Alessandra Orecchioni

Effect of Heart Rate Control With Esmolol on Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Septic Shock A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE β-Blocker therapy may control heart rate and attenuate the deleterious effects of β-adrenergic receptor stimulation in septic shock. However, β-Blockers are not traditionally used for this condition and may worsen cardiovascular decompensation related through negative inotropic and hypotensive effects. OBJECTIVE To investigate the effect of the short-acting β-blocker esmolol in patients with severe septic shock. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Open-label, randomized phase 2 study, conducted in a university hospital intensive care unit (ICU) between November 2010 and July 2012, involving patients in septic shock with a heart rate of 95/min or higher requiring high-dose norepinephrine to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or higher. INTERVENTIONS We randomly assigned 77 patients to receive a continuous infusion of esmolol titrated to maintain heart rate between 80/min and 94/min for their ICU stay and 77 patients to standard treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Our primary outcome was a reduction in heart rate below the predefined threshold of 95/min and to maintain heart rate between 80/min and 94/min by esmolol treatment over a 96-hour period. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic and organ function measures; norepinephrine dosages at 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours; and adverse events and mortality occurring within 28 days after randomization. RESULTS Targeted heart rates were achieved in all patients in the esmolol group compared with those in the control group. The median AUC for heart rate during the first 96 hours was -28/min (IQR, -37 to -21) for the esmolol group vs -6/min (95% CI, -14 to 0) for the control group with a mean reduction of 18/min (P < .001). For stroke volume index, the median AUC for esmolol was 4 mL/m2 (IQR, -1 to 10) vs 1 mL/m2 for the control group (IQR, -3 to 5; P = .02), whereas the left ventricular stroke work index for esmolol was 3 mL/m2 (IQR, 0 to 8) vs 1 mL/m2 for the control group (IQR, -2 to 5; P = .03). For arterial lactatemia, median AUC for esmolol was -0.1 mmol/L (IQR, -0.6 to 0.2) vs 0.1 mmol/L for the control group (IQR, -0.3 for 0.6; P = .007); for norepinephrine, -0.11 μg/kg/min (IQR, -0.46 to 0.02) for the esmolol group vs -0.01 μg/kg/min (IQR, -0.2 to 0.44) for the control group (P = .003). Fluid requirements were reduced in the esmolol group: median AUC was 3975 mL/24 h (IQR, 3663 to 4200) vs 4425 mL/24 h(IQR, 4038 to 4775) for the control group (P < .001). We found no clinically relevant differences between groups in other cardiopulmonary variables nor in rescue therapy requirements. Twenty-eight day mortality was 49.4% in the esmolol group vs 80.5% in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.59; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE For patients in septic shock, open-label use of esmolol vs standard care was associated with reductions in heart rates to achieve target levels, without increased adverse events. The observed improvement in mortality and other secondary clinical outcomes warrants further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01231698.

Effects of levosimendan on right ventricular afterload in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pilot study.

Objective:Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is frequently associated with increased pulmonary vascular resistance and thus with systolic load of the right ventricle. We hypothesized that levosimendan, a new calcium sensitizer with potential pulmonary vasodilator properties, improves hemodynamics by unloading the right ventricle in patients with ARDS. Design:Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, pilot study. Setting:Twenty-two-bed multidisciplinary intensive care unit of a university hospital. Patients:Thirty-five patients with ARDS in association with septic shock. Interventions:Patients were randomly allocated to receive a 24-hr infusion of either levosimendan 0.2 &mgr;g/kg/min (n = 18) or placebo (n = 17). Data from right heart catheterization, cardiac magnetic resonance, arterial and mixed venous oxygen tensions and saturations, and carbon dioxide tensions were obtained before and 24 hrs after drug infusion. Measurements and Main Results:At a mean arterial pressure between 70 and 80 mm Hg (sustained with norepinephrine infusion), levosimendan increased cardiac index (from 3.8 ± 1.1 to 4.2 ± 1.0 L/min/m2) and decreased mean pulmonary artery pressure (from 29 ± 3 to 25 ± 3 mm Hg) and pulmonary vascular resistance index (from 290 ± 77 to 213 ± 50 dynes/s/cm5/m2; each p < .05). Levosimendan also decreased right ventricular end-systolic volume and increased right ventricular ejection fraction (p < .05). In addition, levosimendan increased mixed venous oxygen saturation (from 63 ± 8 to 70 ± 8%; p < .01). Conclusions:This study provides evidence that levosimendan improves right ventricular performance through pulmonary vasodilator effects in septic patients with ARDS. A large multiple-center trial is needed to investigate whether levosimendan is able to improve the overall prognosis of patients with sepsis and ARDS.

