BACKGROUNDVasodilatory 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. METHODSWe randomly assigned patients with vasodilatory shock who were receiving more than 0.2 μg 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. RESULTSA 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 420T h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine S hock is a life-threatening syndrome characterized by decreased organ perfusion that can progress to irreversible organ failure. 1 Vasodilatory shock is the most common type of shock and is characterized by peripheral vasodilation and reduced blood pressure despite preserved cardiac output. 2 Vasodilatory shock requires immediate treatment to ensure organ perfusion through the reestablishment of adequate blood pressure while the underlying cause of shock is identified and treated. 3 Vasopressors are used when intravenous fluid resuscitation alone fails to restore blood pressure. Patients with severe vasodilation who have hypotension despite the use of high doses of vasopressors have a poor prognosis, with 30-day all-cause mortality exceeding 50%. 4,5 Currently, only two classes of vasopressors are available: catecholamines (and other sympathomimetic amines) and vasopressin. 3 Both classes have narrow therapeutic windows owing to substantial toxic effects at high doses. 6 However, when hypotension occurs, human physiology engages a third system, which is represented by hormones in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). 7 Previously, modified bovine angiotensin II was shown to elicit consis...

Rationale: Exogenous angiotensin II increases mean arterial pressure in patients with catecholamine-resistant vasodilatory shock (CRVS). We hypothesized that renin concentrations may identify patients most likely to benefit from such therapy. Objectives: To test the kinetic changes in renin concentrations and their prognostic value in patients with CRVS. Methods: We analyzed serum samples from patients enrolled in the ATHOS-3 (Angiotensin II for the Treatment of High-Output Shock) trial for renin, angiotensin I, and angiotensin II concentrations before the start of administration of angiotensin II or placebo and after 3 hours. Measurements and Main Results: Baseline serum renin concentration (normal range, 2.13–58.78 pg/ml) was above the upper limits of normal in 194 of 255 (76%) study patients with a median renin concentration of 172.7 pg/ml (interquartile range [IQR], 60.7 to 440.6 pg/ml), approximately threefold higher than the upper limit of normal. Renin concentrations correlated positively with angiotensin I/II ratios ( r = 0.39; P < 0.001). At 3 hours after initiation of angiotensin II therapy, there was a 54.3% reduction (IQR, 37.9% to 66.5% reduction) in renin concentration compared with a 14.1% reduction (IQR, 37.6% reduction to 5.1% increase) with placebo ( P < 0.0001). In patients with renin concentrations above the study population median, angiotensin II significantly reduced 28-day mortality to 28 of 55 (50.9%) patients compared with 51 of 73 patients (69.9%) treated with placebo (unstratified hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 0.88; P = 0.012) ( P = 0.048 for the interaction). Conclusions: The serum renin concentration is markedly elevated in CRVS and may identify patients for whom treatment with angiotensin II has a beneficial effect on clinical outcomes. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 02338843).

Background Early clinical data showed that some patients with vasodilatory shock are responsive to low doses of angiotensin II. The objective of this analysis was to compare clinical outcomes in patients requiring ≤ 5 ng kg −1 min −1 angiotensin II at 30 min (≤ 5 ng kg −1 min −1 subgroup) to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥ 75 mmHg versus patients receiving > 5 ng kg −1 min −1 angiotensin II at 30 min (> 5 ng kg −1 min −1 subgroup). Data from angiotensin II-treated patients enrolled in the ATHOS-3 trial were used. Results The subgroup of patients whose angiotensin II dose was down-titrated from 20 ng kg −1 min −1 at treatment initiation to ≤ 5 ng kg −1 min −1 at 30 min (79/163) had significantly lower endogenous serum angiotensin II levels and norepinephrine-equivalent doses and significantly higher MAP versus the > 5 ng kg −1 min −1 subgroup (84/163). Patients in the ≤ 5 ng kg −1 min −1 subgroup were more likely to have a MAP response at 3 h versus those in the > 5 ng kg −1 min −1 subgroup (90% vs. 51%, respectively; odds ratio, 8.46 [95% CI 3.63–19.7], P < 0.001). Day 28 survival was also higher in the ≤ 5 ng kg −1 min −1 subgroup versus the > 5 ng kg −1 min −1 subgroup (59% vs. 33%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI 0.28–0.72], P = 0.0007); multivariate analyses supported the survival benefit in patients with lower angiotensin II levels. The ≤ 5 ng kg −1 min −1 subgroup had a more favorable safety profile and lower treatment discontinuation rate than the > 5 ng kg −1 min −1 subgroup. Conclusions This prespecified analysis showed that down-titration to ≤ 5 ng kg −1 min −1 angiotensin II at 30 min is an early predictor of favorable clinical outcomes which may be related to relative angiotensin II insufficiency. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13613-019-0536-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The role of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy (V-V ECMO) in severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is still under debate and conclusive data from large cohorts are scarce. Furthermore, criteria for the selection of patients that benefit most from this highly invasive and resource-demanding therapy are yet to be defined. In this study, we assess survival in an international multicenter cohort of COVID-19 patients treated with V-V ECMO and evaluate the performance of several clinical scores to predict 30-day survival. Methods: This is an investigator-initiated retrospective non-interventional international multicenter registry study (NCT04405973, first registered 28 May 2020). In 127 patients treated with V-V ECMO at 15 centers in Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, and the United States, we calculated the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II), Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) Score, Respiratory Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Survival Prediction (RESP) Score, Predicting Death for Severe ARDS on V‑V ECMO (PRESERVE) Score, and 30-day survival. Results: In our study cohort which enrolled 127 patients, overall 30-day survival was 54%. Median SOFA, SAPS II, APACHE II, RESP, and PRESERVE were 9, 36, 17, 1, and 4, respectively. The prognostic accuracy for all these scores (area under the receiver operating characteristic—AUROC) ranged between 0.548 and 0.605. Conclusions: The use of scores for the prediction of mortality cannot be recommended for treatment decisions in severe COVID-19 ARDS undergoing V-V ECMO; nevertheless, scoring results below or above a specific cut-off value may be considered as an additional tool in the evaluation of prognosis. Survival rates in this cohort of COVID-19 patients treated with V‑V ECMO were slightly lower than those reported in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients treated with V-V ECMO.

No abstract