The term ''adrenergic'' originates from ''adrenaline'' and describes hormones or drugs whose effects are similar to those of epinephrine. Adrenergic stress is mediated by stimulation of adrenergic receptors and activation of post-receptor pathways. Critical illness is a potent stimulus of the sympathetic nervous system. It is undisputable that the adrenergic-driven ''fight-flight response'' is a physiologically meaningful reaction allowing humans to survive during evolution. However, in critical illness an overshooting stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system may well exceed in time and scope its beneficial effects. Comparable to the overwhelming immune response during sepsis, adrenergic stress in critical illness may get out of control and cause adverse effects. Several organ systems may be affected. The heart seems to be most susceptible to sympathetic overstimulation. Detrimental effects include impaired diastolic function, tachycardia and tachyarrhythmia, myocardial ischemia, stunning, apoptosis and necrosis. Adverse catecholamine effects have been observed in other organs such as the lungs (pulmonary edema, elevated pulmonary arterial pressures), the coagulation (hypercoagulability, thrombus formation), gastrointestinal (hypoperfusion, inhibition of peristalsis), endocrinologic (decreased prolactin, thyroid and growth hormone secretion) and immune systems (immunomodulation, stimulation of bacterial growth), and metabolism (increase in cell energy expenditure, hyperglycemia, catabolism, lipolysis, hyperlactatemia, electrolyte changes), bone marrow (anemia), and skeletal muscles (apoptosis). Potential therapeutic options to reduce excessive adrenergic stress comprise temperature and heart rate control, adequate use of sedative/analgesic drugs, and aiming for reasonable cardiovascular targets, adequate fluid therapy, use of levosimendan, hydrocortisone or supplementary arginine vasopressin.

No abstract

Recent case-series of small size implied a pathophysiological association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe large-vessel acute ischemic stroke. Given that severe strokes are typically associated with poor prognosis and can be very efficiently treated with recanalization techniques, confirmation of this putative association is urgently warranted in a large representative patient cohort to alert stroke clinicians, and inform pre- and in-hospital acute stroke patient pathways. We pooled all consecutive patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and acute ischemic stroke in 28 sites from 16 countries. To assess whether stroke severity and outcomes (assessed at discharge or at the latest assessment for those patients still hospitalized) in patients with acute ischemic stroke are different between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19, we performed 1:1 propensity score matching analyses of our COVID-19 patients with non-COVID-19 patients registered in the Acute Stroke Registry and Analysis of Lausanne Registry between 2003 and 2019. Between January 27, 2020, and May 19, 2020, 174 patients (median age 71.2 years; 37.9% females) with COVID-19 and acute ischemic stroke were hospitalized (median of 12 patients per site). The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 4–18). In the 1:1 matched sample of 336 patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19, the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was higher in patients with COVID-19 (10 [IQR, 4–18] versus 6 [IQR, 3–14]), P =0.03; (odds ratio, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.08–2.65] for higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score). There were 48 (27.6%) deaths, of which 22 were attributed to COVID-19 and 26 to stroke. Among 96 survivors with available information about disability status, 49 (51%) had severe disability at discharge. In the propensity score-matched population (n=330), patients with COVID-19 had higher risk for severe disability (median mRS 4 [IQR, 2–6] versus 2 [IQR, 1–4], P <0.001) and death (odds ratio, 4.3 [95% CI, 2.22–8.30]) compared with patients without COVID-19. Our findings suggest that COVID-19 associated ischemic strokes are more severe with worse functional outcome and higher mortality than non-COVID-19 ischemic strokes.

IntroductionIt is unknown whether resources necessary to implement the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines and sepsis bundles are available in Africa. This self-reported, continent-wide survey compared the availability of these resources between African and high-income countries, and between two African regions (Sub-Sahara Africa vs. South Africa, Mauritius and the Northern African countries).MethodsThe study was conducted as an anonymous questionnaire-based, cross-sectional survey among anaesthesia providers attending a transcontinental congress. Based on the respondents' country of practice, returned questionnaires were grouped into African and high-income countries. The questionnaire contained 74 items and evaluated all material resources required to implement the most recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. Group comparisons were performed with the Chi2, Fisher's Exact or Mann Whitney U test, as appropriate.ResultsThe overall response rate was 74.3% (318/428). Three-hundred-seven questionnaires were analysed (African countries, n = 263; high-income countries, n = 44). Respondents from African hospitals were less likely to have an emergency room (85.5 vs. 97.7%, P = 0.03) or intensive care unit (73.8 vs. 100%, P < 0.001) than respondents from high-income countries. Drugs, equipment, and disposable materials required to implement the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines or sepsis bundles were less frequently available in African than high-income countries. Of all African and Sub-Saharan African countries, 1.5% (4/263) and 1.2% (3/248) of respondents had the resources available to implement the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines in entirety. The percentage of implementable recommendations was lower in African than in high-income countries (72.6 (57.7 to 87.7)% vs. 100 (100 to 100)%, P < 0.001) and lower in Sub-Saharan African countries than South Africa, Mauritius, and the Northern African countries (72.6 (56.2 to 86.3)% vs. 90.4 (71.2 to 94.5)%, P = 0.02).ConclusionsThe results of this self-reported survey strongly suggest that the most recent Surviving Sepsis guidelines cannot be implemented in Africa, particularly not in Sub-Saharan Africa, due to a shortage of required hospital facilities, equipment, drugs and disposable materials. However, availability of resources to implement the majority of strong Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendations and the sepsis bundles may allow modification of current sepsis guidelines based on available resources and implementation of a substantial number of life-saving interventions into sepsis care in Africa.

More studies on the current state of intensive care medicine in least developed countries are needed to provide reasonable aid to improve care of the most severely ill patients in the poorest countries of the world.