Dataset Information

Norepinephrine potentiates the efficacy of volume expansion on mean systemic pressure in septic shock.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Through venous contraction, norepinephrine (NE) increases stressed blood volume and mean systemic pressure (Pms) and exerts a "fluid-like" effect. When both fluid and NE are administered, Pms may not only result from the sum of the effects of both drugs. Indeed, norepinephrine may enhance the effects of volume expansion: because fluid dilutes into a more constricted, smaller, venous network, fluid may increase Pms to a larger extent at a higher than at a lower dose of NE. We tested this hypothesis, by mimicking the effects of fluid by passive leg raising (PLR).

Methods

In 30 septic shock patients, norepinephrine was decreased to reach a predefined target of mean arterial pressure (65-70 mmHg by default, 80-85 mmHg in previously hypertensive patients). We measured the PLR-induced increase in Pms (heart-lung interactions method) under high and low doses of norepinephrine. Preload responsiveness was defined by a PLR-induced increase in cardiac index ≥ 10%.

Results

Norepinephrine was decreased from 0.32 [0.18-0.62] to 0.26 [0.13-0.50] µg/kg/min (p < 0.0001). This significantly decreased the mean arterial pressure by 10 [7-20]% and Pms by 9 [4-19]%. The increase in Pms (∆Pms) induced by PLR was 13 [9-19]% at the higher dose of norepinephrine and 11 [6-16]% at the lower dose (p < 0.0001). Pms reached during PLR at the high dose of NE was higher than expected by the sum of Pms at baseline at low dose, ∆Pms induced by changing the norepinephrine dose and ∆Pms induced by PLR at low dose of NE (35.6 [11.2] mmHg vs. 33.6 [10.9] mmHg, respectively, p < 0.01). The number of preload responders was 8 (27%) at the high dose of NE and 15 (50%) at the low dose.

Conclusions

Norepinephrine enhances the Pms increase induced by PLR. These results suggest that a bolus of fluid of the same volume has a greater haemodynamic effect at a high dose than at a low dose of norepinephrine during septic shock.

SUBMITTER: Adda I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8379760 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIn septic shock, pulse pressure or cardiac output variation during passive leg raising are preload dependence indices reliable at predicting fluid responsiveness. Therefore, they may help to identify those patients who need intravascular volume expansion, while avoiding unnecessary fluid administration in the other patients. However, whether their use improves septic shock prognosis remains unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical benefits of using preload dependence indices to titrate intravascular fluids during septic shock.MethodsIn a single-center randomized controlled trial, 60 septic shock patients were allocated to preload dependence indices-guided (preload dependence group) or central venous pressure-guided (control group) intravascular volume expansion with 30 patients in each group. The primary end point was time to shock resolution, defined by vasopressor weaning.ResultsThere was no significant difference in time to shock resolution between groups (median (interquartile range) 2.0 (1.2 to 3.1) versus 2.3 (1.4 to 5.6) days in control and preload dependence groups, respectively). The daily amount of fluids administered for intravascular volume expansion was higher in the control than in the preload dependence group (917 (639 to 1,511) versus 383 (211 to 604) mL, P = 0.01), and the same held true for red cell transfusions (178 (82 to 304) versus 103 (0 to 183) mL, P = 0.04). Physiologic variable values did not change over time between groups, except for plasma lactate (time over group interaction, P <0.01). Mortality was not significantly different between groups (23% in the preload dependence group versus 47% in the control group, P = 0.10). Intravascular volume expansion was lower in the preload dependence group for patients with lower simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II), and the opposite was found for patients in the upper two SAPS II quartiles. The amount of intravascular volume expansion did not change across the quartiles of severity in the control group, but steadily increased with severity in the preload dependence group.ConclusionsIn patients with septic shock, titrating intravascular volume expansion with preload dependence indices did not change time to shock resolution, but resulted in less daily fluids intake, including red blood cells, without worsening patient outcome.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01972828. Registered 11 October 2013.

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.

Project description:Background:Use of high-dose norepinephrine is thought to have an immunosuppressive action that increases mortality. This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between norepinephrine dosage and prognosis of patients with septic shock. Methods:This study was a nested cohort of the DExmedetomidine for Sepsis in Intensive Care Unit Randomized Evaluation (DESIRE) trial. We evaluated 112 patients with septic shock and an initial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Cardiovascular (SOFA-C) category score >?2 and initial lactate level >?2 mmol/L. We divided the patients into two groups according to the norepinephrine dosage administered over the initial 7 days: high dose (??416 ?g/kg/week) (H group, n?=?56) and low dose (<?416 ?g/kg/week) (L group, n?=?56). The primary outcome of interest was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were ventilator-free days, initial 24-h infusion volume, initial 24- to 48-h infusion volume, and the need for renal replacement therapy. For comparisons between the H group and L group, we used the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and the t test or Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables. For time-to-event outcomes, Cox proportional hazards models were used. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were created for graphical representation. Results:Patient characteristics appeared to be similar between the two groups except for the SOFA-C score and fibrinogen degradation product level. The cumulative incidence of death at 28 days was 29.9% (16 patients) in the L group and 29.7% (15 patients) in the H group (p?=?0.99). The median number of 28-day ventilator-free days was 20 (0, 25) in the L group and 16 (0, 22) in the H group (p?<?0.05). Initial infusion volume at 0-24 h in the H group was significantly higher than that in the L group (p?=?0.004). Infusion volume at 24-48 h in the H group was also significantly higher than that in the L group (p?=?0.03). Conclusions:No statistically significant difference was observed in 28-day mortality between patients with septic shock treated with high-dose norepinephrine compared with those treated with low-dose norepinephrine. However, the number of ventilator-free days in the L group was higher than that in the H group. Trial registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01760967 Date of trial registration: January 4, 2013.

