Background
Methods
Which mean arterial pressure (MAP) target to stabilize the macrocirculation?
Prognosis
Rationale for a “best MAP,” autoregulation…and microcirculation
Authors [ref.] | No. of patients (n) | Design of MAP titration in mmHg (time at each step, min) | Main results |
---|---|---|---|
Ledoux et al. [25] | 10 | 65, 75, 85 mmHg (105) | CI ↑ Arterial lactates, gastric intra-mucosal-arterial PCO2 difference, skin microcirculatory blood flow (skin capillary blood flow and red blood cell velocity), urine output: ns |
Bourgoin et al. [26] | 2 × 14 | MAP 65 versus 85 mmHg (240) comparison of two groups | CI ↑ Arterial lactates, VO2, and renal function: ns |
Deruddre et al. [27] | 11 | 65, 75, 85 mmHg (120) | 65–75 mmHg: urine output ↑, RRI ↓ 75–85 mmHg: urine output, RRI: ns Creatinine clearance: ns |
Jhanji et al. [28] | 16 | 60, 70, 80, 90 mmHg (45) | DO2, cutaneous PtO2, cutaneous microvascular red blood cell flux (laser Doppler flowmetry) ↑ Sublingual capillary MFI (SDF): ns |
Dubin et al. [29] | 20 | 65, 75, 85 mmHg (30) | CI, systemic vascular resistance, left and right ventricular stroke work indexes ↑ Arterial lactates, DO2, VO2, gastric intra-mucosal-arterial PCO2 difference, sublingual capillary MFI and percent of perfused capillaries (SDF imaging): ns |
Thooft et al. [30] | 13 | 65, 75, 85 mmHg (30) | CI, SvO2, StO2, sublingual perfused vessel density and MFI (SDF imaging) ↑ VO2: ns Arterial lactates ↓ |
Specific effect of high vasopressor load
Fluid resuscitation: Should we do more or less, with what and when?
Systematic reviews [ref.] | No. of patients (n) | No. of RCTs included (presented) | Intervention fluid therapy | Primary outcome | Results: albumin versus crystalloids | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bansal et al. [50] | 6082 | 13 (6†) | Albumin, crystalloids [HES] | Mortality | *OR 0.9 (0.8–1.01) | 2 RCTs including children and 1 case mix |
RRT need | ? | 7 RCTs with specific comparison HES versus crystalloids | ||||
Xu et al. [51] | 5838 | 5 | Albumin, crystalloids | All-cause mortality | ** OR 0.88 (0.76–1.01) p = 0.08 severe sepsis OR 0.81 (0.67–0.97) p = 0.03 Septic shock | 4 of 5 RCTs not entirely dedicated to septic patients |
Patel et al. [52] | 4190 | 16† | Albumin, crystalloids | All-cause mortality | RR 0.93 (0.86–1.01) p = 0.07 | ~ 10 RCTs not entirely dedicated to septic patients |
Rochwerg [53] | 1238†† | 14 (2) | Albumin, crystalloids | All-cause mortality | NMA 0.83 (0.65–1.04) estimate | Only 2 RCTs with direct comparison and one multicentric subgroup analysis encompassing more than 98% |
Hemodynamic drug support:… to be or not to be?
Catecholamines
Acronym | Studied drugs | Type of study | No. of patients (n) | Primary outcome | Main results | Authors [ref.] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
VASST | AVP versus NE | RCT, double blind, multicenter | 778 (396 vs. 382) | Mortality at day 28 | No difference; significantly lower mortality in patients with NE < 15 µg/min | Russell et al. [12] |
VASST (post hoc according to sepsis 3.0) | AVP versus NE | RCT, double blind, multicenter | 375 (193 vs. 182) | Mortality at day 28 | Significantly lower mortality in patients with lactate ≤ 2 mmol/L | Russell et al. [77] |
VANISH | AVP versus NE (subsequently HCT versus placebo) | 2 × 2 RCT, double blind, multicenter | 409 (104 vs. 103 vs. 101 vs. 101) | Kidney failure-free days until day 28 | No difference | Gordon et al. [41] |
VANC | AVP versus NE | RCT, double blind, single center | 300 (149 vs. 151) | Mortality and/or severe complications | Significantly less acute renal failure and atrial fibrillation | Hajjar et al. [78] |
SEPSIS-ACT | Selepressin versus NE | RCT, double blind, multicenter | 53 (32 vs. 21) | MAP > 65 mmHg without NE; NE dose | Significantly lower NE load, less net fluid intake, more ventilator-free days | Russell et al. [81] |
LeoPARDS | Levosimendan versus standard treatment alone | RCT, double blind, multicenter | 516 (259 vs. 257) | SOFA score up to day 28 | No difference; higher incidence in supraventricular tachyarrhythmia | Gordon et al. [83] |
ATHOS-3 | Angiotensin II versus NE | RCT, double blind, multicenter | 321 (163 vs. 158) | Target MAP > 75 mmHg at 3 h | Significantly more patients with target achieved; higher reduction in SOFA score at 48 h | Khanna et al. [86] |
nn | Esmolol versus conventional treatment | Open label, RCT, single center | 154 (77 vs. 77) | 80 < heart rate < 95 over 96 h | Significantly lower mortality at day 28 | Morelli et al. [88] |
Vasopressin (AVP) and analogs
Levosimendan
Angiotensin II
β-Blockade
Hydrocortisone (HCT)
Conclusion
Unanswered questions
Main questions | Actual recommendations* | Unanswered questions |
---|---|---|
Which MAP targets to stabilize the macrocirculation? | MAP ≥ 65 mmHg | What is the best timing for MAP intervention in sepsis? and until when? Could “permissive hypotension” be considered as in the case of trauma? for which reason(s) and target(s)? |
How much fluid resuscitation and when? | From “time of presentation” or “time zero,” 30 mL/kg at least within 1 h | Should we prioritize fixed minimum fluid resuscitation or dynamic personalized reassessment of circulation status? |
Which fluid(s)? | Crystalloids | Beyond balanced versus unbalanced crystalloid fluid selection, should we prefer acetate- or lactate-buffered solutions? |
How long? | After the initial 1-h interventions, further fluid administration needs patients’ assessment for responsiveness | What “gauge for a filled tank”? |
Which vasoactive (± inotropic) drug(s)? | NE is recommended as a 1st choice vasopressor. AVP or E can be added to help reaching the target (i.e., MAP) and spare NE | Within a “hour-1 bundle” strategy, should we trade-off less fluids and more vasoactive drugs to vice versa? |
When? | Dobutamine only if target not reached after adequate fluid loading and use of vasoactive drugs | Are vasopressor combinations able to reach high MAP levels without detrimental cardiac side effects? |
As early as during the initial fluid resuscitation period, to achieve the target MAP ≥ 65 mmHg ASAP | With NE as the currently recommended first-line vasopressor is “decatecholaminization” feasible and safe? |