A global perspective on vasoactive agents in shock

Cardiogenic shock is a high-acuity, potentially complex, and hemodynamically diverse state of end-organ hypoperfusion that is frequently associated with multisystem organ failure. Despite improving survival in recent years, patient morbidity and mortality remain high, and there are few evidence-based therapeutic interventions known to clearly improve patient outcomes. This scientific statement on cardiogenic shock summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, causes, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock; reviews contemporary best medical, surgical, mechanical circulatory support, and palliative care practices; advocates for the development of regionalized systems of care; and outlines future research priorities.

Septic shock, the most severe complication of sepsis, is a deadly disease. In recent years, exciting advances have been made in the understanding of its pathophysiology and treatment. Pathogens, via their microbial-associated molecular patterns, trigger sequential intracellular events in immune cells, epithelium, endothelium, and the neuroendocrine system. Proinflammatory mediators that contribute to eradication of invading microorganisms are produced, and anti-inflammatory mediators control this response. The inflammatory response leads to damage to host tissue, and the anti-inflammatory response causes leucocyte reprogramming and changes in immune status. The time-window for interventions is short, and treatment must promptly control the source of infection and restore haemodynamic homoeostasis. Further research is needed to establish which fluids and vasopressors are best. Some patients with septic shock might benefit from drugs such as corticosteroids or activated protein C. Other therapeutic strategies are under investigation, including those that target late proinflammatory mediators, endothelium, or the neuroendocrine system.

It is unknown whether lactate monitoring aimed to decrease levels during initial treatment in critically ill patients improves outcome. To assess the effect of lactate monitoring and resuscitation directed at decreasing lactate levels in intensive care unit (ICU) patients admitted with a lactate level of greater than or equal to 3.0 mEq/L. Patients were randomly allocated to two groups. In the lactate group, treatment was guided by lactate levels with the objective to decrease lactate by 20% or more per 2 hours for the initial 8 hours of ICU stay. In the control group, the treatment team had no knowledge of lactate levels (except for the admission value) during this period. The primary outcome measure was hospital mortality. The lactate group received more fluids and vasodilators. However, there were no significant differences in lactate levels between the groups. In the intention-to-treat population (348 patients), hospital mortality in the control group was 43.5% (77/177) compared with 33.9% (58/171) in the lactate group (P = 0.067). When adjusted for predefined risk factors, hospital mortality was lower in the lactate group (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.87; P = 0.006). In the lactate group, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were lower between 9 and 72 hours, inotropes could be stopped earlier, and patients could be weaned from mechanical ventilation and discharged from the ICU earlier. In patients with hyperlactatemia on ICU admission, lactate-guided therapy significantly reduced hospital mortality when adjusting for predefined risk factors. As this was consistent with important secondary endpoints, this study suggests that initial lactate monitoring has clinical benefit. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00270673).