Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Combining esmolol and nor epi in septic shock?

Recently published in JAMA:

Importance  β-Blocker therapy may control heart rate and attenuate the deleterious effects of β-adrenergic receptor stimulation in septic shock. However, β-Blockers are not traditionally used for this condition and may worsen cardiovascular decompensation related through negative inotropic and hypotensive effects...
Results  Targeted heart rates were achieved in all patients in the esmolol group compared with those in the control group. The median AUC for heart rate during the first 96 hours was −28/min (IQR, −37 to −21) for the esmolol group vs −6/min (95% CI, −14 to 0) for the control group with a mean reduction of 18/min (P less than .001). For stroke volume index, the median AUC for esmolol was 4 mL/m2 (IQR, −1 to 10) vs 1 mL/m2 for the control group (IQR, −3 to 5; P = .02), whereas the left ventricular stroke work index for esmolol was 3 mL/m2 (IQR, 0 to 8) vs 1 mL/m2 for the control group (IQR, −2 to 5; P = .03). For arterial lactatemia, median AUC for esmolol was −0.1 mmol/L (IQR, −0.6 to 0.2) vs 0.1 mmol/L for the control group (IQR, −0.3 for 0.6; P = .007); for norepinephrine, −0.11 μg/kg/min (IQR, −0.46 to 0.02) for the esmolol group vs −0.01 μg/kg/min (IQR, −0.2 to 0.44) for the control group (P = .003). Fluid requirements were reduced in the esmolol group: median AUC was 3975 mL/24 h (IQR, 3663 to 4200) vs 4425 mL/24 h(IQR, 4038 to 4775) for the control group (P less than .001). We found no clinically relevant differences between groups in other cardiopulmonary variables nor in rescue therapy requirements. Twenty-eight day mortality was 49.4% in the esmolol group vs 80.5% in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.59; P less than .001).
Conclusions and Relevance For patients in septic shock, open-label use of esmolol vs standard care was associated with reductions in heart rates to achieve target levels, without increased adverse events. The observed improvement in mortality and other secondary clinical outcomes warrants further investigation.

This is very promising but I'm not ready to try it at home, just yet. Yes, it does warrant further study.

More discussion at Medpage Today.

No comments: