Sebastian Rehberg

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.

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.

Effects of short-term simultaneous infusion of dobutamine and terlipressin in patients with septic shock: the DOBUPRESS study†

BACKGROUND Terlipressin bolus infusion may reduce cardiac output and global oxygen supply. The present study was designed to determine whether dobutamine may counterbalance the terlipressin-induced depression in mixed-venous oxygen saturation (Svo) in patients with catecholamine-dependent septic shock. METHODS Prospective, randomized, controlled study performed in a university hospital intensive care unit. Septic shock patients requiring a continuous infusion of norepinephrine (0.9 microg kg(-1) min(-1)) to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 70 (sd 5) mm Hg were randomly allocated to be treated either with (i) sole norepinephrine infusion (control, n=20), (ii) a single dose of terlipressin 1 mg (n=19), or (iii) a single dose of terlipressin 1 mg followed by dobutamine infusion titrated to reverse the anticipated reduction in Svo2 (n=20). Systemic, pulmonary, and regional haemodynamic variables were obtained at baseline and after 2 and 4 h. Laboratory surrogate markers of organ (dys)function were tested at baseline and after 12 and 24 h. RESULTS Terlipressin (with and without dobutamine) infusion preserved MAP at 70 (5) mm Hg, while allowing to reduce norepinephrine requirements to 0.17 (0.2) and 0.2 (0.2) microg kg(-1) min(-1), respectively [vs1.4 (0.3) microg kg(-1) min(-1) in controls at 4 h; each P<0.001]. The terlipressin-linked decrease in Svo2 was reversed by dobutamine at a mean dose of 20 (8) microg kg(-1) min(-1) [Svo2 at 4 h: 59 (11)% vs 69 (12)%, P=0.028]. CONCLUSIONS In human catecholamine-dependent septic shock, terlipressin (with and without concomitant dobutamine infusion) increases MAP and markedly reduces norepinephrine requirements. Although no adverse events were noticed in the present study, potential benefits of increasing Svo2 after terlipressin bolus infusion need to be weighted against the risk of cardiovascular complications resulting from high-dose dobutamine.

Fluid resuscitation in multiple trauma patients.

Purpose of review Fluid resuscitation in trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock is controversially discussed in the literature. The coincidence of brain injury complicates management of these patients. This article summarizes the current knowledge on nonblood component fluid resuscitation and choice of fluids in patients with multiple trauma. Recent findings Whereas current evidence suggests the efficacy of fluid therapy in hemorrhagic shock without active bleeding, experimental and clinical data demonstrate that aggressive volume challenge may be futile or even deleterious in the setting of uncontrolled hemorrhage. Large amounts of isotonic crystalloids may be associated with hypothermia, acidosis and inflammation. In patients with traumatic brain injury hypertonic solutions may positively influence inflammation and intracranial pressure without affecting neurologic outcome or mortality. Summary To date no large-scale clinical studies exist to either support or refute the use of nonblood component fluid resuscitation of hemorrhagic shock in trauma patients. The optimal choice of fluid remains to be determined, but existing evidence suggests avoiding crystalloids in favor of hypertonic solutions. The role of modern, iso-oncotic colloids in the treatment of hemorrhagic shock has not yet been sufficiently defined. In patients with concomitant brain injury, arterial hypotension must be avoided and infusion of hypotonic solutions is obsolete, whereas administration of hypertonic solutions may exert beneficial effects beyond hemodynamic stabilization.

Role of adenosine triphosphate-sensitive potassium channel inhibition in shock states: physiology and clinical implications.

Shock states are associated with an impaired tissue oxygen supply-demand relationship and perturbations within the microcirculation, leading to global tissue hypoxia, finally resulting in multiple-organ failure or even death. Two of the most frequent causes of shock are acute hemorrhage and sepsis. Although the origin and the pathophysiology of hemorrhagic and septic shock are basically different, the involvement of adenosine triphosphate-sensitive potassium (KATP) channels, as an important regulator of vascular smooth muscles tone, plays a pivotal role under both conditions. Because the excessive activation of vascular KATP channels is a major cause of arterial hypotension and vascular hyporesponsiveness to catecholamines, the pharmacological inhibition of KATP channels may represent a goal-directed therapeutic option to stabilize the hemodynamic situation in shock states. Despite promising results of preclinical studies, the efficacy of this innovative therapeutic approach remains to be confirmed in the clinical setting. The differences in the species, the comorbidity, and the difficulty in determining the exact onset of shock in clinical practice and, thus, any duration-related alterations in vascular responses and KATP channel activation may explain the discrepancy between the results obtained from experimental and clinical studies. Currently, two of the most relevant problems related to effective KATP blockade in shock states are represented by (1) the dose itself (benefit-risk ratio) and (2) the route of administration (oral vs. i.v.). This review article critically elucidates the published in vivo studies on the role of KATP channel inhibition in both described shock forms and discusses the advantages and the potential pitfalls related to the treatment of human shock states.

