DOCSLIB.ORG

Angiotensin II in Vasodilatory Shock

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Angiotensin II in Vasodilatory Shock Angiotensin II in Vasodilatory Shock a,b c a,d,e, Brett J. Wakefield, MD , Laurence W. Busse, MD , Ashish K. Khanna, MD * KEYWORDS Vasodilatory shock Septic shock Angiotensin II Vasopressor Blood pressure KEY POINTS Vasodilatory shock, also known as distributive shock, is characterized by decreased sys- temic vascular resistance with impaired oxygen extraction leading to profound vasodilation. The Angiotensin II for the Treatment of Vasodilatory Shock (ATHOS-3) trial demonstrated the vasopressor and catecholamine-sparing effect of angiotensin II in patients with vaso- dilatory shock. Further studies suggest Angiotensin II may offer a benefit in patients with increased severity of illness, acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy, severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and in brisk responders to minimal doses of therapy. INTRODUCTION Shock is common in the intensive care unit (ICU), and up to one-third of critically ill pa- tients are admitted to the ICU with some form of shock.1 Shock is defined as a path- ologic condition of acute and life-threatening circulatory failure resulting in inadequate tissue oxygen utilization.2 The tenets of management include treatment of the under- lying cause and blood pressure support with fluid resuscitation and vasopressor Conflict of Interest: Drs A.K. Khanna and L.W. Busse have received support from the La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company as consultants and speakers. Funding: No funding was procured for this work. a Department of General Anesthesiology, Anesthesiology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA; b Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8054, St Louis, MO 63110, USA; c Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy and Sleep Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Emory St. Joseph’s Hospital, 5665 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, Atlanta, GA 30342, USA; d Center for Critical Care, Department of Outcomes Research, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue - G58, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA; e Department of Anesthesiology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA * Corresponding author. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue - G58, Cleveland, OH 44195. E-mail address: [email protected] Crit Care Clin 35 (2019) 229–245 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccc.2018.11.003 criticalcare.theclinics.com 0749-0704/19/ª 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 230 Wakefield et al administration when required.3 Previously, vasopressor options were limited to 2 broad classes of vasopressors: catecholamines (norepinephrine, epinephrine, and dopamine) and vasopressin. Recently, however, angiotensin II, a component of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the third class of vasopressor. Angiotensin II may play an important role in the treatment of difficult-to-manage vasodilatory shock. VASODILATORY SHOCK Vasodilatory shock, also known as distributive shock, is characterized by decreased systemic vascular resistance with impaired oxygen extraction leading to profound vasodilation.4 The most common type of vasodilatory shock is septic shock, which represents 50% to 80% of all cases.5,6 Other nonseptic causes of vasodilatory shock include postoperative vasoplegia, anaphylaxis, severe metabolic acidosis, pancrea- titis, and chronic angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor overdose.5,7–10 The term “refractory” has been used in cases of vasodilatory shock in which there is a fail- ure to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) despite volume resuscitation and the use of vasopressors.11 A consensus definition for refractory vasodilatory shock has not been established; however, high-dose vasopressors defined at various thresholds are associated with substantial mortality.12,13 The recently published Angiotensin II for the Treatment of High-Output Shock 3 (ATHOS-3) trial defined refractory vasodila- tory shock as shock that required the use of greater than 0.2 mcg/kg/min of norepi- nephrine equivalent vasopressor doses in order to maintain an MAP of 65 mm Hg, a threshold that was used as enrollment criteria into this study.14 This threshold is twice the threshold used in estimating a mortality of nearly 50% as part of the calculation of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score.15 A threshold of 0.5 mcg/kg/ min of norepinephrine or epinephrine has also been frequently used in clinical trials to define the threshold for refractory shock.16–18 Benbenishty and colleagues16 reported a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 76% for prediction of mortality in patients receiving greater than 0.5 mcg/kg/min of norepinephrine, which has been confirmed in other analyses.19 Furthermore, norepinephrine-equivalent vasopressor doses of greater than 1 mcg/kg/min are associated with a mortality of 80% or higher at 90 days.12 Considering these observations, refractory vasodilatory shock may be pre- sent when (1) vasopressors fail to result in an adequate MAP response, (2) patients require additional or adjunctive therapies to support blood pressure, or (3) current levels of therapy are associated with a dose-dependent increase in mortality.16–20 HEMODYNAMIC TARGETS FOR MANAGEMENT OF VASODILATORY SHOCK Ample evidence suggests that low blood pressure is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. An MAP less than 55 mm Hg for as little as 1 minute during the intraoperative period was found to be associated with acute kidney injury (AKI) and myocardial injury.21 Similar analyses have found that as the time-weighted average of intraoperative MAP decreased from 80 to 50 mm Hg, the 30-day mor- tality more than tripled.22 Khanna and colleagues23 reported an almost 50% in- crease in mortality and myocardial injury with every 10 mm Hg difference (compared between patients) in the lowest MAP on any given day in critically ill postoperative patients. This relationship was seen at any MAP less than a threshold of 90 mm Hg.24 Blood pressure goals in septic shock are delineated in the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines and describe a target MAP of at least 65 mm Hg as an initial resuscitative strategy.25 This recommendation is supported in part by a large Angiotensin II in Vasodilatory Shock 231 multicenter randomized controlled trial, which found no difference in mortality when comparing MAP targets of 80 to 85 mm Hg and 65 to 70 mm Hg in patients with septic shock.26 This study and many other smaller studies have associated higher MAP tar- gets with more cardiac arrhythmias and vasopressor use, but a similar serum lactate, regional blood flow, and mortality compared with lower blood pressure targets.27–30 Despite guideline recommendations, an MAP target of 65 mm Hg is often chal- lenging to achieve consistently, and recent data has now questioned the sufficiency of this target in the ICU.23,24,28,31 Nielsen and colleagues32 found that among patients with septic shock who are on vasopressors, 62%, 37%, and 18% had MAP values below 65, 60, and 55 mm Hg, respectively, for greater than 2 hours and up to 4 hours. In addition, increased duration at these low MAP values was associated with increased mortality. A multivariable logistic regression analysis of nearly 9000 septic patients across 110 ICUs in the United States found the risks for mortality, AKI, and myocardial injury first developed at an MAP of 85 mm Hg, and the risk of mortality and AKI progressively worsened as MAP decreased from 85 to 55 mm Hg.31 The maintenance of a minimally acceptable MAP goal during resuscitation of septic shock needs to be understood in the context of the currently available vasopressor options. The surviving sepsis campaign guidelines recommend the use of norepineph- rine as the first-line vasopressor, with the addition of epinephrine or vasopressin as adjunctive therapies.25 However, the use of catecholamines and vasopressin at high doses are associated with poor outcomes and even risk of injury. By one estimate, only 17% of patients with septic shock requiring vasopressor therapy of greater than or equal to 1 mcg/kg/min of norepinephrine-equivalent dosing survive to 90 days.12 In addition, high-dose catecholamine therapy has been shown to be inde- pendently predictive of mortality after controlling for many factors, including severity of illness.33 Catecholamine monotherapy is also associated with significant cardiac side effects, morbidity, and mortality, an effect that is correlated with the cumulative dose of catecholamines, the number of different catecholamines used, and the duration of therapy.34 Vasopressin has been shown to reduce the need for catecholamine therapy (a phenomenon commonly referred to as catecholamine-sparing) and is frequently deployed as a second-line agent in septic shock.25,35 Although superiority of vaso- pressin has yet to be demonstrated, patients with less severe shock (lactate <1.4 mmol/L or norepinephrine dose <15 mcg/min) treated with vasopressin had better survival when compared with norepinephrine.36 In addition, vasopressin has been associated with a reduced requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT) in patients with septic shock.37 However, vasopressin at high doses has also been associated with adverse outcomes including hyperbilirubinemia, increased liver enzymes, reduced platelet count, ischemic skin lesions, and mesenteric ischemia.19,38,39 Moreover, less than half of patients with septic shock respond to vasopressin, highlighting the need for additional options.40 Angiotensin II, recently approved by the FDA, is a novel vasopressor agent that has been shown to increase blood pressure with a catecholamine-sparing effect in pa- tients with vasodilatory shock.14 ANGIOTENSIN II PHYSIOLOGY Angiotensin II is an essential component of the RAAS and is synthesized in the liver as angiotensinogen before being cleaved by renin into angiotensin I (Fig. 1). Renin is a carboxypeptidase released from the juxtaglomerular cells in response to reduced renal afferent arteriole pressure, increased sympathetic stimulation, and decreased sodium or chloride concentrations in the distal tubule.41,42 Angiotensin I undergoes 232 Wakefield et al Fig.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Central Venous Oxygen Saturation As a Surrogate Marker for Outcome in Critically Ill Patients-A Prospective Observational Cohort Study
