IMPORTANCE:. Angiotensin II (ATII) was approved for septic or other distributive shock due to its property of increasing blood pressure within 3 hours. Limited data exist regarding its effectiveness when used in real-world clinical practice. OBJECTIVES:. This study examined ATII as a third-line vasopressor based on institutional approval. DESIGN:. Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:. Medical ICU at an academic tertiary care medical center. Adult patients requiring 3 or more vasopressor agents for septic shock or other forms of distributed shock from September 1, 2018, to January 31, 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:. Effect of ATII after norepinephrine and vasopressin on mortality and mean arterial blood pressure response after 3 hours of administration. RESULTS:. One-hundred forty-seven patients, 56 receiving ATII and 91 receiving another vasopressor (non-ATII), were enrolled. Patients in the ATII group had higher mortality compared to the non-ATII group, and more required 5 or greater vasopressor agents (p < 0.01). After propensity score weighting, there remains a trend in higher mortality in the ATII compared to non-ATII group, but not statistically significant (86.0% vs 71.0%, p = 0.16). More patients in the ATII group continued to require 5 or greater vasopressor agents compared to the non-ATII group after propensity score weighting (45.9% vs 12.5%, p < 0.01). SOFA score was the only variable associated with mortality (OR = 1.25, 95% CI, 1.05–1.49; p = 0.01). Patients were considered a “responder” if mean arterial pressure greater than 65 mm Hg at 3 hours after the third vasopressor was initiated. Among the ATII group, 37.5% patients were responders compared to 45.1% responders in the non-ATII group (relative risk = 1.07, 95% CI, 0.6–1.93; p = 0.81). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:. Although previous data support the use of ATII due to its favorable hemodynamic response in patients with distributive shock, there was no observed benefit in mortality or hemodynamic response with ATII as a third-line vasopressor in our study of real-world patients.

Critical Care Medicine: January 2022 - Volume 50 - Issue 1 - p 449 doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000809948.06025.a4

Copyright © 2020 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Purpose: Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is a serious complication of diabetes mellitus (DM). This study was designed to assess if the two-bag (TB) system, which utilizes 2 intravenous (IV) fluid bags, one containing sodium chloride and the other containing sodium chloride and dextrose, is an effective and safe alternative to the traditional one-bag (OB) system in adults with DKA. Methods: A retrospective review was performed at an academic medical center. Adults with DKA were included if treated with the OB or TB system. The primary outcome was time to anion gap closure. Secondary outcomes included duration of insulin infusion, time to serum bicarbonate correction, number of continuous IV fluid orders, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), and rates of hypoglycemia and hypokalemia. Results: One hundred twenty-two patients were included. Sixty-eight were treated with the OB system and 54 with the TB system. There were no differences in time to anion gap closure, duration of insulin infusion, ICU LOS, or hospital LOS. Time to bicarbonate correction was shorter in the OB group (13.5 [IQR: 7-29] vs 25 [IQR: 11-50] hours; P = .03). There were no differences in rates of hypoglycemia or hypokalemia between groups. Conclusion: The TB system had similar efficacy and safety when compared to the OB system. Both approaches can be considered in adults with DKA.

Sedation management of trauma patients after damage control laparotomy (DCL) has not been optimized. We evaluated if shorter sedation exposure was associated with increased proportion of delirium-free/coma-free (DF/CF-ICU) days and change in time to definitive fascial closure (DFC). We reviewed trauma DCL patients at an ACS-verified level I center over 5 years as shorter (SE) or longer than median (LE) sedation exposure. We compared demographics, injury patterns, hemodynamic parameters, and injury severity between groups. We calculated the propensity for each patient to achieve DFC using age, gender, ISS, red blood cell transfusion, bowel discontinuity, abdominal vascular injury, and time to first takeback; we then determined the effect of sedation exposure on rate of DFC by multivariate Cox regression, adjusted for propensity to achieve DFC. We used linear regression adjusted for age, ISS, head-AIS, bowel discontinuity, and vascular injury to determine the effect of sedation exposure on the proportion of DF/CF-ICU days. 65 patients (33.8% penetrating) had mean age 41.8 ± 16.0, ISS 27.1 ± 14.2, Head-AIS 1.2 ± 1.6 and median sedation exposure of 2.2 [IQR 0.78, 7.3] days (35 SE and 30 LE). Pattern and severity of solid organ injuries and proportion of small and large bowel and vascular injuries were similar between groups. LE had more abdominal sepsis (23.3% vs 0%, p = 0.003) and enterocutaneous fistula (16.7% vs 0%, p = 0.016), and more ventilator (17.3 ± 12.7 vs 6.1 ± 6.8, p < 0.001), ICU (20.8 ± 14.2 vs 7.2 ± 7.6, p < 0.001), and hospital days (29.6 ± 19.6 vs 13.9 ± 9.0, p < 0.001). DFC was achieved more rapidly in the SE group (2.0 ± 1.5 days vs 3.9 ± 3.7 days [unadjusted], p = 0.023) and SE had a higher proportion of unadjusted DF/CF-ICU days (33.0 ± 32.0% vs 18.1 ± 16.4%, p = 0.020). SE was associated with an increased proportion of adjusted DF/CF-ICU days by multivariate linear regression (13.1% [95% CI 1.4–24.8%], p = 0.029) and with faster adjusted rate of DFC by multivariate Cox regression (RR 2.28 [95% CI 1.25–4.15, p = 0.007]). Shorter sedation exposure is associated with increased proportion of DF/CF-ICU days and more rapid DFC after DCL for trauma.

A recent study suggested mortality benefits using vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine combination therapy (triple therapy) in addition to standard care in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. In order to further evaluate the effects of triple therapy in real-world clinical practice, we conducted a retrospective observational cohort study at an academic tertiary care hospital. A total of 94 patients (47 in triple therapy group and 47 in standard care group) were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics in both groups were well-matched. No significant difference in the primary outcome, hospital mortality, was seen between triple therapy and standard care groups (40.4% vs. 40.4%; p = 1.000). In addition, there were no significant differences in secondary outcomes, including intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, requirement for renal replacement therapy for acute kidney injury, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, and time to vasopressor independence. When compared to standard care, triple therapy did not improve hospital or ICU mortality in patients with septic shock. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the effects of triple therapy is necessary prior to implementing vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine combination therapy as a standard of care in patients with septic shock.

1N/A, N/A, 2Loma Linda University Medical Center, Redlands, CA, 3N/A, Loma Linda, CA, 4Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA

Copyright © 2016 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.