Jorge A. Guzman, MD

Physicians are paying more attention to serum lactate levels in hospitalized patients than in the past, especially with the advent of point-of-care testing. Elevated lactate levels are associated with tissue hypoxia and hypoperfusion but can also be found in a number of other conditions. Therefore, confusion can arise as to how to interpret elevated levels and subsequently manage these patients in a variety of settings.

In this review, we discuss the mechanisms underlying lactic acidosis, its prognostic implications, and its use as a therapeutic target in treating patients in septic shock and other serious disorders.

LACTATE IS A PRODUCT OF ANAEROBIC RESPIRATION

Lactate, or lactic acid, is produced from pyruvate as an end product of glycolysis under anaerobic conditions (Figure 1). It is produced in most tissues in the body, but primarily in skeletal muscle, brain, intestine, and red blood cells. During times of stress, lactate is also produced in the lungs, white blood cells, and splanchnic organs.

Most lactate in the blood is cleared by the liver, where it is the substrate for gluconeogenesis, and a small amount is cleared by the kidneys.^1,2 The entire pathway by which lactate is produced and converted back to glucose is called the Cori cycle.

NORMAL LEVELS ARE LESS THAN ABOUT 2.0 MMOL/L

In this review, we will present lactate levels in the SI units of mmol/L (1 mmol/L = 9 mg/dL).

Basal lactate production is approximately 0.8 mmol/kg body weight/hour. The average normal arterial blood lactate level is approximately 0.620 mmol/L and the venous level is slightly higher at 0.997 mmol/L,³ but overall, arterial and venous lactate levels correlate well.

Normal lactate levels are less than 2 mmol/L,⁴ intermediate levels range from 2 to less than 4 mmol/L, and high levels are 4 mmol/L or higher.⁵

To minimize variations in measurement, blood samples should be drawn without a tourniquet into tubes containing fluoride, placed on ice, and processed quickly (ideally within 15 minutes).

INCREASED PRODUCTION, DECREASED CLEARANCE, OR BOTH

An elevated lactate level can be the result of increased production, decreased clearance, or both (as in liver dysfunction).

Type A lactic acidosis—due to hypoperfusion and hypoxia—occurs when there is a mismatch between oxygen delivery and consumption, with resultant anaerobic glycolysis.

The guidelines from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign⁶ emphasize using lactate levels to diagnose patients with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion. However, hyperlactatemia can indicate inadequate oxygen delivery due to any type of shock (Table 1).

Type B lactic acidosis—not due to hypoperfusion—occurs in a variety of conditions (Table 1), including liver disease, malignancy, use of certain medications (eg, metformin, epinephrine), total parenteral nutrition, human immunodeficiency virus infection, thiamine deficiency, mitochondrial myopathies, and congenital lactic acidosis.^1–3,7 Yet other causes include trauma, excessive exercise, diabetic ketoacidosis, ethanol intoxication, dysfunction of the enzyme pyruvate dehydrogenase, and increased muscle degradation leading to increased production of pyruvate. In these latter scenarios, glucose metabolism exceeds the oxidation capacity of the mitochondria, and the rise in pyruvate concentration drives lactate production.^8,9 Mitochondrial dysfunction and subsequent deficits in cellular oxygen use can also result in persistently high lactate levels.¹⁰

In some situations, patients with mildly elevated lactic acid levels in type B lactic acidosis can be monitored to ensure stability, rather than be treated aggressively.

HIGHER LEVELS AND LOWER CLEARANCE PREDICT DEATH

The higher the lactate level and the slower the rate of normalization (lactate clearance), the higher the risk of death.

Lactate levels and mortality rate

Shapiro et al¹¹ showed that increases in lactate level are associated with proportional increases in the mortality rate. Mikkelsen et al¹² showed that intermediate levels (2.0–3.9 mmol/L) and high levels (≥ 4 mmol/L) of serum lactate are associated with increased risk of death independent of organ failure and shock. Patients with mildly elevated and intermediate lactate levels and sepsis have higher rates of in-hospital and 30-day mortality, which correlate with the baseline lactate level.¹³

In a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial, patients with septic shock who presented to the emergency department with hypotension and a lactate level higher than 2 mmol/L had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality rate than those who presented with hypotension and a lactate level of 2 mmol/L or less (26% vs 9%, P < .0001).¹⁴ These data suggest that elevated lactate levels may have a significant prognostic role, independent of blood pressure.

Slower clearance

The prognostic implications of lactate clearance (reductions in lactate levels over time, as opposed to a single value in time), have also been evaluated.

Lactate clearance of at least 10% at 6 hours after presentation has been associated with a lower mortality rate than nonclearance (19% vs 60%) in patients with sepsis or septic shock with elevated levels.^15–17 Similar findings have been reported in a general intensive care unit population,¹⁸ as well as a surgical intensive care population.sup>19

Puskarich et al²⁰ have also shown that lactate normalization to less than 2 mmol/L during early sepsis resuscitation is the strongest predictor of survival (odds ratio [OR] 5.2), followed by lactate clearance of 50% (OR 4.0) within the first 6 hours of presentation. Not only is lactate clearance associated with improved outcomes, but a faster rate of clearance after initial presentation is also beneficial.^15,16,18

Lactate clearance over a longer period (> 6 hours) has not been studied in patients with septic shock. However, in the general intensive care unit population, therapy guided by lactate clearance for the first 8 hours after presentation has shown a reduction in mortality rate.¹⁸ There are no data available on outcomes of lactate-directed therapy beyond 8 hours, but lactate concentration and lactate clearance at 24 hours correlate with the 28-day mortality rate.²¹

Cryptic shock

Cryptic shock describes a state in a subgroup of patients who have elevated lactate levels and global tissue hypoxia despite being normotensive or even hypertensive. These patients have a higher mortality rate independent of blood pressure. Jansen et al¹⁸ found that patients with a lactate level higher than 4 mmol/L and preserved blood pressure had a mortality rate of 15%, while those without shock or hyperlactatemia had a mortality rate of 2.5%. In addition, patients with an elevated lactate level in the absence of hypotension have mortality rates similar to those in patients with high lactate levels and hypotension refractory to fluid boluses, suggesting the presence of tissue hypoxia even in these normotensive patients.⁶

HOW TO APPROACH AN ELEVATED LACTATE LEVEL

An elevated lactate level should prompt an evaluation for causes of decreased oxygen delivery, due either to a systemic low-flow state (as a result of decreased cardiac output) or severe anemia, or to regionally decreased perfusion, (eg, limb or mesenteric ischemia). If tissue hypoxia is ruled out after an exhaustive workup, consideration should be given to causes of hyperlactatemia without concomitant tissue hypoxia (type B acidosis).

Treatment differs depending on the underlying mechanism of the lactate elevation; nevertheless, treatment is mostly related to optimizing oxygen delivery by giving fluids, packed red blood cells, and vasopressors or inotropic agents, or both (Figure 2). The specific treatment differs based on the shock state, but there are similarities that can guide the clinician.

FLUID SUPPORT

Giving fluids, with a goal of improving cardiac output, remains a cornerstone of initial therapy for most shock states.^22,23

How much fluid?

Fluids should be given until the patient is no longer preload-dependent, although there is much debate about which assessment strategy should be used to determine if cardiac output will improve with more fluid (ie, fluid-responsiveness).²⁴ In many cases, fluid resuscitation alone may be enough to restore hemodynamic stability, improve tissue perfusion, and reduce elevated lactate concentrations.²⁵

The decision to give more fluids should not be made lightly, though, as a more positive fluid balance early in the course of septic shock and over 4 days has been associated with a higher mortality rate.²⁶ Additionally, pushing fluids in patients with cardiogenic shock due to impaired left ventricular systolic function may lead to or worsen pulmonary edema. Therefore, the indiscriminate use of fluids should be avoided.

Which fluids?

Despite years of research, controversy persists about whether crystalloids or colloids are better for resuscitation. Randomized trials in heterogeneous intensive care unit patients have not detected differences in 28-day mortality rates between those allocated to crystalloids or 4% albumin²⁷ and those allocated to crystalloids or hydroxyethyl starch.²⁸

Hydroxyethyl starch may not be best. In a study of patients with severe sepsis, those randomized to receive hydroxyethyl starch had a higher 90-day mortality rate than patients randomized to crystalloids (51% vs 43%, P = .03).²⁹ A sequential prospective before-and-after study did not detect a difference in the time to normalization (< 2.2 mmol/L) of lactate (P = .68) or cessation of vasopressors (P = .11) in patients with severe sepsis who received fluid resuscitation with crystalloids, gelatin, or hydroxyethyl starch. More patients who received hydroxyethyl starch in these studies developed acute kidney injury than those receiving crystalloids.^28–30

Taken together, these data strongly suggest hydroxyethyl starch should not be used for fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit.

Normal saline or albumin? Although some data suggest that albumin may be preferable to 0.9% sodium chloride in patients with severe sepsis,^31,32 these analyses should be viewed as hypothesis-generating. There do not seem to be differences between fluid types in terms of subsequent serum lactate concentrations or achievement of lactate clearance goals.^28–30 Until further studies are completed, both albumin and crystalloids are reasonable for resuscitation.

Give fluids until the patient is no longer preload-dependent, but excessive fluids may be deleterious

Caironi et al³³ performed an open-label study comparing albumin replacement (with a goal serum albumin concentration of 3 g/dL) plus a crystalloid solution vs a crystalloid solution alone in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. They detected no difference between the albumin and crystalloid groups in mortality rates at 28 days (31.8% vs 32.0%, P = .94) or 90 days (41.1% vs 43.6%, P = .29). However, patients in the albumin group had a shorter time to cessation of vasoactive agents (median 3 vs 4 days, P = .007) and lower cardiovascular Sequential Organ Failure Assessment subscores (median 1.20 vs 1.42, P = .03), and more frequently achieved a mean arterial pressure of at least 65 mm Hg within 6 hours of randomization (86.0% vs 82.5%, P = .04).

Although serum lactate levels were lower in the albumin group at baseline (1.7 mmol/L vs 1.8 mmol/L, P = .05), inspection of the data appears to show a similar daily lactate clearance rate between groups over the first 7 study days (although these data were not analyzed by the authors). Achievement of a lactate level lower than 2 mmol/L on the first day of therapy was not significantly different between groups (73.4% vs 72.5%, P = .11).³³

In a post hoc subgroup analysis, patients with septic shock at baseline randomized to albumin had a lower 90-day mortality rate than patients randomized to crystalloid solutions (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77–0.99). There was no difference in the 90-day mortality rate in patients without septic shock (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.92–1.39, P = .03 for heterogeneity).³³

These data suggest that albumin replacement may not improve outcomes in patients with severe sepsis, but may have advantages in terms of hemodynamic variables (and potentially mortality) in patients with septic shock. The role of albumin replacement in patients with septic shock warrants further study.

VASOPRESSORS

Vasopressors, inotropes, or both should be given to patients who have signs of hypoperfusion (including elevated lactate levels) despite preload optimization or ongoing fluid administration. The most appropriate drug depends on the goal: vasopressors are used to increase systemic vascular resistance, while inotropes are used to improve cardiac output and oxygen delivery.

Blood pressure target

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend a mean arterial blood pressure target of at least 65 mm Hg during initial resuscitation and when vasopressors are applied for patients with septic shock.²² This recommendation is based on small studies that did not show differences in serum lactate levels or regional blood flow when the mean arterial pressure was elevated above 65 mm Hg with norepinephrine.^34,35 However, the campaign guidelines note that the mean arterial pressure goal must be individualized in order to achieve optimal perfusion.

A large, open-label trial³⁶ detected no difference in 28-day mortality rates in patients with septic shock between those allocated to a mean arterial pressure goal of 80 to 85 mm Hg or 65 to 70 mm Hg (36.6% vs 34.0%, P = .57). Although lactate levels did not differ between groups, the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation was higher in the higher-target group (6.7% vs 2.8%, P = .02). Fewer patients with chronic hypertension needed renal replacement therapy in the higher pressure group, further emphasizing the need to individualize the mean arterial pressure goal for patients in shock.³⁶

Which vasopressor agent?

Dopamine and norepinephrine have traditionally been the preferred initial vasopressors for patients with shock. Until recently there were few data to guide selection between the two, but this is changing.

In a 2010 study of 1,679 patients with shock requiring vasopressors, there was no difference in the 28-day mortality rate between patients randomized to dopamine or norepinephrine (53% vs 49%, P = .10).³⁷ Patients allocated to dopamine, though, had a higher incidence of arrhythmias (24% vs 12%, P < .001) and more frequently required open-label norepinephrine (26% vs 20%, P < .001). Although lactate levels and the time to achievement of a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg were similar between groups, patients allocated to norepinephrine had more vasopressor-free days through day 28.

Norepinephrine, not dopamine, should be the initial vasopressor in most types of shock

An a priori-planned subgroup analysis evaluated the influence of the type of shock on patient outcome. Patients with cardiogenic shock randomized to dopamine had a higher mortality rate than those randomized to norepinephrine (P = .03). However, the overall effect of treatment did not differ among the shock subgroups (interaction P = .87), suggesting that the reported differences in mortality according to subgroup may be spurious.

In a 2012 meta-analysis of patients with septic shock, dopamine use was associated with a higher mortality rate than norepinephrine use.³⁸

In light of these data, norepinephrine should be preferred over dopamine as the initial vasopressor in most types of shock.

Epinephrine does not offer an outcome advantage over norepinephrine and may be associated with a higher incidence of adverse events.^39–42 Indeed, in a study of patients with septic shock, lactate concentrations on the first day after randomization were significantly higher in patients allocated to epinephrine than in patients allocated to norepinephrine plus dobutamine.³⁹ Similar effects on lactate concentrations with epinephrine were seen in patients with various types of shock⁴⁰ and in those with cardiogenic shock.⁴²

These differences in lactate concentrations may be directly attributable to epinephrine. Epinephrine can increase lactate concentrations through glycolysis and pyruvate dehydrogenase activation by stimulation of sodium-potassium ATPase activity via beta-2 adrenergic receptors in skeletal muscles,⁴³ as well as decrease splanchnic perfusion.^42,44,45 These effects may preclude using lactate clearance as a resuscitation goal in patients receiving epinephrine. Epinephrine is likely best reserved for patients with refractory shock,²² particularly those in whom cardiac output is known to be low.

Phenylephrine, essentially a pure vasoconstrictor, should be avoided in low cardiac output states and is best reserved for patients who develop a tachyarrhythmia on norepinephrine.²²

Vasopressin, also a pure vasoconstrictor that should be avoided in low cardiac output states, has been best studied in patients with vasodilatory shock. Although controversy exists on the mortality benefits of vasopressin in vasodilatory shock, it is a relatively safe drug with consistent norepinephrine-sparing effects when added to existing norepinephrine therapy.^46,47 In patients with less severe septic shock, including those with low lactate concentrations, adding vasopressin to norepinephrine instead of continuing norepinephrine alone may confer a mortality advantage.⁴⁸

OTHER MEASURES TO OPTIMIZE OXYGEN DELIVERY

In circulatory shock from any cause, tissue oxygen demand exceeds oxygen delivery. Once arterial oxygenation and hemoglobin levels (by packed red blood cell transfusion) have been optimized, cardiac output is the critical determinant of oxygen delivery. Cardiac output may be augmented by ensuring adequate preload (by fluid resuscitation) or by giving inotropes or vasodilators.

The optimal cardiac output is difficult to define, and the exact marker for determining when cardiac output should be augmented is unclear. A strategy of increasing cardiac output to predefined “supranormal” levels was not associated with a lower mortality rate.⁴⁹ Therefore, the decision to augment cardiac output must be individualized and will likely vary in the same patient over time.²³

A reasonable approach to determining when augmentation of cardiac output is necessary was proposed in a study by Rivers et al.⁵⁰ In that study, in patients randomized to early goal-directed therapy, inotropes were recommended when the central venous oxygenation saturation (Scvo₂) was below 70% despite adequate fluid resuscitation (central venous pressure ≥ 8 mm Hg) and hematocrits were higher than 30%.

When an inotrope is indicated to improve cardiac output, dobutamine is usually the preferred agent. Dobutamine has a shorter half-life (allowing for easier titration) and causes less hypotension (assuming preload has been optimized) than phosphodiesterase type III inhibitors such as milrinone.

Mechanical support devices, such as intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation, and vasodilators can also be used to improve tissue perfusion in selected patients with low cardiac output syndromes.

USING LACTATE LEVELS TO GUIDE THERAPY

Lactate levels above 4.0 mmol/L

Lactate may be a useful marker for determining whether organ dysfunction is present and, hence, what course of therapy should be given, especially in sepsis. A serum lactate level higher than 4.0 mmol/L has been used as the trigger to start aggressive resuscitation in patients with sepsis.^50,51

Traditionally, as delineated by Rivers et al⁵⁰ in their landmark study of early goal-directed therapy, this entailed placing an arterial line and a central line for hemodynamic monitoring, with specific interventions directed at increasing the central venous pressure, mean arterial pressure, and central venous oxygen saturation.⁵⁰ However, a recent study in a similar population of patients with sepsis with elevated lactate found no significant advantage of protocol-based resuscitation over care provided according to physician judgment, and no significant benefit in central venous catheterization and hemodynamic monitoring in all patients.⁵¹

Lactate clearance: 10% or above at 8 hours?

Regardless of the approach chosen, decreasing lactate levels can be interpreted as an adequate response to the interventions provided. As a matter of fact, several groups of investigators have also demonstrated the merits of lactate clearance alone as a prognostic indicator in patients requiring hemodynamic support.

McNelis et al⁵² retrospectively evaluated 95 postsurgical patients who required hemodynamic monitoring.^52,53 The authors found that the slower the lactate clearance, the higher the mortality rate.

Serum lactate > 4.0 mmol/L has been used as the trigger to initiate aggressive resuscitation in patients with sepsis

Given the prognostic implications of lactate clearance, investigators have evaluated whether lactate clearance could be used as a surrogate resuscitation goal for optimizing oxygen delivery. Using lactate clearance may have significant practical advantages over using central venous oxygen saturation, since it does not require a central venous catheter or continuous oximetric monitoring.

In a study comparing these two resuscitation end points, patients were randomized to a goal of either central venous oxygen saturation of 70% or more or lactate clearance of 10% or more within the first 6 hours after presentation as a marker of oxygen delivery.⁵³ Mortality rates were similar with either strategy. Of note, only 10% of the patients actually required therapies to improve their oxygen delivery. Furthermore, there were no differences in the treatments given (including fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, packed red blood cells) throughout the treatment period.

These findings provide several insights. First, few patients admitted to the emergency department with severe sepsis and treated with an initial quantitative resuscitation protocol require additional therapy for augmenting oxygen delivery. Second, lactate clearance, in a setting where initial resuscitation with fluids and vasopressors restores adequate oxygen delivery for the majority of patients, is likely as good a target for resuscitation as central venous oxygen saturation.

This study, however, does not address the question of whether lactate clearance is useful as an additional marker of oxygen delivery (in conjunction with central venous oxygen saturation). Indeed, caution should be taken to target central venous oxygen saturation goals alone, as patients with septic shock presenting with venous hyperoxia (central venous oxygen saturation > 89%) have been shown to have a higher mortality rate than patients with normoxia (central venous oxygen saturation 71%–89%).⁵⁴

This was further demonstrated by Arnold et al in a study of patients presenting to the emergency department with severe sepsis.¹⁵ In this study, significant discordance between central venous oxygen saturation and lactate clearance was seen, where 79% of patients with less than 10% lactate clearance had concomitant central venous oxygen saturation of 70% or greater.

It seems reasonable to measure lactate every 2 hours for the first 8 hours of resuscitation in patients with type A lactic acidosis

Jansen et al¹⁸ evaluated the role of targeting lactate clearance in conjunction with central venous oxygen saturation monitoring. In this study, critically ill patients with elevated lactate and inadequate lactate clearance were randomized to usual care or to resuscitation to adequate lactate clearance (20% or more). The therapies to optimize oxygen delivery were given according to the central venous oxygen saturation. Overall, after adjustment for predefined risk factors, the in-hospital mortality rate was lower in the lactate clearance group. This may signify that patients with sepsis and central venous oxygen saturation of 70% or more may continue to have poor lactate clearance, warranting further treatment.

Taken together, serum lactate may be helpful for prognostication, determination of course of therapy, and quantification for tissue hypoperfusion for targeted therapies. Figure 2 presents our approach to an elevated lactate level. As performed in the study by Jansen et al,¹⁸ it seems reasonable to measure lactate levels every 2 hours for the first 8 hours of resuscitation in patients with type A lactic acidosis. These levels should be interpreted in the context of lactate clearance (at least 10%, but preferably 20%) and normalization, and should be treated with an approach similar to the one outlined in Figure 2.

TREATING TYPE B LACTIC ACIDOSIS (NORMAL PERFUSION AND OXYGENATION)

Treating type B lactic acidosis is quite different because the goal is not to correct mismatches in oxygen consumption and delivery. Since most cases are due to underlying conditions such as malignancy or medications, treatment should be centered around eliminating the cause (eg, treat the malignancy, discontinue the offending medication). The main reason for treatment is to alleviate the harmful effects of acidosis. For example, acidosis can result in a negative inotropic effect.

Sodium bicarbonate, dichloroacetate, carbicarb, and tromethamine have all been studied in the management of type B lactic acidosis, with little success.^55,56

Renal replacement therapy has had some success in drug-induced lactic acidosis.^57,58

l-carnitine has had promising results in treating patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection, since these patients are carnitine-deficient and carnitine plays an important role in mitochondrial function.⁵⁹

Thiamine and biotin deficiencies can occur in patients receiving total parenteral nutrition without vitamins and in patients who drink alcohol heavily and can cause lactic acidosis. These nutrients should be supplemented accordingly.