    Research Article J Anest & Inten Care Med Volume 6 Issue 5 - May 2018 Copyright © All rights are reserved by Kasimahanti Rajesh DOI: 10.19080/JAICM.2018.06.555698 Central Venous Oxygen Saturation as a Surrogate Marker for Outcome in Critically ill Patients-A Prospective Observational Cohort Study Sandeep Gajbe1, Sona Dave1 and Rajesh Kasimahanti2* 1Department of Anesthesia, Nair Hospital, India 2Department of Critical Care Medicine, Yashoda Hospitals, India Submission: May 21, 2018; Published: May 29, 2018 *Corresponding author: Rajesh Kasimahanti, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Yashoda Hospitals, Secunderabad, Pin: 500003, India, Email: Abstract Background and Aims: Mixed venous oxygen saturation aids in assessing tissue oxygenation. However considering the invasiveness of the (ScvO ) and their comparison with the outcome as measured by APACHE II score in critically ill patient treated by early goal directed therapy. procedure2 the need to find a surrogate marker. The aim of the study was to observe the measured values of central venous oxygen saturation Material and Methods: A prospective observational cohort study which included 100 adult patients on prolonged ventilator support (>24 hours) in a tertiary intensive care who received early goal directed therapy were included in the study. Intermittent ScvO2 measurement was compared with the outcome as measured by APACHE II score. APACHE II scoring was done only once on admission of patient.The clinical end point of study was survival or death of patient. Results and Conclusion: The mean arterial pressure, central venous pressure, PaO2 and urine output were higher amongst the survivors compared to nonsurvivors. The mean ScvO2 in nonsurvivors and survivors was 53.34 ± 4.08 and 73.33 ± 5.03 respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • And Early Treatment-Related Factors on Mortality in ICU Patients With
    Ohki et al. Journal of Intensive Care (2020) 8:30 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-020-00450-7 RESEARCH Open Access Impact of host- and early treatment-related factors on mortality in ICU patients with candidemia: a bicentric retrospective observational study Shingo Ohki1, Nobuaki Shime1* , Tadashi Kosaka2 and Naohisa Fujita3 Abstract Background: Candidemia is one of the most life-threatening infections among critically ill patients in the intensive care unit. However, the number of studies on the impact of host- and early treatment-related factors on mortality in this cohort is limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between clinically relevant factors, including early treatment (appropriate antifungal therapy and/or central venous catheter removal) and mortality in intensive care unit patients with candidemia. Methods: We performed a retrospective observational study in two Japanese University hospitals between January 2007 and December 2016. Adult intensive care unit patients with candidemia who met the following inclusion criteria: (1) ≥ 18 years old; (2) admitted in intensive care unit at the time of onset; and (3) central venous catheter in situ at the time of onset were included. We performed univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with 30-day crude mortality. Results: A total of 68 patients met the inclusion criteria, 47 (69%) of whom were males. The median age was 68.0 (interquartile range, 61.0–76.0) years. The most common causative Candida species was Candida albicans (40 [59%] patients). With respect to the source of infection, central venous catheter-related candidemia was the most frequent (30 [44%] patients).
    [Show full text]
  • Application of Different Scoring Systems and Their Value in Pediatric
    Egyptian Pediatric Association Gazette (2014) 62,59–64 HOSTED BY Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Egyptian Pediatric Association Gazette journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/epag Application of different scoring systems and their value in pediatric intensive care unit Hanaa I. Rady *, Shereen A. Mohamed, Nabil A. Mohssen, Mohamed ElBaz Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt Received 4 September 2014; accepted 28 October 2014 Available online 17 November 2014 KEYWORDS Abstract Background: Little is known on the impact of risk factors that may complicate the Scoring systems; course of critical illness. Scoring systems in ICUs allow assessment of the severity of diseases and Pediatric intensive care unit; predicting mortality. Mortality rate; Objectives: Apply commonly used scores for assessment of illness severity and identify the combi- Critical care; nation of factors predicting patient’s outcome. Illness severity; Methods: We included 231 patients admitted to PICU of Cairo University, Pediatric Hospital. Multiple organ dysfunction PRISM III, PIM2, PEMOD, PELOD, TISS and SOFA scores were applied on the day of admis- sion. Follow up was done using SOFA score and TISS. Results: There were positive correlations between PRISM III, PIM2, PELOD, PEMOD, SOFA and TISS on the day of admission, and the mortality rate (p < 0.0001). TISS and SOFA score had the highest discrimination ability (AUC: 0.81, 0.765, respectively). Significant positive correla- tions were found between SOFA score and TISS scores on days 1, 3 and 7 and PICU mortality rate (p < 0.0001). TISS had more ability of discrimination than SOFA score on day 1 (AUC: 0.843, 0.787, respectively).
