Despite the growing body of evidence evaluating the efficacy of vasoactive agents in the management of hemodynamic instability and circulatory shock, it appears no agent is superior. This is becoming increasingly accepted as current guidelines are moving away from detailed algorithms for the management of shock, and instead succinctly state that vasoactive agents should be individualized and guided by invasive hemodynamic monitoring. This extends to the perioperative period, where vasoactive agent selection and use may still be left to the discretion of the treating physician with a goal-directed approach, consisting of close hemodynamic monitoring and administration of the lowest effective dose to achieve the hemodynamic goals. Successful therapy depends on the ability to rapidly diagnose the etiology of circulatory shock and thoroughly understand its pathophysiology as well as the pharmacology of vasoactive agents. This review focuses on the physiology and resuscitation goals in perioperative shock, as well as the pharmacology and recent advances in vasoactive agent use in its management.

Patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) are at high risk for complications in the perioperative setting and often receive vasodilators to control elevated pulmonary artery pressure (PAP). Administration of vasodilators via inhalation is an effective strategy for reducing PAP while avoiding systemic side effects, chiefly hypotension. The prototypical inhaled pulmonary-specific vasodilator, nitric oxide (NO), has a proven track record but is expensive and cumbersome to implement. Alternatives to NO, including prostanoids (such as epoprostenol, iloprost, and treprostinil), NO-donating drugs (sodium nitroprusside, nitroglycerin, and nitrite), and phosphodiesterase inhibitors (milrinone, sildenafil) may be given via inhalation for the purpose of treating elevated PAP. This review will focus on the perioperative therapy of PH using inhaled vasodilators.

In lung transplants necessitating cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), aprotinin has been shown to decrease transfusion requirements. More recently, off-pump transplantation has become the standard of care. The efficacy of aprotinin use in this population has yet to be definitively examined. We completed a retrospective review of all adult OP-BOLTs performed between January 2000 and January 2006 at a single university center (n=215). Aprotinin use was determined by the attending anesthesiologist or surgeon. It was administered at the time of induction. The primary outcome was total blood products utilized in terms of units transfused during postoperative days 0, 1 and 2. One-hundred and one patients received aprotinin and 114 did not. An overall analysis of all of the patients in this study demonstrated a trend towards statistical significance for reduced total blood product transfusion for the aprotinin group compared to the non-aprotinin group (P=0.13). A subgroup analysis was performed in relation to each diagnosis. The use of aprotinin was associated with a significant reduction in peri-operative total blood products transfused in COPD patients (P=0.03) undergoing OP-BOLT. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the use of aprotinin in the COPD population did result in a statistically significant decrease in total blood products transfused, specifically the total number of units of packed red blood cells given. These findings suggest that aprotinin administration should be considered for all patients undergoing OP-BOLT to reduce exposure to blood products and potential immune sensitization and infectious complications.