Treatment of mitochondrial disorders includes antioxidants (coenzyme Q10, vitamin C, vitamin E) and amino acids (l-arginine).⁶⁰

Physicians are paying more attention to serum lactate levels in hospitalized patients than in the past, especially with the advent of point-of-care testing. Elevated lactate levels are associated with tissue hypoxia and hypoperfusion but can also be found in a number of other conditions. Therefore, confusion can arise as to how to interpret elevated levels and subsequently manage these patients in a variety of settings.

In this review, we discuss the mechanisms underlying lactic acidosis, its prognostic implications, and its use as a therapeutic target in treating patients in septic shock and other serious disorders.

LACTATE IS A PRODUCT OF ANAEROBIC RESPIRATION

Lactate, or lactic acid, is produced from pyruvate as an end product of glycolysis under anaerobic conditions (Figure 1). It is produced in most tissues in the body, but primarily in skeletal muscle, brain, intestine, and red blood cells. During times of stress, lactate is also produced in the lungs, white blood cells, and splanchnic organs.

Most lactate in the blood is cleared by the liver, where it is the substrate for gluconeogenesis, and a small amount is cleared by the kidneys.^1,2 The entire pathway by which lactate is produced and converted back to glucose is called the Cori cycle.

NORMAL LEVELS ARE LESS THAN ABOUT 2.0 MMOL/L

In this review, we will present lactate levels in the SI units of mmol/L (1 mmol/L = 9 mg/dL).

Basal lactate production is approximately 0.8 mmol/kg body weight/hour. The average normal arterial blood lactate level is approximately 0.620 mmol/L and the venous level is slightly higher at 0.997 mmol/L,³ but overall, arterial and venous lactate levels correlate well.

Normal lactate levels are less than 2 mmol/L,⁴ intermediate levels range from 2 to less than 4 mmol/L, and high levels are 4 mmol/L or higher.⁵

To minimize variations in measurement, blood samples should be drawn without a tourniquet into tubes containing fluoride, placed on ice, and processed quickly (ideally within 15 minutes).

INCREASED PRODUCTION, DECREASED CLEARANCE, OR BOTH

An elevated lactate level can be the result of increased production, decreased clearance, or both (as in liver dysfunction).

Type A lactic acidosis—due to hypoperfusion and hypoxia—occurs when there is a mismatch between oxygen delivery and consumption, with resultant anaerobic glycolysis.

The guidelines from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign⁶ emphasize using lactate levels to diagnose patients with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion. However, hyperlactatemia can indicate inadequate oxygen delivery due to any type of shock (Table 1).

Type B lactic acidosis—not due to hypoperfusion—occurs in a variety of conditions (Table 1), including liver disease, malignancy, use of certain medications (eg, metformin, epinephrine), total parenteral nutrition, human immunodeficiency virus infection, thiamine deficiency, mitochondrial myopathies, and congenital lactic acidosis.^1–3,7 Yet other causes include trauma, excessive exercise, diabetic ketoacidosis, ethanol intoxication, dysfunction of the enzyme pyruvate dehydrogenase, and increased muscle degradation leading to increased production of pyruvate. In these latter scenarios, glucose metabolism exceeds the oxidation capacity of the mitochondria, and the rise in pyruvate concentration drives lactate production.^8,9 Mitochondrial dysfunction and subsequent deficits in cellular oxygen use can also result in persistently high lactate levels.¹⁰

In some situations, patients with mildly elevated lactic acid levels in type B lactic acidosis can be monitored to ensure stability, rather than be treated aggressively.

HIGHER LEVELS AND LOWER CLEARANCE PREDICT DEATH

The higher the lactate level and the slower the rate of normalization (lactate clearance), the higher the risk of death.

Lactate levels and mortality rate

Shapiro et al¹¹ showed that increases in lactate level are associated with proportional increases in the mortality rate. Mikkelsen et al¹² showed that intermediate levels (2.0–3.9 mmol/L) and high levels (≥ 4 mmol/L) of serum lactate are associated with increased risk of death independent of organ failure and shock. Patients with mildly elevated and intermediate lactate levels and sepsis have higher rates of in-hospital and 30-day mortality, which correlate with the baseline lactate level.¹³

In a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial, patients with septic shock who presented to the emergency department with hypotension and a lactate level higher than 2 mmol/L had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality rate than those who presented with hypotension and a lactate level of 2 mmol/L or less (26% vs 9%, P < .0001).¹⁴ These data suggest that elevated lactate levels may have a significant prognostic role, independent of blood pressure.

Slower clearance

The prognostic implications of lactate clearance (reductions in lactate levels over time, as opposed to a single value in time), have also been evaluated.

Lactate clearance of at least 10% at 6 hours after presentation has been associated with a lower mortality rate than nonclearance (19% vs 60%) in patients with sepsis or septic shock with elevated levels.^15–17 Similar findings have been reported in a general intensive care unit population,¹⁸ as well as a surgical intensive care population.sup>19

Puskarich et al²⁰ have also shown that lactate normalization to less than 2 mmol/L during early sepsis resuscitation is the strongest predictor of survival (odds ratio [OR] 5.2), followed by lactate clearance of 50% (OR 4.0) within the first 6 hours of presentation. Not only is lactate clearance associated with improved outcomes, but a faster rate of clearance after initial presentation is also beneficial.^15,16,18

Lactate clearance over a longer period (> 6 hours) has not been studied in patients with septic shock. However, in the general intensive care unit population, therapy guided by lactate clearance for the first 8 hours after presentation has shown a reduction in mortality rate.¹⁸ There are no data available on outcomes of lactate-directed therapy beyond 8 hours, but lactate concentration and lactate clearance at 24 hours correlate with the 28-day mortality rate.²¹

Cryptic shock

Cryptic shock describes a state in a subgroup of patients who have elevated lactate levels and global tissue hypoxia despite being normotensive or even hypertensive. These patients have a higher mortality rate independent of blood pressure. Jansen et al¹⁸ found that patients with a lactate level higher than 4 mmol/L and preserved blood pressure had a mortality rate of 15%, while those without shock or hyperlactatemia had a mortality rate of 2.5%. In addition, patients with an elevated lactate level in the absence of hypotension have mortality rates similar to those in patients with high lactate levels and hypotension refractory to fluid boluses, suggesting the presence of tissue hypoxia even in these normotensive patients.⁶

HOW TO APPROACH AN ELEVATED LACTATE LEVEL

An elevated lactate level should prompt an evaluation for causes of decreased oxygen delivery, due either to a systemic low-flow state (as a result of decreased cardiac output) or severe anemia, or to regionally decreased perfusion, (eg, limb or mesenteric ischemia). If tissue hypoxia is ruled out after an exhaustive workup, consideration should be given to causes of hyperlactatemia without concomitant tissue hypoxia (type B acidosis).

Treatment differs depending on the underlying mechanism of the lactate elevation; nevertheless, treatment is mostly related to optimizing oxygen delivery by giving fluids, packed red blood cells, and vasopressors or inotropic agents, or both (Figure 2). The specific treatment differs based on the shock state, but there are similarities that can guide the clinician.

FLUID SUPPORT

Giving fluids, with a goal of improving cardiac output, remains a cornerstone of initial therapy for most shock states.^22,23

How much fluid?

Fluids should be given until the patient is no longer preload-dependent, although there is much debate about which assessment strategy should be used to determine if cardiac output will improve with more fluid (ie, fluid-responsiveness).²⁴ In many cases, fluid resuscitation alone may be enough to restore hemodynamic stability, improve tissue perfusion, and reduce elevated lactate concentrations.²⁵

The decision to give more fluids should not be made lightly, though, as a more positive fluid balance early in the course of septic shock and over 4 days has been associated with a higher mortality rate.²⁶ Additionally, pushing fluids in patients with cardiogenic shock due to impaired left ventricular systolic function may lead to or worsen pulmonary edema. Therefore, the indiscriminate use of fluids should be avoided.

Which fluids?

Despite years of research, controversy persists about whether crystalloids or colloids are better for resuscitation. Randomized trials in heterogeneous intensive care unit patients have not detected differences in 28-day mortality rates between those allocated to crystalloids or 4% albumin²⁷ and those allocated to crystalloids or hydroxyethyl starch.²⁸

Hydroxyethyl starch may not be best. In a study of patients with severe sepsis, those randomized to receive hydroxyethyl starch had a higher 90-day mortality rate than patients randomized to crystalloids (51% vs 43%, P = .03).²⁹ A sequential prospective before-and-after study did not detect a difference in the time to normalization (< 2.2 mmol/L) of lactate (P = .68) or cessation of vasopressors (P = .11) in patients with severe sepsis who received fluid resuscitation with crystalloids, gelatin, or hydroxyethyl starch. More patients who received hydroxyethyl starch in these studies developed acute kidney injury than those receiving crystalloids.^28–30

Taken together, these data strongly suggest hydroxyethyl starch should not be used for fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit.

Normal saline or albumin? Although some data suggest that albumin may be preferable to 0.9% sodium chloride in patients with severe sepsis,^31,32 these analyses should be viewed as hypothesis-generating. There do not seem to be differences between fluid types in terms of subsequent serum lactate concentrations or achievement of lactate clearance goals.^28–30 Until further studies are completed, both albumin and crystalloids are reasonable for resuscitation.

Give fluids until the patient is no longer preload-dependent, but excessive fluids may be deleterious

Caironi et al³³ performed an open-label study comparing albumin replacement (with a goal serum albumin concentration of 3 g/dL) plus a crystalloid solution vs a crystalloid solution alone in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. They detected no difference between the albumin and crystalloid groups in mortality rates at 28 days (31.8% vs 32.0%, P = .94) or 90 days (41.1% vs 43.6%, P = .29). However, patients in the albumin group had a shorter time to cessation of vasoactive agents (median 3 vs 4 days, P = .007) and lower cardiovascular Sequential Organ Failure Assessment subscores (median 1.20 vs 1.42, P = .03), and more frequently achieved a mean arterial pressure of at least 65 mm Hg within 6 hours of randomization (86.0% vs 82.5%, P = .04).

Although serum lactate levels were lower in the albumin group at baseline (1.7 mmol/L vs 1.8 mmol/L, P = .05), inspection of the data appears to show a similar daily lactate clearance rate between groups over the first 7 study days (although these data were not analyzed by the authors). Achievement of a lactate level lower than 2 mmol/L on the first day of therapy was not significantly different between groups (73.4% vs 72.5%, P = .11).³³

In a post hoc subgroup analysis, patients with septic shock at baseline randomized to albumin had a lower 90-day mortality rate than patients randomized to crystalloid solutions (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77–0.99). There was no difference in the 90-day mortality rate in patients without septic shock (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.92–1.39, P = .03 for heterogeneity).³³

These data suggest that albumin replacement may not improve outcomes in patients with severe sepsis, but may have advantages in terms of hemodynamic variables (and potentially mortality) in patients with septic shock. The role of albumin replacement in patients with septic shock warrants further study.

VASOPRESSORS

Vasopressors, inotropes, or both should be given to patients who have signs of hypoperfusion (including elevated lactate levels) despite preload optimization or ongoing fluid administration. The most appropriate drug depends on the goal: vasopressors are used to increase systemic vascular resistance, while inotropes are used to improve cardiac output and oxygen delivery.

Blood pressure target

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend a mean arterial blood pressure target of at least 65 mm Hg during initial resuscitation and when vasopressors are applied for patients with septic shock.²² This recommendation is based on small studies that did not show differences in serum lactate levels or regional blood flow when the mean arterial pressure was elevated above 65 mm Hg with norepinephrine.^34,35 However, the campaign guidelines note that the mean arterial pressure goal must be individualized in order to achieve optimal perfusion.

A large, open-label trial³⁶ detected no difference in 28-day mortality rates in patients with septic shock between those allocated to a mean arterial pressure goal of 80 to 85 mm Hg or 65 to 70 mm Hg (36.6% vs 34.0%, P = .57). Although lactate levels did not differ between groups, the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation was higher in the higher-target group (6.7% vs 2.8%, P = .02). Fewer patients with chronic hypertension needed renal replacement therapy in the higher pressure group, further emphasizing the need to individualize the mean arterial pressure goal for patients in shock.³⁶

Which vasopressor agent?

Dopamine and norepinephrine have traditionally been the preferred initial vasopressors for patients with shock. Until recently there were few data to guide selection between the two, but this is changing.

In a 2010 study of 1,679 patients with shock requiring vasopressors, there was no difference in the 28-day mortality rate between patients randomized to dopamine or norepinephrine (53% vs 49%, P = .10).³⁷ Patients allocated to dopamine, though, had a higher incidence of arrhythmias (24% vs 12%, P < .001) and more frequently required open-label norepinephrine (26% vs 20%, P < .001). Although lactate levels and the time to achievement of a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg were similar between groups, patients allocated to norepinephrine had more vasopressor-free days through day 28.

Norepinephrine, not dopamine, should be the initial vasopressor in most types of shock

An a priori-planned subgroup analysis evaluated the influence of the type of shock on patient outcome. Patients with cardiogenic shock randomized to dopamine had a higher mortality rate than those randomized to norepinephrine (P = .03). However, the overall effect of treatment did not differ among the shock subgroups (interaction P = .87), suggesting that the reported differences in mortality according to subgroup may be spurious.

In a 2012 meta-analysis of patients with septic shock, dopamine use was associated with a higher mortality rate than norepinephrine use.³⁸

In light of these data, norepinephrine should be preferred over dopamine as the initial vasopressor in most types of shock.

Epinephrine does not offer an outcome advantage over norepinephrine and may be associated with a higher incidence of adverse events.^39–42 Indeed, in a study of patients with septic shock, lactate concentrations on the first day after randomization were significantly higher in patients allocated to epinephrine than in patients allocated to norepinephrine plus dobutamine.³⁹ Similar effects on lactate concentrations with epinephrine were seen in patients with various types of shock⁴⁰ and in those with cardiogenic shock.⁴²

These differences in lactate concentrations may be directly attributable to epinephrine. Epinephrine can increase lactate concentrations through glycolysis and pyruvate dehydrogenase activation by stimulation of sodium-potassium ATPase activity via beta-2 adrenergic receptors in skeletal muscles,⁴³ as well as decrease splanchnic perfusion.^42,44,45 These effects may preclude using lactate clearance as a resuscitation goal in patients receiving epinephrine. Epinephrine is likely best reserved for patients with refractory shock,²² particularly those in whom cardiac output is known to be low.

Phenylephrine, essentially a pure vasoconstrictor, should be avoided in low cardiac output states and is best reserved for patients who develop a tachyarrhythmia on norepinephrine.²²

Vasopressin, also a pure vasoconstrictor that should be avoided in low cardiac output states, has been best studied in patients with vasodilatory shock. Although controversy exists on the mortality benefits of vasopressin in vasodilatory shock, it is a relatively safe drug with consistent norepinephrine-sparing effects when added to existing norepinephrine therapy.^46,47 In patients with less severe septic shock, including those with low lactate concentrations, adding vasopressin to norepinephrine instead of continuing norepinephrine alone may confer a mortality advantage.⁴⁸

OTHER MEASURES TO OPTIMIZE OXYGEN DELIVERY

In circulatory shock from any cause, tissue oxygen demand exceeds oxygen delivery. Once arterial oxygenation and hemoglobin levels (by packed red blood cell transfusion) have been optimized, cardiac output is the critical determinant of oxygen delivery. Cardiac output may be augmented by ensuring adequate preload (by fluid resuscitation) or by giving inotropes or vasodilators.

The optimal cardiac output is difficult to define, and the exact marker for determining when cardiac output should be augmented is unclear. A strategy of increasing cardiac output to predefined “supranormal” levels was not associated with a lower mortality rate.⁴⁹ Therefore, the decision to augment cardiac output must be individualized and will likely vary in the same patient over time.²³

A reasonable approach to determining when augmentation of cardiac output is necessary was proposed in a study by Rivers et al.⁵⁰ In that study, in patients randomized to early goal-directed therapy, inotropes were recommended when the central venous oxygenation saturation (Scvo₂) was below 70% despite adequate fluid resuscitation (central venous pressure ≥ 8 mm Hg) and hematocrits were higher than 30%.

When an inotrope is indicated to improve cardiac output, dobutamine is usually the preferred agent. Dobutamine has a shorter half-life (allowing for easier titration) and causes less hypotension (assuming preload has been optimized) than phosphodiesterase type III inhibitors such as milrinone.

Mechanical support devices, such as intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation, and vasodilators can also be used to improve tissue perfusion in selected patients with low cardiac output syndromes.

USING LACTATE LEVELS TO GUIDE THERAPY

Lactate levels above 4.0 mmol/L

Lactate may be a useful marker for determining whether organ dysfunction is present and, hence, what course of therapy should be given, especially in sepsis. A serum lactate level higher than 4.0 mmol/L has been used as the trigger to start aggressive resuscitation in patients with sepsis.^50,51

Traditionally, as delineated by Rivers et al⁵⁰ in their landmark study of early goal-directed therapy, this entailed placing an arterial line and a central line for hemodynamic monitoring, with specific interventions directed at increasing the central venous pressure, mean arterial pressure, and central venous oxygen saturation.⁵⁰ However, a recent study in a similar population of patients with sepsis with elevated lactate found no significant advantage of protocol-based resuscitation over care provided according to physician judgment, and no significant benefit in central venous catheterization and hemodynamic monitoring in all patients.⁵¹

Lactate clearance: 10% or above at 8 hours?

Regardless of the approach chosen, decreasing lactate levels can be interpreted as an adequate response to the interventions provided. As a matter of fact, several groups of investigators have also demonstrated the merits of lactate clearance alone as a prognostic indicator in patients requiring hemodynamic support.

McNelis et al⁵² retrospectively evaluated 95 postsurgical patients who required hemodynamic monitoring.^52,53 The authors found that the slower the lactate clearance, the higher the mortality rate.

Serum lactate > 4.0 mmol/L has been used as the trigger to initiate aggressive resuscitation in patients with sepsis

Given the prognostic implications of lactate clearance, investigators have evaluated whether lactate clearance could be used as a surrogate resuscitation goal for optimizing oxygen delivery. Using lactate clearance may have significant practical advantages over using central venous oxygen saturation, since it does not require a central venous catheter or continuous oximetric monitoring.

In a study comparing these two resuscitation end points, patients were randomized to a goal of either central venous oxygen saturation of 70% or more or lactate clearance of 10% or more within the first 6 hours after presentation as a marker of oxygen delivery.⁵³ Mortality rates were similar with either strategy. Of note, only 10% of the patients actually required therapies to improve their oxygen delivery. Furthermore, there were no differences in the treatments given (including fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, packed red blood cells) throughout the treatment period.

These findings provide several insights. First, few patients admitted to the emergency department with severe sepsis and treated with an initial quantitative resuscitation protocol require additional therapy for augmenting oxygen delivery. Second, lactate clearance, in a setting where initial resuscitation with fluids and vasopressors restores adequate oxygen delivery for the majority of patients, is likely as good a target for resuscitation as central venous oxygen saturation.

This study, however, does not address the question of whether lactate clearance is useful as an additional marker of oxygen delivery (in conjunction with central venous oxygen saturation). Indeed, caution should be taken to target central venous oxygen saturation goals alone, as patients with septic shock presenting with venous hyperoxia (central venous oxygen saturation > 89%) have been shown to have a higher mortality rate than patients with normoxia (central venous oxygen saturation 71%–89%).⁵⁴

This was further demonstrated by Arnold et al in a study of patients presenting to the emergency department with severe sepsis.¹⁵ In this study, significant discordance between central venous oxygen saturation and lactate clearance was seen, where 79% of patients with less than 10% lactate clearance had concomitant central venous oxygen saturation of 70% or greater.

It seems reasonable to measure lactate every 2 hours for the first 8 hours of resuscitation in patients with type A lactic acidosis

Jansen et al¹⁸ evaluated the role of targeting lactate clearance in conjunction with central venous oxygen saturation monitoring. In this study, critically ill patients with elevated lactate and inadequate lactate clearance were randomized to usual care or to resuscitation to adequate lactate clearance (20% or more). The therapies to optimize oxygen delivery were given according to the central venous oxygen saturation. Overall, after adjustment for predefined risk factors, the in-hospital mortality rate was lower in the lactate clearance group. This may signify that patients with sepsis and central venous oxygen saturation of 70% or more may continue to have poor lactate clearance, warranting further treatment.

Taken together, serum lactate may be helpful for prognostication, determination of course of therapy, and quantification for tissue hypoperfusion for targeted therapies. Figure 2 presents our approach to an elevated lactate level. As performed in the study by Jansen et al,¹⁸ it seems reasonable to measure lactate levels every 2 hours for the first 8 hours of resuscitation in patients with type A lactic acidosis. These levels should be interpreted in the context of lactate clearance (at least 10%, but preferably 20%) and normalization, and should be treated with an approach similar to the one outlined in Figure 2.

TREATING TYPE B LACTIC ACIDOSIS (NORMAL PERFUSION AND OXYGENATION)

Treating type B lactic acidosis is quite different because the goal is not to correct mismatches in oxygen consumption and delivery. Since most cases are due to underlying conditions such as malignancy or medications, treatment should be centered around eliminating the cause (eg, treat the malignancy, discontinue the offending medication). The main reason for treatment is to alleviate the harmful effects of acidosis. For example, acidosis can result in a negative inotropic effect.

Sodium bicarbonate, dichloroacetate, carbicarb, and tromethamine have all been studied in the management of type B lactic acidosis, with little success.^55,56

Renal replacement therapy has had some success in drug-induced lactic acidosis.^57,58

l-carnitine has had promising results in treating patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection, since these patients are carnitine-deficient and carnitine plays an important role in mitochondrial function.⁵⁹

Thiamine and biotin deficiencies can occur in patients receiving total parenteral nutrition without vitamins and in patients who drink alcohol heavily and can cause lactic acidosis. These nutrients should be supplemented accordingly.