    [Show full text]
  • Fluid Resuscitation Therapy for Hemorrhagic Shock
    CLINICAL CARE Fluid Resuscitation Therapy for Hemorrhagic Shock Joseph R. Spaniol vides a review of the 4 types of shock, the 4 classes of Amanda R. Knight, BA hemorrhagic shock, and the latest research on resuscita- tive fluid. The 4 types of shock are categorized into dis- Jessica L. Zebley, MS, RN tributive, obstructive, cardiogenic, and hemorrhagic Dawn Anderson, MS, RN shock. Hemorrhagic shock has been categorized into 4 Janet D. Pierce, DSN, ARNP, CCRN classes, and based on these classes, appropriate treatment can be planned. Crystalloids, colloids, dopamine, and blood products are all considered resuscitative fluid treat- ment options. Each individual case requires various resus- ■ ABSTRACT citative actions with different fluids. Healthcare Hemorrhagic shock is a severe life-threatening emergency professionals who are knowledgeable of the information affecting all organ systems of the body by depriving tissue in this review would be better prepared for patients who of sufficient oxygen and nutrients by decreasing cardiac are admitted with hemorrhagic shock, thus providing output. This article is a short review of the different types optimal care. of shock, followed by information specifically referring to hemorrhagic shock. The American College of Surgeons ■ DISTRIBUTIVE SHOCK categorized shock into 4 classes: (1) distributive; (2) Distributive shock is composed of 3 separate categories obstructive; (3) cardiogenic; and (4) hemorrhagic. based on their clinical outcome. Distributive shock can be Similarly, the classes of hemorrhagic shock are grouped categorized into (1) septic; (2) anaphylactic; and (3) neu- by signs and symptoms, amount of blood loss, and the rogenic shock. type of fluid replacement. This updated review is helpful to trauma nurses in understanding the various clinical Septic shock aspects of shock and the current recommendations for In accordance with the American College of Chest fluid resuscitation therapy following hemorrhagic shock.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Prognostication Rule by APACHE II Score and Serum
    Giamarellos-Bourboulis et al. Critical Care 2012, 16:R149 http://ccforum.com/content/16/4/R149 RESEARCH Open Access Risk assessment in sepsis: a new prognostication rule by APACHE II score and serum soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor Evangelos J Giamarellos-Bourboulis1*, Anna Norrby-Teglund2, Vassiliki Mylona3, Athina Savva1, Iraklis Tsangaris4, Ioanna Dimopoulou4, Maria Mouktaroudi1, Maria Raftogiannis1, Marianna Georgitsi1, Anna Linnér2, George Adamis5, Anastasia Antonopoulou1,4, Efterpi Apostolidou6, Michael Chrisofos7, Chrisostomos Katsenos8, Ioannis Koutelidakis9, Katerina Kotzampassi10, George Koratzanis3, Marina Koupetori11, Ioannis Kritselis12, Korina Lymberopoulou3, Konstantinos Mandragos8, Androniki Marioli3, Jonas Sundén-Cullberg2, Anna Mega13, Athanassios Prekates14, Christina Routsi15, Charalambos Gogos16, Carl-Johan Treutiger2, Apostolos Armaganidis4 and George Dimopoulos4 Abstract Introduction: Early risk assessment is the mainstay of management of patients with sepsis. APACHE II is the gold standard prognostic stratification system. A prediction rule that aimed to improve prognostication by APACHE II with the application of serum suPAR (soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor) is developed. Methods: A prospective study cohort enrolled 1914 patients with sepsis including 62.2% with sepsis and 37.8% with severe sepsis/septic shock. Serum suPAR was measured in samples drawn after diagnosis by an enzyme- immunoabsorbent assay; in 367 patients sequential measurements were performed. After ROC analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis a prediction rule for risk was developed. The rule was validated in a double- blind fashion by an independent confirmation cohort of 196 sepsis patients, predominantly severe sepsis/septic shock patients, from Sweden. Results: Serum suPAR remained stable within survivors and non-survivors for 10 days. Regression analysis showed that APACHE II ≥17 and suPAR ≥12 ng/ml were independently associated with unfavorable outcome.
