Purpose: To support a paradigm shift in the management of septic shock from pressure-guided to perfusion-centered, expected to improve outcome while reducing adverse effects from vasopressor therapy and aggressive fluid resuscitation.
Material and methods: Critical review of the literature cited in support of vasopressor use to achieve a predefined mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mmHg and review of pertinent clinical trials and studies enabling deeper understanding of the hemodynamic pathophysiology supportive of a perfusion-centered approach, accompanied by an illustrative case.
Results: Review of the literature cited by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign revealed lack of controlled clinical trials supporting outcome benefits from vasopressors. Additional literature review revealed adverse effects associated with vasopressors and worsened outcome in some studies. Vasopressors increase MAP primarily by peripheral vasoconstriction and in occasions by a modest increase in cardiac output when using norepinephrine. Thus, achieving the recommended MAP of 65 mmHg using vasopressors should not be presumed indicative that organ perfusion has been restored. It may instead create a false sense of hemodynamic stability hampering shock resolution.
Conclusions: We propose focusing the hemodynamic management of septic shock on reversing organ hypoperfusion instead of attaining a predefined MAP target as the key strategy for improving outcome.
Keywords: Evidence evaluation; Fluid resuscitation; Microcirculation; Organ perfusion; Septic shock; Surviving sepsis campaign guidelines; Vasopressors.
Published by Elsevier Inc.