Treatment of mitochondrial disorders includes antioxidants (coenzyme Q10, vitamin C, vitamin E) and amino acids (l-arginine).⁶⁰

Physicians are paying more attention to serum lactate levels in hospitalized patients than in the past, especially with the advent of point-of-care testing. Elevated lactate levels are associated with tissue hypoxia and hypoperfusion but can also be found in a number of other conditions. Therefore, confusion can arise as to how to interpret elevated levels and subsequently manage these patients in a variety of settings.

In this review, we discuss the mechanisms underlying lactic acidosis, its prognostic implications, and its use as a therapeutic target in treating patients in septic shock and other serious disorders.

LACTATE IS A PRODUCT OF ANAEROBIC RESPIRATION

Lactate, or lactic acid, is produced from pyruvate as an end product of glycolysis under anaerobic conditions (Figure 1). It is produced in most tissues in the body, but primarily in skeletal muscle, brain, intestine, and red blood cells. During times of stress, lactate is also produced in the lungs, white blood cells, and splanchnic organs.

Most lactate in the blood is cleared by the liver, where it is the substrate for gluconeogenesis, and a small amount is cleared by the kidneys.^1,2 The entire pathway by which lactate is produced and converted back to glucose is called the Cori cycle.

NORMAL LEVELS ARE LESS THAN ABOUT 2.0 MMOL/L

In this review, we will present lactate levels in the SI units of mmol/L (1 mmol/L = 9 mg/dL).

Basal lactate production is approximately 0.8 mmol/kg body weight/hour. The average normal arterial blood lactate level is approximately 0.620 mmol/L and the venous level is slightly higher at 0.997 mmol/L,³ but overall, arterial and venous lactate levels correlate well.

Normal lactate levels are less than 2 mmol/L,⁴ intermediate levels range from 2 to less than 4 mmol/L, and high levels are 4 mmol/L or higher.⁵

To minimize variations in measurement, blood samples should be drawn without a tourniquet into tubes containing fluoride, placed on ice, and processed quickly (ideally within 15 minutes).

INCREASED PRODUCTION, DECREASED CLEARANCE, OR BOTH

An elevated lactate level can be the result of increased production, decreased clearance, or both (as in liver dysfunction).

Type A lactic acidosis—due to hypoperfusion and hypoxia—occurs when there is a mismatch between oxygen delivery and consumption, with resultant anaerobic glycolysis.

The guidelines from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign⁶ emphasize using lactate levels to diagnose patients with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion. However, hyperlactatemia can indicate inadequate oxygen delivery due to any type of shock (Table 1).

Type B lactic acidosis—not due to hypoperfusion—occurs in a variety of conditions (Table 1), including liver disease, malignancy, use of certain medications (eg, metformin, epinephrine), total parenteral nutrition, human immunodeficiency virus infection, thiamine deficiency, mitochondrial myopathies, and congenital lactic acidosis.^1–3,7 Yet other causes include trauma, excessive exercise, diabetic ketoacidosis, ethanol intoxication, dysfunction of the enzyme pyruvate dehydrogenase, and increased muscle degradation leading to increased production of pyruvate. In these latter scenarios, glucose metabolism exceeds the oxidation capacity of the mitochondria, and the rise in pyruvate concentration drives lactate production.^8,9 Mitochondrial dysfunction and subsequent deficits in cellular oxygen use can also result in persistently high lactate levels.¹⁰

In some situations, patients with mildly elevated lactic acid levels in type B lactic acidosis can be monitored to ensure stability, rather than be treated aggressively.

HIGHER LEVELS AND LOWER CLEARANCE PREDICT DEATH

The higher the lactate level and the slower the rate of normalization (lactate clearance), the higher the risk of death.

Lactate levels and mortality rate

Shapiro et al¹¹ showed that increases in lactate level are associated with proportional increases in the mortality rate. Mikkelsen et al¹² showed that intermediate levels (2.0–3.9 mmol/L) and high levels (≥ 4 mmol/L) of serum lactate are associated with increased risk of death independent of organ failure and shock. Patients with mildly elevated and intermediate lactate levels and sepsis have higher rates of in-hospital and 30-day mortality, which correlate with the baseline lactate level.¹³

In a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial, patients with septic shock who presented to the emergency department with hypotension and a lactate level higher than 2 mmol/L had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality rate than those who presented with hypotension and a lactate level of 2 mmol/L or less (26% vs 9%, P < .0001).¹⁴ These data suggest that elevated lactate levels may have a significant prognostic role, independent of blood pressure.

Slower clearance

The prognostic implications of lactate clearance (reductions in lactate levels over time, as opposed to a single value in time), have also been evaluated.

Lactate clearance of at least 10% at 6 hours after presentation has been associated with a lower mortality rate than nonclearance (19% vs 60%) in patients with sepsis or septic shock with elevated levels.^15–17 Similar findings have been reported in a general intensive care unit population,¹⁸ as well as a surgical intensive care population.sup>19

Puskarich et al²⁰ have also shown that lactate normalization to less than 2 mmol/L during early sepsis resuscitation is the strongest predictor of survival (odds ratio [OR] 5.2), followed by lactate clearance of 50% (OR 4.0) within the first 6 hours of presentation. Not only is lactate clearance associated with improved outcomes, but a faster rate of clearance after initial presentation is also beneficial.^15,16,18

Lactate clearance over a longer period (> 6 hours) has not been studied in patients with septic shock. However, in the general intensive care unit population, therapy guided by lactate clearance for the first 8 hours after presentation has shown a reduction in mortality rate.¹⁸ There are no data available on outcomes of lactate-directed therapy beyond 8 hours, but lactate concentration and lactate clearance at 24 hours correlate with the 28-day mortality rate.²¹

Cryptic shock

Cryptic shock describes a state in a subgroup of patients who have elevated lactate levels and global tissue hypoxia despite being normotensive or even hypertensive. These patients have a higher mortality rate independent of blood pressure. Jansen et al¹⁸ found that patients with a lactate level higher than 4 mmol/L and preserved blood pressure had a mortality rate of 15%, while those without shock or hyperlactatemia had a mortality rate of 2.5%. In addition, patients with an elevated lactate level in the absence of hypotension have mortality rates similar to those in patients with high lactate levels and hypotension refractory to fluid boluses, suggesting the presence of tissue hypoxia even in these normotensive patients.⁶

HOW TO APPROACH AN ELEVATED LACTATE LEVEL

An elevated lactate level should prompt an evaluation for causes of decreased oxygen delivery, due either to a systemic low-flow state (as a result of decreased cardiac output) or severe anemia, or to regionally decreased perfusion, (eg, limb or mesenteric ischemia). If tissue hypoxia is ruled out after an exhaustive workup, consideration should be given to causes of hyperlactatemia without concomitant tissue hypoxia (type B acidosis).

Treatment differs depending on the underlying mechanism of the lactate elevation; nevertheless, treatment is mostly related to optimizing oxygen delivery by giving fluids, packed red blood cells, and vasopressors or inotropic agents, or both (Figure 2). The specific treatment differs based on the shock state, but there are similarities that can guide the clinician.

FLUID SUPPORT

Giving fluids, with a goal of improving cardiac output, remains a cornerstone of initial therapy for most shock states.^22,23

How much fluid?

Fluids should be given until the patient is no longer preload-dependent, although there is much debate about which assessment strategy should be used to determine if cardiac output will improve with more fluid (ie, fluid-responsiveness).²⁴ In many cases, fluid resuscitation alone may be enough to restore hemodynamic stability, improve tissue perfusion, and reduce elevated lactate concentrations.²⁵

The decision to give more fluids should not be made lightly, though, as a more positive fluid balance early in the course of septic shock and over 4 days has been associated with a higher mortality rate.²⁶ Additionally, pushing fluids in patients with cardiogenic shock due to impaired left ventricular systolic function may lead to or worsen pulmonary edema. Therefore, the indiscriminate use of fluids should be avoided.

Which fluids?

Despite years of research, controversy persists about whether crystalloids or colloids are better for resuscitation. Randomized trials in heterogeneous intensive care unit patients have not detected differences in 28-day mortality rates between those allocated to crystalloids or 4% albumin²⁷ and those allocated to crystalloids or hydroxyethyl starch.²⁸

Hydroxyethyl starch may not be best. In a study of patients with severe sepsis, those randomized to receive hydroxyethyl starch had a higher 90-day mortality rate than patients randomized to crystalloids (51% vs 43%, P = .03).²⁹ A sequential prospective before-and-after study did not detect a difference in the time to normalization (< 2.2 mmol/L) of lactate (P = .68) or cessation of vasopressors (P = .11) in patients with severe sepsis who received fluid resuscitation with crystalloids, gelatin, or hydroxyethyl starch. More patients who received hydroxyethyl starch in these studies developed acute kidney injury than those receiving crystalloids.^28–30

Taken together, these data strongly suggest hydroxyethyl starch should not be used for fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit.

Normal saline or albumin? Although some data suggest that albumin may be preferable to 0.9% sodium chloride in patients with severe sepsis,^31,32 these analyses should be viewed as hypothesis-generating. There do not seem to be differences between fluid types in terms of subsequent serum lactate concentrations or achievement of lactate clearance goals.^28–30 Until further studies are completed, both albumin and crystalloids are reasonable for resuscitation.

Give fluids until the patient is no longer preload-dependent, but excessive fluids may be deleterious

Caironi et al³³ performed an open-label study comparing albumin replacement (with a goal serum albumin concentration of 3 g/dL) plus a crystalloid solution vs a crystalloid solution alone in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. They detected no difference between the albumin and crystalloid groups in mortality rates at 28 days (31.8% vs 32.0%, P = .94) or 90 days (41.1% vs 43.6%, P = .29). However, patients in the albumin group had a shorter time to cessation of vasoactive agents (median 3 vs 4 days, P = .007) and lower cardiovascular Sequential Organ Failure Assessment subscores (median 1.20 vs 1.42, P = .03), and more frequently achieved a mean arterial pressure of at least 65 mm Hg within 6 hours of randomization (86.0% vs 82.5%, P = .04).

Although serum lactate levels were lower in the albumin group at baseline (1.7 mmol/L vs 1.8 mmol/L, P = .05), inspection of the data appears to show a similar daily lactate clearance rate between groups over the first 7 study days (although these data were not analyzed by the authors). Achievement of a lactate level lower than 2 mmol/L on the first day of therapy was not significantly different between groups (73.4% vs 72.5%, P = .11).³³

In a post hoc subgroup analysis, patients with septic shock at baseline randomized to albumin had a lower 90-day mortality rate than patients randomized to crystalloid solutions (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77–0.99). There was no difference in the 90-day mortality rate in patients without septic shock (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.92–1.39, P = .03 for heterogeneity).³³

These data suggest that albumin replacement may not improve outcomes in patients with severe sepsis, but may have advantages in terms of hemodynamic variables (and potentially mortality) in patients with septic shock. The role of albumin replacement in patients with septic shock warrants further study.

VASOPRESSORS

Vasopressors, inotropes, or both should be given to patients who have signs of hypoperfusion (including elevated lactate levels) despite preload optimization or ongoing fluid administration. The most appropriate drug depends on the goal: vasopressors are used to increase systemic vascular resistance, while inotropes are used to improve cardiac output and oxygen delivery.

Blood pressure target

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend a mean arterial blood pressure target of at least 65 mm Hg during initial resuscitation and when vasopressors are applied for patients with septic shock.²² This recommendation is based on small studies that did not show differences in serum lactate levels or regional blood flow when the mean arterial pressure was elevated above 65 mm Hg with norepinephrine.^34,35 However, the campaign guidelines note that the mean arterial pressure goal must be individualized in order to achieve optimal perfusion.

A large, open-label trial³⁶ detected no difference in 28-day mortality rates in patients with septic shock between those allocated to a mean arterial pressure goal of 80 to 85 mm Hg or 65 to 70 mm Hg (36.6% vs 34.0%, P = .57). Although lactate levels did not differ between groups, the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation was higher in the higher-target group (6.7% vs 2.8%, P = .02). Fewer patients with chronic hypertension needed renal replacement therapy in the higher pressure group, further emphasizing the need to individualize the mean arterial pressure goal for patients in shock.³⁶

Which vasopressor agent?

Dopamine and norepinephrine have traditionally been the preferred initial vasopressors for patients with shock. Until recently there were few data to guide selection between the two, but this is changing.

In a 2010 study of 1,679 patients with shock requiring vasopressors, there was no difference in the 28-day mortality rate between patients randomized to dopamine or norepinephrine (53% vs 49%, P = .10).³⁷ Patients allocated to dopamine, though, had a higher incidence of arrhythmias (24% vs 12%, P < .001) and more frequently required open-label norepinephrine (26% vs 20%, P < .001). Although lactate levels and the time to achievement of a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg were similar between groups, patients allocated to norepinephrine had more vasopressor-free days through day 28.

Norepinephrine, not dopamine, should be the initial vasopressor in most types of shock

An a priori-planned subgroup analysis evaluated the influence of the type of shock on patient outcome. Patients with cardiogenic shock randomized to dopamine had a higher mortality rate than those randomized to norepinephrine (P = .03). However, the overall effect of treatment did not differ among the shock subgroups (interaction P = .87), suggesting that the reported differences in mortality according to subgroup may be spurious.

In a 2012 meta-analysis of patients with septic shock, dopamine use was associated with a higher mortality rate than norepinephrine use.³⁸

In light of these data, norepinephrine should be preferred over dopamine as the initial vasopressor in most types of shock.

Epinephrine does not offer an outcome advantage over norepinephrine and may be associated with a higher incidence of adverse events.^39–42 Indeed, in a study of patients with septic shock, lactate concentrations on the first day after randomization were significantly higher in patients allocated to epinephrine than in patients allocated to norepinephrine plus dobutamine.³⁹ Similar effects on lactate concentrations with epinephrine were seen in patients with various types of shock⁴⁰ and in those with cardiogenic shock.⁴²

These differences in lactate concentrations may be directly attributable to epinephrine. Epinephrine can increase lactate concentrations through glycolysis and pyruvate dehydrogenase activation by stimulation of sodium-potassium ATPase activity via beta-2 adrenergic receptors in skeletal muscles,⁴³ as well as decrease splanchnic perfusion.^42,44,45 These effects may preclude using lactate clearance as a resuscitation goal in patients receiving epinephrine. Epinephrine is likely best reserved for patients with refractory shock,²² particularly those in whom cardiac output is known to be low.

Phenylephrine, essentially a pure vasoconstrictor, should be avoided in low cardiac output states and is best reserved for patients who develop a tachyarrhythmia on norepinephrine.²²

Vasopressin, also a pure vasoconstrictor that should be avoided in low cardiac output states, has been best studied in patients with vasodilatory shock. Although controversy exists on the mortality benefits of vasopressin in vasodilatory shock, it is a relatively safe drug with consistent norepinephrine-sparing effects when added to existing norepinephrine therapy.^46,47 In patients with less severe septic shock, including those with low lactate concentrations, adding vasopressin to norepinephrine instead of continuing norepinephrine alone may confer a mortality advantage.⁴⁸

OTHER MEASURES TO OPTIMIZE OXYGEN DELIVERY

In circulatory shock from any cause, tissue oxygen demand exceeds oxygen delivery. Once arterial oxygenation and hemoglobin levels (by packed red blood cell transfusion) have been optimized, cardiac output is the critical determinant of oxygen delivery. Cardiac output may be augmented by ensuring adequate preload (by fluid resuscitation) or by giving inotropes or vasodilators.

The optimal cardiac output is difficult to define, and the exact marker for determining when cardiac output should be augmented is unclear. A strategy of increasing cardiac output to predefined “supranormal” levels was not associated with a lower mortality rate.⁴⁹ Therefore, the decision to augment cardiac output must be individualized and will likely vary in the same patient over time.²³

A reasonable approach to determining when augmentation of cardiac output is necessary was proposed in a study by Rivers et al.⁵⁰ In that study, in patients randomized to early goal-directed therapy, inotropes were recommended when the central venous oxygenation saturation (Scvo₂) was below 70% despite adequate fluid resuscitation (central venous pressure ≥ 8 mm Hg) and hematocrits were higher than 30%.

When an inotrope is indicated to improve cardiac output, dobutamine is usually the preferred agent. Dobutamine has a shorter half-life (allowing for easier titration) and causes less hypotension (assuming preload has been optimized) than phosphodiesterase type III inhibitors such as milrinone.

Mechanical support devices, such as intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation, and vasodilators can also be used to improve tissue perfusion in selected patients with low cardiac output syndromes.

USING LACTATE LEVELS TO GUIDE THERAPY

Lactate levels above 4.0 mmol/L

Lactate may be a useful marker for determining whether organ dysfunction is present and, hence, what course of therapy should be given, especially in sepsis. A serum lactate level higher than 4.0 mmol/L has been used as the trigger to start aggressive resuscitation in patients with sepsis.^50,51

Traditionally, as delineated by Rivers et al⁵⁰ in their landmark study of early goal-directed therapy, this entailed placing an arterial line and a central line for hemodynamic monitoring, with specific interventions directed at increasing the central venous pressure, mean arterial pressure, and central venous oxygen saturation.⁵⁰ However, a recent study in a similar population of patients with sepsis with elevated lactate found no significant advantage of protocol-based resuscitation over care provided according to physician judgment, and no significant benefit in central venous catheterization and hemodynamic monitoring in all patients.⁵¹

Lactate clearance: 10% or above at 8 hours?

Regardless of the approach chosen, decreasing lactate levels can be interpreted as an adequate response to the interventions provided. As a matter of fact, several groups of investigators have also demonstrated the merits of lactate clearance alone as a prognostic indicator in patients requiring hemodynamic support.

McNelis et al⁵² retrospectively evaluated 95 postsurgical patients who required hemodynamic monitoring.^52,53 The authors found that the slower the lactate clearance, the higher the mortality rate.

Serum lactate > 4.0 mmol/L has been used as the trigger to initiate aggressive resuscitation in patients with sepsis

Given the prognostic implications of lactate clearance, investigators have evaluated whether lactate clearance could be used as a surrogate resuscitation goal for optimizing oxygen delivery. Using lactate clearance may have significant practical advantages over using central venous oxygen saturation, since it does not require a central venous catheter or continuous oximetric monitoring.

In a study comparing these two resuscitation end points, patients were randomized to a goal of either central venous oxygen saturation of 70% or more or lactate clearance of 10% or more within the first 6 hours after presentation as a marker of oxygen delivery.⁵³ Mortality rates were similar with either strategy. Of note, only 10% of the patients actually required therapies to improve their oxygen delivery. Furthermore, there were no differences in the treatments given (including fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, packed red blood cells) throughout the treatment period.

These findings provide several insights. First, few patients admitted to the emergency department with severe sepsis and treated with an initial quantitative resuscitation protocol require additional therapy for augmenting oxygen delivery. Second, lactate clearance, in a setting where initial resuscitation with fluids and vasopressors restores adequate oxygen delivery for the majority of patients, is likely as good a target for resuscitation as central venous oxygen saturation.

This study, however, does not address the question of whether lactate clearance is useful as an additional marker of oxygen delivery (in conjunction with central venous oxygen saturation). Indeed, caution should be taken to target central venous oxygen saturation goals alone, as patients with septic shock presenting with venous hyperoxia (central venous oxygen saturation > 89%) have been shown to have a higher mortality rate than patients with normoxia (central venous oxygen saturation 71%–89%).⁵⁴

This was further demonstrated by Arnold et al in a study of patients presenting to the emergency department with severe sepsis.¹⁵ In this study, significant discordance between central venous oxygen saturation and lactate clearance was seen, where 79% of patients with less than 10% lactate clearance had concomitant central venous oxygen saturation of 70% or greater.

It seems reasonable to measure lactate every 2 hours for the first 8 hours of resuscitation in patients with type A lactic acidosis

Jansen et al¹⁸ evaluated the role of targeting lactate clearance in conjunction with central venous oxygen saturation monitoring. In this study, critically ill patients with elevated lactate and inadequate lactate clearance were randomized to usual care or to resuscitation to adequate lactate clearance (20% or more). The therapies to optimize oxygen delivery were given according to the central venous oxygen saturation. Overall, after adjustment for predefined risk factors, the in-hospital mortality rate was lower in the lactate clearance group. This may signify that patients with sepsis and central venous oxygen saturation of 70% or more may continue to have poor lactate clearance, warranting further treatment.

Taken together, serum lactate may be helpful for prognostication, determination of course of therapy, and quantification for tissue hypoperfusion for targeted therapies. Figure 2 presents our approach to an elevated lactate level. As performed in the study by Jansen et al,¹⁸ it seems reasonable to measure lactate levels every 2 hours for the first 8 hours of resuscitation in patients with type A lactic acidosis. These levels should be interpreted in the context of lactate clearance (at least 10%, but preferably 20%) and normalization, and should be treated with an approach similar to the one outlined in Figure 2.

TREATING TYPE B LACTIC ACIDOSIS (NORMAL PERFUSION AND OXYGENATION)

Treating type B lactic acidosis is quite different because the goal is not to correct mismatches in oxygen consumption and delivery. Since most cases are due to underlying conditions such as malignancy or medications, treatment should be centered around eliminating the cause (eg, treat the malignancy, discontinue the offending medication). The main reason for treatment is to alleviate the harmful effects of acidosis. For example, acidosis can result in a negative inotropic effect.

Sodium bicarbonate, dichloroacetate, carbicarb, and tromethamine have all been studied in the management of type B lactic acidosis, with little success.^55,56

Renal replacement therapy has had some success in drug-induced lactic acidosis.^57,58

l-carnitine has had promising results in treating patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection, since these patients are carnitine-deficient and carnitine plays an important role in mitochondrial function.⁵⁹

Thiamine and biotin deficiencies can occur in patients receiving total parenteral nutrition without vitamins and in patients who drink alcohol heavily and can cause lactic acidosis. These nutrients should be supplemented accordingly.

