Search

Background: In randomized clinical controlled trials, the choice of usual care as the comparator may be associated with better clinician uptake of the study protocol and lead to more generalizable results. However, if care processes evolve to resemble the intervention during the course of a trial, differences between the intervention group and usual care control group may narrow. We evaluated the effect on mean arterial pressure of an unblinded trial comparing a lower mean arterial pressure target to reduce vasopressor exposure, vs. a clinician-selected mean arterial pressure target, in critically ill patients at least 65 years old., Methods: For this multicenter observational study using data collected both prospectively and retrospectively, patients were recruited from five of the seven trial sites. We compared the mean arterial pressure of patients receiving vasopressors, who met or would have met trial eligibility criteria, from two periods: [1] at least 1 month before the trial started, and [2] during the trial period and randomized to usual care, or not enrolled in the trial., Results: We included 200 patients treated before and 229 after trial initiation. There were no differences in age (mean 74.5 vs. 75.2 years; p = 0.28), baseline Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (median 26 vs. 26; p = 0.47) or history of chronic hypertension (n = 126 [63.0%] vs. n = 153 [66.8%]; p = 0.41). Mean of the mean arterial pressure was similar between the two periods (72.5 vs. 72.4 mmHg; p = 0.76)., Conclusions: The initiation of a trial of a prescribed lower mean arterial pressure target, compared to a usual clinician-selected target, was not associated with a change in mean arterial pressure, reflecting stability in the net effect of usual clinician practices over time. Comparing prior and concurrent control groups may alleviate concerns regarding drift in usual practices over the course of a trial or permit quantification of any change., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Vasodilatory hypotension is common among intensive care unit (ICU) patients; vasopressors are considered standard of care. However, optimal mean arterial pressure (MAP) targets for vasopressor titration are unknown. The objective of the Optimal VAsopressor TitraTION in patients 65 years and older (OVATION-65) trial is to ascertain the effect of permissive hypotension (vasopressor titration to achieve MAP 60-65 mm Hg) versus usual care on biomarkers of organ injury in hypotensive patients aged ≥65 years., Methods and Analysis: OVATION-65 is an allocation-concealed randomised trial in 7 Canadian hospitals. Eligible patients are ≥65 years of age, in an ICU with vasodilatory hypotension, receiving vasopressors for ≤12 hours to maintain MAP ≥65 mm Hg during or after adequate fluid resuscitation, and expected to receive vasopressors for ≥6 additional hours. Patients are excluded for any of the following: active treatment for spinal cord or acute brain injury; vasopressors given solely for bleeding, ventricular failure or postcardiopulmonary bypass vasoplegia; withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments expected within 48 hours; death perceived as imminent; previous enrolment in OVATION-65; organ transplant within the last year; receiving extracorporeal life support or lack of physician equipoise. Patients are randomised to permissive hypotension versus usual care for up to 28 days. The primary outcome is high-sensitivity troponin T, a biomarker of cardiac injury, on day 3. Secondary outcomes include biomarkers of injury to other organs (brain, liver, intestine, skeletal muscle); lactate (a biomarker of global tissue dysoxia); resource utilisation; adverse events; mortality (90 days and 6 months) and cognitive function (6 months). Assessors of biomarkers, mortality and cognitive function are blinded to allocation., Ethics and Dissemination: This protocol has been approved at all sites. Consent is obtained from the eligible patient, the substitute decision-maker if the patient is incapable, or in a deferred fashion where permitted. End-of-grant dissemination plans include presentations, publications and social media platforms and discussion forums., Trial Registration Number: NCT03431181., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Vasopressors are commonly administered to intensive care unit (ICU) patients to raise blood pressure. Balancing risks and benefits of vasopressors is a challenge, particularly in older patients., Objective: To determine whether reducing exposure to vasopressors through permissive hypotension (mean arterial pressure [MAP] target, 60-65 mm Hg) reduces mortality at 90 days in ICU patients aged 65 years or older with vasodilatory hypotension., Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial was conducted in 65 ICUs in the United Kingdom and included 2600 randomized patients aged 65 years or older with vasodilatory hypotension (assessed by treating clinician). The study was conducted from July 2017 to March 2019, and follow-up was completed in August 2019., Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to vasopressors guided either by MAP target (60-65 mm Hg, permissive hypotension) (n = 1291) or according to usual care (at the discretion of treating clinicians) (n = 1307)., Main Outcome and Measures: The primary clinical outcome was all-cause mortality at 90 days., Results: Of 2600 randomized patients, after removal of those who declined or had withdrawn consent, 2463 (95%) were included in the analysis of the primary outcome (mean [SD] age 75 years [7 years]; 1387 [57%] men). Patients randomized to the permissive hypotension group had lower exposure to vasopressors compared with those in the usual care group (median duration 33 hours vs 38 hours; difference in medians, -5.0; 95% CI, -7.8 to -2.2 hours; total dose in norepinephrine equivalents median, 17.7 mg vs 26.4 mg; difference in medians, -8.7 mg; 95% CI, -12.8 to -4.6 mg). At 90 days, 500 of 1221 (41.0%) in the permissive hypotension compared with 544 of 1242 (43.8%) in the usual care group had died (absolute risk difference, -2.85%; 95% CI, -6.75 to 1.05; P = .15) (unadjusted relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.03). When adjusted for prespecified baseline variables, the odds ratio for 90-day mortality was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.98). Serious adverse events were reported for 79 patients (6.2%) in the permissive care group and 75 patients (5.8%) in the usual care group. The most common serious adverse events were acute renal failure (41 [3.2%] vs 33 [2.5%]) and supraventricular cardiac arrhythmia (12 [0.9%] vs 13 [1.0%])., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients 65 years or older receiving vasopressors for vasodilatory hypotension, permissive hypotension compared with usual care did not result in a statistically significant reduction in mortality at 90 days. However, the confidence interval around the point estimate for the primary outcome should be considered when interpreting the clinical importance of the study., Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN10580502.

Background: Sepsis is a health problem of global importance; treatments focus on controlling infection and supporting failing organs. Recent clinical research suggests that intravenous vitamin C may decrease mortality in sepsis. We have designed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to ascertain the effect of vitamin C on the composite endpoint of death or persistent organ dysfunction at 28 days in patients with sepsis., Methods: LOVIT (Lessening Organ dysfunction with VITamin C) is a multicenter, parallel-group, blinded (participants, clinicians, study personnel, Steering Committee members, data analysts), superiority RCT (minimum n = 800). Eligible patients have sepsis as the diagnosis for admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and are receiving vasopressors. Those admitted to the ICU for more than 24 h are excluded. Eligible patients are randomized to high-dose intravenous vitamin C (50 mg/kg every 6 h for 96 h) or placebo. The primary outcome is a composite of death or persistent organ dysfunction (need for vasopressors, invasive mechanical ventilation, or new and persisting renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes include persistent organ dysfunction-free days to day 28, mortality and health-related quality of life at 6 months, biomarkers of dysoxia, inflammation, infection, endothelial function, and adverse effects (hemolysis, acute kidney injury, and hypoglycemia). Six subgroup analyses are planned., Discussion: This RCT will provide evidence of the effect of high-dose intravenous vitamin C on patient-important outcomes in patients with sepsis., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03680274, first posted 21 September 2018.

