Emily A Vail1, Hayley B Gershengorn2,3,4, May Hua1, Allan J Walkey5, Hannah Wunsch6,7. 1. 1 Department of Anesthesiology, Columbia University, New York, New York. 2. 2 Department of Medicine, and. 3. 3 Department of Neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, New York. 4. 4 Montefiore Medical Center, New York, New York. 5. 5 Boston University Department of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. 6 University of Toronto Department of Anesthesiology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and. 7. 7 Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Vasopressin may be used to treat vasodilatory hypotension in septic shock, but it is not recommended by guidelines as a first- or second-line agent. Little is known about how often the drug is used currently in septic shock. OBJECTIVES: We conducted this study to describe patterns of vasopressin use in a large cohort of U.S. adults with septic shock and to identify patient and hospital characteristics associated with vasopressin use. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults admitted to U.S. hospitals with septic shock in the Premier healthcare database (July 2008 to June 2013). We performed multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression with hospitals as a random effect to identify factors associated with use of vasopressin alone or in combination with other vasopressors on at least 1 day of hospital admission. We calculated quotients of Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) to determine relative contributions of patient and hospital characteristics to observed variation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 584,421 patients with septic shock in 532 hospitals, 100,923 (17.2%) received vasopressin. A total of 6.1% of patients receiving vasopressin received vasopressin alone, and 93.9% received vasopressin in combination with other vasopressors (up to five vasopressors in 15 different combinations). The mean monthly rate of vasopressin use increased from 14.5 to 19.6% over the study period, representing an average annual relative increase of 8% (P < 0.001). The median hospital rate of vasopressin use for septic shock was 11.7% (range, 0-69.7%). Patient demographic and clinical characteristics, including patient age (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71 for age > 85 yr compared with the reference group of age < 50 yr; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.74) and acute respiratory dysfunction (adjusted odds ratio, 3.25; 95% confidence interval, 3.20-3.31), were responsible for the majority of observed variation in vasopressin use (quotient of AICs, 0.56). However, hospital of admission also contributed substantially to observed variation (quotient of AICs, 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-fifth of patients with septic shock received vasopressin, but rarely as a single vasopressor. The use of vasopressin has increased over time. The likelihood of receiving vasopressin was strongly associated with the specific hospital to which each patient was admitted.
RATIONALE: Vasopressin may be used to treat vasodilatory hypotension in septic shock, but it is not recommended by guidelines as a first- or second-line agent. Little is known about how often the drug is used currently in septic shock. OBJECTIVES: We conducted this study to describe patterns of vasopressin use in a large cohort of U.S. adults with septic shock and to identify patient and hospital characteristics associated with vasopressin use. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults admitted to U.S. hospitals with septic shock in the Premier healthcare database (July 2008 to June 2013). We performed multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression with hospitals as a random effect to identify factors associated with use of vasopressin alone or in combination with other vasopressors on at least 1 day of hospital admission. We calculated quotients of Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) to determine relative contributions of patient and hospital characteristics to observed variation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 584,421 patients with septic shock in 532 hospitals, 100,923 (17.2%) received vasopressin. A total of 6.1% of patients receiving vasopressin received vasopressin alone, and 93.9% received vasopressin in combination with other vasopressors (up to five vasopressors in 15 different combinations). The mean monthly rate of vasopressin use increased from 14.5 to 19.6% over the study period, representing an average annual relative increase of 8% (P < 0.001). The median hospital rate of vasopressin use for septic shock was 11.7% (range, 0-69.7%). Patient demographic and clinical characteristics, including patient age (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71 for age > 85 yr compared with the reference group of age < 50 yr; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.74) and acute respiratory dysfunction (adjusted odds ratio, 3.25; 95% confidence interval, 3.20-3.31), were responsible for the majority of observed variation in vasopressin use (quotient of AICs, 0.56). However, hospital of admission also contributed substantially to observed variation (quotient of AICs, 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-fifth of patients with septic shock received vasopressin, but rarely as a single vasopressor. The use of vasopressin has increased over time. The likelihood of receiving vasopressin was strongly associated with the specific hospital to which each patient was admitted.
Entities:
Keywords:
practice variation; septic shock; vasoconstrictor agents
Authors: Mitchell M Levy; Mitchell P Fink; John C Marshall; Edward Abraham; Derek Angus; Deborah Cook; Jonathan Cohen; Steven M Opal; Jean-Louis Vincent; Graham Ramsay Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Daniel De Backer; Patrick Biston; Jacques Devriendt; Christian Madl; Didier Chochrad; Cesar Aldecoa; Alexandre Brasseur; Pierre Defrance; Philippe Gottignies; Jean-Louis Vincent Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elliott Bennett-Guerrero; Yue Zhao; Sean M O'Brien; T B Ferguson; Eric D Peterson; James S Gammie; Howard K Song Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-10-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: R Phillip Dellinger; Mitchell M Levy; Jean M Carlet; Julian Bion; Margaret M Parker; Roman Jaeschke; Konrad Reinhart; Derek C Angus; Christian Brun-Buisson; Richard Beale; Thierry Calandra; Jean-Francois Dhainaut; Herwig Gerlach; Maurene Harvey; John J Marini; John Marshall; Marco Ranieri; Graham Ramsay; Jonathan Sevransky; B Taylor Thompson; Sean Townsend; Jeffrey S Vender; Janice L Zimmerman; Jean-Louis Vincent Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: William J Ehlenbach; Amber E Barnato; J Randall Curtis; William Kreuter; Thomas D Koepsell; Richard A Deyo; Renee D Stapleton Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-07-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James A Russell; Keith R Walley; Joel Singer; Anthony C Gordon; Paul C Hébert; D James Cooper; Cheryl L Holmes; Sangeeta Mehta; John T Granton; Michelle M Storms; Deborah J Cook; Jeffrey J Presneill; Dieter Ayers Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ary Serpa Neto; Antônio P Nassar; Sérgio O Cardoso; José A Manetta; Victor G M Pereira; Daniel C Espósito; Maria C T Damasceno; James A Russell Journal: Crit Care Date: 2012-08-14 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: Murdoch Leeies; Hayley B Gershengorn; Emmanuel Charbonney; Anand Kumar; Dean A Fergusson; Alexis F Turgeon; Allan Garland; Donald S Houston; Brett Houston; Emily Rimmer; Eric Jacobsohn; Srinivas Murthy; Rob Fowler; Robert Balshaw; Ryan Zarychanski Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2021-08-10 Impact factor: 6.713
Authors: Gretchen L Sacha; Simon W Lam; Abhijit Duggal; Heather Torbic; Stephanie N Bass; Sarah C Welch; Robert S Butler; Seth R Bauer Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Emily A Vail; Meng-Shiou Shieh; Penelope S Pekow; Hayley B Gershengorn; Allan J Walkey; Peter K Lindenauer; Hannah Wunsch Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2021-01