Treatment of mitochondrial disorders includes antioxidants (coenzyme Q10, vitamin C, vitamin E) and amino acids (l-arginine).⁶⁰

Considerably fewer patients who develop sepsis are dying of it now, thanks to a number of studies of how to reverse sepsis-induced tissue hypoxia.¹ The greatest strides in improving outcomes have been attributed to better early management, which includes prompt recognition of sepsis, rapid initiation of antimicrobial therapy, elimination of the source of infection, and early goal-directed therapy. Thus, even though the incidence of severe sepsis and septic shock is increasing,^2,3 the Surviving Sepsis Campaign has documented a significant decrease in unadjusted mortality rates (37% to 30.8%) associated with the bundled approach in the management of sepsis.⁴ (We will talk about this later in the article.)

This review will summarize the evidence for the early management of septic shock and will evaluate the various treatment decisions beyond the initial phases of resuscitation.

INFLAMMATION AND VASODILATION

Sepsis syndrome starts with an infection that leads to a proinflammatory state with a complex interaction between anti-inflammatory and proinflammatory mediators, enhanced coagulation, and impaired fibrinolysis.^5,6

Sepsis induces vasodilation by way of inappropriate activation of vasodilatory mechanisms (increased synthesis of nitric oxide and vasopressin deficiency) and failure of vasoconstrictor mechanisms (activation of ATP-sensitive potassium channels in vascular smooth muscle).⁷ Thus, the hemodynamic abnormalities are multifactorial, and the resultant tissue hypoperfusion further contributes to the proinflammatory and procoagulant state, precipitating multiorgan dysfunction and, often, death.

DEFINITIONS

• Sepsis—infection together with systemic manifestation of inflammatory response
• Severe sepsis—sepsis plus induced organ dysfunction or evidence of tissue hypoperfusion
• Septic shock—sepsis-induced hypotension persisting despite adequate fluid resuscitation.

EARLY MANAGEMENT OF SEPTIC SHOCK

Early in the course of septic shock, the physician’s job is to:

• Recognize it promptly
• Begin empiric antibiotic therapy quickly
• Eliminate the source of infection, if applicable, eg, by removing an infected central venous catheter
• Give fluid resuscitation, titrated to specific goals
• Give vasopressor therapy to maintain blood pressure, organ perfusion, and oxygen delivery (Table 1).

The line between “early” and “late” is not clear. Traditionally, it has been drawn at 6 hours from presentation, and this cutoff was used in some of the studies we will discuss here.

Recognizing severe sepsis early in its course

The diagnosis of severe sepsis may be challenging, since up to 40% of patients may present with cryptic shock. These patients may not be hemodynamically compromised but may show evidence of tissue hypoxia, eg, an elevated serum lactate concentration or a low central venous oxygen saturation (Scvo₂), or both.⁸ In view of this, much effort has gone into finding a biomarker that, in addition to clinical features, can help identify patients in an early stage of sepsis.

Procalcitonin levels rise in response to severe bacterial infection,⁹ and they correlate with sepsis-related organ failure scores and outcomes.^10,11 Thus, the serum procalcitonin level may help in assessing the severity of sepsis, especially when combined with standard clinical and laboratory variables. However, controversy exists about the threshold to use in making decisions about antibiotic therapy and the value of this test in differentiating severe noninfectious inflammatory reactions from infectious causes of shock.¹² Therefore, it is not widely used in clinical practice.

Serum lactate has been used for decades as a marker of tissue hypoperfusion. It is typically elevated in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, and although the hyperlactatemia could be a result of global hypoperfusion, it can also be secondary to sepsis-induced mitochondrial dysfunction,¹³ impaired pyruvate dehydrogenase activity,¹⁴ increased aerobic glycolysis by catecholamine-stimulated sodium-potassium pump hyperactivity,¹⁵ and even impaired clearance.¹⁶

But whatever the mechanism, elevated lactate in severe sepsis and septic shock predicts a poor outcome and may help guide aggressive resuscitation. In fact, early lactate clearance (ie, normalization of an elevated value on repeat testing within the first 6 hours) is associated with better outcomes in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.^17,18

Panels of biomarkers. A literature search revealed over 3,000 papers on 178 different biomarkers in sepsis.¹⁹ Many of these biomarkers lack sufficient specificity and sensitivity for clinical use, and thus some investigators have suggested using a panel of them to enhance their predictive ability. Shapiro et al²⁰ evaluated 971 patients admitted to the emergency department with suspected infection and discovered that a panel of three biomarkers (neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, protein C, and interleukin-1 receptor antagonist) was highly predictive of severe sepsis, septic shock, and death.

As soon as severe sepsis and septic shock are recognized, it is imperative that adequate empiric antibiotic treatment be started, along with infectious source control if applicable.²¹ The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend starting intravenous antibiotics as early as possible—within the first hour of recognition of severe sepsis with or without septic shock.²²

Kumar et al,²³ in a multicenter retrospective study of patients with septic shock, found that each hour of delay in giving appropriate antimicrobial agents in the first 6 hours from the onset of hypotension was associated with a 7.6% decrease in the in-hospital survival rate.

In a similar study,²⁴ the same investigators analyzed data from 5,715 septic shock patients regarding the impact of starting the right antimicrobial therapy. Appropriate antimicrobial agents (ie, those having in vitro activity against the isolated pathogens) were given in 80.1% of cases, and the survival rate in those who received appropriate antibiotics was drastically higher than in those who received inappropriate ones (52.0% vs 10.3%, P < .0001).

In addition, two recent studies evaluated the importance of early empiric antibiotic therapy in conjunction with resuscitative protocols.^25,26 In a preplanned analysis of early antimicrobial use in a study comparing lactate clearance and Scvo₂ as goals of therapy, Puskarich et al²⁶ found that fewer patients who received antibiotics before shock was recognized (according to formal criteria) died. Similarly, in a retrospective study in patients presenting to the emergency department and treated with early goal-directed therapy (defined below), Gaieski et al²⁵ found that the mortality rate was drastically lower when antibiotics were started within 1 hour of either triage or initiation of early goal-directed therapy.

In short, it is imperative to promptly start the most appropriate broad-spectrum antibiotics to target the most likely pathogens based on site of infection, patient risk of multidrug-resistant pathogens, and local susceptibility patterns.

Goal-directed resuscitative therapy

As with antimicrobial therapy, resuscitative therapy should be started early and directed at defined goals.

Rivers et al²⁷ conducted a randomized, controlled study in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock presenting to an emergency department of an urban teaching hospital. The patients were at high risk and had either persistent hypotension after a fluid challenge or serum lactate levels of 4 mmol/L or higher.

Two hundred sixty patients were randomized to receive either early goal-directed therapy in a protocol aimed at maximizing the intravascular volume and correcting global tissue hypoxia or standard therapy in the first 6 hours after presentation. The goals in the goal-directed therapy group were:

• Central venous pressure 8 to 12 mm Hg (achieved with aggressive fluid resuscitation with crystalloids)
• Mean arterial blood pressure greater than 65 mm Hg (maintained with vasoactive drugs, if necessary)
• Scvo₂ above 70%. To achieve this third goal, packed red blood cells were infused to reach a target hematocrit of greater than 30%. For patients with a hematocrit higher than 30% but still with an Scvo₂ less than 70%, inotropic agents were added and titrated to the Scvo₂ goal of 70%.

Goal-directed therapy reduced the in-hospital mortality rate by 16% (the mortality rates were 30.5% in the goal-directed group and 46.5% in the standard therapy group, P = .009) and also reduced the 28- and 60-day mortality rates by similar proportions.²⁷

Subsequent studies of a protocol for early recognition and treatment of sepsis have concluded that early aggressive fluid resuscitation decreases the ensuing need for vasopressor support.²⁸ A resuscitation strategy based on early goal-directed therapy is a major component of the initial resuscitation bundle recommended by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign.²² (A “bundle” refers to the implementation of a core set of recommendations involving the simultaneous adaptation of a number of interventions.)

Areas of debate. However, concerns have been raised about the design of the study by Rivers et al and the mortality rate in the control group, which was higher than one would expect from the patients’ Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scores.²⁹ In particular, the bundled approach they used precludes the ability to differentiate which interventions were responsible for the outcome benefits. Indeed, there were two major interventions in the early goal-directed therapy group: a protocol for achieving the goals described and the use of Scvo₂ as a goal.

Aggressive fluid resuscitation is considered the most critical aspect of all the major interventions, and there is little argument on its value. The debate centers on central venous pressure as a preload marker, since after the publication of the early goal-directed therapy trial,²⁷ several studies showed that central venous pressure may not be a valid measure to predict fluid responsiveness (discussed later in this paper).^30,31

The choice of colloids or crystalloids for fluid resuscitation is another area of debate. Clinical evidence suggests that albumin is equivalent to normal saline in a heterogeneous intensive care unit population,³² but subgroup analyses suggest albumin may be superior in patients with septic shock.³³ Studies are ongoing (NCT00707122, NCT01337934, and NCT00318942). The use of hydroxyethyl starch in severe sepsis is associated with higher rates of acute renal failure and need for renal replacement therapy than Ringer’s lactate,³⁴ and is generally not recommended. This is further substantiated by two recent randomized controlled studies, which found that the use of hydroxyethyl starch for fluid resuscitation in severe sepsis, compared with crystalloids, did not reduce the mortality rate (and even increased it in one study), and was associated with more need for renal replacement therapy.^35,36

The use of Scvo₂ is yet another topic of debate, and other monitoring variables have been evaluated. A recent study assessed the noninferiority of incorporating venous lactate clearance into the early goal-directed therapy protocol vs Scvo₂.³⁷ Both groups had identical goals for central venous pressure and mean arterial pressure but differed in the use of lactate clearance (defined as at least a 10% decline) or Scvo₂ (> 70%) as the goal for improving tissue hypoxia. There were no significant differences between groups in their in-hospital mortality rates (17% in the lactate clearance group vs 23% in the Scvo₂ group; criteria for noninferiority met). This suggests that lactate may be an alternative to Scvo₂ as a goal in early goal-directed therapy. However, a secondary analysis of the data revealed a lack of concordance in achieving lactate clearance and Scvo₂ goals, which suggests that these parameters may be measuring distinct physiologic processes.³⁸ Since the hemodynamic profiles of septic shock patients are complex, it may be prudent to use both of these markers of resuscitation until further studies are completed.

Given the debate, a number of prospective randomized trials are under way to evaluate resuscitative interventions. These include the Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock trial (NCT00510835), the Australasian Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation trial (NCT00975793), and the Protocolised Management of Sepsis (ProMISe) trial in the United Kingdom (ISRCTN 36307479). These three trials will evaluate, collectively, close to 4,000 patients and will provide considerable insights into resuscitative interventions in septic shock.

If fluid therapy does not restore perfusion, vasopressors should be promptly initiated, as the longer that hypotension goes on, the lower the survival rate.³⁹

But which vasopressor should be used? The early goal-directed therapy protocol used in the study by Rivers et al²⁷ did not specify which vasopressor should be used to keep the mean arterial pressure above 65 mm Hg.

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign²² recommends norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor, with dopamine as an alternative only in selected patients, such as those with absolute or relative bradycardia.

The guidelines also recommend epinephrine to be added to or substituted for norepinephrine when an additional catecholamine is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure.²² Furthermore, vasopressin at a dose of 0.03 units/min can be added to norepinephrine with the intent of raising the blood pressure or decreasing the norepinephrine requirement. Higher doses of vasopressin should be reserved for salvage therapy.

Regarding phenylephrine, the guidelines recommend against its use except when norepinephrine use is associated with significant tachyarrhythmias, cardiac output is known to be higher, or as a salvage therapy.²²

This is a topic of debate, with recent clinical studies offering further insight.

De Backer et al⁴⁰ compared the effects of dopamine vs norepinephrine for the treatment of shock in 1,679 patients, 62% of whom had septic shock. Overall, there was a trend towards better outcomes with norepinephrine, but no significant difference in mortality rates at 28 days (52.5% with dopamine vs 48.5% with norepinephrine, P = .10). Importantly, fewer patients who were randomized to norepinephrine developed arrhythmias (12.4% vs 24.1%, P < .001), and the norepinephrine group required fewer days of study drug (11.0 vs 12.5, P = .01) and open-label vasopressors (12.6 vs 14.2, P = .007). Of note, patients with cardiogenic shock randomized to norepinephrine had a significantly lower mortality rate than those randomized to dopamine. Although no significant difference in outcome was found between the two vasopressors in the subgroup of patients with septic shock, the overall improvements in secondary surrogate markers suggest that norepinephrine should be the first-line agent.

Norepinephrine has also been compared with “secondary” vasopressors. Annane et al,⁴¹ in a prospective multicenter randomized controlled study, evaluated the effect of norepinephrine plus dobutamine vs epinephrine alone in managing septic shock. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome measure of 28-day mortality (34% with norepinephrine plus dobutamine vs 40% with epinephrine alone, P = .31). However, the study was powered to evaluate for an absolute risk reduction of 20% in the mortality rate, which would be a big reduction. A smaller reduction in the mortality rate, which would not have been statistically significant in this study, might still be considered clinically significant. Furthermore, the group randomized to norepinephrine plus dobutamine had more vasopressor-free days (20 days vs 22 days, P = .05) and less acidosis on days 1 to 4 than the group randomized to epinephrine.

Norepinephrine was also compared with phenylephrine as a first-line vasopressor in a randomized controlled trial in 32 patients with septic shock. No difference was found in cardiopulmonary performance, global oxygen transport, or regional hemodynamics between phenylephrine and norepinephrine.⁴²

While encouraging, these preliminary data need to be verified in a larger randomized controlled trial with concrete outcome measures before being clinically adapted. Taken together, the above studies suggest that norepinephrine should be the initial vasopressor of choice for patients with septic shock.

CONTINUED MANAGEMENT OF SEPTIC SHOCK

How to manage septic shock after the initial stages is much less defined.

Uncertainty persists about the importance of achieving the early goals of resuscitation in patients who did not reach them in the initial 6 hours of treatment. Although there are data suggesting that extending the goals beyond the initial 6 hours may be beneficial, clinicians should use caution when interpreting these results in light of the observational design of the studies.^43,44 For the purpose of this discussion, “continued management” of septic shock will mean after the first 6 hours and after all the early goals are met.

The clinical decisions necessary after the initial stages of resuscitation include:

• Whether further fluid resuscitation is needed
• Assessment for further and additional hemodynamic therapies
• Consideration of adjunctive therapies
• Reevaluation of antibiotic choices (Table 2).

Is more fluid needed? How can we tell?

There is considerable debate about the ideal method for assessing fluid responsiveness. In fact, one of the criticisms of the early goal-directed therapy study²⁷ was that it used central venous pressure as a marker of fluid responsiveness.

Several studies have shown that central venous pressure or pulmonary artery occlusion pressure may not be valid measures of fluid responsiveness.⁴⁵ In fact, in a retrospective study of 150 volume challenges, the area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve of central venous pressure as a marker of fluid responsiveness was only 0.58. (Recall that the closer the area under the curve is to 1.0, the better the test; a value of 0.50 is the same as chance.) The area under the curve for pulmonary artery occlusion pressure was 0.63.⁴⁶

In contrast, several dynamic indices have been proposed to better guide fluid resuscitation in mechanically ventilated patients.³¹ These are based on changes in stroke volume, aortic blood flow, or arterial pulse pressure in response to the ventilator cycle or passive leg-raising. A detailed review of these markers can be found elsewhere,³¹ but taken together, they have a sensitivity and specificity of over 90% for predicting fluid responsiveness. Clinicians may consider using dynamic markers of fluid responsiveness to determine when to give additional fluids, particularly after the first 6 hours of shock, in which data supporting the use of central venous pressure are lacking.

Optimal use of fluids is particularly important, since some studies suggest that “overresuscitation” has negative consequences. In a multicenter observational study of 1,177 patients with sepsis, after adjusting for a number of comorbidities and baseline severity of illness, the cumulative fluid balance in the first 72 hours after the onset of sepsis was independently associated with a worse mortality rate.⁴⁷

Furthermore, in a retrospective analysis of a randomized controlled trial of vasopressin in conjunction with norepinephrine for septic shock, patients in the highest quartile of fluid balance (more fluid in than out) at 12 hours and 4 days after presentation had significantly higher mortality rates than those in the lowest two quartiles.⁴⁸ The worse outcome with a positive fluid balance might be explained by worsening oxygenation and prolonged mechanical ventilation, as demonstrated by the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial in patients with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS).⁴⁹ Indeed, when fluid balance in patients with septic shockinduced ALI/ARDS was evaluated, patients with both adequate initial fluid resuscitation and conservative late fluid management had a lower mortality rate than those with either one alone.⁵⁰

In view of these findings, especially beyond the initial hours of resuscitation, clinicians should remember that further unnecessary fluid administration may have detrimental effects. Therefore, given the superior predictive abilities of dynamic markers of fluid responsiveness, these should be used to determine the need for further fluid boluses.

In cases in which patients are no longer fluid-responsive and need increasing levels of hemodynamic support, clinicians still have a number of options. These include increasing the current vasopressor dose or starting an additional therapy such as an alternative catecholamine vasopressor, vasopressin, inotropic therapy, or an adjunctive therapy such as a corticosteroid. The intervention could also be a combination of the above choices.

The optimal time point or vasopressor dose at which to consider initiating additional therapies is unknown. However, the Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial (VASST) provides some insight.⁵¹

This study compared two strategies: escalating doses of norepinephrine vs adding vasopressin to norepinephrine. Overall, adding vasopressin showed no benefit in terms of a lower mortality rate. However, in the subgroup of patients with norepinephrine requirements of 5 to 14 μg/min at study enrollment (ie, a low dose, reflecting less-severe sepsis) vasopressin was associated with a lower 28-day mortality rate (26.5% vs 35.7%, P = .05) and 90-day mortality rate (35.8% vs 46.1%, P = .04). Benefit was also noted in patients with other markers of lower disease severity such as low lactate levels or having received a single vasopressor at baseline.⁵¹

Although subgroup analyses should not generally be used to guide treatment decisions, a prospective trial may never be done to evaluate adding vasopressin to catecholamines earlier vs later. Thus, clinicians who choose to use vasopressin may consider starting this therapy when catecholamine doses are relatively low or before profound hyperlactatemia from prolonged tissue hypoxia has developed.

There is less evidence to guide clinicians who are considering adding a different catecholamine. The theoretical concerns of splanchnic ischemia and cardiac arrhythmia associated with higher doses of catecholamines are usually the impetus to limit a single catecholamine to a “maximum” dose. However, studies that have evaluated combination catecholamine therapies have generally studied combinations of vasopressors with inotropes and lacked standardization in their protocols, thus making them difficult to interpret.^52–54 One could also argue that additional catecholamine therapies, which all function similarly, may have additive effects and cause even more adverse effects. As such, adding another vasopressor should be reserved for patients experiencing noticeable adverse effects (such as tachycardia) on first-line therapy.

Inotropic support

Left ventricular function should be assessed in all patients who continue to be hypotensive despite adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. In a study of patients with septic shock in whom echocardiography was performed daily for the first 3 days of hemodynamic support, new-onset left ventricular hypokinesia was found in 26 (39%) of 67 patients on presentation and in an additional 14 patients (21%) after at least 24 hours of norepinephrine.⁵⁵ Adding inotropic support with dobutamine or epinephrine led to decreases in vasopressor dose and enhanced left ventricular ejection fraction.

In short, left ventricular hypokinesia is common in septic shock, may occur at presentation or after a period of vasopressor support, and is usually correctable with the addition of inotropic support.

Corticosteroids

Beyond hemodynamic support with fluids and catecholamines or vasopressin (or both), clinicians should also consider adjunctive corticosteroid therapy. However, for many years the issue has been controversial for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.

Annane et al⁵⁶ conducted a large, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled trial to assess the effect of low doses of corticosteroids in patients with refractory septic shock. Overall, the 28-day mortality rate was 61% in the treatment group and 55% in the placebo group, which was not statistically significant (adjusted odds ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.39–1.07, P value .09). However, when separated by response to cosyntropin stimulation, those with a change in cortisol of 9 ug/dL or less (nonresponders) randomized to receive corticosteroids had significantly higher survival rates in the short term (28 days) and the long term (1 year). The positive results of this study led to the adoption of low-dose hydrocortisone as standard practice in most patients with septic shock.⁵⁷

But then, to evaluate the effects of corticosteroids in a broader intensive-care population with septic shock, another trial was designed: the Corticosteroid Therapy of Septic Shock (CORTICUS) trial.⁵⁸ Surprisingly, this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial found no significant difference in survival between the group that received hydrocortisone and the placebo group, regardless of response to a cosyntropin stimulation test.

Taking into account the above studies and other randomized controlled trials, the 2012 Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines and the International Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Corticosteroid Insufficiency in Critically Ill Adult Patients recommend intravenous hydrocortisone therapy in adults with septic shock whose blood pressure responds poorly to fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. These consensus statements do not recommend the cosyntropin stimulation test to identify patients with septic shock who should receive corticosteroids.^22,59 The guidelines, however, do not explicitly define poor response to initial therapy.

Of note, in the Annane study, which found a lower mortality rate with corticosteroids, the patients were severely ill, with a mean baseline norepinephrine dose of 1.1 μg/kg/min. In contrast, in the CORTICUS study (which found no benefit of hydrocortisone), patients had lower baseline vasopressor doses, with a mean norepinephrine dose of 0.5 μg/kg/min.