Importance: Vasopressin is an alternative to catecholamine vasopressors for patients with distributive shock-a condition due to excessive vasodilation, most frequently from severe infection. Blood pressure support with a noncatecholamine vasopressor may reduce stimulation of adrenergic receptors and decrease myocardial oxygen demand. Atrial fibrillation is common with catecholamines and is associated with adverse events, including mortality and increased length of stay (LOS)., Objectives: To determine whether treatment with vasopressin + catecholamine vasopressors compared with catecholamine vasopressors alone was associated with reductions in the risk of adverse events., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to February 2018. Experts were asked and meta-registries searched to identify ongoing trials., Study Selection: Pairs of reviewers identified randomized clinical trials comparing vasopressin in combination with catecholamine vasopressors to catecholamines alone for patients with distributive shock., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers abstracted data independently. A random-effects model was used to combine data., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was atrial fibrillation. Other outcomes included mortality, requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT), myocardial injury, ventricular arrhythmia, stroke, and LOS in the intensive care unit and hospital. Measures of association are reported as risk ratios (RRs) for clinical outcomes and mean differences for LOS., Results: Twenty-three randomized clinical trials were identified (3088 patients; mean age, 61.1 years [14.2]; women, 45.3%). High-quality evidence supported a lower risk of atrial fibrillation associated with vasopressin treatment (RR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.88]; risk difference [RD], -0.06 [95% CI, -0.13 to 0.01]). For mortality, the overall RR estimate was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.97; RD, -0.04 [95% CI, -0.07 to 0.00]); however, when limited to trials at low risk of bias, the RR estimate was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.11). The overall RR estimate for RRT was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08; RD, -0.07 [95% CI, -0.12 to -0.01]). However, in an analysis limited to trials at low risk of bias, RR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.92, P for interaction = .77). There were no significant differences in the pooled risks for other outcomes., Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the addition of vasopressin to catecholamine vasopressors compared with catecholamines alone was associated with a lower risk of atrial fibrillation. Findings for secondary outcomes varied.

Purpose: Guidelines for shock recommend mean arterial pressure (MAP) targets for vasopressor therapy of at least 65 mmHg and, until recently, suggested that patients with underlying chronic hypertension and atherosclerosis may benefit from higher targets. We conducted an individual patient-data meta-analysis of recent trials to determine if patient variables modify the effect of different MAP targets., Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials of higher versus lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy in adult patients in shock (until November 2017). After obtaining individual patient data from both eligible trials, we used a modified version of the Cochrane Collaboration's instrument to assess the risk of bias of included trials. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality., Results: Included trials enrolled 894 patients. Controlling for trial and site, the OR for 28-day mortality for the higher versus lower MAP targets was 1.15 (95% CI 0.87-1.52). Treatment effect varied by duration of vasopressors before randomization (interaction p = 0.017), but not by chronic hypertension, congestive heart failure or age. Risk of death increased in higher MAP groups among patients on vasopressors > 6 h before randomization (OR 3.00, 95% CI 1.33-6.74)., Conclusions: Targeting higher blood pressure targets may increase mortality in patients who have been treated with vasopressors for more than 6 h. Lower blood pressure targets were not associated with patient-important adverse events in any subgroup, including chronically hypertensive patients.

