TY - JOUR
T1 - Esmolol to Treat the Hemodynamic Effects of Septic Shock
T2 - A Randomized Controlled Trial
AU - Cocchi, Michael N.
AU - Dargin, James
AU - Chase, Maureen
AU - Patel, Parth V.
AU - Grossestreuer, Anne
AU - Balaji, Lakshman
AU - Liu, Xiaowen
AU - Moskowitz, Ari
AU - Berg, Katherine
AU - Donnino, Michael W.
N1 - Funding Information:
This trial was funded by a Scientist Development Grant from the American Heart Association (15SDG22420010).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/4/1
Y1 - 2022/4/1
N2 - Introduction:Septic shock is often characterized by tachycardia and a hyperdynamic hemodynamic profile. Use of the beta antagonist esmolol has been proposed as a therapy to lower heart rate, thereby improving diastolic filling time and improving cardiac output, resulting in a reduction in vasopressor support.Methods:We conducted a two-center, open-label, randomized, Phase II trial comparing esmolol to placebo in septic shock patients with tachycardia. The primary endpoint was improvement in hemodynamics as measured by the difference in norepinephrine equivalent dose (NED) between groups at 6 hours after initiation of study drug. Secondary outcomes included assessing differences in inflammatory biomarkers and oxygen consumption (VO2).Results:A total of 1,122 patients were assessed for eligibility and met inclusion criteria; 42 underwent randomization, and 40 received study interventions (18 in the esmolol arm and 22 in the usual care arm). The mean NED at 6 h was 0.30 ± 0.17 mcg/kg/min in the esmolol arm compared to 0.21 ± 0.19 in the standard care arm (P = 0.15). There was no difference in number of shock free days between the esmolol (2, IQR 0, 5) and control groups (2.5, IQR 0, 6) (P = 0.32). There were lower levels of C-reactive protein at 12 and 24 h in the esmolol arm, as well as a statistically significant difference in trend over time between groups. There were no differences in terms of IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, and TNFα. Among a subset who underwent VO2monitoring, there was decreased oxygen consumption in the esmolol patients; the mean difference between groups at 24 h was -2.07 mL/kg/min (95% CI -3.82, -0.31) (P = 0.02), with a significant difference for the trend over time (P < 0.01).Conclusion:Among patients with septic shock, infusion of esmolol did not improve vasopressor requirements or time to shock reversal. Esmolol was associated with decreased levels of C-reactive protein over 24 h.Trial Registration:www.clinicaltrials.gov. Registered February 24, 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02369900.
AB - Introduction:Septic shock is often characterized by tachycardia and a hyperdynamic hemodynamic profile. Use of the beta antagonist esmolol has been proposed as a therapy to lower heart rate, thereby improving diastolic filling time and improving cardiac output, resulting in a reduction in vasopressor support.Methods:We conducted a two-center, open-label, randomized, Phase II trial comparing esmolol to placebo in septic shock patients with tachycardia. The primary endpoint was improvement in hemodynamics as measured by the difference in norepinephrine equivalent dose (NED) between groups at 6 hours after initiation of study drug. Secondary outcomes included assessing differences in inflammatory biomarkers and oxygen consumption (VO2).Results:A total of 1,122 patients were assessed for eligibility and met inclusion criteria; 42 underwent randomization, and 40 received study interventions (18 in the esmolol arm and 22 in the usual care arm). The mean NED at 6 h was 0.30 ± 0.17 mcg/kg/min in the esmolol arm compared to 0.21 ± 0.19 in the standard care arm (P = 0.15). There was no difference in number of shock free days between the esmolol (2, IQR 0, 5) and control groups (2.5, IQR 0, 6) (P = 0.32). There were lower levels of C-reactive protein at 12 and 24 h in the esmolol arm, as well as a statistically significant difference in trend over time between groups. There were no differences in terms of IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, and TNFα. Among a subset who underwent VO2monitoring, there was decreased oxygen consumption in the esmolol patients; the mean difference between groups at 24 h was -2.07 mL/kg/min (95% CI -3.82, -0.31) (P = 0.02), with a significant difference for the trend over time (P < 0.01).Conclusion:Among patients with septic shock, infusion of esmolol did not improve vasopressor requirements or time to shock reversal. Esmolol was associated with decreased levels of C-reactive protein over 24 h.Trial Registration:www.clinicaltrials.gov. Registered February 24, 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02369900.
KW - Esmolol
KW - septic shock
KW - tachycardia
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85126389950&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85126389950&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/SHK.0000000000001905
DO - 10.1097/SHK.0000000000001905
M3 - Article
C2 - 35066509
AN - SCOPUS:85126389950
SN - 1073-2322
VL - 57
SP - 508
EP - 517
JO - Shock
JF - Shock
IS - 4
ER -