Literature DB >> 25895147

Blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy: a systematic review.

Frederick D'Aragon1, Emilie P Belley-Cote, Maureen O Meade, François Lauzier, Neill K J Adhikari, Matthias Briel, Manoj Lalu, Salmaan Kanji, Pierre Asfar, Alexis F Turgeon, Alison Fox-Robichaud, John C Marshall, François Lamontagne.   

Abstract

Physicians often prescribe vasopressors to correct pathological vasodilation and improve tissue perfusion in patients with septic shock, but the evidence to inform practice on vasopressor dosing is weak. We undertook a systematic review of clinical studies evaluating different blood pressure targets for the dosing of vasopressors in septic shock. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (to November 2013), reference lists from included articles, and trial registries for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational and crossover intervention studies comparing different blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy in septic shock. Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies and extracted data on standardized forms. We identified 2 RCTs and 10 crossover trials but no observational studies meeting our criteria. Only one RCT measured clinical outcomes after comparing mean arterial pressure targets of 80 to 85 mmHg versus 65 to 70 mmHg. There was no effect on 28-day mortality, but confidence intervals were wide (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.84 - 1.38). In contrast, this intervention was associated with a greater risk of atrial fibrillation (relative risk, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.18 - 4.72) and a lower risk of renal replacement therapy in hypertensive patients (relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57 - 1.0). Crossover trials suggest that achieving higher blood pressure targets by increasing vasopressor doses increases heart rate and cardiac index with no effect on serum lactate. Our findings underscore the paucity of clinical evidence to guide the administration of vasopressors in critically ill patients with septic shock. Further rigorous research is needed to establish an evidence base for vasopressor administration in this population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25895147     DOI: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000000348

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Shock        ISSN: 1073-2322            Impact factor:   3.454


  12 in total

1.  Vasopressors in shock: are we meeting our target and do we really understand what we are aiming at?

Authors:  Martin Dünser; Peter Buhl Hjortrup; Ville Pettilä
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Higher versus lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy in shock: a multicentre pilot randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  François Lamontagne; Maureen O Meade; Paul C Hébert; Pierre Asfar; François Lauzier; Andrew J E Seely; Andrew G Day; Sangeeta Mehta; John Muscedere; Sean M Bagshaw; Niall D Ferguson; Deborah J Cook; Salmaan Kanji; Alexis F Turgeon; Margaret S Herridge; Sanjay Subramanian; Jacques Lacroix; Neill K J Adhikari; Damon C Scales; Alison Fox-Robichaud; Yoanna Skrobik; Richard P Whitlock; Robert S Green; Karen K Y Koo; Teddie Tanguay; Sheldon Magder; Daren K Heyland
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 3.  Septic Shock: Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment.

Authors:  Christopher W Seymour; Matthew R Rosengart
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 4.  The crashing patient: hemodynamic collapse.

Authors:  Hitesh Gidwani; Hernando Gómez
Journal:  Curr Opin Crit Care       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 3.687

5.  Understanding vasopressor intervention and weaning: risk prediction in a public heterogeneous clinical time series database.

Authors:  Mike Wu; Marzyeh Ghassemi; Mengling Feng; Leo A Celi; Peter Szolovits; Finale Doshi-Velez
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 4.497

6.  Targeted tissue perfusion versus macrocirculation-guided standard care in patients with septic shock (TARTARE-2S): study protocol and statistical analysis plan for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Ville Pettilä; Tobias Merz; Erika Wilkman; Anders Perner; Sari Karlsson; Theis Lange; Johanna Hästbacka; Peter Buhl Hjortrup; Anne Kuitunen; Stephan M Jakob; Jukka Takala
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Predicting intervention onset in the ICU with switching state space models.

Authors:  Marzyeh Ghassemi; Mike Wu; Michael C Hughes; Peter Szolovits; Finale Doshi-Velez
Journal:  AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc       Date:  2017-07-26

8.  Skin perfusion pressure as an indicator of tissue perfusion in valvular heart surgery: Preliminary results from a prospective, observational study.

Authors:  Young Song; Sarah Soh; Jae-Kwang Shim; Kyoung-Un Park; Young-Lan Kwak
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-19       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Personalizing blood pressure management in septic shock.

Authors:  Ryotaro Kato; Michael R Pinsky
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2015-11-16       Impact factor: 6.925

10.  Current use of vasopressors in septic shock.

Authors:  Thomas W L Scheeren; Jan Bakker; Daniel De Backer; Djillali Annane; Pierre Asfar; E Christiaan Boerma; Maurizio Cecconi; Arnaldo Dubin; Martin W Dünser; Jacques Duranteau; Anthony C Gordon; Olfa Hamzaoui; Glenn Hernández; Marc Leone; Bruno Levy; Claude Martin; Alexandre Mebazaa; Xavier Monnet; Andrea Morelli; Didier Payen; Rupert Pearse; Michael R Pinsky; Peter Radermacher; Daniel Reuter; Bernd Saugel; Yasser Sakr; Mervyn Singer; Pierre Squara; Antoine Vieillard-Baron; Philippe Vignon; Simon T Vistisen; Iwan C C van der Horst; Jean-Louis Vincent; Jean-Louis Teboul
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2019-01-30       Impact factor: 6.925

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.