4.7 Article

Survival After Shock Requiring High-Dose Vasopressor Therapy

Journal

CHEST
Volume 143, Issue 3, Pages 664-671

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1378/chest.12-1106

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. US National Institutes of Health/National Institute of General Medical Sciences [K23GM094465]
  2. Intermountain Research and Medical Foundation
  3. Easton Family Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Some patients with hypotensive shock do not respond to usual doses of vasopressor therapy. Very little is known about outcomes after high-dose vasopressor therapy (HDV). We sought to characterize survival among patients with shock requiring HDV. We also evaluated the possible utility of stress-dose corticosteroid therapy in these patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with shock requiring HDV in the ICUs of five hospitals from 2005 through 2010. We defined HDV as receipt at any point of >= 1 mu g/kg/min of norepinephrine equivalent (calculated by summing norepinephrine-equivalent infusion rates of all vasopressors). We report survival 90 days after hospital admission. We evaluated receipt of stress-dose corticosteroids, cause of shock, receipt of CPR, and withdrawal or withholding of life support therapy. Results: We identified 443 patients meeting inclusion criteria. Seventy-six (17%) survived. Survival was similar (20%) among the 241 patients with septic shock. Among the 367 nonsurvivors, 254 (69%) experienced withholding/withdrawal of care, and 115 (31%) underwent CPR. Stress-dose corticosteroid therapy was associated with increased survival (P=.01). Conclusions: One in six patients with shock survived to 90 days after HDV. The majority of nonsurvivors died after withdrawal or withholding of life support therapy. A minority of patients underwent CPR. Additionally, stress-dose corticosteroid therapy appears reasonable in patients with shock requiring HDV. CHEST 2013; 143(3):664-671

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available