While corticosteroids are associated with a higher rate of shock reversal 7 days after initiation, ⁵⁹ this has not translated into a consistent reduction in the death rate. If a clinician is considering adding corticosteroids to decrease the risk of death, it would seem prudent to add this therapy in patients receiving norepinephrine in doses above 0.5 μg/kg/min.

The ideal sequence and combination of the above therapies including fluids, catecholamine vasopressors, vasopressin, inotropes, and vasopressors have not been elucidated. However, some preliminary evidence suggests an advantage with the combination of vasopressin and corticosteroids. In a subgroup analysis of the VASST study, in patients who received corticosteroids, the combination of vasopressin plus norepinephrine was associated with a lower 28-day mortality rate than with norepinephrine alone (35.9% vs 44.7%, P = .03).⁶⁰ These findings have been replicated in other studies,^61,62 prompting suggestions for a study of vasopressin with and without corticosteroids in patients on norepinephrine to elucidate the role of each therapy individually and in combination.

Tight glycemic control

As with corticosteroids, the pendulum for tight glycemic control in critically ill patients has swung widely in recent years. Enthusiasm was high at first after the publication of a study by van den Berghe et al, which described a 3.4% absolute reduction in mortality with intensive insulin therapy to maintain blood glucose at or below 110 mg/dL.⁶³ However, the significant benefits found in this study were never replicated.

In fact, recent evidence suggests that tight glycemic control is associated with no benefit and a higher risk of hypoglycemia.^34,64 In the largest randomized controlled trial of this topic, with more than 6,000 patients, intensive insulin therapy with a target blood glucose level of 81 to 108 mg/dL was associated with a significantly higher mortality rate (odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 1.02–1.28, P = .02) than with a target glucose level of less than 180 mg/dL.⁶⁵ Furthermore, in a recent follow-up analysis,⁶⁶ moderate hypoglycemia (serum glucose 41–70 mg/dL) and severe hypoglycemia (serum glucose < 41 mg/dL) were associated with a higher rate of death in a dose-response relationship.⁶⁶

Taking this information together, clinicians should be aware that there is no additional benefit in lowering blood glucose below the range of 140 to 180 mg/dL, and that doing so may be harmful.

Drotecogin alfa

Drotecogin alfa (Xigris) was another adjunctive therapy that has fallen from favor. It was approved for the treatment of severe sepsis in light of promising findings in initial studies.⁶⁷

However, on October 25, 2011, drotecogin alfa was voluntarily withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer after another study found no beneficial effect on the mortality rates at 28 days or at 90 days.⁶⁸ Furthermore, no difference could be found regarding any predetermined primary or secondary outcome measures.

Continued antibiotic therapy

The decision whether to continue initial empiric antimicrobial coverage, broaden it, or de-escalate must be faced for all patients with septic shock, and is ultimately clinical.

The serum procalcitonin level has been proposed to guide antibiotic discontinuation in several clinical settings, although there are still questions about the safety of such an approach. The largest randomized trial published to date reported that a procalcitoninguided strategy to treat suspected bacterial infections in nonsurgical patients could reduce antibiotic exposure with no apparent adverse outcomes.⁶⁹ On the other hand, other data discourage the use of procalcitonin-guided antimicrobial escalation, as this approach did not improve survival and worsened organ function and length of stay in the intensive care unit.⁷⁰

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend combination antibiotic therapy for no longer than 3 to 5 days and limiting the duration of antibiotics in most cases to 7 to 10 days.²²

TRIALS ARE ONGOING

The understanding of the pathophysiology and treatment of sepsis has greatly advanced over the last decade. Adoption of evidence-based protocols for managing patients with septic shock has improved outcomes. Nevertheless, many multicenter trials are being conducted worldwide to look into some of the most controversial therapies, and their results will guide therapy in the future.

Considerably fewer patients who develop sepsis are dying of it now, thanks to a number of studies of how to reverse sepsis-induced tissue hypoxia.¹ The greatest strides in improving outcomes have been attributed to better early management, which includes prompt recognition of sepsis, rapid initiation of antimicrobial therapy, elimination of the source of infection, and early goal-directed therapy. Thus, even though the incidence of severe sepsis and septic shock is increasing,^2,3 the Surviving Sepsis Campaign has documented a significant decrease in unadjusted mortality rates (37% to 30.8%) associated with the bundled approach in the management of sepsis.⁴ (We will talk about this later in the article.)

This review will summarize the evidence for the early management of septic shock and will evaluate the various treatment decisions beyond the initial phases of resuscitation.

INFLAMMATION AND VASODILATION

Sepsis syndrome starts with an infection that leads to a proinflammatory state with a complex interaction between anti-inflammatory and proinflammatory mediators, enhanced coagulation, and impaired fibrinolysis.^5,6

Sepsis induces vasodilation by way of inappropriate activation of vasodilatory mechanisms (increased synthesis of nitric oxide and vasopressin deficiency) and failure of vasoconstrictor mechanisms (activation of ATP-sensitive potassium channels in vascular smooth muscle).⁷ Thus, the hemodynamic abnormalities are multifactorial, and the resultant tissue hypoperfusion further contributes to the proinflammatory and procoagulant state, precipitating multiorgan dysfunction and, often, death.

DEFINITIONS

• Sepsis—infection together with systemic manifestation of inflammatory response
• Severe sepsis—sepsis plus induced organ dysfunction or evidence of tissue hypoperfusion
• Septic shock—sepsis-induced hypotension persisting despite adequate fluid resuscitation.

EARLY MANAGEMENT OF SEPTIC SHOCK

Early in the course of septic shock, the physician’s job is to:

• Recognize it promptly
• Begin empiric antibiotic therapy quickly
• Eliminate the source of infection, if applicable, eg, by removing an infected central venous catheter
• Give fluid resuscitation, titrated to specific goals
• Give vasopressor therapy to maintain blood pressure, organ perfusion, and oxygen delivery (Table 1).

The line between “early” and “late” is not clear. Traditionally, it has been drawn at 6 hours from presentation, and this cutoff was used in some of the studies we will discuss here.

Recognizing severe sepsis early in its course

The diagnosis of severe sepsis may be challenging, since up to 40% of patients may present with cryptic shock. These patients may not be hemodynamically compromised but may show evidence of tissue hypoxia, eg, an elevated serum lactate concentration or a low central venous oxygen saturation (Scvo₂), or both.⁸ In view of this, much effort has gone into finding a biomarker that, in addition to clinical features, can help identify patients in an early stage of sepsis.

Procalcitonin levels rise in response to severe bacterial infection,⁹ and they correlate with sepsis-related organ failure scores and outcomes.^10,11 Thus, the serum procalcitonin level may help in assessing the severity of sepsis, especially when combined with standard clinical and laboratory variables. However, controversy exists about the threshold to use in making decisions about antibiotic therapy and the value of this test in differentiating severe noninfectious inflammatory reactions from infectious causes of shock.¹² Therefore, it is not widely used in clinical practice.

Serum lactate has been used for decades as a marker of tissue hypoperfusion. It is typically elevated in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, and although the hyperlactatemia could be a result of global hypoperfusion, it can also be secondary to sepsis-induced mitochondrial dysfunction,¹³ impaired pyruvate dehydrogenase activity,¹⁴ increased aerobic glycolysis by catecholamine-stimulated sodium-potassium pump hyperactivity,¹⁵ and even impaired clearance.¹⁶

But whatever the mechanism, elevated lactate in severe sepsis and septic shock predicts a poor outcome and may help guide aggressive resuscitation. In fact, early lactate clearance (ie, normalization of an elevated value on repeat testing within the first 6 hours) is associated with better outcomes in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.^17,18

Panels of biomarkers. A literature search revealed over 3,000 papers on 178 different biomarkers in sepsis.¹⁹ Many of these biomarkers lack sufficient specificity and sensitivity for clinical use, and thus some investigators have suggested using a panel of them to enhance their predictive ability. Shapiro et al²⁰ evaluated 971 patients admitted to the emergency department with suspected infection and discovered that a panel of three biomarkers (neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, protein C, and interleukin-1 receptor antagonist) was highly predictive of severe sepsis, septic shock, and death.

As soon as severe sepsis and septic shock are recognized, it is imperative that adequate empiric antibiotic treatment be started, along with infectious source control if applicable.²¹ The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend starting intravenous antibiotics as early as possible—within the first hour of recognition of severe sepsis with or without septic shock.²²

Kumar et al,²³ in a multicenter retrospective study of patients with septic shock, found that each hour of delay in giving appropriate antimicrobial agents in the first 6 hours from the onset of hypotension was associated with a 7.6% decrease in the in-hospital survival rate.

In a similar study,²⁴ the same investigators analyzed data from 5,715 septic shock patients regarding the impact of starting the right antimicrobial therapy. Appropriate antimicrobial agents (ie, those having in vitro activity against the isolated pathogens) were given in 80.1% of cases, and the survival rate in those who received appropriate antibiotics was drastically higher than in those who received inappropriate ones (52.0% vs 10.3%, P < .0001).

In addition, two recent studies evaluated the importance of early empiric antibiotic therapy in conjunction with resuscitative protocols.^25,26 In a preplanned analysis of early antimicrobial use in a study comparing lactate clearance and Scvo₂ as goals of therapy, Puskarich et al²⁶ found that fewer patients who received antibiotics before shock was recognized (according to formal criteria) died. Similarly, in a retrospective study in patients presenting to the emergency department and treated with early goal-directed therapy (defined below), Gaieski et al²⁵ found that the mortality rate was drastically lower when antibiotics were started within 1 hour of either triage or initiation of early goal-directed therapy.

In short, it is imperative to promptly start the most appropriate broad-spectrum antibiotics to target the most likely pathogens based on site of infection, patient risk of multidrug-resistant pathogens, and local susceptibility patterns.

Goal-directed resuscitative therapy

As with antimicrobial therapy, resuscitative therapy should be started early and directed at defined goals.

Rivers et al²⁷ conducted a randomized, controlled study in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock presenting to an emergency department of an urban teaching hospital. The patients were at high risk and had either persistent hypotension after a fluid challenge or serum lactate levels of 4 mmol/L or higher.

Two hundred sixty patients were randomized to receive either early goal-directed therapy in a protocol aimed at maximizing the intravascular volume and correcting global tissue hypoxia or standard therapy in the first 6 hours after presentation. The goals in the goal-directed therapy group were:

• Central venous pressure 8 to 12 mm Hg (achieved with aggressive fluid resuscitation with crystalloids)
• Mean arterial blood pressure greater than 65 mm Hg (maintained with vasoactive drugs, if necessary)
• Scvo₂ above 70%. To achieve this third goal, packed red blood cells were infused to reach a target hematocrit of greater than 30%. For patients with a hematocrit higher than 30% but still with an Scvo₂ less than 70%, inotropic agents were added and titrated to the Scvo₂ goal of 70%.

Goal-directed therapy reduced the in-hospital mortality rate by 16% (the mortality rates were 30.5% in the goal-directed group and 46.5% in the standard therapy group, P = .009) and also reduced the 28- and 60-day mortality rates by similar proportions.²⁷

Subsequent studies of a protocol for early recognition and treatment of sepsis have concluded that early aggressive fluid resuscitation decreases the ensuing need for vasopressor support.²⁸ A resuscitation strategy based on early goal-directed therapy is a major component of the initial resuscitation bundle recommended by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign.²² (A “bundle” refers to the implementation of a core set of recommendations involving the simultaneous adaptation of a number of interventions.)

Areas of debate. However, concerns have been raised about the design of the study by Rivers et al and the mortality rate in the control group, which was higher than one would expect from the patients’ Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scores.²⁹ In particular, the bundled approach they used precludes the ability to differentiate which interventions were responsible for the outcome benefits. Indeed, there were two major interventions in the early goal-directed therapy group: a protocol for achieving the goals described and the use of Scvo₂ as a goal.

Aggressive fluid resuscitation is considered the most critical aspect of all the major interventions, and there is little argument on its value. The debate centers on central venous pressure as a preload marker, since after the publication of the early goal-directed therapy trial,²⁷ several studies showed that central venous pressure may not be a valid measure to predict fluid responsiveness (discussed later in this paper).^30,31

The choice of colloids or crystalloids for fluid resuscitation is another area of debate. Clinical evidence suggests that albumin is equivalent to normal saline in a heterogeneous intensive care unit population,³² but subgroup analyses suggest albumin may be superior in patients with septic shock.³³ Studies are ongoing (NCT00707122, NCT01337934, and NCT00318942). The use of hydroxyethyl starch in severe sepsis is associated with higher rates of acute renal failure and need for renal replacement therapy than Ringer’s lactate,³⁴ and is generally not recommended. This is further substantiated by two recent randomized controlled studies, which found that the use of hydroxyethyl starch for fluid resuscitation in severe sepsis, compared with crystalloids, did not reduce the mortality rate (and even increased it in one study), and was associated with more need for renal replacement therapy.^35,36

The use of Scvo₂ is yet another topic of debate, and other monitoring variables have been evaluated. A recent study assessed the noninferiority of incorporating venous lactate clearance into the early goal-directed therapy protocol vs Scvo₂.³⁷ Both groups had identical goals for central venous pressure and mean arterial pressure but differed in the use of lactate clearance (defined as at least a 10% decline) or Scvo₂ (> 70%) as the goal for improving tissue hypoxia. There were no significant differences between groups in their in-hospital mortality rates (17% in the lactate clearance group vs 23% in the Scvo₂ group; criteria for noninferiority met). This suggests that lactate may be an alternative to Scvo₂ as a goal in early goal-directed therapy. However, a secondary analysis of the data revealed a lack of concordance in achieving lactate clearance and Scvo₂ goals, which suggests that these parameters may be measuring distinct physiologic processes.³⁸ Since the hemodynamic profiles of septic shock patients are complex, it may be prudent to use both of these markers of resuscitation until further studies are completed.

Given the debate, a number of prospective randomized trials are under way to evaluate resuscitative interventions. These include the Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock trial (NCT00510835), the Australasian Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation trial (NCT00975793), and the Protocolised Management of Sepsis (ProMISe) trial in the United Kingdom (ISRCTN 36307479). These three trials will evaluate, collectively, close to 4,000 patients and will provide considerable insights into resuscitative interventions in septic shock.

If fluid therapy does not restore perfusion, vasopressors should be promptly initiated, as the longer that hypotension goes on, the lower the survival rate.³⁹

But which vasopressor should be used? The early goal-directed therapy protocol used in the study by Rivers et al²⁷ did not specify which vasopressor should be used to keep the mean arterial pressure above 65 mm Hg.

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign²² recommends norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor, with dopamine as an alternative only in selected patients, such as those with absolute or relative bradycardia.

The guidelines also recommend epinephrine to be added to or substituted for norepinephrine when an additional catecholamine is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure.²² Furthermore, vasopressin at a dose of 0.03 units/min can be added to norepinephrine with the intent of raising the blood pressure or decreasing the norepinephrine requirement. Higher doses of vasopressin should be reserved for salvage therapy.

Regarding phenylephrine, the guidelines recommend against its use except when norepinephrine use is associated with significant tachyarrhythmias, cardiac output is known to be higher, or as a salvage therapy.²²

This is a topic of debate, with recent clinical studies offering further insight.

De Backer et al⁴⁰ compared the effects of dopamine vs norepinephrine for the treatment of shock in 1,679 patients, 62% of whom had septic shock. Overall, there was a trend towards better outcomes with norepinephrine, but no significant difference in mortality rates at 28 days (52.5% with dopamine vs 48.5% with norepinephrine, P = .10). Importantly, fewer patients who were randomized to norepinephrine developed arrhythmias (12.4% vs 24.1%, P < .001), and the norepinephrine group required fewer days of study drug (11.0 vs 12.5, P = .01) and open-label vasopressors (12.6 vs 14.2, P = .007). Of note, patients with cardiogenic shock randomized to norepinephrine had a significantly lower mortality rate than those randomized to dopamine. Although no significant difference in outcome was found between the two vasopressors in the subgroup of patients with septic shock, the overall improvements in secondary surrogate markers suggest that norepinephrine should be the first-line agent.

Norepinephrine has also been compared with “secondary” vasopressors. Annane et al,⁴¹ in a prospective multicenter randomized controlled study, evaluated the effect of norepinephrine plus dobutamine vs epinephrine alone in managing septic shock. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome measure of 28-day mortality (34% with norepinephrine plus dobutamine vs 40% with epinephrine alone, P = .31). However, the study was powered to evaluate for an absolute risk reduction of 20% in the mortality rate, which would be a big reduction. A smaller reduction in the mortality rate, which would not have been statistically significant in this study, might still be considered clinically significant. Furthermore, the group randomized to norepinephrine plus dobutamine had more vasopressor-free days (20 days vs 22 days, P = .05) and less acidosis on days 1 to 4 than the group randomized to epinephrine.

Norepinephrine was also compared with phenylephrine as a first-line vasopressor in a randomized controlled trial in 32 patients with septic shock. No difference was found in cardiopulmonary performance, global oxygen transport, or regional hemodynamics between phenylephrine and norepinephrine.⁴²

While encouraging, these preliminary data need to be verified in a larger randomized controlled trial with concrete outcome measures before being clinically adapted. Taken together, the above studies suggest that norepinephrine should be the initial vasopressor of choice for patients with septic shock.

CONTINUED MANAGEMENT OF SEPTIC SHOCK

How to manage septic shock after the initial stages is much less defined.

Uncertainty persists about the importance of achieving the early goals of resuscitation in patients who did not reach them in the initial 6 hours of treatment. Although there are data suggesting that extending the goals beyond the initial 6 hours may be beneficial, clinicians should use caution when interpreting these results in light of the observational design of the studies.^43,44 For the purpose of this discussion, “continued management” of septic shock will mean after the first 6 hours and after all the early goals are met.

The clinical decisions necessary after the initial stages of resuscitation include:

• Whether further fluid resuscitation is needed
• Assessment for further and additional hemodynamic therapies
• Consideration of adjunctive therapies
• Reevaluation of antibiotic choices (Table 2).

Is more fluid needed? How can we tell?

There is considerable debate about the ideal method for assessing fluid responsiveness. In fact, one of the criticisms of the early goal-directed therapy study²⁷ was that it used central venous pressure as a marker of fluid responsiveness.

Several studies have shown that central venous pressure or pulmonary artery occlusion pressure may not be valid measures of fluid responsiveness.⁴⁵ In fact, in a retrospective study of 150 volume challenges, the area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve of central venous pressure as a marker of fluid responsiveness was only 0.58. (Recall that the closer the area under the curve is to 1.0, the better the test; a value of 0.50 is the same as chance.) The area under the curve for pulmonary artery occlusion pressure was 0.63.⁴⁶

In contrast, several dynamic indices have been proposed to better guide fluid resuscitation in mechanically ventilated patients.³¹ These are based on changes in stroke volume, aortic blood flow, or arterial pulse pressure in response to the ventilator cycle or passive leg-raising. A detailed review of these markers can be found elsewhere,³¹ but taken together, they have a sensitivity and specificity of over 90% for predicting fluid responsiveness. Clinicians may consider using dynamic markers of fluid responsiveness to determine when to give additional fluids, particularly after the first 6 hours of shock, in which data supporting the use of central venous pressure are lacking.

Optimal use of fluids is particularly important, since some studies suggest that “overresuscitation” has negative consequences. In a multicenter observational study of 1,177 patients with sepsis, after adjusting for a number of comorbidities and baseline severity of illness, the cumulative fluid balance in the first 72 hours after the onset of sepsis was independently associated with a worse mortality rate.⁴⁷

Furthermore, in a retrospective analysis of a randomized controlled trial of vasopressin in conjunction with norepinephrine for septic shock, patients in the highest quartile of fluid balance (more fluid in than out) at 12 hours and 4 days after presentation had significantly higher mortality rates than those in the lowest two quartiles.⁴⁸ The worse outcome with a positive fluid balance might be explained by worsening oxygenation and prolonged mechanical ventilation, as demonstrated by the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial in patients with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS).⁴⁹ Indeed, when fluid balance in patients with septic shockinduced ALI/ARDS was evaluated, patients with both adequate initial fluid resuscitation and conservative late fluid management had a lower mortality rate than those with either one alone.⁵⁰

In view of these findings, especially beyond the initial hours of resuscitation, clinicians should remember that further unnecessary fluid administration may have detrimental effects. Therefore, given the superior predictive abilities of dynamic markers of fluid responsiveness, these should be used to determine the need for further fluid boluses.

In cases in which patients are no longer fluid-responsive and need increasing levels of hemodynamic support, clinicians still have a number of options. These include increasing the current vasopressor dose or starting an additional therapy such as an alternative catecholamine vasopressor, vasopressin, inotropic therapy, or an adjunctive therapy such as a corticosteroid. The intervention could also be a combination of the above choices.

The optimal time point or vasopressor dose at which to consider initiating additional therapies is unknown. However, the Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial (VASST) provides some insight.⁵¹

This study compared two strategies: escalating doses of norepinephrine vs adding vasopressin to norepinephrine. Overall, adding vasopressin showed no benefit in terms of a lower mortality rate. However, in the subgroup of patients with norepinephrine requirements of 5 to 14 μg/min at study enrollment (ie, a low dose, reflecting less-severe sepsis) vasopressin was associated with a lower 28-day mortality rate (26.5% vs 35.7%, P = .05) and 90-day mortality rate (35.8% vs 46.1%, P = .04). Benefit was also noted in patients with other markers of lower disease severity such as low lactate levels or having received a single vasopressor at baseline.⁵¹

Although subgroup analyses should not generally be used to guide treatment decisions, a prospective trial may never be done to evaluate adding vasopressin to catecholamines earlier vs later. Thus, clinicians who choose to use vasopressin may consider starting this therapy when catecholamine doses are relatively low or before profound hyperlactatemia from prolonged tissue hypoxia has developed.

