CHANGES IN VASOPRESSIN USE AND OUTCOMES IN SURGICAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT PATIENTS WITH SEPTIC SHOCK

CHEST Journal ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 132 (4) ◽  
pp. 556B
Author(s):  
Monica I. Lupei ◽  
Gregory J. Beilman ◽  
Jeffrey G. Chipman ◽  
Henry J. Mann
2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arpita Patel ◽  
Arielle Beauchesne ◽  
Nina Bredenkamp ◽  
Rumi McGloin ◽  
Sarah N Stabler ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTBackground: Critically ill patients often need vasopressors to treat hypotension related to septic shock and to maintain adequate systemic perfusion. Although the 2017 guidelines of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommend norepinephrine as first-line therapy, they also state that vasopressin may be considered as an adjunctive agent for patients with refractory shock. Limited evidence is available for directing optimal administration of vasopressin. As such, prescribing practices are not standardized and may vary according to the particular clinician, the clinical scenario, and various patient-specific factors.Objectives:To review the current practice of administering concomitant norepinephrine and vasopressin therapy to patients with septic shock, to describe variability in vasopressin administration, and to evaluate effects on patient safety in a medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU).Methods: This single-centre retrospective chart review involved 100 adult patients admitted to the ICU who received vasopressin and norepinephrine for septic shock between April and December 2017. The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics.Results: The mean time to initiation of vasopressin was 12.0 (standard deviation [SD] 21.6) h after initiation of norepinephrine. The mean dose of norepinephrine at the time of vasopressin initiation was 29.5 (SD 19.7) μg/min. The mean vasopressin dose prescribed was 0.04 (SD 0.03) units/min, with a range of tapering and discontinuation regimens. The mean duration of vasopressin therapy was 49.1 (SD 65.2) h, and vasopressin was discontinued before norepinephrine in 49 of the patients. A total of 60 hypotensive events occurred after vasopressor discontinuation and were more common when vasopressin was discontinued before norepinephrine.Conclusions: Vasopressin dosing was comparable to that reported elsewhere; however, discontinuation practices were inconsistent. These results show that variability in the literature supporting vasopressin use has led to variability in vasopressin administration and discontinuation practices; however, correlation with improvement in clinical outcomes, such as mortality or ICU length of stay, is unclear, and further research is required to determine the ideal approach to vasopressin use.RÉSUMÉContexte : Les patients gravement malades nécessitent souvent un vasopresseur pour traiter l’hypotension liée au choc septique et pour préserver une perfusion systémique adéquate. Bien que les directives de 2017 de la campagne Surviving Sepsis recommandent la norepinephrine en guise de thérapie de première ligne, elles précisent également que la vasopressine pourrait être envisagée comme agent d’appoint pour les patients présentant des chocs réfractaires. Seules des données probantes limitées soutiennent l’administration optimale de la vasopressine. Les pratiques de prescription proprement dites ne sont pas standardisées et peuvent varier selon le clinicien, le scénario clinique et les divers facteurs particuliers au patient.Objectifs : Examiner la pratique actuelle d’administration de la norépinephrine concomitante à la thérapie de vasopressine aux patients ayant subi un choc septique, décrire la variabilité d’administration de la vasopressine et évaluer les effets sur la sécurité du patient dans une unite de soins intensifs (USI) médicale-chirurgicale.Méthodes : Cet examen rétrospectif unicentrique des dossiers portait sur 100 patients adultes admis dans une USI, ayant reçu de la vasopressine et de la norépinephrine en réponse à des chocs septiques entre avril et décembre 2017. Les données ont été analysées à l’aide de statistiques descriptives.Résultats : Le temps moyen du début de l’administration de la vasopressine était de 12 h (écart type [É.T.] 21,6) après le début de l’administration de la norépinephrine. La dose moyenne de norepinephrine au moment du début de l’administration de la vasopressine était de 29,5 (É.T. 19,7) μg/min. La dose moyenne de vasopressine prescrite était de 0,04 (É.T. 0,03) unités/min, avec une gamme de posologies dégressives et d’abandons. La durée moyenne de la thérapie à la vasopressine était de 49,1 h (É.T. 65,2), et 49 patients ont abandonné la vasopressine avant l’abandon de la norépinephrine. Un total de 60 événements hypotenseurs se sont produits après l’abandon du vasopresseur et ils étaient plus fréquents lors de l’abandon de la vasopressine précédant celui de la norépinephrine.Conclusions : Le dosage de vasopressine était comparable à celui indiqué dans d’autres études; cependant, les pratiques d’abandon étaient incohérentes. Ces résultats démontrent que l’indétermination de l’information publiée dans la littérature soutenant l’utilisation de la vasopressine a entraîné une fluctuation dans l’administration de la vasopressine et des pratiques d’abandon; cependant, la corrélation entre l’usage de la vasopressine et l’amélioration des résultats cliniques, comme la mortalité ou la durée du séjour en USI, n’est pas claire, et davantage de recherches sont nécessaires pour déterminer l’approche idéale à adopter à l’égard de l’utilisation de la vasopressine.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. e2021052
Author(s):  
Zied Hajjej ◽  
Kalthoum Ben Mahmoud ◽  
Aicha Rebai ◽  
Hedi Gharsallah ◽  
Iheb Labbene ◽  
...  

