Liam Byrne1,2,3, Nchafatso G Obonyo1, Sara D Diab1, Kimble R Dunster1,4, Margaret R Passmore1,5, Ai-Ching Boon1,5, Louise See Hoe1,5, Sanne Pedersen1, Mohd Hashairi Fauzi6, Leticia Pretti Pimenta1, Frank Van Haren2,3,7, Christopher M Anstey8, Louise Cullen5,9, John-Paul Tung1,10, Kiran Shekar1,11, Kathryn Maitland12, John F Fraser1,11,5. 1. 1 Critical Care Research Group and. 2. 2 Intensive Care, Canberra Hospital, Garran, Australia. 3. 3 Australia National University, Canberra, Australia. 4. 4 Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane City, Australia. 5. 5 University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 6. 6 School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia Health Campus, Kelantan, Malaysia. 7. 7 University of Canberra, Bruce, Australia. 8. 8 Intensive Care, Sunshine Coast University Hospital, Birtinya, Australia. 9. 9 Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Australia. 10. 10 Australian Red Cross Blood Service, Brisbane, Australia; and. 11. 11 Adult Intensive Care, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. 12. 12 Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Fluid resuscitation is widely considered a life-saving intervention in septic shock; however, recent evidence has brought both its safety and efficacy in sepsis into question. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we sought to compare fluid resuscitation with vasopressors with the use of vasopressors alone in a hyperdynamic model of ovine endotoxemia. METHODS: Endotoxemic shock was induced in 16 sheep, after which they received fluid resuscitation with 40 ml/kg of 0.9% saline or commenced hemodynamic support with protocolized noradrenaline and vasopressin. Microdialysis catheters were inserted into the arterial circulation, heart, brain, kidney, and liver to monitor local metabolism. Blood samples were recovered to measure serum inflammatory cytokines, creatinine, troponin, atrial natriuretic peptide, brain natriuretic peptide, and hyaluronan. All animals were monitored and supported for 12 hours after fluid resuscitation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: After resuscitation, animals that received fluid resuscitation required significantly more noradrenaline to maintain the same mean arterial pressure in the subsequent 12 hours (68.9 mg vs. 39.6 mg; P = 0.04). Serum cytokines were similar between groups. Atrial natriuretic peptide increased significantly after fluid resuscitation compared with that observed in animals managed without fluid resuscitation (335 ng/ml [256-382] vs. 233 ng/ml [144-292]; P = 0.04). Cross-sectional time-series analysis showed that the rate of increase of the glycocalyx glycosaminoglycan hyaluronan was greater in the fluid-resuscitated group over the course of the study (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Fluid resuscitation resulted in a paradoxical increase in vasopressor requirement. Additionally, it did not result in improvements in any of the measured microcirculatory- or organ-specific markers measured. The increase in vasopressor requirement may have been due to endothelial/glycocalyx damage secondary to atrial natriuretic peptide-mediated glycocalyx shedding.
RATIONALE: Fluid resuscitation is widely considered a life-saving intervention in septic shock; however, recent evidence has brought both its safety and efficacy in sepsis into question. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we sought to compare fluid resuscitation with vasopressors with the use of vasopressors alone in a hyperdynamic model of ovine endotoxemia. METHODS: Endotoxemic shock was induced in 16 sheep, after which they received fluid resuscitation with 40 ml/kg of 0.9% saline or commenced hemodynamic support with protocolized noradrenaline and vasopressin. Microdialysis catheters were inserted into the arterial circulation, heart, brain, kidney, and liver to monitor local metabolism. Blood samples were recovered to measure serum inflammatory cytokines, creatinine, troponin, atrial natriuretic peptide, brain natriuretic peptide, and hyaluronan. All animals were monitored and supported for 12 hours after fluid resuscitation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: After resuscitation, animals that received fluid resuscitation required significantly more noradrenaline to maintain the same mean arterial pressure in the subsequent 12 hours (68.9 mg vs. 39.6 mg; P = 0.04). Serum cytokines were similar between groups. Atrial natriuretic peptide increased significantly after fluid resuscitation compared with that observed in animals managed without fluid resuscitation (335 ng/ml [256-382] vs. 233 ng/ml [144-292]; P = 0.04). Cross-sectional time-series analysis showed that the rate of increase of the glycocalyx glycosaminoglycan hyaluronan was greater in the fluid-resuscitated group over the course of the study (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Fluid resuscitation resulted in a paradoxical increase in vasopressor requirement. Additionally, it did not result in improvements in any of the measured microcirculatory- or organ-specific markers measured. The increase in vasopressor requirement may have been due to endothelial/glycocalyx damage secondary to atrial natriuretic peptide-mediated glycocalyx shedding.
Authors: Matthias Jacob; Thomas Saller; Daniel Chappell; Markus Rehm; Ulrich Welsch; Bernhard F Becker Journal: Basic Res Cardiol Date: 2013-04-06 Impact factor: 17.165
Authors: Kathryn Maitland; Sarah Kiguli; Robert O Opoka; Charles Engoru; Peter Olupot-Olupot; Samuel O Akech; Richard Nyeko; George Mtove; Hugh Reyburn; Trudie Lang; Bernadette Brent; Jennifer A Evans; James K Tibenderana; Jane Crawley; Elizabeth C Russell; Michael Levin; Abdel G Babiker; Diana M Gibb Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-05-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A F Suffredini; R E Fromm; M M Parker; M Brenner; J A Kovacs; R A Wesley; J E Parrillo Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1989-08-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kathryn Maitland; Elizabeth C George; Jennifer A Evans; Sarah Kiguli; Peter Olupot-Olupot; Samuel O Akech; Robert O Opoka; Charles Engoru; Richard Nyeko; George Mtove; Hugh Reyburn; Bernadette Brent; Julius Nteziyaremye; Ayub Mpoya; Natalie Prevatt; Cornelius M Dambisya; Daniel Semakula; Ahmed Ddungu; Vicent Okuuny; Ronald Wokulira; Molline Timbwa; Benedict Otii; Michael Levin; Jane Crawley; Abdel G Babiker; Diana M Gibb Journal: BMC Med Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 11.150
Authors: Christoph R Behem; Michael F Graessler; Till Friedheim; Rahel Kluttig; Hans O Pinnschmidt; Anna Duprée; E Sebastian Debus; Daniel A Reuter; Sabine H Wipper; Constantin J C Trepte Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Stephen P J Macdonald; Gerben Keijzers; David McD Taylor; Frances Kinnear; Glenn Arendts; Daniel M Fatovich; Rinaldo Bellomo; David McCutcheon; John F Fraser; Juan-Carlos Ascencio-Lane; Sally Burrows; Edward Litton; Amanda Harley; Matthew Anstey; Ashes Mukherjee Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Margaret R Passmore; Nchafatso G Obonyo; Liam Byrne; Ai-Ching Boon; Sara D Diab; Kimble R Dunster; Yoke L Fung; Michelle M Spanevello; Mohd H Fauzi; Sanne E Pedersen; Gabriela Simonova; Chris M Anstey; Kiran Shekar; John-Paul Tung; Kathryn Maitland; John F Fraser Journal: Thromb Res Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 10.407
Authors: David R Janz; Jonathan D Casey; Matthew W Semler; Derek W Russell; James Dargin; Derek J Vonderhaar; Kevin M Dischert; Jason R West; Susan Stempek; Joanne Wozniak; Nicholas Caputo; Brent E Heideman; Aline N Zouk; Swati Gulati; William S Stigler; Itay Bentov; Aaron M Joffe; Todd W Rice Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 30.700