There is less evidence to guide clinicians who are considering adding a different catecholamine. The theoretical concerns of splanchnic ischemia and cardiac arrhythmia associated with higher doses of catecholamines are usually the impetus to limit a single catecholamine to a “maximum” dose. However, studies that have evaluated combination catecholamine therapies have generally studied combinations of vasopressors with inotropes and lacked standardization in their protocols, thus making them difficult to interpret.^52–54 One could also argue that additional catecholamine therapies, which all function similarly, may have additive effects and cause even more adverse effects. As such, adding another vasopressor should be reserved for patients experiencing noticeable adverse effects (such as tachycardia) on first-line therapy.

Inotropic support

Left ventricular function should be assessed in all patients who continue to be hypotensive despite adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. In a study of patients with septic shock in whom echocardiography was performed daily for the first 3 days of hemodynamic support, new-onset left ventricular hypokinesia was found in 26 (39%) of 67 patients on presentation and in an additional 14 patients (21%) after at least 24 hours of norepinephrine.⁵⁵ Adding inotropic support with dobutamine or epinephrine led to decreases in vasopressor dose and enhanced left ventricular ejection fraction.

In short, left ventricular hypokinesia is common in septic shock, may occur at presentation or after a period of vasopressor support, and is usually correctable with the addition of inotropic support.

Corticosteroids

Beyond hemodynamic support with fluids and catecholamines or vasopressin (or both), clinicians should also consider adjunctive corticosteroid therapy. However, for many years the issue has been controversial for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.

Annane et al⁵⁶ conducted a large, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled trial to assess the effect of low doses of corticosteroids in patients with refractory septic shock. Overall, the 28-day mortality rate was 61% in the treatment group and 55% in the placebo group, which was not statistically significant (adjusted odds ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.39–1.07, P value .09). However, when separated by response to cosyntropin stimulation, those with a change in cortisol of 9 ug/dL or less (nonresponders) randomized to receive corticosteroids had significantly higher survival rates in the short term (28 days) and the long term (1 year). The positive results of this study led to the adoption of low-dose hydrocortisone as standard practice in most patients with septic shock.⁵⁷

But then, to evaluate the effects of corticosteroids in a broader intensive-care population with septic shock, another trial was designed: the Corticosteroid Therapy of Septic Shock (CORTICUS) trial.⁵⁸ Surprisingly, this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial found no significant difference in survival between the group that received hydrocortisone and the placebo group, regardless of response to a cosyntropin stimulation test.

Taking into account the above studies and other randomized controlled trials, the 2012 Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines and the International Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Corticosteroid Insufficiency in Critically Ill Adult Patients recommend intravenous hydrocortisone therapy in adults with septic shock whose blood pressure responds poorly to fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. These consensus statements do not recommend the cosyntropin stimulation test to identify patients with septic shock who should receive corticosteroids.^22,59 The guidelines, however, do not explicitly define poor response to initial therapy.

Of note, in the Annane study, which found a lower mortality rate with corticosteroids, the patients were severely ill, with a mean baseline norepinephrine dose of 1.1 μg/kg/min. In contrast, in the CORTICUS study (which found no benefit of hydrocortisone), patients had lower baseline vasopressor doses, with a mean norepinephrine dose of 0.5 μg/kg/min.

While corticosteroids are associated with a higher rate of shock reversal 7 days after initiation, ⁵⁹ this has not translated into a consistent reduction in the death rate. If a clinician is considering adding corticosteroids to decrease the risk of death, it would seem prudent to add this therapy in patients receiving norepinephrine in doses above 0.5 μg/kg/min.

The ideal sequence and combination of the above therapies including fluids, catecholamine vasopressors, vasopressin, inotropes, and vasopressors have not been elucidated. However, some preliminary evidence suggests an advantage with the combination of vasopressin and corticosteroids. In a subgroup analysis of the VASST study, in patients who received corticosteroids, the combination of vasopressin plus norepinephrine was associated with a lower 28-day mortality rate than with norepinephrine alone (35.9% vs 44.7%, P = .03).⁶⁰ These findings have been replicated in other studies,^61,62 prompting suggestions for a study of vasopressin with and without corticosteroids in patients on norepinephrine to elucidate the role of each therapy individually and in combination.

Tight glycemic control

As with corticosteroids, the pendulum for tight glycemic control in critically ill patients has swung widely in recent years. Enthusiasm was high at first after the publication of a study by van den Berghe et al, which described a 3.4% absolute reduction in mortality with intensive insulin therapy to maintain blood glucose at or below 110 mg/dL.⁶³ However, the significant benefits found in this study were never replicated.

In fact, recent evidence suggests that tight glycemic control is associated with no benefit and a higher risk of hypoglycemia.^34,64 In the largest randomized controlled trial of this topic, with more than 6,000 patients, intensive insulin therapy with a target blood glucose level of 81 to 108 mg/dL was associated with a significantly higher mortality rate (odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 1.02–1.28, P = .02) than with a target glucose level of less than 180 mg/dL.⁶⁵ Furthermore, in a recent follow-up analysis,⁶⁶ moderate hypoglycemia (serum glucose 41–70 mg/dL) and severe hypoglycemia (serum glucose < 41 mg/dL) were associated with a higher rate of death in a dose-response relationship.⁶⁶

Taking this information together, clinicians should be aware that there is no additional benefit in lowering blood glucose below the range of 140 to 180 mg/dL, and that doing so may be harmful.

Drotecogin alfa

Drotecogin alfa (Xigris) was another adjunctive therapy that has fallen from favor. It was approved for the treatment of severe sepsis in light of promising findings in initial studies.⁶⁷

However, on October 25, 2011, drotecogin alfa was voluntarily withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer after another study found no beneficial effect on the mortality rates at 28 days or at 90 days.⁶⁸ Furthermore, no difference could be found regarding any predetermined primary or secondary outcome measures.

Continued antibiotic therapy

The decision whether to continue initial empiric antimicrobial coverage, broaden it, or de-escalate must be faced for all patients with septic shock, and is ultimately clinical.

The serum procalcitonin level has been proposed to guide antibiotic discontinuation in several clinical settings, although there are still questions about the safety of such an approach. The largest randomized trial published to date reported that a procalcitoninguided strategy to treat suspected bacterial infections in nonsurgical patients could reduce antibiotic exposure with no apparent adverse outcomes.⁶⁹ On the other hand, other data discourage the use of procalcitonin-guided antimicrobial escalation, as this approach did not improve survival and worsened organ function and length of stay in the intensive care unit.⁷⁰

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend combination antibiotic therapy for no longer than 3 to 5 days and limiting the duration of antibiotics in most cases to 7 to 10 days.²²

TRIALS ARE ONGOING

The understanding of the pathophysiology and treatment of sepsis has greatly advanced over the last decade. Adoption of evidence-based protocols for managing patients with septic shock has improved outcomes. Nevertheless, many multicenter trials are being conducted worldwide to look into some of the most controversial therapies, and their results will guide therapy in the future.

Considerably fewer patients who develop sepsis are dying of it now, thanks to a number of studies of how to reverse sepsis-induced tissue hypoxia.¹ The greatest strides in improving outcomes have been attributed to better early management, which includes prompt recognition of sepsis, rapid initiation of antimicrobial therapy, elimination of the source of infection, and early goal-directed therapy. Thus, even though the incidence of severe sepsis and septic shock is increasing,^2,3 the Surviving Sepsis Campaign has documented a significant decrease in unadjusted mortality rates (37% to 30.8%) associated with the bundled approach in the management of sepsis.⁴ (We will talk about this later in the article.)

This review will summarize the evidence for the early management of septic shock and will evaluate the various treatment decisions beyond the initial phases of resuscitation.

INFLAMMATION AND VASODILATION

Sepsis syndrome starts with an infection that leads to a proinflammatory state with a complex interaction between anti-inflammatory and proinflammatory mediators, enhanced coagulation, and impaired fibrinolysis.^5,6

Sepsis induces vasodilation by way of inappropriate activation of vasodilatory mechanisms (increased synthesis of nitric oxide and vasopressin deficiency) and failure of vasoconstrictor mechanisms (activation of ATP-sensitive potassium channels in vascular smooth muscle).⁷ Thus, the hemodynamic abnormalities are multifactorial, and the resultant tissue hypoperfusion further contributes to the proinflammatory and procoagulant state, precipitating multiorgan dysfunction and, often, death.

DEFINITIONS

• Sepsis—infection together with systemic manifestation of inflammatory response
• Severe sepsis—sepsis plus induced organ dysfunction or evidence of tissue hypoperfusion
• Septic shock—sepsis-induced hypotension persisting despite adequate fluid resuscitation.

EARLY MANAGEMENT OF SEPTIC SHOCK

Early in the course of septic shock, the physician’s job is to:

• Recognize it promptly
• Begin empiric antibiotic therapy quickly
• Eliminate the source of infection, if applicable, eg, by removing an infected central venous catheter
• Give fluid resuscitation, titrated to specific goals
• Give vasopressor therapy to maintain blood pressure, organ perfusion, and oxygen delivery (Table 1).

The line between “early” and “late” is not clear. Traditionally, it has been drawn at 6 hours from presentation, and this cutoff was used in some of the studies we will discuss here.

Recognizing severe sepsis early in its course

The diagnosis of severe sepsis may be challenging, since up to 40% of patients may present with cryptic shock. These patients may not be hemodynamically compromised but may show evidence of tissue hypoxia, eg, an elevated serum lactate concentration or a low central venous oxygen saturation (Scvo₂), or both.⁸ In view of this, much effort has gone into finding a biomarker that, in addition to clinical features, can help identify patients in an early stage of sepsis.

Procalcitonin levels rise in response to severe bacterial infection,⁹ and they correlate with sepsis-related organ failure scores and outcomes.^10,11 Thus, the serum procalcitonin level may help in assessing the severity of sepsis, especially when combined with standard clinical and laboratory variables. However, controversy exists about the threshold to use in making decisions about antibiotic therapy and the value of this test in differentiating severe noninfectious inflammatory reactions from infectious causes of shock.¹² Therefore, it is not widely used in clinical practice.

Serum lactate has been used for decades as a marker of tissue hypoperfusion. It is typically elevated in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, and although the hyperlactatemia could be a result of global hypoperfusion, it can also be secondary to sepsis-induced mitochondrial dysfunction,¹³ impaired pyruvate dehydrogenase activity,¹⁴ increased aerobic glycolysis by catecholamine-stimulated sodium-potassium pump hyperactivity,¹⁵ and even impaired clearance.¹⁶

But whatever the mechanism, elevated lactate in severe sepsis and septic shock predicts a poor outcome and may help guide aggressive resuscitation. In fact, early lactate clearance (ie, normalization of an elevated value on repeat testing within the first 6 hours) is associated with better outcomes in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.^17,18

Panels of biomarkers. A literature search revealed over 3,000 papers on 178 different biomarkers in sepsis.¹⁹ Many of these biomarkers lack sufficient specificity and sensitivity for clinical use, and thus some investigators have suggested using a panel of them to enhance their predictive ability. Shapiro et al²⁰ evaluated 971 patients admitted to the emergency department with suspected infection and discovered that a panel of three biomarkers (neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, protein C, and interleukin-1 receptor antagonist) was highly predictive of severe sepsis, septic shock, and death.

As soon as severe sepsis and septic shock are recognized, it is imperative that adequate empiric antibiotic treatment be started, along with infectious source control if applicable.²¹ The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend starting intravenous antibiotics as early as possible—within the first hour of recognition of severe sepsis with or without septic shock.²²

Kumar et al,²³ in a multicenter retrospective study of patients with septic shock, found that each hour of delay in giving appropriate antimicrobial agents in the first 6 hours from the onset of hypotension was associated with a 7.6% decrease in the in-hospital survival rate.

In a similar study,²⁴ the same investigators analyzed data from 5,715 septic shock patients regarding the impact of starting the right antimicrobial therapy. Appropriate antimicrobial agents (ie, those having in vitro activity against the isolated pathogens) were given in 80.1% of cases, and the survival rate in those who received appropriate antibiotics was drastically higher than in those who received inappropriate ones (52.0% vs 10.3%, P < .0001).

In addition, two recent studies evaluated the importance of early empiric antibiotic therapy in conjunction with resuscitative protocols.^25,26 In a preplanned analysis of early antimicrobial use in a study comparing lactate clearance and Scvo₂ as goals of therapy, Puskarich et al²⁶ found that fewer patients who received antibiotics before shock was recognized (according to formal criteria) died. Similarly, in a retrospective study in patients presenting to the emergency department and treated with early goal-directed therapy (defined below), Gaieski et al²⁵ found that the mortality rate was drastically lower when antibiotics were started within 1 hour of either triage or initiation of early goal-directed therapy.

In short, it is imperative to promptly start the most appropriate broad-spectrum antibiotics to target the most likely pathogens based on site of infection, patient risk of multidrug-resistant pathogens, and local susceptibility patterns.

Goal-directed resuscitative therapy

As with antimicrobial therapy, resuscitative therapy should be started early and directed at defined goals.

Rivers et al²⁷ conducted a randomized, controlled study in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock presenting to an emergency department of an urban teaching hospital. The patients were at high risk and had either persistent hypotension after a fluid challenge or serum lactate levels of 4 mmol/L or higher.

Two hundred sixty patients were randomized to receive either early goal-directed therapy in a protocol aimed at maximizing the intravascular volume and correcting global tissue hypoxia or standard therapy in the first 6 hours after presentation. The goals in the goal-directed therapy group were:

• Central venous pressure 8 to 12 mm Hg (achieved with aggressive fluid resuscitation with crystalloids)
• Mean arterial blood pressure greater than 65 mm Hg (maintained with vasoactive drugs, if necessary)
• Scvo₂ above 70%. To achieve this third goal, packed red blood cells were infused to reach a target hematocrit of greater than 30%. For patients with a hematocrit higher than 30% but still with an Scvo₂ less than 70%, inotropic agents were added and titrated to the Scvo₂ goal of 70%.

Goal-directed therapy reduced the in-hospital mortality rate by 16% (the mortality rates were 30.5% in the goal-directed group and 46.5% in the standard therapy group, P = .009) and also reduced the 28- and 60-day mortality rates by similar proportions.²⁷

Subsequent studies of a protocol for early recognition and treatment of sepsis have concluded that early aggressive fluid resuscitation decreases the ensuing need for vasopressor support.²⁸ A resuscitation strategy based on early goal-directed therapy is a major component of the initial resuscitation bundle recommended by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign.²² (A “bundle” refers to the implementation of a core set of recommendations involving the simultaneous adaptation of a number of interventions.)

Areas of debate. However, concerns have been raised about the design of the study by Rivers et al and the mortality rate in the control group, which was higher than one would expect from the patients’ Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scores.²⁹ In particular, the bundled approach they used precludes the ability to differentiate which interventions were responsible for the outcome benefits. Indeed, there were two major interventions in the early goal-directed therapy group: a protocol for achieving the goals described and the use of Scvo₂ as a goal.

Aggressive fluid resuscitation is considered the most critical aspect of all the major interventions, and there is little argument on its value. The debate centers on central venous pressure as a preload marker, since after the publication of the early goal-directed therapy trial,²⁷ several studies showed that central venous pressure may not be a valid measure to predict fluid responsiveness (discussed later in this paper).^30,31

The choice of colloids or crystalloids for fluid resuscitation is another area of debate. Clinical evidence suggests that albumin is equivalent to normal saline in a heterogeneous intensive care unit population,³² but subgroup analyses suggest albumin may be superior in patients with septic shock.³³ Studies are ongoing (NCT00707122, NCT01337934, and NCT00318942). The use of hydroxyethyl starch in severe sepsis is associated with higher rates of acute renal failure and need for renal replacement therapy than Ringer’s lactate,³⁴ and is generally not recommended. This is further substantiated by two recent randomized controlled studies, which found that the use of hydroxyethyl starch for fluid resuscitation in severe sepsis, compared with crystalloids, did not reduce the mortality rate (and even increased it in one study), and was associated with more need for renal replacement therapy.^35,36

The use of Scvo₂ is yet another topic of debate, and other monitoring variables have been evaluated. A recent study assessed the noninferiority of incorporating venous lactate clearance into the early goal-directed therapy protocol vs Scvo₂.³⁷ Both groups had identical goals for central venous pressure and mean arterial pressure but differed in the use of lactate clearance (defined as at least a 10% decline) or Scvo₂ (> 70%) as the goal for improving tissue hypoxia. There were no significant differences between groups in their in-hospital mortality rates (17% in the lactate clearance group vs 23% in the Scvo₂ group; criteria for noninferiority met). This suggests that lactate may be an alternative to Scvo₂ as a goal in early goal-directed therapy. However, a secondary analysis of the data revealed a lack of concordance in achieving lactate clearance and Scvo₂ goals, which suggests that these parameters may be measuring distinct physiologic processes.³⁸ Since the hemodynamic profiles of septic shock patients are complex, it may be prudent to use both of these markers of resuscitation until further studies are completed.

Given the debate, a number of prospective randomized trials are under way to evaluate resuscitative interventions. These include the Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock trial (NCT00510835), the Australasian Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation trial (NCT00975793), and the Protocolised Management of Sepsis (ProMISe) trial in the United Kingdom (ISRCTN 36307479). These three trials will evaluate, collectively, close to 4,000 patients and will provide considerable insights into resuscitative interventions in septic shock.

If fluid therapy does not restore perfusion, vasopressors should be promptly initiated, as the longer that hypotension goes on, the lower the survival rate.³⁹

But which vasopressor should be used? The early goal-directed therapy protocol used in the study by Rivers et al²⁷ did not specify which vasopressor should be used to keep the mean arterial pressure above 65 mm Hg.

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign²² recommends norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor, with dopamine as an alternative only in selected patients, such as those with absolute or relative bradycardia.

The guidelines also recommend epinephrine to be added to or substituted for norepinephrine when an additional catecholamine is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure.²² Furthermore, vasopressin at a dose of 0.03 units/min can be added to norepinephrine with the intent of raising the blood pressure or decreasing the norepinephrine requirement. Higher doses of vasopressin should be reserved for salvage therapy.

Regarding phenylephrine, the guidelines recommend against its use except when norepinephrine use is associated with significant tachyarrhythmias, cardiac output is known to be higher, or as a salvage therapy.²²

This is a topic of debate, with recent clinical studies offering further insight.

De Backer et al⁴⁰ compared the effects of dopamine vs norepinephrine for the treatment of shock in 1,679 patients, 62% of whom had septic shock. Overall, there was a trend towards better outcomes with norepinephrine, but no significant difference in mortality rates at 28 days (52.5% with dopamine vs 48.5% with norepinephrine, P = .10). Importantly, fewer patients who were randomized to norepinephrine developed arrhythmias (12.4% vs 24.1%, P < .001), and the norepinephrine group required fewer days of study drug (11.0 vs 12.5, P = .01) and open-label vasopressors (12.6 vs 14.2, P = .007). Of note, patients with cardiogenic shock randomized to norepinephrine had a significantly lower mortality rate than those randomized to dopamine. Although no significant difference in outcome was found between the two vasopressors in the subgroup of patients with septic shock, the overall improvements in secondary surrogate markers suggest that norepinephrine should be the first-line agent.

Norepinephrine has also been compared with “secondary” vasopressors. Annane et al,⁴¹ in a prospective multicenter randomized controlled study, evaluated the effect of norepinephrine plus dobutamine vs epinephrine alone in managing septic shock. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome measure of 28-day mortality (34% with norepinephrine plus dobutamine vs 40% with epinephrine alone, P = .31). However, the study was powered to evaluate for an absolute risk reduction of 20% in the mortality rate, which would be a big reduction. A smaller reduction in the mortality rate, which would not have been statistically significant in this study, might still be considered clinically significant. Furthermore, the group randomized to norepinephrine plus dobutamine had more vasopressor-free days (20 days vs 22 days, P = .05) and less acidosis on days 1 to 4 than the group randomized to epinephrine.

Norepinephrine was also compared with phenylephrine as a first-line vasopressor in a randomized controlled trial in 32 patients with septic shock. No difference was found in cardiopulmonary performance, global oxygen transport, or regional hemodynamics between phenylephrine and norepinephrine.⁴²

While encouraging, these preliminary data need to be verified in a larger randomized controlled trial with concrete outcome measures before being clinically adapted. Taken together, the above studies suggest that norepinephrine should be the initial vasopressor of choice for patients with septic shock.

CONTINUED MANAGEMENT OF SEPTIC SHOCK

How to manage septic shock after the initial stages is much less defined.

Uncertainty persists about the importance of achieving the early goals of resuscitation in patients who did not reach them in the initial 6 hours of treatment. Although there are data suggesting that extending the goals beyond the initial 6 hours may be beneficial, clinicians should use caution when interpreting these results in light of the observational design of the studies.^43,44 For the purpose of this discussion, “continued management” of septic shock will mean after the first 6 hours and after all the early goals are met.

The clinical decisions necessary after the initial stages of resuscitation include:

• Whether further fluid resuscitation is needed
• Assessment for further and additional hemodynamic therapies
• Consideration of adjunctive therapies
• Reevaluation of antibiotic choices (Table 2).

Is more fluid needed? How can we tell?

There is considerable debate about the ideal method for assessing fluid responsiveness. In fact, one of the criticisms of the early goal-directed therapy study²⁷ was that it used central venous pressure as a marker of fluid responsiveness.

