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.

Relevant postmortem findings explaining death in surgical ICU patients who died because of sepsis/septic shock were a continuous septic focus in approximately 80% and cardiac pathologies in 50%. The most frequently affected organs were the lungs, abdomen, and urogenital tract. More diagnostic, therapeutic and scientific efforts should be launched to identify and control the infectious focus in patients with sepsis and septic shock.

Objective: To evaluate the association between arterial blood pressure (ABP) during the first 24 h and mortality in sepsis. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Multidisciplinary intensive care unit (ICU). Patients and participants: A total of 274 septic patients. Interventions: None. Measurements and results: Hemodynamic, and laboratory parameters were extracted from a PDMS database. The hourly time integral of ABP drops below clinically relevant systolic arterial pressure (SAP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and mean perfusion pressure (MPP = MAP -central venous pressure) levels was calculated for the first 24 h after ICU admission and compared with 28-day-mortality. Binary and linear regression models (adjusted for SAPS II as a measure of disease severity), and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were applied. The areas under the ROC curve were largest for the hourly time integrals of ABP drops below MAP 60 mmHg (0.779 vs. 0.764 for ABP drops below MAP 55 mmHg; P B 0.01) and MPP 45 mmHg. No association between the hourly time integrals of ABP drops below certain SAP levels and mortality was detected. One or more episodes of MAP \ 60 mmHg increased the risk of death by 2.96 (CI 95%, 1.06-10.36, P = 0.04). The area under the ROC curve to predict the need for renal replacement therapy was highest for the hourly time integral of ABP drops below MAP 75 mmHg. Conclusions: A MAP level C 60 mmHg may be as safe as higher MAP levels during the first 24 h of ICU therapy in septic patients. A higher MAP may be required to maintain kidney function.

In this retrospective analysis, the influence of a continuous infusion of an endogenous hormone (arginine vasopressin) on systemic hemodynamics and laboratory variables was assessed in patients with vasodilatory shock unresponsive to conventional therapy. Arginine vasopressin was effective in reversing systemic hypotension. However, adverse effects on gastrointestinal perfusion and coagulation cannot be excluded.

Supplementary AVP infusion improved cardiocirculatory function in advanced vasodilatory shock, but an increase in liver enzymes and bilirubin, and a decrease in platelet count occurred during AVP therapy, particularly during simultaneous hemofiltration. Initiation of AVP infusion before norepinephrine requirements exceeding 0.6 microg x kg x min may improve outcome.