Busse, Laurence W.

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.

OBJECTIVES: A number of trials related to critical care pharmacotherapy were published in 2022. We aimed to summarize the most influential publications related to the pharmacotherapeutic care of critically ill patients in 2022. DATA SOURCES: PubMed/Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online and the Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology Pharmacotherapy Literature Update. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials, prospective studies, or systematic review/meta-analyses of adult critically ill patients assessing a pharmacotherapeutic intervention and reporting clinical endpoints published between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022, were included in this article. DATA EXTRACTION: Articles from a systematic search and the Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology Pharmacotherapy Literature Update were included and stratified into clinical domains based upon consistent themes. Consensus was obtained on the most influential publication within each clinical domain utilizing an a priori defined three-round modified Delphi process with the following considerations: 1) overall contribution to scientific knowledge and 2) novelty to the literature. DATA SYNTHESIS: The systematic search and Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology Pharmacotherapy Literature Update yielded a total of 704 articles, of which 660 were excluded. The remaining 44 articles were stratified into the following clinical domains: emergency/neurology, cardiovascular, gastroenterology/fluids/nutrition, hematology, infectious diseases/immunomodulation, and endocrine/metabolic. The final article selected from each clinical domain was summarized following a three-round modified Delphi process and included three randomized controlled trials and three systematic review/meta-analyses. Article topics summarized included dexmedetomidine versus other sedatives during mechanical ventilation, beta-blocker treatment in the critically ill, restriction of IV fluids in septic shock, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in critically ill adults, duration of antibiotic therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventilator-associated pneumonia, and low-dose methylprednisolone treatment in severe community-acquired pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: This concise review provides a perspective on articles published in 2022 that are relevant to the pharmacotherapeutic care of critically ill patients and their potential impact on clinical practice.

Background: Patients supported on mechanical circulatory support devices experience vasodilatory hypotension due to high surface area exposure to nonbiological and non-endothelialized surfaces. Angiotensin II has been studied in general settings of vasodilatory shock, however concerns exist regarding the use of this vasopressor in patients with pre-existing cardiac failure. The objective of this study was to assess the systemic and central hemodynamic effects of angiotensin II in patients with primary cardiac or respiratory failure requiring treatment with mechanical circulatory support devices. Methods: Multicenter retrospective observational study of adults supported on a mechanical circulatory support device who received angiotensin II for vasodilatory shock. The primary outcome was the intraindividual change from baseline in mean arterial pressure (MAP) and vasopressor dosage after angiotensin II. Results: Fifty patients were included with mechanical circulatory devices that were primarily used for cardiac failure (n = 41) or respiratory failure (n = 9). At angiotensin II initiation, the norepinephrine equivalent vasopressor dosage was 0.44 (0.34, 0.64) and 0.47 (0.33, 0.73) mcg/kg/min in the cardiac and respiratory groups, respectively. In the cardiac group, MAP increased from 60 to 70 mmHg (intraindividual P < .001) in the 1 h after angiotensin II initiation and the vasopressor dosage declined by 0.04 mcg/kg/min (intraindividual P < .001). By 12 h, the vasopressor dosage declined by 0.16 mcg/kg/min ( P = .001). There were no significant changes in cardiac index or mean pulmonary artery pressure throughout the 12 h following angiotensin II. In the respiratory group, similar but nonsignificant effects at 1 h on MAP (61-81 mmHg, P = .26) and vasopressor dosage (decline by 0.13 mcg/kg/min, P = .06) were observed. Conclusions: In patients requiring mechanical circulatory support for cardiac failure, angiotensin II produced beneficial systemic hemodynamic effects without negatively impacting cardiac function or pulmonary pressures. The systemic hemodynamic effects in those with respiratory failure were nonsignificant due to limited sample size.

Objective: Acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy in severe vasodilatory shock is associated with an unfavorable prognosis. Angiotensin II treatment may help these patients by potentially restoring renal function without decreasing intrarenal oxygenation. We analyzed the impact of angiotensin II on the outcomes of acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy. Design: Post hoc analysis of the Angiotensin II for the Treatment of High-Output Shock 3 trial. Setting: ICUs. Patients: Patients with acute kidney injury treated with renal replacement therapy at initiation of angiotensin II or placebo ( n = 45 and n = 60, respectively). Interventions: IV angiotensin II or placebo. Measurements and Main Results: Primary end point: survival through day 28; secondary outcomes included renal recovery through day 7 and increase in mean arterial pressure from baseline of ≥ 10 mm Hg or increase to ≥ 75 mm Hg at hour 3. Survival rates through day 28 were 53% (95% CI, 38%–67%) and 30% (95% CI, 19%–41%) in patients treated with angiotensin II and placebo ( p = 0.012), respectively. By day 7, 38% (95% CI, 25%–54%) of angiotensin II patients discontinued RRT versus 15% (95% CI, 8%–27%) placebo ( p = 0.007). Mean arterial pressure response was achieved in 53% (95% CI, 38%–68%) and 22% (95% CI, 12%–34%) of patients treated with angiotensin II and placebo ( p = 0.001), respectively. Conclusions: In patients with acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy at study drug initiation, 28-day survival and mean arterial pressure response were higher, and rate of renal replacement therapy liberation was greater in the angiotensin II group versus the placebo group. These findings suggest that patients with vasodilatory shock and acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy may preferentially benefit from angiotensin II.