PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11096549

Cardiovascular Dysfunction in Sepsis and Septic Shock.

Abstract

The optimal therapy for the treatment of sepsis and septic shock remains controversial. Many protocols are followed, using different strategies for initial resuscitation, cardiovascular monitoring, hemodynamic intervention, and eradication of infection. Overall, an aggressive approach to the management of cardiovascular dysfunction in septic shock is warranted. Initially, large volume fluid resuscitation is instituted. Our first choice of resuscitation fluid is 0.9% normal saline. Invasive hemodynamic monitoring using a flotation pulmonary artery catheter as well as invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring is a necessity in the hemodynamic management of septic shock. If the patient remains hypotensive (mean arterial pressure < 65 mm Hg) after adequate volume resuscitation has been established (pulmonary capillary wedge pressure 12 to 15 mm Hg), then vasopressor agents must be instituted. Our first choice is usually dopamine. In patients who remain hypotensive after maximal doses of dopamine are reached, norepinephrine is added. If these agents generate excessive tachycardia or if tachyarrhythmias develop, phenylephrine can be substituted or added. Inotropic agents are useful if the patient demonstrates hypotension with a low cardiac output state. Dobutamine is the agent of choice. We initiate broad-spectrum empiric antibiotics at presentation, modifying the exact regimen based on 1) site of infection; 2) prevailing organisms and antibiotic resistance patterns in the patient's environment; and 3) other specific risk factors (immunosuppression, chronic disease, exposure and vaccination history, invasive medical devices). When appropriate, aggressive surgical debridement is pursued. Currently, there are no clinical data to support the use of antagonists for sepsis mediators, although various clinical trials remain underway. Steroids are contraindicated except for adrenal replacement therapy.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

MJ Landgarten, A Kumar, JE Parrillo. 2000. Cardiovascular Dysfunction in Sepsis and Septic Shock.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-000-0040-z

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