Role of levosimendan in sepsis and septic shock.

Purpose of review To present the pharmacologic and biologic profile of levosimendan and discuss potential indications in the treatment of sepsis and septic shock, with a special focus on myocardial and pulmonary dysfunction. Recent findings In animal models of endotoxic shock, levosimendan improved both left ventricular systolic and diastolic dysfunction, as well as ventriculovascular coupling. In addition, positive effects have been reported on right ventricular performance and pulmonary circulation. Two randomized, controlled trials in patients with septic shock revealed levosimendan provided consistent beneficial effects on cardiopulmonary performance, global oxygen transport, splanchnic perfusion and renal function. These effects have been reported as superior to placebo and the classic inotropic agent dobutamine. Due to its vasodilatory effects, combination with vasoconstrictor agents may be crucial in the presence of arterial hypotension. Summary There is increasing evidence that levosimendan exerts beneficial effects in the treatment of sepsis-induced myocardial and pulmonary dysfunction. Future large-scale multicenter clinical trials are now needed to clarify whether levosimendan improves the overall outcome of patients with sepsis and 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

Role of selective V1a receptor agonism in ovine septic shock

Objective:The vasopressor effect of arginine vasopressin, a mixed V1a/V2 receptor (V1aR/V2R) agonist, is mediated through the V1aR. Because V2R stimulation may aggravate sepsis-induced vasodilation, fluid accumulation, and microvascular thrombosis, a higher V1aR vs. V2R selectivity might be advantageous. The objective of this study was to elucidate the effects of a first-line therapy with the selective V1aR agonist Phe2-Orn8-Vasotocin vs. arginine vasopressin or norepinephrine on cardiopulmonary hemodynamics and organ function in ovine septic shock. Design:Randomized controlled laboratory experiment. Setting:University animal research facility. Subjects:Twenty-four chronically instrumented sheep. Interventions:After the onset of fecal peritonitis-induced septic shock (mean arterial pressure <60 mm Hg), sheep were randomly assigned to receive first-line treatment with Phe2-Orn8-Vasotocin (0.05 &mgr;g·kg−1·h−1), arginine vasopressin (0.05 &mgr;g·kg−1·h−1), or normal saline (each n = 8). In all groups, open-label norepinephrine was additionally titrated up to 1 &mgr;g·kg−1·min−1 to maintain mean arterial pressure at 70 ± 5 mm Hg, if necessary. Measurements and Main Results:Compared with single norepinephrine therapy, the selective V1aR agonist Phe2-Orn8-Vasotocin reduced norepinephrine requirements (2–6 hrs: p < .05 each) and fluid accumulation (p = .043). In addition, mean arterial pressure (6–10 hrs: p < .05 each), pulmonary gas exchange (8–10 hrs: p < .05 each), and global oxygen transport (10 hrs: p < .05 each) were improved by Phe2-Orn8-Vasotocin vs. both other groups. Despite similar preload left ventricular stroke work index was higher in Phe2-Orn8-Vasotocin- than in arginine vasopressin-treated animals (10 hrs: p = .02). Metabolic dysfunction (base excess, lactate concentrations) and renal dysfunction (urinary output, creatinine clearance) were attenuated by Phe2-Orn8-Vasotocin infusion when compared with arginine vasopressin and single norepinephrine therapy. Immunohistochemical analyses of lung tissue revealed higher hemeoxygenase-1 and lower 3-nitrotyrosine concentrations in Phe2-Orn8-Vasotocin-treated animals vs. both other groups (p < .05 each). In addition, the selective V1aR agonist Phe2-Orn8-Vasotocin slightly prolonged survival when compared with arginine vasopressin (p = .01) and standard treatment with norepinephrine (p = .003). Conclusions:Selective V1aR agonism appears to be superior to the V1aR/V2R agonist arginine vasopressin and single norepinephrine infusion for hemodynamic support in septic shock.