Person:

Hou, Peter

Objective: Vasopressor agents are often prescribed in septic shock. However, their effects remain controversial. We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the effects among different types of vasopressor agents. Data sources We searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from database inception until December 2014. Study selection Randomized controlled trials in adults with septic shock that evaluated different vasopressor agents were selected. Data extraction Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. Data synthesis Twenty-one trials (n=3,819) met inclusion criteria, which compared eleven vasopressor agents or vasopressor combinations (norepinephrine [NE], dopamine [DA], vasopressin [VP], epinephrine [EN], terlipressin [TP], phenylephrine [PE], TP+NE, TP + dobutamine [DB], NE+DB, NE+EN, and NE + dopexamine [DX]). Except for the superiority of NE over DA, the mortality of patients treated with any vasopressor agent or vasopressor combination was not significantly different. Compared to DA, NE was found to be associated with decreased cardiac adverse events, heart rate (standardized mean difference [SMD]: −2.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −3.95, −0.25; P=0.03), and cardiac index (SMD: −0.73; 95% CI: −1.14, −0.03; P=0.004) and increased systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) (SMD: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.61, 1.45; P<0.0001). This Bayesian meta-analysis revealed a possible rank of probability of mortality among the eleven vasopressor agents or vasopressor combinations; from lowest to highest, they are NE+DB, EN, TP, NE+EN, TP+NE, VP, TP+DB, NE, PE, NE+DX, and DA. Conclusion: In terms of survival, NE may be superior to DA. Otherwise, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that any other vasopressor agent or vasopressor combination is superior to another. When compared to DA, NE is associated with decreased heart rate, cardiac index, and cardiovascular adverse events, as well as increased SVRI. The effects of vasopressor agents or vasopressor combinations on mortality in patients with septic shock require further investigation.

ABSTRACT Objective: Fluid responsiveness is proposed as a physiology-based method to titrate fluid therapy based on preload dependence. The objectives of this study were to determine if a fluid responsiveness protocol would decrease progression of organ dysfunction, and a fluid responsiveness protocol would facilitate a more aggressive resuscitation. Methods: Prospective, 10-center, randomized interventional trial. Inclusion criteria: suspected sepsis and lactate 2.0 to 4.0 mmol/L. Exclusion criteria (abbreviated): systolic blood pressure more than 90 mmHg, and contraindication to aggressive fluid resuscitation. Intervention: fluid responsiveness protocol using Non-Invasive Cardiac Output Monitor (NICOM) to assess for fluid responsiveness (>10% increase in stroke volume in response to 5 mL/kg fluid bolus) with balance of a liter given in responsive patients. Control: standard clinical care. Outcomes: primary—change in Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at least 1 over 72 h; secondary—fluids administered. Trial was initially powered at 600 patients, but stopped early due to a change in sponsor's funding priorities. Results: Sixty-four patients were enrolled with 32 in the treatment arm. There were no significant differences between arms in age, comorbidities, baseline vital signs, or SOFA scores (P > 0.05 for all). Comparing treatment versus Standard of Care—there was no difference in proportion of increase in SOFA score of at least 1 point (30% vs. 33%) (note bene underpowered, P = 1.0) or mean preprotocol fluids 1,050 mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 786–1,314) vs. 1,031 mL (95% CI: 741–1,325) (P = 0.93); however, treatment patients received more fluids during the protocol (2,633 mL [95% CI: 2,264–3,001] vs. 1,002 mL [95% CI: 707–1,298]) (P < 0.001). Conclusions: In this study of a “preshock” population, there was no change in progression of organ dysfunction with a fluid responsiveness protocol. A noninvasive fluid responsiveness protocol did facilitate delivery of an increased volume of fluid. Additional properly powered and enrolled outcomes studies are needed.