Prophylactic fenoldopam for renal protection in sepsis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial.

Objective:Acute renal failure is common in septic patients. Fenoldopam, a dopamine-1 receptor agonist, increases renal blood flow and may, therefore, reduce the risk of acute renal failure in such patients. Accordingly, we sought to determine the safety and efficacy of fenoldopam for the prevention of acute renal failure in septic patients. Design:Prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Setting:Three multidisciplinary intensive care units at a university hospital. Patients:Three hundred septic patients with baseline serum creatinine concentrations <150 &mgr;mol/L. Interventions:We randomized patients to a continuous infusion of either fenoldopam (n = 150) at 0.09 &mgr;g·kg−1·min−1 or placebo (n = 150) while in the intensive care unit. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of acute renal failure, defined as a serum creatinine concentration increase to >150 &mgr;mol/L, during study drug infusion. Measurements and main results:The incidence of acute renal failure was significantly lower in the fenoldopam group compared with the control group (29 vs. 51 patients; p = .006). The odds ratio of developing acute renal failure for patients treated with fenoldopam was estimated to be 0.47 (p = .005). The difference in the incidence of severe acute renal failure (creatinine >300 &mgr;mol/L), however, failed to achieve statistical significance (10 vs. 21; p = .056). The length of intensive care unit stay in surviving patients was significantly lower in the fenoldopam group compared with the control group (10.64 ± 9.3 vs. 13.4 ± 14.0; p < .001). There were no complications of fenoldopam infusion. A direct effect of treatment on the probability of death, beyond its effect on acute renal failure, was not significant (odds ratio = 0.68, p = .1). Conclusions:Compared with placebo, low-dose fenoldopam resulted in a smaller increase in serum creatinine in septic patients. The clinical significance of this finding is uncertain. A large multiple-center trial is now needed to confirm these findings.

Continuous terlipressin versus vasopressin infusion in septic shock (TERLIVAP): a randomized, controlled pilot study.

IntroductionRecent clinical data suggest that early administration of vasopressin analogues may be advantageous compared to a last resort therapy. However, it is still unknown whether vasopressin and terlipressin are equally effective for hemodynamic support in septic shock. The aim of the present prospective, randomized, controlled pilot trial study was, therefore, to compare the impact of continuous infusions of either vasopressin or terlipressin, when given as first-line therapy in septic shock patients, on open-label norepinephrine requirements.MethodsWe enrolled septic shock patients (n = 45) with a mean arterial pressure below 65 mmHg despite adequate volume resuscitation. Patients were randomized to receive continuous infusions of either terlipressin (1.3 μg·kg-1·h-1), vasopressin (.03 U·min-1) or norepinephrine (15 μg·min-1; n = 15 per group). In all groups, open-label norepinephrine was added to achieve a mean arterial pressure between 65 and 75 mmHg, if necessary. Data from right heart and thermo-dye dilution catheterization, gastric tonometry, as well as laboratory variables of organ function were obtained at baseline, 12, 24, 36 and 48 hours after randomization. Differences within and between groups were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA for repeated measurements with group and time as factors. Time-independent variables were compared with one-way ANOVA.ResultsThere were no differences among groups in terms of systemic and regional hemodynamics. Compared with infusion of .03 U of vasopressin or 15 μg·min-1 of norepinephrine, 1.3 μg·kg-1·h-1 of terlipressin allowed a marked reduction in catecholamine requirements (0.8 ± 1.3 and 1.2 ± 1.4 vs. 0.2 ± 0.4 μg·kg-1·min-1 at 48 hours; each P < 0.05) and was associated with less rebound hypotension (P < 0.05). At the end of the 48-hour intervention period, bilirubin concentrations were higher in the vasopressin and norepinephrine groups as compared with the terlipressin group (2.3 ± 2.8 and 2.8 ± 2.5 vs. 0.9 ± 0.3 mg·dL-1; each P < 0.05). A time-dependent decrease in platelet count was only observed in the terlipressin group (P < 0.001 48 hours vs. BL).ConclusionsThe present study provides evidence that continuous infusion of low-dose terlipressin – when given as first-line vasopressor agent in septic shock – is effective in reversing sepsis-induced arterial hypotension and in reducing norepinephrine requirements.Trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov NCT00481572.

Levosimendan for resuscitating the microcirculation in patients with septic shock: a randomized controlled study.