Project description:Goal of the experiment: To identify correlated genes, pathways and groups of patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome and septic shock that is indicative of biologically important processes active in these patients. Background: We measured gene expression levels and profiles of children with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and septic shock as a means for discovering patient sub-groups and gene signatures that are active in disease-affected individuals and potentially in patients with poor outcomes. Methods: Microarray and bioinformatics analyses of 123 microarray chips representing whole blood derived RNA from controls, children with SIRS, and children with septic shock. Results: A discovery-based filtering approach was undertaken to identify genes whose expression levels were altered in patients with SIRS or septic shock. Clustering of these genes identified 3 Major and several minor sub-groups of patients with SIRS or septic shock. The three groups differed with respect to incidence of septic shock and trended toward differences in mortality. Statistical analyses demonstrated that 6,435 gene probes were differentially regulated between the three patient sub-groups (false discovery rate < 0.001%). Of these gene probes, 623 gene probes within 7 major gene ontologies accounted for the majority of group differentiation. Network analyses of these 623 gene probes demonstrated 5 major gene networks that were differentially expressed between the 3 groups. Statistical comparison of septic shock survivors and non-survivors identified one major gene network that was under expressed in a high fraction of the non-survivors and identified potential biomarkers for poor outcome. Conclusions: This is the first genome-level demonstration of pediatric patient sub-groups with SIRS and septic shock. The sub-groups differ clinically and differentially express 5 major gene networks. We have identified gene signatures and potential biomarkers associated with poor outcome in children with septic shock. These data represent a major advancement in our genome-level understanding of pediatric SIRS and septic shock. Keywords: Septic shock, SIRS, pediatrics, outcome, infection, inflammation

Project description:IntroductionThe present study was designed to determine the effects of continuously infused norepinephrine (NE) plus (1) terlipressin (TP) or (2) arginine vasopressin (AVP) or (3) placebo on sublingual microcirculation in septic shock patients. The primary study end point was a difference of ≥ 20% in the microvascular flow index of small vessels among groups.MethodsThe design of the study was a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. NE was titrated to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) between 65 and 75 mmHg after establishment of normovolemia in 60 septic shock patients. Thereafter patients (n = 20 per group) were randomized to receive continuous infusions of either TP (1 μg/kg/hour), AVP (0.04 U/minute) or placebo (isotonic saline). In all groups, open-label NE was adjusted to maintain MAP within threshold values if needed. The sublingual microcirculatory blood flow of small vessels was assessed by sidestream dark-field imaging. All measurements, including data from right heart catheterization and norepinephrine requirements, were obtained at baseline and 6 hours after randomization.ResultsTP and AVP decreased NE requirements at the end of the 6-hour study period. The data are medians (25th and 75th interquartile ranges (IQRs)): 0.57 μg/kg/minute (0.29 to 1.04) vs. 0.16 μg/kg/minute (0.03 to 0.37) for TP and 0.40 μg/kg/minute (0.20 to 1.05) vs. 0.23 μg/kg/minute (0.03 to 0.77) for AVP, with statistical significance of P < 0.05 vs. baseline and vs. placebo. There were no differences in sublingual microcirculatory variables, systemic hemodynamics, oxygen transport and acid-base homeostasis among the three study groups during the entire observation period. The proportions of perfused vessels increased in relation to baseline within all study groups, and there were no significant differences between groups. The specific data were as follows (median (IQR)): 9.7% (2.6 to 19.8) for TP, 8.9% (0.0 to 17.8) for AVP, and 6.9% (3.5 to 10.1) for placebo (P < 0.05 vs. baseline for each comparison), as well as perfused vessel density 18.6% (8.6 to 36.9) for TP, 20.2% (-3.0 to 37.2) for AVP, and 11.4% (-3.0 to 19.4) for placebo (P < 0.05 vs. baseline for each comparison).ConclusionsThe present study suggests that to achieve a MAP of 65 to 75 mmHg in septic patients treated with NE, the addition of continuously infused low-dose TP or AVP does not affect sublingual microcirculatory blood flow. In addition, our results suggest that microcirculatory flow abnormalities are mainly related to other factors (for example, volume status, timing, hemodynamics and progression of the disease) rather than to the vasopressor per se.Trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov NCT00995839.