Background: Since the first publication, of 2016, Sepsis-3 definitions have not been universally accepted, rather, they have become a source of controversy. Because clinical and laboratory parameters used had been derived mainly from patients hospitalized in United States’ Intensive Care Units (ICU). Purpose: the aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the Sepsis‑3 definitions for the prediction of ICU-mortality in a Tunisian ICU population as compared to 2003 Consensus Definitions (Sepsis-2 definitions) Methods: It was a retrospective study conducted in an 18-bed medical surgical intensive care unit at the military hospital of Tunis (Tunisia).  From January 2012 to January 2016, all patients admitted to the ICU for sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock as defined according to 2003 Consensus Definitions (Sepsis-2 consensus) were eligible for this study. The new Sepsis-3 definition was secondly used to classify included patients. The primary area of interest was ICU mortality defined as death before ICU discharge Results: A total of 1080 patients were included during the recruitment period. . When the Sepsis-2 definitions were used there had been a difference in mortality only between septic shock and sepsis patients. While Sepsis-3 definitions show that mortality increased from 16 % among no-dysfunction-infected patients to 30 % among patients with qSOFA ≥ 2 and 44% or 46% for sepsis or septic shock patients, respectively. Conclusions: Sepsis-3 was better than sepsis-2 definitions at stratifying mortality among septic patients admitted to an ICU of a middle income country (Tunisia).


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyler Chanas ◽  
David Volles ◽  
Rob Sawyer ◽  
Stephanie Mallow-Corbett

Background Early administration of antibiotics in septic shock is associated with decreased mortality. Promptly identifying sepsis and eliciting a response are necessary to reduce time to antibiotic administration. Methods A best-practice advisory was introduced in the surgical intensive care unit to identify patients with septic shock and promote timely action. The best-practice advisory is triggered by blood culture orders and vasopressor administration within 24 h. The nurse or provider who triggers the alert may send an automatic notification to the intensive care unit resident, clinical pharmacist, and charge nurse, prompting bedside response and closer evaluation. Patients who met best-practice advisory criteria in the surgical intensive care unit from May 2016 through March 2017 were included. Outcomes included changes in antibiotics within 24 h, response to best-practice advisory, and time-to-antibiotics. Time-to-antibiotics was compared between a retrospective pre-intervention period and a six-month prospective post-intervention period defined by launch of the new best-practice advisory in September 2016. Data were analyzed by chi square, Mann–Whitney U, and Kruskal-Wallis. Results During the first six months of best-practice advisory implementation, 191 alerts were triggered by 97 unique patients. Alert notification was transmitted in 79 best-practice advisories (41%), with pharmacist bedside response in 53 (67%). New antibiotics were started within 24 h following 83 best-practice advisories (43%). There was a trend toward decreased time-to-antibiotics following implementation of the best-practice advisory (7.4 vs. 4.2 h, p = 0.057). Compared to the entire cohort, time-to-antibiotics was shorter when the team was notified and when a pharmacist responded to the bedside (4.2 vs. 1.6 vs. 1.2 hours). Conclusions A new best-practice advisory has been effective at eliciting a rapid response and reducing the time-to-antibiotics in surgical intensive care unit patients with septic shock. Team notification and pharmacist response are associated with decreased time-to-antibiotics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document