    [Show full text]
  • Ready, Set, (Vaso)Action! Vasoactive Agents for Catecholamine Refractory
    Lights, Camera, (Vaso)Action! Vasoactive Agents for Catecholamine Refractory Septic Shock Gregory Kelly, Pharm.D. PGY2 Emergency Medicine Pharmacy Resident University of Rochester Medical Center October 28, 2017 Conflicts of Interest I have no conflicts of interest to disclose Presentation Objectives 1. Discuss the currently available literature evaluating angiotensin II as a treatment modality for septic shock. 2. Interpret the results of the ATHOS-3 trial and its applicability to the management of patients with septic shock. Vasopressin Vasopressin: A History Case series of vasopressin First case report deficiency in in severe shock septic shock 1960-80’s 1954 1957 1997 2003 Vasopressin Use of First RCT first vasopressin for suggesting synthesized GI superiority of hemorrhage, vasopressin + diabetes norepinephrine to insipidus and norepinephrine ileus alone Matis-Gradwohl I, et al. Crit Care. 2013;17:1002. VAAST Trial: design VASST Trial Design Mutlicenter, international, randomized, double-blind trial • n = 778 Population • Refractory septic shock Intervention Vasopressin 0.01-0.03 units/min vs. Norepinephrine alone Russell JA, et al. New Engl J Med. 2008;358:877-87. Drug Titration Vasopressin start at 0.01 units/min Titrate by 0.005 units/min Every 10 minutes to reach max of 0.03 units/min MAP ≥65-70mmHg MAP <65-70mmHg Decrease Increase norepinephrine by norepinephrine 1-2 mcg/min every 5-10 minutes Russell JA, et al. New Engl J Med. 2008;358:877-87. Norepinephrine Requirements Norepinephrine Vasopressin Russell JA, et al. New Engl J Med. 2008;358:877-87. Mortality 450 Day 28 Day 90 400 P = 0.27 P = 0.10 350 300 250 200 150 Patients Alive Patients 100 50 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Days Since Drug Initiation Vasopressin Norepinephrine Russell JA, et al.
    [Show full text]
  • A Discussion of Sepsis Severity Scoring Systems in Severe Complicated
    Tolonen et al. World Journal of Emergency Surgery (2018) 13:17 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-018-0177-2 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Getting the invite list right: a discussion of sepsis severity scoring systems in severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis and randomized trial inclusion criteria Matti Tolonen1, Federico Coccolini2, Luca Ansaloni3, Massimo Sartelli4, Derek J. Roberts5, Jessica L. McKee6, Ari Leppaniemi1, Christopher J. Doig7, Fausto Catena8, Timothy Fabian9, Craig N. Jenne10, Osvaldo Chiara11, Paul Kubes12,13, Yoram Kluger14, Gustavo P. Fraga15, Bruno M. Pereira16, Jose J. Diaz17, Michael Sugrue18, Ernest E. Moore19,JiananRen20,ChadG.Ball21,RaulCoimbra22,23, Elijah Dixon24,WalterBiffl25, Anthony MacLean26, Paul B. McBeth5,10,27, Juan G. Posadas-Calleja10, Salomone Di Saverio28, Jimmy Xiao6, Andrew W. Kirkpatrick5,10,27,29* , From the Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL) for Source Control in Severe Complicated Intra-Abdominal Sepsis Investigators Abstract Background: Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) is a worldwide challenge with increasing incidence. Open abdomen management with enhanced clearance of fluid and biomediators from the peritoneum is a potential therapy requiring prospective evaluation. Given the complexity of powering multi-center trials, it is essential to recruit an inception cohort sick enough to benefit from the intervention; otherwise, no effect of a potentially beneficial therapy may be apparent. An evaluation of abilities of recognized predictive systems to recognize SCIAS patients was conducted using an existing intra-abdominal sepsis (IAS) database. Methods: All consecutive adult patients with a diffuse secondary peritonitis between 2012 and 2013 were collected from a quaternary care hospital in Finland, excluding appendicitis/cholecystitis. From this retrospectively collected database, a target population (93) of those with either ICU admission or mortality were selected.