IntroductionThe purpose of the present study was to investigate microcirculatory blood flow in patients with septic shock treated with levosimendan as compared to an active comparator drug (i.e. dobutamine). The primary end point was a difference of ≥ 20% in the microvascular flow index of small vessels (MFIs) among groups.MethodsThe study was designed as a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial and performed in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit. After achieving normovolemia and a mean arterial pressure of at least 65 mmHg, 40 septic shock patients were randomized to receive either levosimendan 0.2 μg·kg-1·min-1 (n = 20) or an active comparator (dobutamine 5 μg·kg-1·min-1; control; n = 20) for 24 hours. Sublingual microcirculatory blood flow of small and medium vessels was assessed by sidestream dark-field imaging. Microcirculatory variables and data from right heart catheterization were obtained at baseline and 24 hours after randomization. Baseline and demographic data were compared by means of Mann-Whitney rank sum test or chi-square test, as appropriate. Microvascular and hemodynamic variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney rank sum test.ResultsMicrocirculatory flow indices of small and medium vessels increased over time and were significantly higher in the levosimendan group as compared to the control group (24 hrs: MFIm 3.0 (3.0; 3.0) vs. 2.9 (2.8; 3.0); P = .02; MFIs 2.9 (2.9; 3.0) vs. 2.7 (2.3; 2.8); P < .001). The relative increase of perfused vessel density vs. baseline was significantly higher in the levosimendan group than in the control group (dMFIm 10 (3; 23)% vs. 0 (-1; 9)%; P = .007; dMFIs 47 (26; 83)% vs. 10 (-3; 27); P < .001). In addition, the heterogeneity index decreased only in the levosimendan group (dHI -93 (-100; -84)% vs. 0 (-78; 57)%; P < .001). There was no statistically significant correlation between systemic and microcirculatory flow variables within each group (each P > .05).ConclusionsCompared to a standard dose of 5 μg·kg-1·min-1 of dobutamine, levosimendan at 0.2 μg·kg-1·min-1 improved sublingual microcirculatory blood flow in patients with septic shock, as reflected by changes in microcirculatory flow indices of small and medium vessels.Trial registrationNCT00800306.

Phenylephrine versus norepinephrine for initial hemodynamic support of patients with septic shock: a randomized, controlled trial.

IntroductionPrevious findings suggest that a delayed administration of phenylephrine replacing norepinephrine in septic shock patients causes a more pronounced hepatosplanchnic vasoconstriction as compared with norepinephrine. Nevertheless, a direct comparison between the two study drugs has not yet been performed. The aim of the present study was, therefore, to investigate the effects of a first-line therapy with either phenylephrine or norepinephrine on systemic and regional hemodynamics in patients with septic shock.MethodsWe performed a prospective, randomized, controlled trial in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit in a university hospital. We enrolled septic shock patients (n = 32) with a mean arterial pressure below 65 mmHg despite adequate volume resuscitation. Patients were randomly allocated to treatment with either norepinephrine or phenylephrine infusion (n = 16 each) titrated to achieve a mean arterial pressure between 65 and 75 mmHg. Data from right heart catheterization, a thermodye dilution catheter, gastric tonometry, acid-base homeostasis, as well as creatinine clearance and cardiac troponin were obtained at baseline and after 12 hours. Differences within and between groups were analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance for repeated measurements with group and time as factors. Time-independent variables were compared with one-way analysis of variance.ResultsNo differences were found in any of the investigated parameters.ConclusionsThe present study suggests there are no differences in terms of cardiopulmonary performance, global oxygen transport, and regional hemodynamics when phenylephrine was administered instead of norepinephrine in the initial hemodynamic support of septic shock.Trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov NCT00639015

Microvascular effects of heart rate control with esmolol in patients with septic shock: a pilot study.

Objective:&bgr;-blocker therapy may control heart rate and attenuate the deleterious effects of &bgr;-stimulating catecholamines in septic shock. However, their negative chronotropy and inotropy may potentially lead to an inappropriately low cardiac output, with a subsequent compromise of microvascular blood flow. The purpose of the present pilot study was to investigate the effects of reducing heart rate to less than 95 beats per minute in patients with septic shock using the &bgr;-1 adrenoceptor blocker, esmolol, with specific focus on systemic hemodynamics and the microcirculation. Design:Prospective, observational clinical study. Setting:Multidisciplinary ICU at a university hospital. Measurements and Main Results:After 24 hours of initial hemodynamic optimization, 25 septic shock patients with a heart rate greater than or equal to 95 beats per minute and requiring norepinephrine to maintain mean arterial pressure greater than or equal to 65 mm Hg received a titrated esmolol infusion to maintain heart rate less than 95 beats per minute. Sublingual microcirculatory blood flow was assessed by sidestream dark-field imaging. All measurements, including data from right heart catheterization and norepinephrine requirements, were obtained at baseline and 24 hours after esmolol administration. Heart rates targeted between 80 and 94 beats per minute were achieved in all patients. Whereas cardiac index decreased (4.0 [3.5; 5.3] vs 3.1 [2.6; 3.9] L/min/m2; p < 0.001), stroke volume remained unchanged (34 [37; 47] vs 40 [31; 46] mL/beat/m2; p = 0.32). Microcirculatory blood flow in small vessels increased (2.8 [2.6; 3.0] vs 3.0 [3.0; 3.0]; p = 0.002), while the heterogeneity index decreased (median 0.06 [interquartile range 0; 0.21] vs 0 [0; 0]; p = 0.002). PaO2 and pH increased while PaCO2 decreased (all p < 0.05). Of note, norepinephrine requirements were significantly reduced by selective &bgr;-1 blocker therapy (0.53 [0.29; 0.96] vs 0.41 [0.22; 0.79] µg/kg/min; p = 0.03). Conclusions:This pilot study demonstrated that heart rate control by a titrated esmolol infusion in septic shock patients was associated with maintenance of stroke volume, preserved microvascular blood flow, and a reduction in norepinephrine requirements.

