Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background In patients with vasodilatory shock, plasma concentrations of angiotensin I (ANG I) and II (ANG II) and their ratio may reflect differences in the response to severe vasodilation, provide novel insights into its biology, and predict clinical outcomes. The objective of these protocol prespecified and subsequent post hoc analyses was to assess the epidemiology and outcome associations of plasma ANG I and ANG II levels and their ratio in patients with catecholamine-resistant vasodilatory shock (CRVS) enrolled in the Angiotensin II for the Treatment of High-Output Shock (ATHOS-3) study. Methods We measured ANG I and ANG II levels at baseline, calculated their ratio, and compared these results to values from healthy volunteers (controls). We dichotomized patients according to the median ANG I/II ratio (1.63) and compared demographics, clinical characteristics, and clinical outcomes. We constructed a Cox proportional hazards model to test the independent association of ANG I, ANG II, and their ratio with clinical outcomes. Results Median baseline ANG I level (253 pg/mL [interquartile range (IQR) 72.30–676.00 pg/mL] vs 42 pg/mL [IQR 30.46–87.34 pg/mL] in controls; P  <  0.0001) and median ANG I/II ratio (1.63 [IQR 0.98–5.25] vs 0.4 [IQR 0.28–0.64] in controls; P  <  0.0001) were elevated, whereas median ANG II levels were similar (84 pg/mL [IQR 23.85–299.50 pg/mL] vs 97 pg/mL [IQR 35.27–181.01 pg/mL] in controls; P  = 0.9895). At baseline, patients with a ratio above the median (≥1.63) had higher ANG I levels ( P  <  0.0001), lower ANG II levels ( P  <  0.0001), higher albumin concentrations ( P  = 0.007), and greater incidence of recent (within 1 week) exposure to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors ( P  <  0.00001), and they received a higher norepinephrine-equivalent dose ( P  = 0.003). In the placebo group, a baseline ANG I/II ratio <1.63 was associated with improved survival (hazard ratio 0.56; 95% confidence interval 0.36–0.88; P  = 0.01) on unadjusted analyses. Conclusions Patients with CRVS have elevated ANG I levels and ANG I/II ratios compared with healthy controls. In such patients, a high ANG I/II ratio is associated with greater norepinephrine requirements and is an independent predictor of mortality, thus providing a biological rationale for interventions aimed at its correction. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02338843 . Registered 14 January 2015.

Objective To determine the impact of higher versus lower mean arterial pressure (MAP) targets on mortality and other outcomes in patients with vasodilatory shock. Design A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) following PRISMA guidelines with the protocol preregistered with PROSPERO (CRD420251087844). Data sources PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Scopus from their inception until July 2025. Methods This review included RCTs that compared a higher MAP target arm, typically 80±5 mmHg or the physiologically higher target arm within the trial, to a lower target arm (generally 65±5 mmHg) in adult patients with vasodilatory shock. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The analysis utilised random-effects models, subgroup analyses, and Bayesian methods. Results Four RCTs with a total of 3,873 patients were included. A higher MAP target was associated with a 10% increase in 28-day mortality (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01–1.19; P=0.03). A similar trend toward increased 90-day mortality was observed, with a risk ratio of 1.10 (95% CI 1.00–1.22; P=0.05). Subgroup analyses revealed no benefit from higher targets for any patient group, including those with advanced age or chronic hypertension. A higher MAP target was also linked to fewer RRT-free days (mean difference -1.64, 95% CI -3.05 to -0.23; P = 0.02) and a greater risk of arrhythmia (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.01–1.72; P=0.04). The Bayesian analysis corroborated these findings, revealing a high posterior probability of harm (97.8% for 28-day mortality and 98.7% for 90-day mortality). Conclusions In patients with vasodilatory shock, universal high MAP targets are associated with increased mortality compared with lower targets, with moderate certainty. These results should encourage the adoption of lower MAP targets and highlight the importance of avoiding the potential harm associated with excessive vasopressor use. Future research should focus on individualised blood pressure rather than fixed targets.

Angiotensin II is approved for catecholamine-refractory vasodilatory shock but the conversion dose ratio from norepinephrine to angiotensin II remains unclear. We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the Acute Renal effects of Angiotensin II Management in Shock (ARAMIS) trial involving patients with vasodilatory hypotension. We determined the norepinephrine equivalent dose immediately prior to angiotensin II initiation and calculated the conversion dose ratio between norepinephrine and angiotensin II. We performed subgroup analyses based on recent exposure to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and renin levels at baseline. In 37 patients, the median conversion dose ratio between norepinephrine equivalent and angiotensin II was to 10:1 for norepinephrine bitartrate (5:1 for norepinephrine base). The conversion ratio was not affected by the baseline renin, with a median ratio of 10 (7–21) in the high renin group versus 12 (5–22) in the low renin group. Finally, exposure to ARBs prior admission appeared to diminish the conversion ratio with a median ratio of 7 (4–13) in ARB patients vs. 12 (7–22) in non-ARB patients. The norepinephrine to angiotensin II conversion dose ratio is 10:1 in a vasodilatory hypotension population. These findings can guide clinicians and researchers in the use, dosing, and study of angiotensin II in critical care. •The conversion ratio was determined as 10:1 for norepinephrine equivalent dose prior to angiotensin II initiation.•The conversion ratio was not affected by the baseline renin levels.•Exposure to angiotensin receptor blockers prior to admission appeared to diminish the conversion ratio.

Shock is common in the intensive care unit, affecting up to one third of patients. Treatment of shock is centered upon managing hypotension and ensuring adequate perfusion via administration of fluids and catecholamine vasopressors. Due to the risks associated with catecholamine vasopressors, interest has grown in using catecholamine-sparing agents such as midodrine and methylene blue. Midodrine is an orally administered alpha-1 adrenergic agonist while methylene blue is an intravenously administered blue dye used to restore vascular tone and increase blood pressure. Separate MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase database searches were conducted to assess literature revolving around these agents. Examples of search terms included “midodrine”, “methylene blue”, “critically ill”, “shock”, and “catecholamine-sparing.” Several studies have evaluated their use in patients with shock and found potential benefits in terms of causing significant elevations in blood pressure and hastening catecholamine vasopressor discontinuation with few adverse effects; however, robust evidence is lacking for these off-label indications. Because of the variety of dosing strategies used and the incongruences between patient populations, it is also challenging to define finite recommendations. This review aims to summarize current evidence for the use of midodrine and methylene blue as catecholamine-sparing agents in critically ill patients with resolving or refractory shock. •Midodrine and methylene blue are catecholamine-sparing strategies for patients presenting to the ICU with shock•Midodrine use may expedite discontinuation of vasopressors and ICU discharge•Methylene blue may represent an alternative method to restore vascular tone and improve perfusion in patients with refractory vasodilatory shock

Noradrenaline and metaraminol are commonly used vasopressors in critically ill patients. However, little is known of their dose equivalence. We conducted a single centre retrospective cohort study of all ICU patients who transitioned from metaraminol to noradrenaline infusions between August 26, 2016 and December 31, 2020. Patients receiving additional vasoactive drug infusion were excluded. Dose equivalence was calculated based on the last hour metaraminol dose (in μg/min) and the first hour noradrenaline dose (in μg/min) with the closest matched mean arterial pressure (MAP). Sensitivity analyses were performed on patients with acute kidney injury (AKI), sepsis and mechanical ventilation. We studied 195 patients. The median conversion ratio of metaraminol to noradrenaline was 12.5:1 (IQR 7.5–20.0) for the overall cohort. However, the coefficient of variation was 77% and standard deviation was 11.8. Conversion ratios were unaffected by sepsis or mechanical ventilation but increased (14:1) with AKI. One in five patients had a MAP decrease of >10 mmHg during the transition period from metaraminol to noradrenaline. Post-transition noradrenaline dose (p < 0.001) and AKI (p = 0.045) were independently associated with metaraminol dose. The proportion of variation in noradrenaline dose predicted from metaraminol dose was low (R2 = 0.545). The median dose equivalence for metaraminol and noradrenaline in this study was 12.5:1. However, there was significant variance in dose equivalence, only half the proportion of variation in noradrenaline infusion dose was predicted by metaraminol dose, and conversion-associated hypotension was common. •Median dose equivalence for metaraminol and noradrenaline in this study was 12.5:1•There was significant variance in dose equivalence between the two vasopressors•Only half the variation in noradrenaline could be predicted from metaraminol dose•21% of patients had a MAP decrease >10 mmHg when transitioning between vasopressors

The role of methylene blue (MB) in patients with vasodilatory shock is unclear. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MB in patients with vasodilatory shock. We searched MEDLINE at PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, CNKI, CBM and Wanfang Medical databases for all observational and intervention studies comparing the effect of MB vs. control in vasodilatory shock patients. This study was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. There were no language restrictions for inclusion. A total of 15 studies with 832 patients were included. Pooled data demonstrated that administration of MB along with vasopressors significantly reduced mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.85, = 0.008; = 7%]. This benefit in mortality rate was also seen in a subgroup analysis including randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials. In addition, the vasopressor requirement was reduced in the MB group [mean difference (MD) -0.77, 95%CI -1.26 to -0.28, = 0.002; = 80%]. Regarding hemodynamics, MB increased the mean arterial pressure, heart rate and peripheral vascular resistance. In respect to organ function, MB was associated with a lower incidence of renal failure, while in regards to oxygen metabolism, it was linked to reduced lactate levels. MB had no effect on the other outcomes and no serious side effects. Concomitant administration of MB and vasopressors improved hemodynamics, decreased vasopressor requirements, reduced lactate levels, and improved survival in patients with vasodilatory shock. However, further studies are required to confirm these findings. Identifier: CRD42021281847.

The aim of this study was to analyse the course of adrenomedullin (ADM) and endothelin-1 (ET-1) levels in patients with vasodilatory shock after cardiac surgery and to explore differences compared to patients after uncomplicated coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. ADM and ET-1 are involved in the vasomotor response during vasodilatory shock. We included 32 patients with vasodilatory shock (study group) and 10 patients after uncomplicated CABG surgery (control group). Daily measurements of MR-proADM and CT-proET-1 (stable surrogate markers for ADM and ET-1) were collected during the first 7 postoperative days. MR-proADM and CT-proET-1 levels were significantly elevated in the study group when compared to the control group. In addition, the course of both biomarkers was significantly different in the study versus control group. Higher levels of both biomarkers were associated with organ dysfunction (higher maximum multiple organ dysfunction score, acute kidney injury). Significantly higher levels of MR-proADM and CT-proET-1 and a different course of both biomarkers were observed in patients with vasodilatory shock after cardiac surgery and seemed to be associated with organ dysfunction. •Significantly higher levels of MR-proADM and CT-proET-1 in patients with vasodilatory shock after cardiac surgery.•Different course of both biomarkers in patients with vasodilatory shock.•Seem to be associated with organ dysfunction.

We aimed to evaluate the antioxidant role in critically ill patients with vasodilatory shock as it relates to severity of tissue hypoxia and organ failure. An observational and prospective study was conducted in critically ill patients with vasodilatory shock. Glutathione peroxidase (GPx) levels as antioxidants were measured based on their levels in the patient's serum. Tissue hypoxia as micro-hemodynamic status was represented by lactate levels, the macro-hemodynamic status was represented by vasoactive inotropic score (VIS) and mean arterial pressure (MAP), while organ dysfunction severity was represented by the shock index (SI), the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, and the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score. Thirty-four critically ill patients with vasodilatory shock met the eligibility criteria. The mortality rate was 41.2%. Glutathione peroxidase levels did not show a significant difference between survivors and non-survivors at baseline or after 24 hours. At the initial measurement, there was a correlation between GPx and lactate levels, GPx and SOFA scores. The macrohemodynamic status was represented by VIS and MAP, which were correlated with SI. Glutathione peroxidase as antioxidant is related to severity of tissue hypoxia and organ failure in critically ill patients with vasodilatory shock.

This review of the use of vasopressin aims to be comprehensive and highly practical, based on the available scientific evidence and our extensive clinical experience with the drug. It summarizes controversies about vasopressin use in septic shock and other vasodilatory states. Vasopressin is a natural hormone with powerful vasoconstrictive effects and is responsible for the regulation of plasma osmolality by maintaining fluid homeostasis. Septic shock is defined by the need for vasopressors to correct hypotension and lactic acidosis secondary to infection, with a high mortality rate. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend vasopressin as a second-line vasopressor, added to norepinephrine. However, these guidelines do not address specific debates surrounding the use of vasopressin in real-world clinical practice.