1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Vasopressor-Sparing Strategies in Patients with Shock: A Scoping-Review and an Evidence-Based Strategy Proposition

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Despite the abundant literature on vasopressor therapy, few studies have focused on vasopressor-sparing strategies in patients with shock. We performed a scoping-review of the published studies evaluating vasopressor-sparing strategies by analyzing the results from randomized controlled trials conducted in patients with shock, with a focus on vasopressor doses and/or duration reduction. We analyzed 143 studies, mainly performed in septic shock. Our analysis demonstrated that several pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies are associated with a decrease in the duration of vasopressor therapy. These strategies are as follows: implementing a weaning strategy, vasopressin use, systemic glucocorticoid administration, beta-blockers, and normothermia. On the contrary, early goal directed therapies, including fluid therapy, oral vasopressors, vitamin C, and renal replacement therapy, are not associated with an increase in vasopressor-free days. Based on these results, we proposed an evidence-based vasopressor management strategy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references147

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

            To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012".
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Early Goal-Directed Therapy in the Treatment of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock

              Goal-directed therapy has been used for severe sepsis and septic shock in the intensive care unit. This approach involves adjustments of cardiac preload, afterload, and contractility to balance oxygen delivery with oxygen demand. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of early goal-directed therapy before admission to the intensive care unit. We randomly assigned patients who arrived at an urban emergency department with severe sepsis or septic shock to receive either six hours of early goal-directed therapy or standard therapy (as a control) before admission to the intensive care unit. Clinicians who subsequently assumed the care of the patients were blinded to the treatment assignment. In-hospital mortality (the primary efficacy outcome), end points with respect to resuscitation, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) scores were obtained serially for 72 hours and compared between the study groups. Of the 263 enrolled patients, 130 were randomly assigned to early goal-directed therapy and 133 to standard therapy; there were no significant differences between the groups with respect to base-line characteristics. In-hospital mortality was 30.5 percent in the group assigned to early goal-directed therapy, as compared with 46.5 percent in the group assigned to standard therapy (P = 0.009). During the interval from 7 to 72 hours, the patients assigned to early goal-directed therapy had a significantly higher mean (+/-SD) central venous oxygen saturation (70.4+/-10.7 percent vs. 65.3+/-11.4 percent), a lower lactate concentration (3.0+/-4.4 vs. 3.9+/-4.4 mmol per liter), a lower base deficit (2.0+/-6.6 vs. 5.1+/-6.7 mmol per liter), and a higher pH (7.40+/-0.12 vs. 7.36+/-0.12) than the patients assigned to standard therapy (P < or = 0.02 for all comparisons). During the same period, mean APACHE II scores were significantly lower, indicating less severe organ dysfunction, in the patients assigned to early goal-directed therapy than in those assigned to standard therapy (13.0+/-6.3 vs. 15.9+/-6.4, P < 0.001). Early goal-directed therapy provides significant benefits with respect to outcome in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                J Clin Med
                J Clin Med
                jcm
                Journal of Clinical Medicine
                MDPI
                2077-0383
                18 July 2021
                July 2021
                : 10
                : 14
                : 3164
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, CHU Dijon, 21000 Dijon, France; audrey.martin@ 123456chu-dijon.fr (A.M.); viven.berthoud@ 123456chu-dijon.fr (V.B.); pierre.voizeux@ 123456chu-dijon.fr (P.V.); loic.bartamian@ 123456chu-dijon.fr (L.B.); erm.santangelo@ 123456gmail.com (E.S.); belaid.bouhemad@ 123456chu-dijon.fr (B.B.); maxime.nguyensoenen@ 123456gmail.com (M.N.)
                [2 ]Lipness Team, INSERM Research Center LNC-UMR1231 and LabEx LipSTIC, University of Burgundy, 21000 Dijon, France
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2334-1487
                Article
                jcm-10-03164
                10.3390/jcm10143164
                8306396
                34300330
                53bb97e6-2a92-4cc6-b53a-ffe031705bb8
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 17 May 2021
                : 16 July 2021
                Categories
                Review

                vasopressor,shock,norepinephrine,sepsis,weaning
                vasopressor, shock, norepinephrine, sepsis, weaning

                Comments

                Comment on this article