Sacha, Gretchen

Objectives: Consensus clinical criteria for refractory septic shock were recently developed, but the incidence and outcomes with these criteria are unknown. There were two aims: 1) to describe the incidence of refractory septic shock and 2) to assess outcomes of patients with septic shock meeting refractory septic shock criteria compared with those who did not. Design: Multicohort, retrospective study. For aim 1, a descriptive epidemiologic study was designed to ascertain the cumulative incidence of refractory septic shock in patients with septic shock. For aim 2, a cohort study was conducted to compare hospital mortality between patients meeting refractory septic shock clinical criteria compared with those who did not. Setting: Large U.S. health system from 2012 to 2024. Patients: Adults (age ≥ 18 yr) meeting both Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event and Sepsis-3 clinical criteria for septic shock. Patients with missing hospital discharge disposition and incomplete vasopressor dosage information were excluded. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Clinical criteria for refractory septic shock were operationalized as concomitant occurrence of norepinephrine (base) equivalent greater than 0.5 µg/kg/min and lactate greater than 2 mmol/L. Risk-adjusted hospital mortality was assessed with a generalized linear mixed-effects model with a random effect for hospital and fixed effects for age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (original description, without cardiovascular component). Of 35,914 patients assessed, 15,732 patients with septic shock were included. Refractory septic shock occurred in 3423 patients (21.8%), with a cumulative incidence of 218 cases (95% CI, 211–224) per 1000 patients with septic shock. Hospital mortality with refractory septic shock was 64.4%, and risk-adjusted hospital mortality odds were 4.87-fold higher (95% CI, 4.46–5.31) compared with patients without refractory septic shock. Conclusions: Clinical criteria for refractory septic shock were fulfilled in about one in five patients with septic shock and associated with substantially higher mortality.

OBJECTIVE: A definition of refractory septic shock is necessary to guide diagnosis, management, prognostication, research, and future guidelines for this most severe form of the disease. We sought to achieve consensus on clinical criteria that would be used to define refractory septic shock. DESIGN: Review of literature, expert panel position statements, and Delphi rounds with an international expert group. SETTING: Consensus was defined as having at least 75% of panellists in agreement or disagreement on the three highest or lowest levels of a 7-point Likert scale or based on responses to single- or multiple-choice questions, respectively. SUBJECTS: A panel of multinational, multiprofessional and multidisciplinary critical care experts assembled by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (57 invitations and 56 participants). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A five-round Delphi process was conducted for consensus and stability. The steering committee proposed 34 statements, and five of them were rejected by panel experts after round 2. Among 29 statements selected from eight domains, consensus was reached for 13. The panel agreed on the need for a comprehensive consensus set of clinical criteria for refractory septic shock. Markers of organ dysfunction (75%, 2 rounds), tissue perfusion (91.1%, 2 rounds) including lactate (94.6%, 2 rounds) and capillary refill time (76.8%, 2 rounds), assessment of fluid-responsiveness after initial resuscitation (92.9%, 5 rounds), and use of vasoactive drugs at norepinephrine equivalents greater than 0.5 µg/kg/min (75.0%, 3 rounds), were selected as clinical criteria of refractory septic shock. The use of critical care ultrasound (CCUS) (92.9%, 3 rounds) was the single diagnostic modality that reached a consensus-based agreement. CONCLUSIONS: A consensus for 13 criteria to frame the definition of refractory septic shock was reached. Refractory septic shock is characterised by persistently elevated lactate concentrations and or prolonged capillary refill time in patients with septic shock who are fluid unresponsive, require a norepinephrine base equivalent dose greater than 0.5 micrograms per kilogram per minute, and undergo CCUS assessment when mixed shock is suspected.

