Charles St-Arnaud1, Jean-François Ethier2, Cindy Hamielec3, Andrew Bersten4, Gordon Guyatt5, Maureen Meade5, Qi Zhou5, Marc-André Leclair1, Alpesh Patel4, François Lamontagne2. 1. Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Que. 2. Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Que. ; Centre de recherche Étienne-Le Bel, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Que. 3. Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ont. 4. Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, Australia. 5. Departments of Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Without robust clinical evidence to guide titration of vasopressors in septic shock, it is unclear how dosing of these potent medications occurs. We sought to measure the proportion of vasopressor prescriptions for septic shock that were missing explicit targets and to describe the targets that we identified. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, retrospective cohort study involving 9 intensive care units (ICUs) located at 3 academic hospitals in Canada and Australia. We reviewed charts of consecutive patients aged 18 years or older who were admitted to the ICU for a presumptive diagnosis of sepsis. Other inclusion criteria were hypotension (systolic arterial pressure ≤ 90 mm Hg or mean arterial pressure [MAP] ≤ 65 mm Hg) and continuous infusion of vasopressors for at least 1 hour within the initial 48 hours of ICU stay, the period of observation for this study. RESULTS: We included data from 369 patient charts. At least 1 target was specified in 99% of charts. The most common targets were MAP measurements (73%). The median initial MAP target was 65 (range 55-90) mm Hg. In multivariable regression models, hospital site and older age of the patient, but not comorbidities of the patient, were associated with MAP targets. In 40% of patients, the treating team modified the initial target at least once. INTERPRETATION: This study suggests that an explicit blood pressure target accompanies nearly every vasopressor prescription and that patient characteristics have little influence on its value. Identification of a titration strategy that will maximize benefit and minimize harm constitutes a research priority.
BACKGROUND: Without robust clinical evidence to guide titration of vasopressors in septic shock, it is unclear how dosing of these potent medications occurs. We sought to measure the proportion of vasopressor prescriptions for septic shock that were missing explicit targets and to describe the targets that we identified. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, retrospective cohort study involving 9 intensive care units (ICUs) located at 3 academic hospitals in Canada and Australia. We reviewed charts of consecutive patients aged 18 years or older who were admitted to the ICU for a presumptive diagnosis of sepsis. Other inclusion criteria were hypotension (systolic arterial pressure ≤ 90 mm Hg or mean arterial pressure [MAP] ≤ 65 mm Hg) and continuous infusion of vasopressors for at least 1 hour within the initial 48 hours of ICU stay, the period of observation for this study. RESULTS: We included data from 369 patient charts. At least 1 target was specified in 99% of charts. The most common targets were MAP measurements (73%). The median initial MAP target was 65 (range 55-90) mm Hg. In multivariable regression models, hospital site and older age of the patient, but not comorbidities of the patient, were associated with MAP targets. In 40% of patients, the treating team modified the initial target at least once. INTERPRETATION: This study suggests that an explicit blood pressure target accompanies nearly every vasopressor prescription and that patient characteristics have little influence on its value. Identification of a titration strategy that will maximize benefit and minimize harm constitutes a research priority.
Authors: Aurélie Bourgoin; Marc Leone; Anne Delmas; Franck Garnier; Jacques Albanèse; Claude Martin Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Francois Lamontagne; Deborah J Cook; Neill K J Adhikari; Matthias Briel; Mark Duffett; Michelle E Kho; Karen E A Burns; Gordon Guyatt; Alexis F Turgeon; Qi Zhou; Maureen O Meade Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2011-03-30 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Steven M Hollenberg; Tom S Ahrens; Djillali Annane; Mark E Astiz; Donald B Chalfin; Joseph F Dasta; Stephen O Heard; Claude Martin; Lena M Napolitano; Gregory M Susla; Richard Totaro; Jean-Louis Vincent; Sergio Zanotti-Cavazzoni Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Martin W Dünser; Esko Ruokonen; Ville Pettilä; Hanno Ulmer; Christian Torgersen; Christian A Schmittinger; Stephan Jakob; Jukka Takala Journal: Crit Care Date: 2009-11-16 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Paul R Mouncey; Alvin Richards-Belle; Karen Thomas; David A Harrison; M Zia Sadique; Richard D Grieve; Julie Camsooksai; Robert Darnell; Anthony C Gordon; Doreen Henry; Nicholas Hudson; Alexina J Mason; Michelle Saull; Chris Whitman; J Duncan Young; François Lamontagne; Kathryn M Rowan Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Samuel M Brown; Jeffrey Sorensen; Michael J Lanspa; Matthew T Rondina; Colin K Grissom; Sajid Shahul; V J Mathews Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2016-10-10 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: J Geoffrey Chase; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jennifer L Dickson; Antoine Pironet; Yeong Shiong Chiew; Christopher G Pretty; Geoffrey M Shaw; Balazs Benyo; Knut Moeller; Soroush Safaei; Merryn Tawhai; Peter Hunter; Thomas Desaive Journal: Biomed Eng Online Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 2.819