Tag Archives: Shock

Outcomes in Patients with Vasodilatory Shock and Renal Replacement Therapy Treated with Intravenous Angiotensin II. (Carroll)

Posted on by
Reply

Tumlin JA, Murugan R, Deane AM, et al. Outcomes in Patients with Vasodilatory Shock and Renal Replacement Therapy Treated with Intravenous Angiotensin II. Crit Care Med. 2018 Jun;46(6):949-957.

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.

Continue reading →

Limited echocardiography-guided therapy in subacute shock is associated with change in management and improved outcomes. (Dugan)

Posted on by
Reply

Kanji HD, McCallum J, Sirounis D, MacRedmond R, Moss R, Boyd JH. Limited echocardiography-guided therapy in subacute shock is associated with change in management and improved outcomes. J Crit Care. 2014 Oct;29(5):700-5.

Free full-text.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to compare the effect of limited echocardiography (LE)-guided therapy to standard management on 28-day mortality, intravenous fluid prescription, and inotropic dosing following early resuscitation for shock.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred twenty critically ill patients with undifferentiated shock from a quaternary intensive care unit were included in the study. The LE group consisted of 110 consecutive patients prospectively studied over a 12-month period receiving LE-guided management. The standard management group consisted of 110 consecutive patients retrospectively studied with shock immediately prior to the LE intervention.

RESULTS: In the LE group, fluid restriction was recommended in 71 (65%) patients and initiation of dobutamine in 27 (25%). Fluid prescription during the first 24 hours was significantly lower in LE patients (49 [33-74] vs 66 [42-100] mL/kg, P = .01), whereas 55% more LE patients received dobutamine (22% vs 12%, P = .01). The LE patients had improved 28-day survival (66% vs 56%, P = .04), a reduction in stage 3 acute kidney injury (20% vs 39%), and more days alive and free of renal support (28 [9.7-28] vs 25 [5-28], P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS: Limited echocardiography-guided management following early resuscitation is associated with improved survival, less fluid, and increased inotropic prescription. A prospective randomized control trial is required to verify these results.

Re-thinking resuscitation: leaving blood pressure cosmetics behind and moving forward to permissive hypotension and a tissue perfusion-based approach. (Kamat)

Posted on by
Reply

Dünser MW, Takala J, Brunauer A, Bakker J. Re-thinking resuscitation: leaving blood pressure cosmetics behind and moving forward to permissive hypotension and a tissue perfusion-based approach. Crit Care. 2013 Oct 8;17(5):326.

“Definitions of shock and resuscitation endpoints traditionally focus on blood pressures and cardiac output. This carries a high risk of overemphasizing systemic hemodynamics at the cost of tissue perfusion. In line with novel shock definitions and evidence of the lack of a correlation between macro- and microcirculation in shock, we recommend that macrocirculatory resuscitation endpoints, particularly arterial and central venous pressure as well as cardiac output, be reconsidered. In this viewpoint article, we propose a three-step approach of resuscitation endpoints in shock of all origins. This approach targets only a minimum individual and context-sensitive mean arterial blood pressure (for example, 45 to 50 mm Hg) to preserve heart and brain perfusion. Further resuscitation is exclusively guided by endpoints of tissue perfusion irrespectively of the presence of arterial hypotension (‘permissive hypotension’). Finally, optimization of individual tissue (for example, renal) perfusion is targeted. Prospective clinical studies are necessary to confirm the postulated benefits of targeting these resuscitation endpoints.”

Children’s and Emory users, request article from Emily Lawson.

Sodium bicarbonate use in shock and cardiac arrest: attitudes of pediatric acute care physicians. (Teppa)

Posted on by
Reply

Parker MJ, Parshuram CS. Sodium Bicarbonate Use in Shock and Cardiac Arrest: Attitudes of Pediatric Acute Care Physicians*. Crit Care Med. 2013 Sep;41(9):2188-2195.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the preferences and self-reported practices of pediatric acute care physicians with respect to sodium bicarbonate administration to infants and children in shock or cardiac arrest.

DESIGN: National survey study utilizing a self-administered questionnaire.

SETTING: Thirteen Canadian pediatric tertiary care centers.

SUBJECTS: Canadian pediatric critical care physicians, pediatric emergency physicians, and trainees in these subspecialties.

INTERVENTIONS: None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Survey items were evaluated based on Yes/No responses, frequency responses, and Likert scales. Overall response rate was 53% (151/284) with 49.0% (74/151) citing pediatric critical care as their primary practice. 82.0% of respondents (123/150) indicated they would administer sodium bicarbonate as part of ongoing resuscitation for septic shock, whereas 58.3% (88/151) would administer sodium bicarbonate in a cardiac arrest scenario (p = 0.004). 47.3% (71/150) selected a pH threshold at or below which they would administer sodium bicarbonate (mean, 6.94 ± 0.013; median, 7.00; range, 6.50-7.20; interquartile range, 6.90-7.00), whereas 20.5% (31/151) selected a base excess threshold (mean, -15.62 ± 0.78; median, -16; range, -20 to -4; interquartile range, -20 to -14). Both pH and duration of resuscitation were strongly associated with the decision to administer sodium bicarbonate (p < 0.0001). Respondents’ perceptions regarding a colleague’s likelihood of administering sodium bicarbonate to the same patient under the same circumstances reflect an acknowledgment of disparate practices with respect to sodium bicarbonate use. 53.0% (79/149) felt current American Heart Association guidelines help them in deciding whether to administer sodium bicarbonate to critically ill patients, and 84% would support a randomized trial.

CONCLUSION: Differences of opinion exist among pediatric acute care physicians with respect to the timing and appropriateness of sodium bicarbonate administration during resuscitation. Most indicated they would support moving forward with a clinical trial.

Full-text for Children’s and Emory users.