Martin W. Dünser

Arginine Vasopressin in Advanced Vasodilatory Shock. A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study

Background—Vasodilatory shock is a potentially lethal complication of severe disease in critically ill patients. Currently, catecholamines are the most widely used vasopressor agents to support blood pressure, but loss of catecholamine pressor effects is a well-known clinical dilemma. Arginine vasopressin (AVP) has recently been shown to be a potent vasopressor agent to stabilize cardiocirculatory function even in patients with catecholamine-resistant vasodilatory shock. Methods and Results—Forty-eight patients with catecholamine-resistant vasodilatory shock were prospectively randomized to receive a combined infusion of AVP and norepinephrine (NE) or NE infusion alone. In AVP patients, AVP was infused at a constant rate of 4 U/h. Hemodynamic, acid/base, single-organ, and tonometrically derived gastric variables were reported before the study and 1, 12, 24, and 48 hours after study entry. For statistical analysis, a mixed-effects model was used. AVP patients had significantly lower heart rate, NE requirements, and incidence of new-onset tachyarrhythmias than NE patients. Mean arterial pressure, cardiac index, stroke volume index, and left ventricular stroke work index were significantly higher in AVP patients. NE patients developed significantly more new-onset tachyarrhythmias than AVP patients (54.3% versus 8.3%). Gastrointestinal perfusion as assessed by gastric tonometry was better preserved in AVP-treated patients. Total bilirubin concentrations were significantly higher in AVP patients. Conclusions—The combined infusion of AVP and NE proved to be superior to infusion of NE alone in the treatment of cardiocirculatory failure in catecholamine-resistant vasodilatory shock.

Copeptin: clinical use of a new biomarker.

Arginine vasopressin (AVP) is a key hormone in the human body. Despite the clinical relevance of AVP in maintaining fluid balance and vascular tone, measurement of mature AVP is difficult and subject to preanalytical errors. Recently, copeptin, a 39-amino acid glycopeptide that comprises the C-terminal part of the AVP precursor (CT-proAVP), was found to be a stable and sensitive surrogate marker for AVP release, analogous to C-peptide for insulin. Copeptin measurement has been shown to be useful in various clinical indications, including the diagnosis of diabetes insipidus and the monitoring of sepsis and cardiovascular diseases. Here we review recent findings regarding the relationship between AVP and copeptin, and affirm the value of AVP as a surrogate marker for AVP.

The effects of vasopressin on systemic hemodynamics in catecholamine-resistant septic and postcardiotomy shock: A retrospective analysis

We retrospectively investigated the effects of continuous arginine vasopressin (AVP) infusion on systemic hemodynamics, acid/base status, and laboratory variables in patients (mean age [mean ± sd]= 66.3 ± 10.1 yr) with catecholamine-resistant septic (n = 35) or postcardiotomy shock (n = 25). Hemodynamic and acid/base data were obtained before; 30 min after; and 1, 4, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h after the start of AVP infusion. Laboratory examinations were recorded before and 24, 48, and 72 h after the start of AVP infusion. For statistical analysis, a mixed-effects model was used. The overall intensive care unit mortality was 66.7%. AVP administration caused a significant increase in mean arterial pressure (+29%) and systemic vascular resistance (+56%), accompanied by a significant decrease in heart rate (−24%) and mean pulmonary arterial pressure (−11%) without any change in stroke volume index. Norepinephrine requirements could be reduced by 72% within 72 h. During AVP infusion, a significant increase in liver enzymes and total bilirubin concentration and a significant decrease in platelet count occurred. Arginine vasopressin was effective in reversing systemic hypotension. However, adverse effects on gastrointestinal perfusion and coagulation cannot be excluded.

Sympathetic Overstimulation During Critical Illness: Adverse Effects of Adrenergic Stress

The term ‘‘adrenergic’’ originates from ‘‘adrenaline’’ and describes hormones or drugs whose effects are similar to those of epinephrine. Adrenergic stress is mediated by stimulation of adrenergic receptors and activation of post-receptor pathways. Critical illness is a potent stimulus of the sympathetic nervous system. It is undisputable that the adrenergic-driven ‘‘fight-flight response’’ is a physiologically meaningful reaction allowing humans to survive during evolution. However, in critical illness an overshooting stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system may well exceed in time and scope its beneficial effects. Comparable to the overwhelming immune response during sepsis, adrenergic stress in critical illness may get out of control and cause adverse effects. Several organ systems may be affected. The heart seems to be most susceptible to sympathetic overstimulation. Detrimental effects include impaired diastolic function, tachycardia and tachyarrhythmia, myocardial ischemia, stunning, apoptosis and necrosis. Adverse catecholamine effects have been observed in other organs such as the lungs (pulmonary edema, elevated pulmonary arterial pressures), the coagulation (hypercoagulability, thrombus formation), gastrointestinal (hypoperfusion, inhibition of peristalsis), endocrinologic (decreased prolactin, thyroid and growth hormone secretion) and immune systems (immunomodulation, stimulation of bacterial growth), and metabolism (increase in cell energy expenditure, hyperglycemia, catabolism, lipolysis, hyperlactatemia, electrolyte changes), bone marrow (anemia), and skeletal muscles (apoptosis). Potential therapeutic options to reduce excessive adrenergic stress comprise temperature and heart rate control, adequate use of sedative/analgesic drugs, and aiming for reasonable cardiovascular targets, adequate fluid therapy, use of levosimendan, hydrocortisone or supplementary arginine vasopressin.

