Caitlyn R Blankenship, Kevin D Betthauser, Laura N Hencken, Julie A Maamari, Jenna Goetz, Bria D Giacomino, Gabrielle A Gibson
{"title":"Clinical Response to Third-Line Angiotensin-II vs Epinephrine in Septic Shock: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.","authors":"Caitlyn R Blankenship, Kevin D Betthauser, Laura N Hencken, Julie A Maamari, Jenna Goetz, Bria D Giacomino, Gabrielle A Gibson","doi":"10.1177/10600280231226132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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 (<i>P</i> = 0.12). In-hospital mortality (65.2% vs 73.9%, <i>P</i> = 0.45), cardiac arrhythmias (26.1% vs 26.1%, <i>P</i> = 0.21), and thromboembolism (4.3% vs 2.2%, <i>P</i> = 0.61) were not observed to be statistically different between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10600280231226132","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.