Objectives: Current guidelines suggest limiting the use of vasopressors following traumatic injury; however, wide variations in practice exist. Although excessive vasoconstriction may be harmful, these agents may help reduce administration of potentially harmful resuscitation fluids. This systematic review aims to compare early vasopressor use to standard resuscitation in adults with trauma-induced shock., Design: Systematic review., Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until October 2016, as well as the proceedings of 10 relevant international conferences from 2005 to 2016., Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies: Randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies that compared the early vasopressor use with standard resuscitation in adults with acute traumatic injury., Results: Of 8001 citations, we retrieved 18 full-text articles and included 6 studies (1 randomised controlled trial and 5 observational studies), including 2 published exclusively in abstract form. Across observational studies, vasopressor use was associated with increased short-term mortality, with unadjusted risk ratios ranging from 2.31 to 7.39. However, the risk of bias was considered high in these observational studies because patients who received vasopressors were systematically sicker than patients treated without vasopressors. One clinical trial (n=78) was too imprecise to yield meaningful results. Two clinical trials are currently ongoing. No study measured long-term quality of life or cognitive function., Conclusions: Existing data on the effects of vasopressors following traumatic injury are of very low quality according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. With emerging evidence of harm associated with aggressive fluid resuscitation and, in selected subgroups of patients, with permissive hypotension, the alternatives to vasopressor therapy are limited. Observational data showing that vasopressors are part of usual care would provide a strong justification for high-quality clinical trials of early vasopressor use during trauma resuscitation., Trial Registration Number: CRD42016033437., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SR has been a paid member of a scientific advisory board for CSL Behring, outside the present study. All other authors declare no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Purpose: Clinicians must balance the risks from hypotension with the potential adverse effects of vasopressors. Experts have recommended a mean arterial pressure (MAP) target of at least 65 mmHg, and higher in older patients and in patients with chronic hypertension or atherosclerosis. We conducted a systematic review of randomized-controlled trials comparing higher vs lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy administered to hypotensive critically ill patients., Methods: We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE™, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies of higher vs lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy in critically ill hypotensive adult patients. Two reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility based on titles and abstracts, and they then selected full-text reports. Outcomes, subgroups, and analyses were prespecified. We used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to rate the overall confidence in the estimates of intervention effects., Results: Of 8001 citations, we retrieved 57 full-text articles and ultimately included two randomized-controlled trials (894 patients). Higher blood pressure targets were not associated with lower mortality (relative risk [RR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.23; P = 0.54), and neither age (P = 0.17) nor chronic hypertension (P = 0.32) modified the overall effect. Nevertheless, higher blood pressure targets were associated with a greater risk of new-onset supraventricular cardiac arrhythmia (RR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.28 to 3.38; P < 0.01)., Conclusion: Current evidence does not support a MAP target > 70 mmHg in hypotensive critically ill adult patients requiring vasopressor therapy.

Objectives: Vasopressors are not recommended by current trauma guidelines, but recent reports indicate that they are commonly used. We aimed to describe the early hemodynamic management of trauma patients outside densely populated urban centers., Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study in a Canadian regional trauma center. All adult patients treated for traumatic injury in 2013 who died within 24 hours of admission or were transferred to the intensive care unit were included. A systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg, a mean arterial pressure <60 mmHg, the use of vasopressors or ≥2 L of intravenous fluids defined hemodynamic instability. Main outcome measures were use of intravenous fluids and vasopressors prior to surgical or endovascular management., Results: Of 111 eligible patients, 63 met our criteria for hemodynamic instability. Of these, 60 (95%) had sustained blunt injury and 22 (35%) had concomitant severe traumatic brain injury. The subgroup of patients referred from a primary or secondary hospital (20 of 63, 32%) had significantly longer transport times (243 vs. 61 min, p<0.01). Vasopressors, used in 26 patients (41%), were independently associated with severe traumatic brain injury (odds ratio 10.2, 95% CI 2.7-38.5)., Conclusions: In this cohort, most trauma patients had suffered multiple blunt injuries. Patients were likely to receive vasopressors during the early phase of trauma care, particularly if they exhibited signs of neurologic injury. While these results may be context-specific, determining the risk-benefit trade-offs of fluid resuscitation, vasopressors and permissive hypotension in specific patients subgroups constitutes a priority for trauma research going forwards.