Ischemic skin lesions as a complication of continuous vasopressin infusion in catecholamine-resistant vasodilatory shock: incidence and risk factors.

ObjectiveTo report on the incidence and risk factors associated with the development of ischemic skin lesions (ISL) in critically ill patients with catecholamine-resistant vasodilatory shock treated with a continuous infusion of arginine-vasopressin (AVP). DesignRetrospective analysis. SettingTwelve-bed general and surgical intensive care unit in a university hospital. PatientsA total of 63 critically ill patients with catecholamine-resistant vasodilatory shock. InterventionsContinuous AVP infusion. Measurements and Main ResultsDemographic, hemodynamic, laboratory data, and skin status were evaluated 24 hrs before and during AVP therapy (24 and 48 hrs). Patients were grouped according to development of new ISL during AVP therapy. A mixed-effects model was used to compare groups. A multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for the development of ISL. ISL developed in 19 of 63 patients (30.2%). Thirteen of 19 patients (68%) developed ISL in distal limbs, two patients (10.5%) developed ISL of the trunk, four patients (21%) developed ISL in distal limbs and in the trunk. Five patients (26%) had additional ischemia of the tongue. Body mass index, preexistent peripheral arterial occlusive disease, presence of septic shock, and norepinephrine requirements were significantly higher in patients developing ISL. ISL patients received significantly more units of fresh frozen plasma and thrombocyte concentrates than patients without ISL. Preexistent peripheral arterial occlusive disease and presence of septic shock were independently associated with the development of ISL during AVP therapy. ConclusionsISLs are a common complication during continuous AVP infusion in patients with catecholamine-resistant vasodilatory shock. The presence of septic shock and a history of peripheral arterial occlusive disease are independent risk factors for the development of ISL.

A review and analysis of intensive care medicine in the least developed countries.

Objective:To give critical care clinicians in Western nations a general overview of intensive care medicine in less developed countries and to stimulate institutional or personal initiatives to improve critical care services in the least developed countries. Data Source:In-depth PubMed search and personal experience of the authors. Data Synthesis:In view of the eminent burden of disease, prevalence of critically ill patients in the least developed countries is disproportionately high. Despite fundamental logistic (water, electricity, oxygen supply, medical technical equipment, drugs) and financial limitations, intensive care medicine has become a discipline of its own in most nations. Today, many district and regional hospitals have units where severely ill patients are separately cared for, although major intensive care units are only found in large hospitals of urban or metropolitan areas. High workload, low wages, and a high risk of occupational infections with either the human immunodeficiency virus or a hepatitis virus explain burnout syndromes and low motivation in some health care workers. The four most common admission criteria to intensive care units in least developed countries are postsurgical treatment, infectious diseases, trauma, and peripartum maternal or neonatal complications. Logistic and financial limitations, as well as insufficiencies of supporting disciplines (e.g., laboratories, radiology, surgery), poor general health status of patients, and in many cases delayed presentation of severely sick patients to the intensive care unit, contribute to comparably high mortality rates. Conclusion:More studies on the current state of intensive care medicine in least developed countries are needed to provide reasonable aid to improve care of the most severely ill patients in the poorest countries of the world.

Association of arterial blood pressure and vasopressor load with septic shock mortality: a post hoc analysis of a multicenter trial

IntroductionIt is unclear to which level mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) should be increased during septic shock in order to improve outcome. In this study we investigated the association between MAP values of 70 mmHg or higher, vasopressor load, 28-day mortality and disease-related events in septic shock.MethodsThis is a post hoc analysis of data of the control group of a multicenter trial and includes 290 septic shock patients in whom a mean MAP ≥ 70 mmHg could be maintained during shock. Demographic and clinical data, MAP, vasopressor requirements during the shock period, disease-related events and 28-day mortality were documented. Logistic regression models adjusted for the geographic region of the study center, age, presence of chronic arterial hypertension, simplified acute physiology score (SAPS) II and the mean vasopressor load during the shock period was calculated to investigate the association between MAP or MAP quartiles ≥ 70 mmHg and mortality or the frequency and occurrence of disease-related events.ResultsThere was no association between MAP or MAP quartiles and mortality or the occurrence of disease-related events. These associations were not influenced by age or pre-existent arterial hypertension (all P > 0.05). The mean vasopressor load was associated with mortality (relative risk (RR), 1.83; confidence interval (CI) 95%, 1.4-2.38; P < 0.001), the number of disease-related events (P < 0.001) and the occurrence of acute circulatory failure (RR, 1.64; CI 95%, 1.28-2.11; P < 0.001), metabolic acidosis (RR, 1.79; CI 95%, 1.38-2.32; P < 0.001), renal failure (RR, 1.49; CI 95%, 1.17-1.89; P = 0.001) and thrombocytopenia (RR, 1.33; CI 95%, 1.06-1.68; P = 0.01).ConclusionsMAP levels of 70 mmHg or higher do not appear to be associated with improved survival in septic shock. Elevating MAP >70 mmHg by augmenting vasopressor dosages may increase mortality. Future trials are needed to identify the lowest acceptable MAP level to ensure tissue perfusion and avoid unnecessary high catecholamine infusions.