Several studies have shown that central venous pressure or pulmonary artery occlusion pressure may not be valid measures of fluid responsiveness.⁴⁵ In fact, in a retrospective study of 150 volume challenges, the area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve of central venous pressure as a marker of fluid responsiveness was only 0.58. (Recall that the closer the area under the curve is to 1.0, the better the test; a value of 0.50 is the same as chance.) The area under the curve for pulmonary artery occlusion pressure was 0.63.⁴⁶

In contrast, several dynamic indices have been proposed to better guide fluid resuscitation in mechanically ventilated patients.³¹ These are based on changes in stroke volume, aortic blood flow, or arterial pulse pressure in response to the ventilator cycle or passive leg-raising. A detailed review of these markers can be found elsewhere,³¹ but taken together, they have a sensitivity and specificity of over 90% for predicting fluid responsiveness. Clinicians may consider using dynamic markers of fluid responsiveness to determine when to give additional fluids, particularly after the first 6 hours of shock, in which data supporting the use of central venous pressure are lacking.

Optimal use of fluids is particularly important, since some studies suggest that “overresuscitation” has negative consequences. In a multicenter observational study of 1,177 patients with sepsis, after adjusting for a number of comorbidities and baseline severity of illness, the cumulative fluid balance in the first 72 hours after the onset of sepsis was independently associated with a worse mortality rate.⁴⁷

Furthermore, in a retrospective analysis of a randomized controlled trial of vasopressin in conjunction with norepinephrine for septic shock, patients in the highest quartile of fluid balance (more fluid in than out) at 12 hours and 4 days after presentation had significantly higher mortality rates than those in the lowest two quartiles.⁴⁸ The worse outcome with a positive fluid balance might be explained by worsening oxygenation and prolonged mechanical ventilation, as demonstrated by the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial in patients with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS).⁴⁹ Indeed, when fluid balance in patients with septic shockinduced ALI/ARDS was evaluated, patients with both adequate initial fluid resuscitation and conservative late fluid management had a lower mortality rate than those with either one alone.⁵⁰

In view of these findings, especially beyond the initial hours of resuscitation, clinicians should remember that further unnecessary fluid administration may have detrimental effects. Therefore, given the superior predictive abilities of dynamic markers of fluid responsiveness, these should be used to determine the need for further fluid boluses.

In cases in which patients are no longer fluid-responsive and need increasing levels of hemodynamic support, clinicians still have a number of options. These include increasing the current vasopressor dose or starting an additional therapy such as an alternative catecholamine vasopressor, vasopressin, inotropic therapy, or an adjunctive therapy such as a corticosteroid. The intervention could also be a combination of the above choices.

The optimal time point or vasopressor dose at which to consider initiating additional therapies is unknown. However, the Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial (VASST) provides some insight.⁵¹

This study compared two strategies: escalating doses of norepinephrine vs adding vasopressin to norepinephrine. Overall, adding vasopressin showed no benefit in terms of a lower mortality rate. However, in the subgroup of patients with norepinephrine requirements of 5 to 14 μg/min at study enrollment (ie, a low dose, reflecting less-severe sepsis) vasopressin was associated with a lower 28-day mortality rate (26.5% vs 35.7%, P = .05) and 90-day mortality rate (35.8% vs 46.1%, P = .04). Benefit was also noted in patients with other markers of lower disease severity such as low lactate levels or having received a single vasopressor at baseline.⁵¹

Although subgroup analyses should not generally be used to guide treatment decisions, a prospective trial may never be done to evaluate adding vasopressin to catecholamines earlier vs later. Thus, clinicians who choose to use vasopressin may consider starting this therapy when catecholamine doses are relatively low or before profound hyperlactatemia from prolonged tissue hypoxia has developed.

There is less evidence to guide clinicians who are considering adding a different catecholamine. The theoretical concerns of splanchnic ischemia and cardiac arrhythmia associated with higher doses of catecholamines are usually the impetus to limit a single catecholamine to a “maximum” dose. However, studies that have evaluated combination catecholamine therapies have generally studied combinations of vasopressors with inotropes and lacked standardization in their protocols, thus making them difficult to interpret.^52–54 One could also argue that additional catecholamine therapies, which all function similarly, may have additive effects and cause even more adverse effects. As such, adding another vasopressor should be reserved for patients experiencing noticeable adverse effects (such as tachycardia) on first-line therapy.

Inotropic support

Left ventricular function should be assessed in all patients who continue to be hypotensive despite adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. In a study of patients with septic shock in whom echocardiography was performed daily for the first 3 days of hemodynamic support, new-onset left ventricular hypokinesia was found in 26 (39%) of 67 patients on presentation and in an additional 14 patients (21%) after at least 24 hours of norepinephrine.⁵⁵ Adding inotropic support with dobutamine or epinephrine led to decreases in vasopressor dose and enhanced left ventricular ejection fraction.

In short, left ventricular hypokinesia is common in septic shock, may occur at presentation or after a period of vasopressor support, and is usually correctable with the addition of inotropic support.

Corticosteroids

Beyond hemodynamic support with fluids and catecholamines or vasopressin (or both), clinicians should also consider adjunctive corticosteroid therapy. However, for many years the issue has been controversial for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.

Annane et al⁵⁶ conducted a large, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled trial to assess the effect of low doses of corticosteroids in patients with refractory septic shock. Overall, the 28-day mortality rate was 61% in the treatment group and 55% in the placebo group, which was not statistically significant (adjusted odds ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.39–1.07, P value .09). However, when separated by response to cosyntropin stimulation, those with a change in cortisol of 9 ug/dL or less (nonresponders) randomized to receive corticosteroids had significantly higher survival rates in the short term (28 days) and the long term (1 year). The positive results of this study led to the adoption of low-dose hydrocortisone as standard practice in most patients with septic shock.⁵⁷

But then, to evaluate the effects of corticosteroids in a broader intensive-care population with septic shock, another trial was designed: the Corticosteroid Therapy of Septic Shock (CORTICUS) trial.⁵⁸ Surprisingly, this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial found no significant difference in survival between the group that received hydrocortisone and the placebo group, regardless of response to a cosyntropin stimulation test.

Taking into account the above studies and other randomized controlled trials, the 2012 Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines and the International Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Corticosteroid Insufficiency in Critically Ill Adult Patients recommend intravenous hydrocortisone therapy in adults with septic shock whose blood pressure responds poorly to fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. These consensus statements do not recommend the cosyntropin stimulation test to identify patients with septic shock who should receive corticosteroids.^22,59 The guidelines, however, do not explicitly define poor response to initial therapy.

Of note, in the Annane study, which found a lower mortality rate with corticosteroids, the patients were severely ill, with a mean baseline norepinephrine dose of 1.1 μg/kg/min. In contrast, in the CORTICUS study (which found no benefit of hydrocortisone), patients had lower baseline vasopressor doses, with a mean norepinephrine dose of 0.5 μg/kg/min.

While corticosteroids are associated with a higher rate of shock reversal 7 days after initiation, ⁵⁹ this has not translated into a consistent reduction in the death rate. If a clinician is considering adding corticosteroids to decrease the risk of death, it would seem prudent to add this therapy in patients receiving norepinephrine in doses above 0.5 μg/kg/min.

The ideal sequence and combination of the above therapies including fluids, catecholamine vasopressors, vasopressin, inotropes, and vasopressors have not been elucidated. However, some preliminary evidence suggests an advantage with the combination of vasopressin and corticosteroids. In a subgroup analysis of the VASST study, in patients who received corticosteroids, the combination of vasopressin plus norepinephrine was associated with a lower 28-day mortality rate than with norepinephrine alone (35.9% vs 44.7%, P = .03).⁶⁰ These findings have been replicated in other studies,^61,62 prompting suggestions for a study of vasopressin with and without corticosteroids in patients on norepinephrine to elucidate the role of each therapy individually and in combination.

Tight glycemic control

As with corticosteroids, the pendulum for tight glycemic control in critically ill patients has swung widely in recent years. Enthusiasm was high at first after the publication of a study by van den Berghe et al, which described a 3.4% absolute reduction in mortality with intensive insulin therapy to maintain blood glucose at or below 110 mg/dL.⁶³ However, the significant benefits found in this study were never replicated.

In fact, recent evidence suggests that tight glycemic control is associated with no benefit and a higher risk of hypoglycemia.^34,64 In the largest randomized controlled trial of this topic, with more than 6,000 patients, intensive insulin therapy with a target blood glucose level of 81 to 108 mg/dL was associated with a significantly higher mortality rate (odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 1.02–1.28, P = .02) than with a target glucose level of less than 180 mg/dL.⁶⁵ Furthermore, in a recent follow-up analysis,⁶⁶ moderate hypoglycemia (serum glucose 41–70 mg/dL) and severe hypoglycemia (serum glucose < 41 mg/dL) were associated with a higher rate of death in a dose-response relationship.⁶⁶

Taking this information together, clinicians should be aware that there is no additional benefit in lowering blood glucose below the range of 140 to 180 mg/dL, and that doing so may be harmful.

Drotecogin alfa

Drotecogin alfa (Xigris) was another adjunctive therapy that has fallen from favor. It was approved for the treatment of severe sepsis in light of promising findings in initial studies.⁶⁷

However, on October 25, 2011, drotecogin alfa was voluntarily withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer after another study found no beneficial effect on the mortality rates at 28 days or at 90 days.⁶⁸ Furthermore, no difference could be found regarding any predetermined primary or secondary outcome measures.

Continued antibiotic therapy

The decision whether to continue initial empiric antimicrobial coverage, broaden it, or de-escalate must be faced for all patients with septic shock, and is ultimately clinical.

The serum procalcitonin level has been proposed to guide antibiotic discontinuation in several clinical settings, although there are still questions about the safety of such an approach. The largest randomized trial published to date reported that a procalcitoninguided strategy to treat suspected bacterial infections in nonsurgical patients could reduce antibiotic exposure with no apparent adverse outcomes.⁶⁹ On the other hand, other data discourage the use of procalcitonin-guided antimicrobial escalation, as this approach did not improve survival and worsened organ function and length of stay in the intensive care unit.⁷⁰

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend combination antibiotic therapy for no longer than 3 to 5 days and limiting the duration of antibiotics in most cases to 7 to 10 days.²²

TRIALS ARE ONGOING

The understanding of the pathophysiology and treatment of sepsis has greatly advanced over the last decade. Adoption of evidence-based protocols for managing patients with septic shock has improved outcomes. Nevertheless, many multicenter trials are being conducted worldwide to look into some of the most controversial therapies, and their results will guide therapy in the future.

Medical tourism is on the rise,¹ and since medical tourists are often very important persons (VIPs), hospital-based physicians may be more likely to care for celebrities, royalty, and political leaders. But even in hospitals that do not see medical tourists, physicians will often care for VIP patients such as hospital trustees and board members, prominent physicians, and community leaders.^2–4

However, caring for VIPs raises special issues and challenges. In a situation often referred to as the “VIP syndrome,”^5–9 a patient’s special social or political status—or our perceptions of it—induces changes in behaviors and clinical practice that create a “vicious circle of VIP pressure and staff withdrawal”⁹ that can lead to poor outcomes.

Based on their experience caring for three American presidents, Mariano and McLeod⁷ offered three directives for caring for VIPs:

• Vow to value your medical skills and judgment
• Intend to command the medical aspects of the situation
• Practice medicine the same way for all your patients.⁷

In this paper, we hope to extend the sparse literature on the VIP syndrome by proposing nine principles of caring for VIPs, with recommendations specific to the type of VIP where applicable.

PRINCIPLE 1: DON’T BEND THE RULES

Caring for VIPs creates pressures to change usual clinical wisdom and practices. But it is essential to resist changing time-honored, effective clinical judgment and practices.

To preserve usual clinical practice, clinicians must be constantly vigilant as to whether their judgment is being clouded by the circumstances. As Smith and Shesser noted in 1988, “Since the standard operating procedures […] are designed for the efficient delivery of high-quality care, any deviation from these procedures increases the possibility that care may be compromised.”⁵ In other words, suspending usual practice when caring for a VIP patient can imperil the patient.^2–5,10,11 When caring for VIP physicians, for example, circumventing usual medical and administrative routines and the difficulties that caring for colleagues poses for nurses and physicians have led to poor medical care and outcomes, as well as to hostility.^2–4

A striking example of the potential effects of VIP syndrome is the death of Eleanor Roosevelt from miliary tuberculosis acutissima: she was misdiagnosed with aplastic anemia on the basis of only the results of a bone marrow aspirate study, and she was treated with steroids. The desire to spare this VIP patient the discomfort of a bone marrow biopsy, on which tuberculous granulomata were more likely to have been seen, caused the true diagnosis to be missed and resulted in the administration of a hazardous medication.¹¹ The hard lesson here is that we must resist the pressure to simplify or change customary medical care to avoid causing a VIP patient discomfort or putting the patient through a complex procedure.

We recommend discussing these issues explicitly with the VIP patient and family at the outset so that everyone can appreciate the importance of usual care. An early conversation can communicate the clinician’s experience in the care of such patients and can be reassuring. As Smith and Shesser noted, “Usually, the VIP is relieved if the physician states explicitly, ‘I am going to treat you as I would any other patient.’ ”⁵

PRINCIPLE 2: WORK AS A TEAM, NOT IN ‘SILOS’

Teamwork is essential for good clinical outcomes, ^12–14 especially when the clinical problem is complex, as is often the case when people travel long distances to receive care. All consultants involved in the patient’s care must not only attend to their own clinical issues but also communicate amply with their colleagues.

At the same time, we must recognize that medical practice “is not a committee process; it must be clear at all times which physician is responsible for directing clinical care.”⁵ One physician must be in charge of the overall care. Seeking the input of other physicians must not be allowed to diffuse responsibility. The primary attending physician must speak with the consultants, summarize their views, and then communicate the findings and the plan of care to the patient and family.

Paradoxically, teamwork can be challenged when circumstances lead consultants to defer communicating directly with the family in favor of the primary physician’s doing so. Similarly, consultants must avoid any temptation to simply “do their thing” and not communicate with one another, thereby potentially offering “siloed,” discoordinated care.

We propose designating a primary physician to take charge of the care and the communication. This physician must have the time to talk with each team member about how best to communicate the individual findings to the patient and family. At times, the primary physician may also ask the consultants to communicate directly with the patient and family when needed.

PRINCIPLE 3: COMMUNICATE, COMMUNICATE, COMMUNICATE

As a corollary of principle 2, heightened communication is essential when caring for VIP patients. Communication should include the patient, the family, visiting physicians who accompany the patient, and the physicians providing care. Communicating with the media and with other uninvolved individuals is addressed in principle 4.

The logistic and security challenges of transporting VIP patients through the hospital for tests or therapy demand increased communication. Scheduling a computed tomographic scan may involve arranging an off-hours appointment in the radiology department (to minimize security risks and disruption to other patients’ schedules), assuring the off-hours availability of allied health providers to accompany the patient, alerting hospital security, and discussing the appointment with the patient and the patient’s entourage.

PRINCIPLE 4: CAREFULLY MANAGE COMMUNICATION WITH THE MEDIA

Although the news media and the public may demand medical information about patients who are celebrities, political luminaries, or royalty, the confidentiality of the physician-patient relationship must be protected. The release of health information is at the sole discretion of the patient or a designated surrogate.

The care of President Ronald Reagan after the 1981 assassination attempt is a benchmark of how to release information to the public.¹⁰ A single physician held regularly scheduled press conferences, and these were intentionally held away from the site of the President’s care.

Designating a senior hospital physician to communicate with the media is desirable, and the physician-spokesperson can call on specialists from the patient care team (eg, a critical care physician), when appropriate, to provide further information.

Early implementation of an explicit and structured media communication plan is advisable, especially when the VIP patient is a political or royal figure for whom public clamor for information will be vigorous. A successful communication strategy balances the public’s demand for information with the need to protect the patient’s confidentiality.

PRINCIPLE 5: RESIST ‘CHAIRPERSON’S SYNDROME’

“Chairperson’s syndrome”⁵ is pressure for the VIP patient to be cared for by the department chairperson. The pressure may come from the patient, family, or attendants, who may assume that the chairperson is the best doctor for the clinical circumstance. The pressure may also come from the chairperson, who feels the need to “take command” in a situation with high visibility. Nevertheless, designation of a chairperson to care for a VIP patient is appropriate only when the chairperson is indeed the clinician who has the most expertise in the patient’s clinical issues.

As in principle 1, in academic medical centers, we encourage the participation of trainees in the care of VIP patients because excluding them could disrupt the usual flow of care, and because trainees offer a currency and facility with the nuances of hospital practice and routine that are advantageous to the patient’s care.

PRINCIPLE 6: CARE SHOULD OCCUR WHERE IT IS MOST APPROPRIATE

Decisions about where to place the VIP patient during the medical visit can fall victim to the VIP syndrome if the expectations of the patient or family conflict with usual clinical practice and judgment about the optimal care venue.

For example, caring for the patient in a setting away from the mainstream clinical environment may offer the appeal of privacy or enhanced security but can under some circumstances impede optimal care, including prolonging the response time during emergencies and disrupting the optimal care routine and teamwork of allied health providers.

Critical care services and monitoring are best provided in the intensive care unit, and attempts to relocate the patient away from the intensive care unit should be resisted. We recommend a candid discussion of the importance of keeping the patient in the intensive care unit to ensure optimal care by a seasoned clinical team with short response times if urgencies should arise.

At the same time, a request to transfer a VIP patient to a special setting designed for private care with special amenities (eg, appealing room decor, adjacent sleeping rooms for family members, enhanced security) available in some hospitals^15–16 can be honored as soon as the patient’s condition permits. The benefits of such amenities are often greatly appreciated and can reduce stress and thereby promote recovery. The benefits of enhanced security in sequestered venues may especially drive the decision to move when clinically prudent (see principle 7).

PRINCIPLE 7: PROTECT THE PATIENT’S SECURITY

Providing security is another essential part of caring for VIPs, especially celebrities, political figures, and royalty. Protecting the patient from bodily harm requires special attention to the patient’s location, caregiver access, and other logistic matters.

As indicated in principle 6, the patient’s clinical needs are paramount in determining where the patient receives care. If the patient requires care in a mainstream hospital location such as the intensive care unit, modifications of the unit may be needed to alter access, to accommodate security personnel, and to restrict caregivers’ access to the patient. Modifications include structural changes to windows, special credentials (eg, badges) for essential providers, arranging transports within the hospital for elective procedures during off-hours, and providing around-the-clock security personnel near the patient.

As important as it is to protect VIP patients from bodily harm during the visit, it is equally important to protect them from attacks on confidentiality via unauthorized access to the electronic medical record, and this is perhaps the more difficult challenge, as examples of breaches abound.^10,17–19 Although the duty to protect against these breaches rests with the hospital, the use of “pop-ups” in the electronic medical record can flash a warning that only employees with legitimate clinical reasons should access the record. These warnings should also cite the penalties for unauthorized review of the record, which is supported by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Access to celebrities’ health records could be restricted to a few predetermined health care providers.

PRINCIPLE 8: BE CAREFUL ABOUT ACCEPTING OR DECLINING GIFTS

VIP patients often present gifts to physicians, and giving gifts to doctors is a common and long-standing practice.^20,21 Patients offer gifts out of gratitude, affection, desperation, or the desire to garner special treatment or indebtedness. VIP patients from gifting cultures may be especially likely to offer gifts to their providers, and the gifts can be lavish.

The “ethical calculus”²¹ of whether to accept or decline a gift depends on the circumstances and on what motivates the offer, and the physician needs to consider the patient’s reasons for giving the gift.

In general, gifts should be accepted only with caution during the acute episode of care. The acceptance of a gift from a VIP patient or family member may be interpreted by the gift-giver as a sort of unspoken promise, and this misunderstanding may strain the physician-patient relationship, especially if the clinical course deteriorates.

Rather than accept a gift during an episode of acute care, we suggest that the physician graciously decline the gift and offer to accept the gift at the end of the episode of acute care—that is, if the offerer still feels so inclined and remembers. Explaining the reason for deferring the gift can decrease the risk of misunderstandings or of unmet expectations by the gift-giver. Also, deferring the acceptance of a gift allows the caregiver to affirm the commitment to excellent care that is free of gifts, thereby ensuring that the patient will be confident of a similar level of care by providers who have not been offered gifts.

On the other hand, declining a gift may cause more damage than accepting it, particularly if the VIP patient is from a culture in which refusing a gift is impolite.²² A sensible compromise may be to adopt the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics²³—ie, attempt to appreciate appropriate gifts and graciously refuse those that are not.

PRINCIPLE 9: WORKING WITH THE PATIENT’S PERSONAL PHYSICIANS

VIP patients, perhaps especially royalty, may be accompanied by their own physicians and may also wish to bring in consultants from other institutions. Though this outside involvement poses challenges (eg, providing access to medical records, arranging briefings, attending bedside rounds), we believe it should be encouraged when the issue is raised. Furthermore, institutions and caregivers should anticipate these requests and identify potential outside consultants whose names can be volunteered if the issue arises.

Again, if VIP patients wish to involve physicians from outside the institution where they are receiving care, this should not be viewed as an expression of doubt about the care being received. Rather, we prefer to view it as an opportunity to validate current management or to entertain alternative approaches. Most often, when an outside consultant confirms the current medical care, this can have the beneficial effect of increasing confidence and facilitating management.

In a similar way, when VIP patients bring their own physician, whose judgment and care they trust, this represents an opportunity to engage the patient’s trusted physician-advisor in clinical decision-making and thus optimize communication with the patient. Collegial interactions with these physician-colleagues can facilitate communication and decision-making for the patient.

Medical tourism is on the rise,¹ and since medical tourists are often very important persons (VIPs), hospital-based physicians may be more likely to care for celebrities, royalty, and political leaders. But even in hospitals that do not see medical tourists, physicians will often care for VIP patients such as hospital trustees and board members, prominent physicians, and community leaders.^2–4

However, caring for VIPs raises special issues and challenges. In a situation often referred to as the “VIP syndrome,”^5–9 a patient’s special social or political status—or our perceptions of it—induces changes in behaviors and clinical practice that create a “vicious circle of VIP pressure and staff withdrawal”⁹ that can lead to poor outcomes.