    [Show full text]
  • Risk Factors for Mortality in Severe Multiply Injury Patients with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure
    Eur opean Rev iew for Med ical and Pharmacol ogical Sci ences 2015; 19: 3693-3700 Risk factors for mortality in severe multiply injury patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure Y.-D. CHEN, X.-L. FENG, L. DENG, P. ZHOU, J.-D. WANG, B. CAI, H. JIANG, Y. DONG, X.-H. ZHANG Department of Emergency ICU, Metabolomics and Multidisciplinary Laboratory for Trauma Research, Institute for Disaster and Emergency Medicine Research, Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences, Chengdu, Sichuan, China Youdai Chen and Xuanlin Feng contributed equally Abstract. – OBJECTIVE: To investigate the CONCLUSIONS: Traumatic AHRF patients re - risk factors related to mortality in severe poly - quiring ventilation support show a high rate of trauma patients with acute hypoxemic respira - early mortality. Greater vigilance for high tory failure (AHRF). APACHE II score, short time interval between PATIENTS AND METHODS: From December injury and ventilation, low pH in traumatic 2011 to December 2014, we identified and intu - AHRF patients is required. bated 524 traumatic AHRF patients in a level 1 trauma centers. Amongst those, we enrolled Key Words: seventy-six severe traumatic AHRF patients Multiple injury, Mortality, Ventilation, Acute hypoxemic with an injury severity score (ISS) over 16 and respiratory failure. need for over 24 hour intra-tracheal mechanical ventilation for our study. Patients were followed daily to collect data about demographics, injury characteristic, diagnostic, treatment, respirato - Abbreviations ry parameters, major complications, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay, preva - MODS = Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome; APACHE lence of major complications and 28-days mor - II = Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation score tality.
    [Show full text]
  • Septic Shock Management Guided by Ultrasound: a Randomized Control Trial (SEPTICUS Trial)
    Septic Shock Management Guided by Ultrasound: A Randomized Control Trial (SEPTICUS Trial) RESEARCH PROTOCOL dr. Saptadi Yuliarto, Sp.A(K), MKes PEDIATRIC EMERGENCY AND INTENSIVE THERAPY SAIFUL ANWAR GENERAL HOSPITAL, MALANG MEDICAL FACULTY OF BRAWIJAYA UNIVERSITY DECEMBER 30, 2020 1 SUMMARY Research Title Septic Shock Management Guided by Ultrasound: A Randomized Control Trial (SEPTICUS Trial) Research Design A multicentre experimental study in pediatric patients with a diagnosis of septic shock. Research Objective To examine the differences in fluid resuscitation outcomes for septic shock patients with the USSM and mACCM protocols • Patient mortality rate • Differences in clinical parameters • Differences in macrocirculation hemodynamic parameters • Differences in microcirculation laboratory parameters Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria Inclusion: Pediatric patients (1 month - 18 years old), diagnosed with septic shock Exclusion: patients with congenital heart defects, already receiving fluid resuscitation or inotropic-vasoactive drugs prior to study recruitment, patients after cardiac surgery Research Setting A multicenter study conducted in all pediatric intensive care units (HCU / PICU), emergency department (IGD), and pediatric wards in participating hospitals in Indonesia. Sample Size Calculating the minimum sample size using the clinical trial formula for the mortality rate, obtained a sample size of 340 samples. Research Period The study was carried out in the period January 2021 to December 2022 Data Collection Process Pediatric patients who met the study inclusion criteria were randomly divided into 2 groups, namely the intervention group (USSM protocol) or the control group (mACCM protocol). Patients who respond well to resuscitation will have their outcome analyzed in the first hour (15-60 minutes). Patients with fluid refractory shock will have their output analyzed at 6 hours.