Macroscopic postmortem findings in 235 surgical intensive care patients with sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Although detailed analyses of the postmortem findings of various critically ill patient groups have been published, no such study has been performed in patients with sepsis. In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed macroscopic postmortem examinations of surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients who died from sepsis or septic shock. METHODS: Between 1997 and 2006, the ICU database and autopsy register were reviewed for patients who were admitted to the ICU because of sepsis/septic shock, or who developed sepsis/septic shock at a later stage during their ICU stay and subsequently died from of sepsis/septic shock. Clinical data and postmortem findings were documented in all patients. RESULTS: Postmortem results of 235 patients (84.8%) were available for statistical analysis. The main causes of death as reported in the patient history were refractory multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (51.5%) and uncontrollable cardiovascular failure (35.3%). Pathologies were detected in the lungs (89.8%), kidneys/urinary tract (60%), gastrointestinal tract (54%), cardiovascular system (53.6%), liver (47.7%), spleen (33.2%), central nervous system (18.7%), and pancreas (8.5%). In 180 patients (76.6%), the autopsy revealed a continuous septic focus. The most common continuous foci were pneumonia (41.3%), tracheobronchitis (28.9%), peritonitis (23.4%), uterine/ovarial necrosis (9.8% of female patients), intraabdominal abscesses (9.1%), and pyelonephritis (6%). A continuous septic focus was observed in 63 of the 71 patients (88.7%) who were admitted to the ICU because of sepsis/septic shock and treated for longer than 7 days. CONCLUSIONS: Relevant postmortem findings explaining death in surgical ICU patients who died because of sepsis/septic shock were a continuous septic focus in approximately 80% and cardiac pathologies in 50%. The most frequently affected organs were the lungs, abdomen, and urogenital tract. More diagnostic, therapeutic and scientific efforts should be launched to identify and control the infectious focus in patients with sepsis and septic shock.

Causes of death and determinants of outcome in critically ill patients

IntroductionWhereas most studies focus on laboratory and clinical research, little is known about the causes of death and risk factors for death in critically ill patients.MethodsThree thousand seven hundred patients admitted to an adult intensive care unit (ICU) were prospectively evaluated. Study endpoints were to evaluate causes of death and risk factors for death in the ICU, in the hospital after discharge from ICU, and within one year after ICU admission. Causes of death in the ICU were defined according to standard ICU practice, whereas deaths in the hospital and at one year were defined and grouped according to the ICD-10 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems) score. Stepwise logistic regression analyses were separately calculated to identify independent risk factors for death during the given time periods.ResultsAcute, refractory multiple organ dysfunction syndrome was the most frequent cause of death in the ICU (47%), and central nervous system failure (relative risk [RR] 16.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.3 to 31.4, p < 0.001) and cardiovascular failure (RR 11.83, 95% CI 5.2 to 27.1, p < 0.001) were the two most important risk factors for death in the ICU. Malignant tumour disease and exacerbation of chronic cardiovascular disease were the most frequent causes of death in the hospital (31.3% and 19.4%, respectively) and at one year (33.2% and 16.1%, respectively).ConclusionIn this primarily surgical critically ill patient population, acute or chronic multiple organ dysfunction syndrome prevailed over single-organ failure or unexpected cardiac arrest as a cause of death in the ICU. Malignant tumour disease and chronic cardiovascular disease were the most important causes of death after ICU discharge.

Management of Vasodilatory Shock Defining the Role of Arginine Vasopressin

The rationale for an arginine vasopressin (argipressin) infusion was put forward after it was discovered that patients in shock states might have an endogenous arginine vasopressin deficiency. Subsequently, several investigations impressively demonstrated that arginine vasopressin can successfully stabilise haemodynamics even in advanced vasodilatory shock. We report on physiological and pharmacological aspects of arginine vasopressin, and summarise current clinical knowledge on employing a continuous arginine vasopressin infusion in critically ill patients with catecholamine-resistant vasodilatory shock of different aetiologies. In view of presented experimental evidence and current clinical experience, a continuous arginine vasopressin infusion of ∼2 to ∼6 IU/h can be considered as a supplemental strategy to vasopressor catecholamines in order to preserve cardiocirculatory homeostasis in patients with advanced vasodilatory shock. Because data on adverse effects are still limited, arginine vasopressin should be reserved for patients in whom adequate haemodynamic stabilisation cannot be achieved with conventional vasopressor therapy or who have obvious adverse effects of catecholamines that result in further significant haemodynamic deterioration. For the same reasons, arginine vasopressin should not be used as a single, alternative vasopressor agent instead of catecholamine vasopressors. Future prospective studies will be necessary to define the exact role of arginine vasopressin in the therapy of vasodilatory shock.