Rationale: Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) show potential benefits on mortality and other complications of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in adult patients. Evidence-based decisions and processes ensure appropriate use of neuromuscular blockade in adult patients with ARDS. Objectives: The objective of these guidelines was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the administration of NMBAs in critically ill adult patients with ARDS. Design: The American College of Critical Care Medicine Board convened a 21-member multidisciplinary panel of experts in critical care medicine, nursing, respiratory therapy, pharmacology, surgery, neurology, and anesthesiology. The panel included two expert methodologists specialized in developing evidence-based recommendations in alignment with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Conflict-of-interest policies were strictly followed during all phases of guidelines development including task force selection and voting. Methods: The panel members identified and formulated five Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome questions. We conducted a systematic review for each question to identify the best available evidence, statistically analyzed the evidence, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology. We used the GRADE evidence-to-decision framework to formulate the recommendations. Results: The panel generated two conditional recommendations. One recommendation is to use NMBAs in adults with ARDS with Pa o 2 /F io 2 less than 150. For the other recommendations, there was equipoise in the recommendation for and against using titratable vs. fixed-dose NMBA dosing, a monitoring-based strategy for assessing depth of sedation and analgesia in adults with ARDS before initiating or while receiving neuromuscular blockade, and administration of NMBAs for patients who are proned, due to overall lack of evidence in critically ill patients and due to considerations of patient safety and experience concerns. Conclusions: These guidelines provide additional perspectives on the use of NMBA in patients with ARDS, recognizing that institutional and patient-specific considerations must help to guide the decision-making process.

Background: Vancomycin pharmacokinetics are altered in the critically ill and are further distorted by renal replacement therapy. Limited literature is available evaluating vancomycin dosing in continuous veno-venous hemodialysis (CVVHD). Objective: The goal of this analysis was to identify factors that affect vancomycin trough concentration in patients on CVVHD and to determine an appropriate dosing strategy. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of adult inpatients admitted to the Cleveland Clinic from May 2016-December 2017. Patients in the intensive care unit who received ≥ 2 doses of vancomycin during CVVHD were included. Patients with interruptions of CVVHD inappropriately timed troughs, a change in dialysate rate, and those who received different vancomycin dosages were excluded. Multivariable linear regression including age, sex, weight, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, albumin, 24-hour urine output (UOP), dialysate rate, filter type, and vancomycin dose was run to determine predictors of vancomycin concentration. Results: A total of 160 patients were included. The median vancomycin dose was 12.6 mg/kg with a trough of 24.6 mcg/mL. Weight, 24-hour UOP, vancomycin dose (mg/kg), and dialysate rate (mL/kg/h) were all determined to be independent predictors of vancomycin trough level. Patients who received <10 mg/kg doses of vancomycin (N=18) achieved a median trough of 21.5 mcg/mL, with 83% being therapuetic. In patients who received >10 mg/kg (N=142), the median trough was 25.5 mcg/mL, with 47% being therapeutic. Conclusion and Relevance: Vancomycin dose, dialysate rate, UOP, and weight are independently associated with vancomycin trough concentration. In CVVHD patients, vancomycin dosed at 10 mg/kg every 24 hours may be an appropriate recommendation.

BackgroundClinician preferences and practices regarding appropriate vasopressin use in light of its increased acquisition cost secondary to rebranding has not been evaluated or described since the most recent iteration of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline was published.ObjectiveTo assess vasopressin cost containment initiatives and pharmacists' opinions regarding appropriate vasopressin use.MethodsA scenario‐based survey was distributed to critical care and emergency medicine pharmacists. Responses were characterized using frequency and descriptive statistics. Categorical variables between those who implemented changes (Vasopressin Cost Consideration) and those who did not (Usual Care) were compared using chi‐square or Fisher's exact tests. McNemar's test was used to compare responses in clinical scenarios between Vasopressin Cost Consideration and Usual Care groups.ResultsAmong 1757 pharmacists surveyed, 200 (11.3%) responded. When respondents considered vasopressin cost and evidence (vs evidence alone), fewer respondents would use vasopressin adjunctively with norepinephrine (21% vs 26.6%, P = 0.031), to raise mean arterial pressure compared with epinephrine (65.2% vs 72.3%, P = 0.012), or to reduce norepinephrine infusion rates (71.4% vs 81.4%, P < 0.001), but would use with steroids (62.4% vs 28.3%, P < 0.001). Most (72%) respondents had implemented vasopressin cost containment and/or education initiatives. The Vasopressin Cost Consideration group respondents were more likely to initiate vasopressin at 0.03 units/minute without titrating (47.9% vs 33.9%, P = 0.045).ConclusionSince vasopressin was generically rebranded, most institutions have implemented at least one initiative to reduce vasopressin use and/or educate clinicians about its appropriate use. When vasopressin acquisition costs were considered, pharmacists recommended its use less frequently, particularly in clinical scenarios where its use is controversial.