Introduction: Worldwide, traumatic casualties are projected to exceed 8 million by year 2020. Haemorrhagic shock and brain injury are the leading causes of death following trauma. While intravenous fluids have traditionally been used to support organ perfusion in the setting of haemorrhage, recent investigations have suggested that restricting fluid therapy by tolerating more severe hypotension may improve survival. However, the safety of permissive hypotension remains uncertain, particularly among patients who have suffered a traumatic brain injury. Vasopressors preferentially vasoconstrict blood vessels that supply non-vital organs and capacitance vessels, thereby mobilising the unstressed blood volume. Used as fluid-sparing adjuncts, these drugs can complement resuscitative measures by correcting hypotension without diluting clotting factors or increasing the risk for tissue oedema., Methods and Analysis: We will identify randomised control trials comparing early resuscitation with vasopressors versus placebo or standard care in adults following traumatic injury. Data sources will include MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, clinical trial registries and conference proceedings. Two reviewers will independently determine trial eligibility. For each included trial, we will conduct duplicate independent data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We will assess the overall quality of the data for each individual outcome using the GRADE approach., Ethics and Dissemination: We will report this review in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We will disseminate our findings at critical care and trauma conferences and through a publication in a peer-reviewed journal. We will also use this systematic review to create clinical guidelines (http://www.magicapp.org), which will be disseminated in a standalone publication., Trial Registration Number: CRD42016033437., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Purpose: In shock, hypotension may contribute to inadequate oxygen delivery, organ failure and death. We conducted the Optimal Vasopressor Titration (OVATION) pilot trial to inform the design of a larger trial examining the effect of lower versus higher mean arterial pressure (MAP) targets for vasopressor therapy in shock., Methods: We randomly assigned critically ill patients who were presumed to suffer from vasodilatory shock regardless of admission diagnosis to a lower (60-65 mmHg) versus a higher (75-80 mmHg) MAP target. The primary objective was to measure the separation in MAP between groups. We also recorded days with protocol deviations, enrolment rate, cardiac arrhythmias and mortality for prespecified subgroups., Results: A total of 118 patients were enrolled from 11 centres (2.3 patients/site/month of screening). The between-group separation in MAP was 9 mmHg (95% CI 7-11). In the lower and higher MAP groups, we observed deviations on 12 versus 8% of all days on vasopressors (p = 0.059). Risks of cardiac arrhythmias (20 versus 36%, p = 0.07) and hospital mortality (30 versus 33%, p = 0.84) were not different between lower and higher MAP arms. Among patients aged 75 years or older, a lower MAP target was associated with reduced hospital mortality (13 versus 60%, p = 0.03) but not in younger patients., Conclusions: This pilot study supports the feasibility of a large trial comparing lower versus higher MAP targets for shock. Further research may help delineate the reasons for vasopressor dosing in excess of prescribed targets and how individual patient characteristics modify the response to vasopressor therapy.

Physicians often prescribe vasopressors to correct pathological vasodilation and improve tissue perfusion in patients with septic shock, but the evidence to inform practice on vasopressor dosing is weak. We undertook a systematic review of clinical studies evaluating different blood pressure targets for the dosing of vasopressors in septic shock. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (to November 2013), reference lists from included articles, and trial registries for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational and crossover intervention studies comparing different blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy in septic shock. Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies and extracted data on standardized forms. We identified 2 RCTs and 10 crossover trials but no observational studies meeting our criteria. Only one RCT measured clinical outcomes after comparing mean arterial pressure targets of 80 to 85 mmHg versus 65 to 70 mmHg. There was no effect on 28-day mortality, but confidence intervals were wide (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.84 - 1.38). In contrast, this intervention was associated with a greater risk of atrial fibrillation (relative risk, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.18 - 4.72) and a lower risk of renal replacement therapy in hypertensive patients (relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57 - 1.0). Crossover trials suggest that achieving higher blood pressure targets by increasing vasopressor doses increases heart rate and cardiac index with no effect on serum lactate. Our findings underscore the paucity of clinical evidence to guide the administration of vasopressors in critically ill patients with septic shock. Further rigorous research is needed to establish an evidence base for vasopressor administration in this population.

A case report, focused on vasopressor use and presented in this article, is likely to resonate with many critical care nurses. In this article the authors describe opportunities to enhance safety with vasopressor therapy. Specifically, the goal of improving communication among physicians, nurses, and pharmacists around desired endpoints for vasopressor therapy, triggers for reassessment of the therapeutic strategy and cause of the patient's shock was identified as an area for improvement. A form piloted within an organization for use during multidisciplinary rounds and key findings is shared. Vasopressors constitute the mainstay of therapy for nearly every hemodynamically unstable patient in critical care. It is hoped that the lessons and information shared help empower critical care nurses to facilitate vasopressor stewardship within their facilities and, ultimately, enhance patient safety.