Terlipressin versus Norepinephrine to Counteract Anesthesia-induced Hypotension in Patients Treated with Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors: Effects on Systemic and Regional Hemodynamics

Background: Terlipressin has been suggested as the ideal drug to treat anesthesia-induced hypotension in patients under long-term renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment for arterial hypertension. The authors compared the effects of terlipressin and norepinephrine on systemic hemodynamic parameters and gastric mucosal perfusion using a laser Doppler flowmetry technique in patients treated with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors who experienced hypotension at induction of anesthesia. Methods: Thirty-two patients scheduled for carotid endarterectomy under general anesthesia and treated with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors had hypotension after induction of general anesthesia. They were randomized to receive 1 mg of terlipressin (n = 16) or norepinephrine infusion (n = 16) to counteract anesthesia-induced hypotension. A laser Doppler probe was introduced into the gastric lumen. All measurements were performed just before surgery, during hypotension, at 30 min, and at 4 h. Results: Terlipressin produced an increase in mean arterial pressure and a decrease in gastric mucosal perfusion detected by laser Doppler flowmetry (P < 0.05) over 30 min that were sustained for 4 h. During the infusion, norepinephrine produced an increase in mean arterial pressure and in gastric mucosal perfusion detected by laser Doppler flowmetry (P < 0.05). If compared to norepinephrine, terlipressin reduced oxygen delivery and oxygen consumption (P < 0.05) and increased arterial lactate concentrations (P < 0.05). Conclusion: This study showed the efficacy of terlipressin in the treatment of hypotension episodes in anesthetized patients chronically treated with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, angiotensin converting-enzyme inhibitors, and angiotensin II receptor antagonists. However, the negative effects on gastric mucosal perfusion and the risk of iatrogenic oxygen supply dependency of terlipressin need to be taken into account.

GLIBENCLAMIDE DOSE RESPONSE IN PATIENTS WITH SEPTIC SHOCK: EFFECTS ON NOREPINEPHRINE REQUIREMENTS, CARDIOPULMONARY PERFORMANCE, AND GLOBAL OXYGEN TRANSPORT

Adenosine triphosphate-sensitive potassium channels are important regulators of arterial vascular smooth muscle tone and are implicated in the pathophysiology of catecholamine tachyphylaxis in septic shock. The present study was designed as a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, clinical pilot study to determine whether different doses of glibenclamide have any effects on norepinephrine requirements, cardiopulmonary hemodynamics, and global oxygen transport in patients with septic shock. We enrolled 30 patients with septic shock requiring invasive hemodynamic monitoring and norepinephrine infusion of 0.5 μg·kg−1·min−1 or greater to maintain MAP between 65 and 75 mmHg. In addition to standard therapy, patients were randomized to receive either 10, 20, or 30 mg of enteral glibenclamide. Systemic hemodynamics, global oxygen transport including arterial lactate concentrations, gas exchange, plasma glucose concentrations, and electrolytes were determined at baseline and after 3, 6, and 12 h after administration of the study drug. Glibenclamide decreased plasma glucose concentrations in a dose-dependent manner but failed to reduce norepinephrine requirements. None of the doses had any effects on cardiopulmonary hemodynamics, global oxygen transport, gas exchange, or electrolytes. These data suggest that oral glibenclamide in doses from 10 to 30 mg fails to counteract arterial hypotension and thus to reduce norepinephrine requirements in catecholamine-dependent human septic shock.

Effects of vasopressinergic receptor agonists on sublingual microcirculation in norepinephrine-dependent septic shock

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