40
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Vasoplegia treatments: the past, the present, and the future

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Vasoplegia is a ubiquitous phenomenon in all advanced shock states, including septic, cardiogenic, hemorrhagic, and anaphylactic shock. Its pathophysiology is complex, involving various mechanisms in vascular smooth muscle cells such as G protein-coupled receptor desensitization (adrenoceptors, vasopressin 1 receptors, angiotensin type 1 receptors), alteration of second messenger pathways, critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency, and increased production of nitric oxide. This review, based on a critical appraisal of the literature, discusses the main current treatments and future approaches. Our improved understanding of these mechanisms is progressively changing our therapeutic approach to vasoplegia from a standardized to a personalized multimodal treatment with the prescription of several vasopressors. While norepinephrine is confirmed as first line therapy for the treatment of vasoplegia, the latest Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines also consider that the best therapeutic management of vascular hyporesponsiveness to vasopressors could be a combination of multiple vasopressors, including norepinephrine and early prescription of vasopressin. This new approach is seemingly justified by the need to limit adrenoceptor desensitization as well as sympathetic overactivation given its subsequent deleterious impacts on hemodynamics and inflammation. Finally, based on new pathophysiological data, two potential drugs, selepressin and angiotensin II, are currently being evaluated.

          Related collections

          Most cited references72

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The sympathetic nerve--an integrative interface between two supersystems: the brain and the immune system.

          The brain and the immune system are the two major adaptive systems of the body. During an immune response the brain and the immune system "talk to each other" and this process is essential for maintaining homeostasis. Two major pathway systems are involved in this cross-talk: the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and the sympathetic nervous system (SNS). This overview focuses on the role of SNS in neuroimmune interactions, an area that has received much less attention than the role of HPA axis. Evidence accumulated over the last 20 years suggests that norepinephrine (NE) fulfills the criteria for neurotransmitter/neuromodulator in lymphoid organs. Thus, primary and secondary lymphoid organs receive extensive sympathetic/noradrenergic innervation. Under stimulation, NE is released from the sympathetic nerve terminals in these organs, and the target immune cells express adrenoreceptors. Through stimulation of these receptors, locally released NE, or circulating catecholamines such as epinephrine, affect lymphocyte traffic, circulation, and proliferation, and modulate cytokine production and the functional activity of different lymphoid cells. Although there exists substantial sympathetic innervation in the bone marrow, and particularly in the thymus and mucosal tissues, our knowledge about the effect of the sympathetic neural input on hematopoiesis, thymocyte development, and mucosal immunity is extremely modest. In addition, recent evidence is discussed that NE and epinephrine, through stimulation of the beta(2)-adrenoreceptor-cAMP-protein kinase A pathway, inhibit the production of type 1/proinflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin (IL-12), tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and interferon-gamma by antigen-presenting cells and T helper (Th) 1 cells, whereas they stimulate the production of type 2/anti-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-10 and transforming growth factor-beta. Through this mechanism, systemically, endogenous catecholamines may cause a selective suppression of Th1 responses and cellular immunity, and a Th2 shift toward dominance of humoral immunity. On the other hand, in certain local responses, and under certain conditions, catecholamines may actually boost regional immune responses, through induction of IL-1, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and primarily IL-8 production. Thus, the activation of SNS during an immune response might be aimed to localize the inflammatory response, through induction of neutrophil accumulation and stimulation of more specific humoral immune responses, although systemically it may suppress Th1 responses, and, thus protect the organism from the detrimental effects of proinflammatory cytokines and other products of activated macrophages. The above-mentioned immunomodulatory effects of catecholamines and the role of SNS are also discussed in the context of their clinical implication in certain infections, major injury and sepsis, autoimmunity, chronic pain and fatigue syndromes, and tumor growth. Finally, the pharmacological manipulation of the sympathetic-immune interface is reviewed with focus on new therapeutic strategies using selective alpha(2)- and beta(2)-adrenoreceptor agonists and antagonists and inhibitors of phosphodiesterase type IV in the treatment of experimental models of autoimmune diseases, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue syndrome.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The pathogenesis of vasodilatory shock.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Norepinephrine plus dobutamine versus epinephrine alone for management of septic shock: a randomised trial.

              International guidelines for management of septic shock recommend that dopamine or norepinephrine are preferable to epinephrine. However, no large comparative trial has yet been done. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of norepinephrine plus dobutamine (whenever needed) with those of epinephrine alone in septic shock. This prospective, multicentre, randomised, double-blind study was done in 330 patients with septic shock admitted to one of 19 participating intensive care units in France. Participants were assigned to receive epinephrine (n=161) or norepinephrine plus dobutamine (n=169), which were titrated to maintain mean blood pressure at 70 mm Hg or more. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148278. There were no patients lost to follow-up; one patient withdrew consent after 3 days. At day 28, there were 64 (40%) deaths in the epinephrine group and 58 (34%) deaths in the norepinephrine plus dobutamine group (p=0.31; relative risk 0.86, 95% CI 0.65-1.14). There was no significant difference between the two groups in mortality rates at discharge from intensive care (75 [47%] deaths vs 75 [44%] deaths, p=0.69), at hospital discharge (84 [52%] vs 82 [49%], p=0.51), and by day 90 (84 [52%] vs 85 [50%], p=0.73), time to haemodynamic success (log-rank p=0.67), time to vasopressor withdrawal (log-rank p=0.09), and time course of SOFA score. Rates of serious adverse events were also similar. There is no evidence for a difference in efficacy and safety between epinephrine alone and norepinephrine plus dobutamine for the management of septic shock.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                b.levy@chru-nancy.fr
                c.fritz@chru-nancy.fr
                e.tahon@chru-nancy.fr
                a.jacquot@chru-nancy.fr
                t.auchet@chru-nancy.fr
                a.kimmoun@chru-nancy.fr
                Journal
                Crit Care
                Critical Care
                BioMed Central (London )
                1364-8535
                1466-609X
                27 February 2018
                27 February 2018
                2018
                : 22
                : 52
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1765 1301, GRID grid.410527.5, CHRU Nancy, Service de Réanimation Médicale Brabois, Pôle Cardiovasculaire et Réanimation Médicale, Hôpital Brabois, ; Vandoeuvre les Nancy, France
                [2 ]INSERM U 1116, Groupe Choc, Equipe 2, Faculté de Médecine, Vandoeuvre les Nancy, France
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2194 6418, GRID grid.29172.3f, Université de Lorraine, Faculté de Médecine, ; Nancy, France
                Article
                1967
                10.1186/s13054-018-1967-3
                6389278
                29486781
                0884e16c-c5a2-4a3f-b26d-6be29aefe14e
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 31 August 2017
                : 26 January 2018
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                vasoplegic syndrome,circulatory failure,catecholamines,septic shock,vasoconstrictor agents

                Comments

                Comment on this article