Angiotensin II for the Treatment of Vasodilatory Shock

BACKGROUND Vasodilatory shock that does not respond to high-dose vasopressors is associated with high mortality. We investigated the effectiveness of angiotensin II for the treatment of patients with this condition. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with vasodilatory shock who were receiving more than 0.2 mu g of norepinephrine per kilogram of body weight per minute or the equivalent dose of another vasopressor to receive infusions of either angiotensin II or placebo. The primary end point was a response with respect to mean arterial pressure at hour 3 after the start of infusion, with response defined as an increase from baseline of at least 10 mm Hg or an increase to at least 75 mm Hg, without an increase in the dose of background vasopressors. RESULTS A total of 344 patients were assigned to one of the two regimens; 321 received a study intervention (163 received angiotensin II, and 158 received placebo) and were included in the analysis. The primary end point was reached by more patients in the angiotensin II group (114 of 163 patients, 69.9%) than in the placebo group (37 of 158 patients, 23.4%) (odds ratio, 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.76 to 13.3; P<0.001). At 48 hours, the mean improvement in the cardiovascular Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe dysfunction) was greater in the angiotensin II group than in the placebo group (-1.75 vs. -1.28, P = 0.01). Serious adverse events were reported in 60.7% of the patients in the angiotensin II group and in 67.1% in the placebo group. Death by day 28 occurred in 75 of 163 patients (46%) in the angiotensin II group and in 85 of 158 patients (54%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.07; P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS Angiotensin II effectively increased blood pressure in patients with vasodilatory shock that did not respond to high doses of conventional vasopressors. (Funded by La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company; ATHOS-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02338843.)Peer reviewe

Perioperative Management of Patients on Maintenance Medication for Addiction Treatment: The Development of an Institutional Guideline.

With a brief summary of selected literature identified by a multidisciplinary panel of subject matter experts, the authors share their experience with the development of an institutional perioperative pain management guideline for patients on maintenance medication for addiction treatment (MAT), stressing the importance of perioperative continuation of opioid agonists such as methadone and partial agonists such as buprenorphine; and the discontinuation of opioid antagonists, such as naltrexone. The authors\u27 protocol is appended as an example of a standardized approach to perioperative management of patients on MAT

Low-dose recombinant activated factor VII results in less blood and blood product use in traumatic hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to compare mortality and blood product use in patients who received recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) for traumatic hemorrhage to a matched historic control. METHODS: Trauma registry data of bleeding trauma patients who received rFVIIa (40 microg/kg, repeated once if needed) included 28-day mortality; pre- and post-rFVIIa international normalized ratio; and packed red blood cell (PRBC), fresh frozen plasma, platelet, and cryoprecipitate requirements. A control group was created of bleeding patients who did not receive rFVIIa by matching for Injury Severity Score and age. The chi2 and Student\u27s t tests were used to test for significance. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients, well matched to 72 control patients, made up the rFVIIa group. rFVIIa corrected international normalized ratio within 4 hours (from 4.4 to 1.2; p \u3c 0.0001). There was no difference in mortality (control, 40.3%; rFVIIa, 41.4%). The rFVIIa group required significantly fewer PRBC transfusions than the control group (18.3 +/- 7.5 vs. 22.0 +/- 9.7; p = 0.036). Compared with the control group, the rFVIIa group required fewer platelet transfusions (1.4 +/- 1.2 vs. 2.3 +/- 2.1; p = 0.01) and less cryoprecipitate (0.59 +/- 0.54 vs. 1.5 +/- 1.8; p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: rFVIIa resulted in significantly less PRBC, platelet, and cryoprecipitate use and equivalent mortality when compared with the matched control group, with no increase in complications