Based on their experience caring for three American presidents, Mariano and McLeod⁷ offered three directives for caring for VIPs:

• Vow to value your medical skills and judgment
• Intend to command the medical aspects of the situation
• Practice medicine the same way for all your patients.⁷

In this paper, we hope to extend the sparse literature on the VIP syndrome by proposing nine principles of caring for VIPs, with recommendations specific to the type of VIP where applicable.

PRINCIPLE 1: DON’T BEND THE RULES

Caring for VIPs creates pressures to change usual clinical wisdom and practices. But it is essential to resist changing time-honored, effective clinical judgment and practices.

To preserve usual clinical practice, clinicians must be constantly vigilant as to whether their judgment is being clouded by the circumstances. As Smith and Shesser noted in 1988, “Since the standard operating procedures […] are designed for the efficient delivery of high-quality care, any deviation from these procedures increases the possibility that care may be compromised.”⁵ In other words, suspending usual practice when caring for a VIP patient can imperil the patient.^2–5,10,11 When caring for VIP physicians, for example, circumventing usual medical and administrative routines and the difficulties that caring for colleagues poses for nurses and physicians have led to poor medical care and outcomes, as well as to hostility.^2–4

A striking example of the potential effects of VIP syndrome is the death of Eleanor Roosevelt from miliary tuberculosis acutissima: she was misdiagnosed with aplastic anemia on the basis of only the results of a bone marrow aspirate study, and she was treated with steroids. The desire to spare this VIP patient the discomfort of a bone marrow biopsy, on which tuberculous granulomata were more likely to have been seen, caused the true diagnosis to be missed and resulted in the administration of a hazardous medication.¹¹ The hard lesson here is that we must resist the pressure to simplify or change customary medical care to avoid causing a VIP patient discomfort or putting the patient through a complex procedure.

We recommend discussing these issues explicitly with the VIP patient and family at the outset so that everyone can appreciate the importance of usual care. An early conversation can communicate the clinician’s experience in the care of such patients and can be reassuring. As Smith and Shesser noted, “Usually, the VIP is relieved if the physician states explicitly, ‘I am going to treat you as I would any other patient.’ ”⁵

PRINCIPLE 2: WORK AS A TEAM, NOT IN ‘SILOS’

Teamwork is essential for good clinical outcomes, ^12–14 especially when the clinical problem is complex, as is often the case when people travel long distances to receive care. All consultants involved in the patient’s care must not only attend to their own clinical issues but also communicate amply with their colleagues.

At the same time, we must recognize that medical practice “is not a committee process; it must be clear at all times which physician is responsible for directing clinical care.”⁵ One physician must be in charge of the overall care. Seeking the input of other physicians must not be allowed to diffuse responsibility. The primary attending physician must speak with the consultants, summarize their views, and then communicate the findings and the plan of care to the patient and family.

Paradoxically, teamwork can be challenged when circumstances lead consultants to defer communicating directly with the family in favor of the primary physician’s doing so. Similarly, consultants must avoid any temptation to simply “do their thing” and not communicate with one another, thereby potentially offering “siloed,” discoordinated care.

We propose designating a primary physician to take charge of the care and the communication. This physician must have the time to talk with each team member about how best to communicate the individual findings to the patient and family. At times, the primary physician may also ask the consultants to communicate directly with the patient and family when needed.

PRINCIPLE 3: COMMUNICATE, COMMUNICATE, COMMUNICATE

As a corollary of principle 2, heightened communication is essential when caring for VIP patients. Communication should include the patient, the family, visiting physicians who accompany the patient, and the physicians providing care. Communicating with the media and with other uninvolved individuals is addressed in principle 4.

The logistic and security challenges of transporting VIP patients through the hospital for tests or therapy demand increased communication. Scheduling a computed tomographic scan may involve arranging an off-hours appointment in the radiology department (to minimize security risks and disruption to other patients’ schedules), assuring the off-hours availability of allied health providers to accompany the patient, alerting hospital security, and discussing the appointment with the patient and the patient’s entourage.

PRINCIPLE 4: CAREFULLY MANAGE COMMUNICATION WITH THE MEDIA

Although the news media and the public may demand medical information about patients who are celebrities, political luminaries, or royalty, the confidentiality of the physician-patient relationship must be protected. The release of health information is at the sole discretion of the patient or a designated surrogate.

The care of President Ronald Reagan after the 1981 assassination attempt is a benchmark of how to release information to the public.¹⁰ A single physician held regularly scheduled press conferences, and these were intentionally held away from the site of the President’s care.

Designating a senior hospital physician to communicate with the media is desirable, and the physician-spokesperson can call on specialists from the patient care team (eg, a critical care physician), when appropriate, to provide further information.

Early implementation of an explicit and structured media communication plan is advisable, especially when the VIP patient is a political or royal figure for whom public clamor for information will be vigorous. A successful communication strategy balances the public’s demand for information with the need to protect the patient’s confidentiality.

PRINCIPLE 5: RESIST ‘CHAIRPERSON’S SYNDROME’

“Chairperson’s syndrome”⁵ is pressure for the VIP patient to be cared for by the department chairperson. The pressure may come from the patient, family, or attendants, who may assume that the chairperson is the best doctor for the clinical circumstance. The pressure may also come from the chairperson, who feels the need to “take command” in a situation with high visibility. Nevertheless, designation of a chairperson to care for a VIP patient is appropriate only when the chairperson is indeed the clinician who has the most expertise in the patient’s clinical issues.

As in principle 1, in academic medical centers, we encourage the participation of trainees in the care of VIP patients because excluding them could disrupt the usual flow of care, and because trainees offer a currency and facility with the nuances of hospital practice and routine that are advantageous to the patient’s care.

PRINCIPLE 6: CARE SHOULD OCCUR WHERE IT IS MOST APPROPRIATE

Decisions about where to place the VIP patient during the medical visit can fall victim to the VIP syndrome if the expectations of the patient or family conflict with usual clinical practice and judgment about the optimal care venue.

For example, caring for the patient in a setting away from the mainstream clinical environment may offer the appeal of privacy or enhanced security but can under some circumstances impede optimal care, including prolonging the response time during emergencies and disrupting the optimal care routine and teamwork of allied health providers.

Critical care services and monitoring are best provided in the intensive care unit, and attempts to relocate the patient away from the intensive care unit should be resisted. We recommend a candid discussion of the importance of keeping the patient in the intensive care unit to ensure optimal care by a seasoned clinical team with short response times if urgencies should arise.

At the same time, a request to transfer a VIP patient to a special setting designed for private care with special amenities (eg, appealing room decor, adjacent sleeping rooms for family members, enhanced security) available in some hospitals^15–16 can be honored as soon as the patient’s condition permits. The benefits of such amenities are often greatly appreciated and can reduce stress and thereby promote recovery. The benefits of enhanced security in sequestered venues may especially drive the decision to move when clinically prudent (see principle 7).

PRINCIPLE 7: PROTECT THE PATIENT’S SECURITY

Providing security is another essential part of caring for VIPs, especially celebrities, political figures, and royalty. Protecting the patient from bodily harm requires special attention to the patient’s location, caregiver access, and other logistic matters.

As indicated in principle 6, the patient’s clinical needs are paramount in determining where the patient receives care. If the patient requires care in a mainstream hospital location such as the intensive care unit, modifications of the unit may be needed to alter access, to accommodate security personnel, and to restrict caregivers’ access to the patient. Modifications include structural changes to windows, special credentials (eg, badges) for essential providers, arranging transports within the hospital for elective procedures during off-hours, and providing around-the-clock security personnel near the patient.

As important as it is to protect VIP patients from bodily harm during the visit, it is equally important to protect them from attacks on confidentiality via unauthorized access to the electronic medical record, and this is perhaps the more difficult challenge, as examples of breaches abound.^10,17–19 Although the duty to protect against these breaches rests with the hospital, the use of “pop-ups” in the electronic medical record can flash a warning that only employees with legitimate clinical reasons should access the record. These warnings should also cite the penalties for unauthorized review of the record, which is supported by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Access to celebrities’ health records could be restricted to a few predetermined health care providers.

PRINCIPLE 8: BE CAREFUL ABOUT ACCEPTING OR DECLINING GIFTS

VIP patients often present gifts to physicians, and giving gifts to doctors is a common and long-standing practice.^20,21 Patients offer gifts out of gratitude, affection, desperation, or the desire to garner special treatment or indebtedness. VIP patients from gifting cultures may be especially likely to offer gifts to their providers, and the gifts can be lavish.

The “ethical calculus”²¹ of whether to accept or decline a gift depends on the circumstances and on what motivates the offer, and the physician needs to consider the patient’s reasons for giving the gift.

In general, gifts should be accepted only with caution during the acute episode of care. The acceptance of a gift from a VIP patient or family member may be interpreted by the gift-giver as a sort of unspoken promise, and this misunderstanding may strain the physician-patient relationship, especially if the clinical course deteriorates.

Rather than accept a gift during an episode of acute care, we suggest that the physician graciously decline the gift and offer to accept the gift at the end of the episode of acute care—that is, if the offerer still feels so inclined and remembers. Explaining the reason for deferring the gift can decrease the risk of misunderstandings or of unmet expectations by the gift-giver. Also, deferring the acceptance of a gift allows the caregiver to affirm the commitment to excellent care that is free of gifts, thereby ensuring that the patient will be confident of a similar level of care by providers who have not been offered gifts.

On the other hand, declining a gift may cause more damage than accepting it, particularly if the VIP patient is from a culture in which refusing a gift is impolite.²² A sensible compromise may be to adopt the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics²³—ie, attempt to appreciate appropriate gifts and graciously refuse those that are not.

PRINCIPLE 9: WORKING WITH THE PATIENT’S PERSONAL PHYSICIANS

VIP patients, perhaps especially royalty, may be accompanied by their own physicians and may also wish to bring in consultants from other institutions. Though this outside involvement poses challenges (eg, providing access to medical records, arranging briefings, attending bedside rounds), we believe it should be encouraged when the issue is raised. Furthermore, institutions and caregivers should anticipate these requests and identify potential outside consultants whose names can be volunteered if the issue arises.

Again, if VIP patients wish to involve physicians from outside the institution where they are receiving care, this should not be viewed as an expression of doubt about the care being received. Rather, we prefer to view it as an opportunity to validate current management or to entertain alternative approaches. Most often, when an outside consultant confirms the current medical care, this can have the beneficial effect of increasing confidence and facilitating management.

In a similar way, when VIP patients bring their own physician, whose judgment and care they trust, this represents an opportunity to engage the patient’s trusted physician-advisor in clinical decision-making and thus optimize communication with the patient. Collegial interactions with these physician-colleagues can facilitate communication and decision-making for the patient.

Medical tourism is on the rise,¹ and since medical tourists are often very important persons (VIPs), hospital-based physicians may be more likely to care for celebrities, royalty, and political leaders. But even in hospitals that do not see medical tourists, physicians will often care for VIP patients such as hospital trustees and board members, prominent physicians, and community leaders.^2–4

However, caring for VIPs raises special issues and challenges. In a situation often referred to as the “VIP syndrome,”^5–9 a patient’s special social or political status—or our perceptions of it—induces changes in behaviors and clinical practice that create a “vicious circle of VIP pressure and staff withdrawal”⁹ that can lead to poor outcomes.

Based on their experience caring for three American presidents, Mariano and McLeod⁷ offered three directives for caring for VIPs:

• Vow to value your medical skills and judgment
• Intend to command the medical aspects of the situation
• Practice medicine the same way for all your patients.⁷

In this paper, we hope to extend the sparse literature on the VIP syndrome by proposing nine principles of caring for VIPs, with recommendations specific to the type of VIP where applicable.

PRINCIPLE 1: DON’T BEND THE RULES

Caring for VIPs creates pressures to change usual clinical wisdom and practices. But it is essential to resist changing time-honored, effective clinical judgment and practices.

To preserve usual clinical practice, clinicians must be constantly vigilant as to whether their judgment is being clouded by the circumstances. As Smith and Shesser noted in 1988, “Since the standard operating procedures […] are designed for the efficient delivery of high-quality care, any deviation from these procedures increases the possibility that care may be compromised.”⁵ In other words, suspending usual practice when caring for a VIP patient can imperil the patient.^2–5,10,11 When caring for VIP physicians, for example, circumventing usual medical and administrative routines and the difficulties that caring for colleagues poses for nurses and physicians have led to poor medical care and outcomes, as well as to hostility.^2–4

A striking example of the potential effects of VIP syndrome is the death of Eleanor Roosevelt from miliary tuberculosis acutissima: she was misdiagnosed with aplastic anemia on the basis of only the results of a bone marrow aspirate study, and she was treated with steroids. The desire to spare this VIP patient the discomfort of a bone marrow biopsy, on which tuberculous granulomata were more likely to have been seen, caused the true diagnosis to be missed and resulted in the administration of a hazardous medication.¹¹ The hard lesson here is that we must resist the pressure to simplify or change customary medical care to avoid causing a VIP patient discomfort or putting the patient through a complex procedure.

We recommend discussing these issues explicitly with the VIP patient and family at the outset so that everyone can appreciate the importance of usual care. An early conversation can communicate the clinician’s experience in the care of such patients and can be reassuring. As Smith and Shesser noted, “Usually, the VIP is relieved if the physician states explicitly, ‘I am going to treat you as I would any other patient.’ ”⁵

PRINCIPLE 2: WORK AS A TEAM, NOT IN ‘SILOS’

Teamwork is essential for good clinical outcomes, ^12–14 especially when the clinical problem is complex, as is often the case when people travel long distances to receive care. All consultants involved in the patient’s care must not only attend to their own clinical issues but also communicate amply with their colleagues.

At the same time, we must recognize that medical practice “is not a committee process; it must be clear at all times which physician is responsible for directing clinical care.”⁵ One physician must be in charge of the overall care. Seeking the input of other physicians must not be allowed to diffuse responsibility. The primary attending physician must speak with the consultants, summarize their views, and then communicate the findings and the plan of care to the patient and family.

Paradoxically, teamwork can be challenged when circumstances lead consultants to defer communicating directly with the family in favor of the primary physician’s doing so. Similarly, consultants must avoid any temptation to simply “do their thing” and not communicate with one another, thereby potentially offering “siloed,” discoordinated care.

We propose designating a primary physician to take charge of the care and the communication. This physician must have the time to talk with each team member about how best to communicate the individual findings to the patient and family. At times, the primary physician may also ask the consultants to communicate directly with the patient and family when needed.

PRINCIPLE 3: COMMUNICATE, COMMUNICATE, COMMUNICATE

As a corollary of principle 2, heightened communication is essential when caring for VIP patients. Communication should include the patient, the family, visiting physicians who accompany the patient, and the physicians providing care. Communicating with the media and with other uninvolved individuals is addressed in principle 4.

The logistic and security challenges of transporting VIP patients through the hospital for tests or therapy demand increased communication. Scheduling a computed tomographic scan may involve arranging an off-hours appointment in the radiology department (to minimize security risks and disruption to other patients’ schedules), assuring the off-hours availability of allied health providers to accompany the patient, alerting hospital security, and discussing the appointment with the patient and the patient’s entourage.

PRINCIPLE 4: CAREFULLY MANAGE COMMUNICATION WITH THE MEDIA

Although the news media and the public may demand medical information about patients who are celebrities, political luminaries, or royalty, the confidentiality of the physician-patient relationship must be protected. The release of health information is at the sole discretion of the patient or a designated surrogate.

The care of President Ronald Reagan after the 1981 assassination attempt is a benchmark of how to release information to the public.¹⁰ A single physician held regularly scheduled press conferences, and these were intentionally held away from the site of the President’s care.

Designating a senior hospital physician to communicate with the media is desirable, and the physician-spokesperson can call on specialists from the patient care team (eg, a critical care physician), when appropriate, to provide further information.

Early implementation of an explicit and structured media communication plan is advisable, especially when the VIP patient is a political or royal figure for whom public clamor for information will be vigorous. A successful communication strategy balances the public’s demand for information with the need to protect the patient’s confidentiality.

PRINCIPLE 5: RESIST ‘CHAIRPERSON’S SYNDROME’

“Chairperson’s syndrome”⁵ is pressure for the VIP patient to be cared for by the department chairperson. The pressure may come from the patient, family, or attendants, who may assume that the chairperson is the best doctor for the clinical circumstance. The pressure may also come from the chairperson, who feels the need to “take command” in a situation with high visibility. Nevertheless, designation of a chairperson to care for a VIP patient is appropriate only when the chairperson is indeed the clinician who has the most expertise in the patient’s clinical issues.

As in principle 1, in academic medical centers, we encourage the participation of trainees in the care of VIP patients because excluding them could disrupt the usual flow of care, and because trainees offer a currency and facility with the nuances of hospital practice and routine that are advantageous to the patient’s care.

PRINCIPLE 6: CARE SHOULD OCCUR WHERE IT IS MOST APPROPRIATE

Decisions about where to place the VIP patient during the medical visit can fall victim to the VIP syndrome if the expectations of the patient or family conflict with usual clinical practice and judgment about the optimal care venue.

For example, caring for the patient in a setting away from the mainstream clinical environment may offer the appeal of privacy or enhanced security but can under some circumstances impede optimal care, including prolonging the response time during emergencies and disrupting the optimal care routine and teamwork of allied health providers.

Critical care services and monitoring are best provided in the intensive care unit, and attempts to relocate the patient away from the intensive care unit should be resisted. We recommend a candid discussion of the importance of keeping the patient in the intensive care unit to ensure optimal care by a seasoned clinical team with short response times if urgencies should arise.

At the same time, a request to transfer a VIP patient to a special setting designed for private care with special amenities (eg, appealing room decor, adjacent sleeping rooms for family members, enhanced security) available in some hospitals^15–16 can be honored as soon as the patient’s condition permits. The benefits of such amenities are often greatly appreciated and can reduce stress and thereby promote recovery. The benefits of enhanced security in sequestered venues may especially drive the decision to move when clinically prudent (see principle 7).

PRINCIPLE 7: PROTECT THE PATIENT’S SECURITY

Providing security is another essential part of caring for VIPs, especially celebrities, political figures, and royalty. Protecting the patient from bodily harm requires special attention to the patient’s location, caregiver access, and other logistic matters.

As indicated in principle 6, the patient’s clinical needs are paramount in determining where the patient receives care. If the patient requires care in a mainstream hospital location such as the intensive care unit, modifications of the unit may be needed to alter access, to accommodate security personnel, and to restrict caregivers’ access to the patient. Modifications include structural changes to windows, special credentials (eg, badges) for essential providers, arranging transports within the hospital for elective procedures during off-hours, and providing around-the-clock security personnel near the patient.

As important as it is to protect VIP patients from bodily harm during the visit, it is equally important to protect them from attacks on confidentiality via unauthorized access to the electronic medical record, and this is perhaps the more difficult challenge, as examples of breaches abound.^10,17–19 Although the duty to protect against these breaches rests with the hospital, the use of “pop-ups” in the electronic medical record can flash a warning that only employees with legitimate clinical reasons should access the record. These warnings should also cite the penalties for unauthorized review of the record, which is supported by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Access to celebrities’ health records could be restricted to a few predetermined health care providers.

PRINCIPLE 8: BE CAREFUL ABOUT ACCEPTING OR DECLINING GIFTS

VIP patients often present gifts to physicians, and giving gifts to doctors is a common and long-standing practice.^20,21 Patients offer gifts out of gratitude, affection, desperation, or the desire to garner special treatment or indebtedness. VIP patients from gifting cultures may be especially likely to offer gifts to their providers, and the gifts can be lavish.

The “ethical calculus”²¹ of whether to accept or decline a gift depends on the circumstances and on what motivates the offer, and the physician needs to consider the patient’s reasons for giving the gift.

In general, gifts should be accepted only with caution during the acute episode of care. The acceptance of a gift from a VIP patient or family member may be interpreted by the gift-giver as a sort of unspoken promise, and this misunderstanding may strain the physician-patient relationship, especially if the clinical course deteriorates.

Rather than accept a gift during an episode of acute care, we suggest that the physician graciously decline the gift and offer to accept the gift at the end of the episode of acute care—that is, if the offerer still feels so inclined and remembers. Explaining the reason for deferring the gift can decrease the risk of misunderstandings or of unmet expectations by the gift-giver. Also, deferring the acceptance of a gift allows the caregiver to affirm the commitment to excellent care that is free of gifts, thereby ensuring that the patient will be confident of a similar level of care by providers who have not been offered gifts.

On the other hand, declining a gift may cause more damage than accepting it, particularly if the VIP patient is from a culture in which refusing a gift is impolite.²² A sensible compromise may be to adopt the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics²³—ie, attempt to appreciate appropriate gifts and graciously refuse those that are not.

PRINCIPLE 9: WORKING WITH THE PATIENT’S PERSONAL PHYSICIANS

VIP patients, perhaps especially royalty, may be accompanied by their own physicians and may also wish to bring in consultants from other institutions. Though this outside involvement poses challenges (eg, providing access to medical records, arranging briefings, attending bedside rounds), we believe it should be encouraged when the issue is raised. Furthermore, institutions and caregivers should anticipate these requests and identify potential outside consultants whose names can be volunteered if the issue arises.

Again, if VIP patients wish to involve physicians from outside the institution where they are receiving care, this should not be viewed as an expression of doubt about the care being received. Rather, we prefer to view it as an opportunity to validate current management or to entertain alternative approaches. Most often, when an outside consultant confirms the current medical care, this can have the beneficial effect of increasing confidence and facilitating management.

In a similar way, when VIP patients bring their own physician, whose judgment and care they trust, this represents an opportunity to engage the patient’s trusted physician-advisor in clinical decision-making and thus optimize communication with the patient. Collegial interactions with these physician-colleagues can facilitate communication and decision-making for the patient.