    [Show full text]
  • Approach to Shock.” These Podcasts Are Designed to Give Medical Students an Overview of Key Topics in Pediatrics
    PedsCases Podcast Scripts This is a text version of a podcast from Pedscases.com on “Approach to Shock.” These podcasts are designed to give medical students an overview of key topics in pediatrics. The audio versions are accessible on iTunes or at www.pedcases.com/podcasts. Approach to Shock Developed by Dr. Dustin Jacobson and Dr Suzanne Beno for PedsCases.com. December 20, 2016 My name is Dustin Jacobson, a 3rd year pediatrics resident from the University of Toronto. This podcast was supervised by Dr. Suzanne Beno, a staff physician in the division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine at the University of Toronto. Today, we’ll discuss an approach to shock in children. First, we’ll define shock and understand it’s pathophysiology. Next, we’ll examine the subclassifications of shock. Last, we’ll review some basic and more advanced treatment for shock But first, let’s start with a case. Jonny is a 6-year-old male who presents with lethargy that is preceded by 2 days of a diarrheal illness. He has not urinated over the previous 24 hours. On assessment, he is tachycardic and hypotensive. He is febrile at 40 degrees Celsius, and is moaning on assessment, but spontaneously breathing. We’ll revisit this case including evaluation and management near the end of this podcast. The term “shock” is essentially a ‘catch-all’ phrase that refers to a state of inadequate oxygen or nutrient delivery for tissue metabolic demand. This broad definition incorporates many causes that eventually lead to this end-stage state. Basic oxygen delivery is determined by cardiac output and content of oxygen in the blood.
    [Show full text]
  • Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II for Critically Ill Children?
    444646 Editorial Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II for critically ill children? Jhuma Sankar Mortality risk prediction models are used to evaluate Access this article online the risk of mortality in Intensive Care Units (ICUs) Website: www.ijccm.org at admission or over the course of stay. They allow DOI: 10.4103/0972-5229.162458 for inter- and intra-unit comparisons with time, and Quick Response Code: also provide useful information for comparing the severity of illness of patients enrolled into clinical trials.[1] The acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) was the fi rst scoring system introduced in the year 1981 to analyze disease severity in critically ill adults.[2] The APACHE score comprised of acute physiological parameters and other clinical information. The basis for including variables in this system was based mostly on expert opinion. However, one or the other of these scoring systems is dictated this system was not validated as it was cumbersome by their performance and feasibility. Apart from with a large number of variables. Subsequently, in these two models, there are other models based on 1985 a new abbreviated version of APACHE known as organ dysfunction such as Pediatric Multiple Organ APACHE II was published. Apart from the physiologic Dysfunction Score and Pediatric Logistic Organ variables, APACHE II also included diagnosis and Dysfunction scores which predict mortality based used a logistic regression equation to compute the on the organ dysfunction occurring during the ICU probability of death.[3] course.[6] APACHE II or its newer versions have not been used widely and reported in children so far.
    [Show full text]
  • Vasopressin, Norepinephrine, and Vasodilatory Shock After Cardiac Surgery Another “VASST” Difference?
    Vasopressin, Norepinephrine, and Vasodilatory Shock after Cardiac Surgery Another “VASST” Difference? James A. Russell, A.B., M.D. AJJAR et al.1 designed, Strengths of VANCS include H conducted, and now report the blinded randomized treat- in this issue an elegant random- ment, careful follow-up, calcula- ized double-blind controlled trial tion of the composite outcome, of vasopressin (0.01 to 0.06 U/ achieving adequate and planned Downloaded from http://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article-pdf/126/1/9/374893/20170100_0-00010.pdf by guest on 01 October 2021 min) versus norepinephrine (10 to sample size, and evaluation of 60 μg/min) post cardiac surgery vasopressin pharmacokinetics. with vasodilatory shock (Vaso- Nearly 20 yr ago, Landry et al.2–6 pressin versus Norepinephrine in discovered relative vasopressin defi- Patients with Vasoplegic Shock ciency and benefits of prophylactic After Cardiac Surgery [VANCS] (i.e., pre cardiopulmonary bypass) trial). Open-label norepinephrine and postoperative low-dose vaso- was added if there was an inad- pressin infusion in patients with equate response to blinded study vasodilatory shock after cardiac drug. Vasodilatory shock was surgery. Previous trials of vasopres- defined by hypotension requiring sin versus norepinephrine in cardiac vasopressors and a cardiac index surgery were small and underpow- greater than 2.2 l · min · m-2. The “[The use of] …vasopressin ered for mortality assessment.2–6 primary endpoint was a compos- Vasopressin stimulates arginine ite: “mortality or severe complica- infusion for treatment of vasopressin receptor 1a, arginine tions.” Patents with vasodilatory vasodilatory shock after vasopressin receptor 1b, V2, oxy- shock within 48 h post cardiopul- tocin, and purinergic receptors monary bypass weaning were eli- cardiac surgery may causing vasoconstriction (V1a), gible.
    [Show full text]