier to insert, and more effective. CONCLUSIONS:Mortality from cardiogenic shock remains unacceptably high despite early coronary revascularization or other therapies. Although evidence is lacking and complications rates are high, improvements and experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support may offer the prospect of better outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundAs health care markets in the United States have become increasingly consolidated, the role of market concentration on physician treatment behavior remains unclear. In cardiology, specifically, there has been evolving treatment of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) with increasing use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS). However, there remains wide variation in it use. The role of market concentration in the utilization of MCS in AMI-CS is unknown. We examined the use of MCS in AMI-CS and its effect on outcomes between competitive and concentrated markets.Methods and resultsWe used the National Inpatient Sample to query patients admitted with AMI-CS between 2003 and 2009. The primary study outcome was the use of mechanical circulatory support. The primary study exposure was market concentration, measured using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, which was used to classify markets as unconcentrated (competitive), moderately concentrated, and highly concentrated. Baseline characteristics, procedures, and outcomes were compared for patients in differently concentrated markets. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between HHI and use of MCS.ResultsThere were 32,406 hospitalizations for patients admitted with AMI-CS. Patients in unconcentrated markets were more likely to receive MCS than in highly concentrated markets (unconcentrated 46.8% [5087/10,873], moderately concentrated 44.9% [2933/6526], and high concentrated 44.5% [6676/15,007], p < 0.01). Multivariable regression showed that patients in more concentrated markets had decreased use of MCS in patients in later years of the study period (2009, OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44-0.94, p = 0.02), with no effect in earlier years. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality.ConclusionMultivariable analysis did not show an association with market concentration and use of MCS in AMI-CS. However, subgroup analysis did show that competitive hospital markets were associated with more frequent use of MCS in AMI-CS as frequency of utilization increased over time. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effect of hospital market consolidation on the use of MCS and outcomes in AMI-CS.

Dataset Information

Current use of inotropes in circulatory shock.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Current use of inotropes in circulatory shock.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets