RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The appropriate third-line vasopressor in septic shock patients receiving norepinephrine and vasopressin is unknown. Angiotensin-II (AT-II) offers a unique mechanism of action to traditionally used vasopressors in septic shock. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of third-line AT-II to epinephrine in patients with septic shock. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients was performed between April 1, 2019 and July 31, 2022. Propensity-matched (2:1) analysis compared adults with septic shock who received third-line AT-II to controls who received epinephrine following norepinephrine and vasopressin. The primary outcome was clinical response 24 hours after third-line vasopressor initiation. Additional efficacy and safety outcomes were investigated. RESULTS: Twenty-three AT-II patients were compared with 46 epinephrine patients. 47.8% of AT-II patients observed a clinical response at hour 24 compared with 28.3% of epinephrine patients (P = 0.12). In-hospital mortality (65.2% vs 73.9%, P = 0.45), cardiac arrhythmias (26.1% vs 26.1%, P = 0.21), and thromboembolism (4.3% vs 2.2%, P = 0.61) were not observed to be statistically different between groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Administration of AT-II as a third-line vasopressor agent in septic shock patients was not associated with significantly improved clinical response at hour 24 compared with epinephrine. Although underpowered to detect meaningful differences, the clinical observations of this study warrant consideration and further investigation of AT-II as a third-line vasopressor in septic shock.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for patients with refractory cardiogenic shock has increased over the past decade. Impella devices (intravascular microaxial ventricular assist devices [VADs]) have become common MCS options but reportedly cause thrombocytopenia. Limited published data regarding the incidence or severity of microaxial VAD-associated thrombocytopenia exists. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine the incidence, timing, and severity of thrombocytopenia in a microaxial VAD population. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter review of electronic medical records identified all patients implanted with microaxial VAD at three US academic teaching hospitals between June 2015 and August 2017. Patients were excluded for short-term procedural microaxial VAD use during percutaneous coronary intervention. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients underwent microaxial VAD insertion (95% for left-sided support) during the observed time period. Support was in place for a median duration of 5.2 (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.4-10.0) days. Within 7 days postinsertion, 98.5% of patients developed thrombocytopenia (platelet count <150,000/µl) and 81.3% of patients experienced a >50% platelet decrease. Average platelet count nadir was 68,200/µl or 63.9% from baseline occurring on median day 3.8 (IQR: 2.4-5.4). Twenty-four patients (38.1%) were tested for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia by the heparin-dependent antibody (HDA) test. All HDAs were either negative or had serotonin release assay negative confirmation. Postdevice removal, platelet counts returned to baseline or >150,000/µl in 63% of patients by Day 5. CONCLUSION: Microaxial VAD-associated thrombocytopenia is common. Practitioners should consider this when evaluating supported patients for other causes of thrombocytopenia. Platelet counts return to preimplantation levels within days of device removal.
