BackgroundVasopressors are commonly applied to restore and maintain blood pressure in patients with sepsis. We aimed to evaluate the current practice and therapeutic goals regarding vasopressor use in septic shock as a basis for future studies and to provide some recommendations on their use.MethodsFrom November 2016 to April 2017, an anonymous web-based survey on the use of vasoactive drugs was accessible to members of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). A total of 17 questions focused on the profile of respondents, triggering factors, first choice agent, dosing, timing, targets, additional treatments, and effects of vasopressors. We investigated whether the answers complied with current guidelines. In addition, a group of 34 international ESICM experts was asked to formulate recommendations for the use of vasopressors based on 6 questions with sub-questions (total 14).ResultsA total of 839 physicians from 82 countries (65% main specialty/activity intensive care) responded. The main trigger for vasopressor use was an insufficient mean arterial pressure (MAP) response to initial fluid resuscitation (83%). The first-line vasopressor was norepinephrine (97%), targeting predominantly a MAP > 60–65 mmHg (70%), with higher targets in patients with chronic arterial hypertension (79%). The experts agreed on 10 recommendations, 9 of which were based on unanimous or strong (≥ 80%) agreement. They recommended not to delay vasopressor treatment until fluid resuscitation is completed but rather to start with norepinephrine early to achieve a target MAP of ≥ 65 mmHg.ConclusionReported vasopressor use in septic shock is compliant with contemporary guidelines. Future studies should focus on individualized treatment targets including earlier use of vasopressors.

Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background Normal blood pressure varies among individuals and over the circadian cycle. Preinduction blood pressure may not be representative of a patient’s normal blood pressure profile and cannot give an indication of a patient’s usual range of blood pressures. This study therefore aimed to determine the relationship between ambulatory mean arterial pressure and preinduction, postinduction, and intraoperative mean arterial pressures. Methods Ambulatory (automated oscillometric measurements at 30-min intervals) and preinduction, postinduction, and intraoperative mean arterial pressures (1-min intervals) were prospectively measured and compared in 370 American Society of Anesthesiology physical status classification I or II patients aged 40 to 65 yr having elective noncardiac surgery with general anesthesia. Results There was only a weak correlation between the first preinduction and mean daytime mean arterial pressure (r = 0.429, P < 0.001). The difference between the first preinduction and mean daytime mean arterial pressure varied considerably among individuals. In about two thirds of the patients, the lowest postinduction and intraoperative mean arterial pressures were lower than the lowest nighttime mean arterial pressure. The difference between the lowest nighttime mean arterial pressure and a mean arterial pressure of 65 mmHg varied considerably among individuals. The lowest nighttime mean arterial pressure was higher than 65 mmHg in 263 patients (71%). Conclusions Preinduction mean arterial pressure cannot be used as a surrogate for the normal daytime mean arterial pressure. The lowest postinduction and intraoperative mean arterial pressures are lower than the lowest nighttime mean arterial pressure in most patients.

Background. Delirium following cardiac surgery is a relevant complication in the majority of elderly patients but its prediction is challenging. Cardiopulmonary bypass, essential for many interventions in cardiac surgery, is responsible for a severe inflammatory response leading to neuroinflammation and subsequent delirium. Neurofilament light protein (NfL) and tau protein (tau) are specific biomarkers to detect neuroaxonal injury as well as glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), a marker of astrocytic activation. Methods. We thought to examine the perioperative course of these markers in a case series of each three cardiac surgery patients under off-pump cardiac arterial bypass without evolving delirium (OPCAB-NDEL), patients with a procedure under cardio-pulmonary bypass (CPB) without delirium (CPB-NDEL) and delirium after a CPB procedure (CPB-DEL). Delirium was diagnosed by the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU and chart reviews. Results. We observed increased preoperative levels of tau in patients with later delirium, whereas values of NfL and GFAP did not differ. In the postoperative course, all biomarkers increased multi-fold. NfL levels sharply increased in patients with CPB reaching the highest levels in the CPB-DEL group. Conclusion. Tau and NfL might be of benefit to identify patients in cardiac surgery at risk for delirium and to detect patients with the postoperative emergence of delirium.