Vasopressor Nonresponse

**Written by:** Elizabeth Stulpin, MD (NUEM ‘23) **Edited by:** Aaron Wibberly, MD (NUEM ‘22)
**Expert Commentary by**: Joshua Zimmerman, MD (NUEM ‘17)

Non-Response to Vasopressors

Shock is defined as a state of cellular and tissue hypoxia resulting in end organ dysfunction. This state may arise due to impaired oxygen delivery to tissues, impaired oxygen utilization by the tissues themselves, increased oxygen consumption, or a combination of these mechanisms. Due to its extremely high morbidity and mortality as well as high healthcare costs, the prompt recognition, diagnosis and resuscitation of shock is key. And for most forms, EM physicians are not typically shocked by shock. They have a toolbox of strategies, mainly fluids and vasopressors, to stabilize these critically ill patients.

However, what happens when the trusted treatment paradigm fails? There is a subset of patients who, despite aggressive conventional resuscitation, have an inadequate hemodynamic response and develop refractory shock. This is seen in approximately 7 percent of patients, with short-term mortality ranging from 50 to 80 percent. Due to this significantly lower incidence and increased mortality, alternate causes for refractory shock must be considered when vasopressors do not have the desired effect.

Acidosis

Acidosis in shock states can present from multiple different sources, including sepsis, hypoxemia, ingestions, hyperlactatemia from hypoperfusion, amongst others. With increasing acidosis, calcium influx is reduced, contractility is inhibited and the binding affinity of pressors is reduced, all of which lead to excess vasodilation and refractory hypotension. While bicarbonate is sometimes given in an effort to increase cellular pH, it is controversial for any pH >7.0. At those levels, bicarbonate administration has not been shown to improve cardiac output, MAP or pressor response. While a bicarbonate drip and hyperventilation can temporize an acidosis, emergent HD or CRRT is a definitive treatment if the cause cannot be quickly reversed.

Adrenal Insufficiency

Cortisol has a myriad of functions in the body, not limited to its synergistic effects with catecholamines to help cause vasoconstriction. Thus, when the adrenal glands are chronically suppressed and then experience an acute stressor, hypotension can ensue. The most common cause of chronic suppression is long-term steroid use, and a stressor can include surgery, infection, hypovolemia, pregnancy, medications, or reduced steroid use. Clues that suggest adrenal insufficiency include nausea/vomiting, cutaneous hyperpigmentation, and multiple electrolyte abnormalities (hyponatremia, hyperkalemia, hypoglycemia). Previously healthy individuals, in the setting of critical illness, can also infrequently decompensate into a state of relative adrenal insufficiency. To reverse these effects as well as refractory hypotension, hydrocortisone is the preferred agent due to both its glucocorticoid and mineralocorticoid properties. A loading dose of 100mg IV should be given, followed by 50mg every 6 hours thereafter.

Alternate Shock

Not all shock is declared equal. For example, a patient in cardiogenic shock will likely worsen with the administration of fluids and the wrong vasopressors. Similarly, obstructive shock as seen in massive PEs, tension pneumothoraces or cardiac tamponade will not improve without addressing the cause.

Anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis may present as hypotension alone. Thus, it may easily be confused with a different form of shock and treated with vasopressors such as norepinephrine and vasopressin, which are not first line for anaphylaxis. Along with using epinephrine as the pressor of choice and other conventional therapies for anaphylaxis, there are alternate medications available for persistent refractory hypotension. One of these is methylene blue. While typically reserved for treatment of methemoglobinemia, the cellular mechanism of methylene blue can decrease vasodilation. Data suggest that this effect can be seen with a one-time dose of 1-2mg/kg.

Hemorrhage

Often a common cause of refractory shock in the post op setting, bleeding can be obscure in its early stages before a hemoglobin drop is appreciated or before the patient develops abdominal distension and flank dullness (retroperitoneal bleed). If concerned, empiric uncrossed unmatched blood can be transfused.

Hypocalcemia

Calcium homeostasis is necessary for the proper maintenance of myocardial contractility and vascular tone. Hypocalcemia can be hinted at through history or by hints such as a prolonged QTc on an ECG. Those at higher risk of hypocalcemia (vitamin D deficiency, ESRD, hyperparathyroidism, burns, multiple blood transfusions, etc.) may have greater severity of shock with increased mortality. In repleting calcium, co-administration of phosphorous and magnesium may allow for reversal of the patient’s shock state.

Hypothyroidism

Decompensated hypothyroidism can have profound effects, including bradycardia, impaired myocardial contractility, and decreased peripheral vasoconstriction. However, even subclinical hypothyroidism with an elevated TSH but normal T4 increases risk of poor outcomes due to effects on cardiac function. While the diagnosis of hypothyroidism can be delayed by lab results, clues to the diagnosis include thyroidectomy scar, non-pitting edema of the extremities, macroglossia, altered mental status, hypoglycemia and hypothermia. Initial hypotension may not respond to vasopressors, but shock should improve once thyroid hormone is given. Stress dose steroids (hydrocortisone 100mg IV) should also be given due to the association between adrenal insufficiency and hypothyroidism, and giving thyroid hormone without steroids can precipitate adrenal crisis.

Ingestions

When in doubt, look at the medication list! Both beta blocker and calcium channel blocker toxicity can cause profound myocardial depression, bradycardia and hypotension due to their inhibition of calcium signaling. Refractory hypotension can be overcome with the use of direct cardiac pacing, calcium, glucagon, or high dose insulin. And if all else fails, ECMO can overcome medication toxicity until it can be fully metabolized or cleared.

When conventional resuscitation for shock with fluids, vasopressors and/or inotropes fails, it is time for a cognitive pause. By running through this list of alternate causes of refractory shock, other methods of resuscitation can be added to improve patient outcomes and stabilize the patient.

Sources:

1) Amrein K, Martucci G, and Hahner S. Understanding adrenal crisis. Intensive Care Medicine. 2018; 44(5): 652-655.

2) Boyd J, Walley K. Is there a role for sodium bicarbonate in treating lactic acidosis from shock? Curr Opin Crit Care. 2008;14:379-83.

3) Farkas J. Decompensated Hypothyroidism. The Internet Book of Critical Care. 2016. Accessed https://emcrit.org/ibcc/myxedema/

4) Ho H, Chapital A, and Yu M. Hypothyroidism and Adrenal Insufficiency in Sepsis and Hemorrhagic Shock. Arch Surgery. 2004; 139(11):1199-1203.

5) Kerns W. Management of B-Adrenergic Blocker and Calcium Channel Antagonist Toxicity. Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America. 2007; 25: 309-331.

6) Levy B, Collin S, Sennoun N, et. al. Vascular hyporesponsiveness to vasopressors in septic shock: from bench to bedside. Intensive Care Medicine. 2010; 36: 2019-2029.

7) Manji F, Wierstra B, and Posadas J. Severe Undifferentiated Vasoplegic Shock Refractory to Vasoactive Agents Treated with Methylene Blue. Case Reports in Critical Care. 2017.

8) Minisola, S et al. Serum Calcium Values and Refractory Vasodilatory Shock. Chest. 2019; 155(1): 242.

9) Nandhabalan P, Ioannou N, Meadows C and Wyncoll D. Refractory septic shock: our pragmatic approach. Critical Care. 2018; 22(1):215.

10) Smith L, and Branson B. Refractory Hypotension – Diagnosis and Management in Surgical Patients. California Medicine. 1961; 95(3): 150-155

11) Velissaris D, Karamouzos V, Ktemopoulos N, Pierrakos C, and Karanikolas M. The Use of Sodium Bicarbonate in the Treatment of Acidosis in Sepsis: A Literature Update on a Long Term Debate. Critical Care Research and Practice. 2015.

12) Wang H, Jones A, and Donnelly J. Revised National Estimates of Emergency Department Visits for Sepsis in the United States. Critical Care Medicine. 2017; 45(9): 1443-1449.

Expert Commentary

Dr. Stulpin's review of a very critical topic is well articulated and concise. I would like to particularly emphasize her final points before delving into the details. As she pointed out, patients failing to respond to typical resuscitative efforts represent quite a quagmire to the ED physician. It is easy to arrive at premature closure and presume all shock to be sepsis simply needing more fluids or vasopressors. However, there is significant risk in this practice, and I would thus advocate very strongly for a “pause” and thorough reassessment of the patient’s presentation and condition. Much akin to a pre-procedural time out, this should be deliberate and uninterrupted to prevent diagnostic momentum from building and arriving at a premature closure on the etiology of the patient’s condition.

This review covers much of the differential and pathophysiology that is germane to a discussion of refractory shock. Rather than review this in detail, I would like to discuss a practical approach to application of this knowledge at the bedside. So, as we approach the patient who is refractory to standard resuscitation, one’s first task is to confirm the patient is receiving the desire therapy and that this is truly shock refractory to intervention. Check all access points for infiltration –the single most reversible cause for refractory hypotension is that the patient is not receiving fluids/vasopressors, etc. due to inadequate access. Check dosing and confirm with nursing that infusions have been running appropriately. If access is the issue, I would advocate placing a more reliable form such as central access or, in the very unstable, IO access early in the reassessment. While I am an advocate for US guided access in stable patients and feel that this is often a great tool, this is a scenario I would advocate against US guided peripheral access. This form of access is often time consuming, and more importantly, signs of infiltration are less evident in deeper IV sites which is a serious concern if you are running peripheral vasopressors.

Presuming your access is adequate, the next task is to reassess perfusion in its entirety. While not mandatory, this is a point where I would consider placing an arterial line for optimally reliable BP monitoring. One must perform a complete re-examination as well. If not already completed, a rectal exam for the occult GI bleeding. One should additionally particular attention on reassessment to skin and perfusion. Check capillary refill, skin temperature and coloration as a matter of habit for cases of refractory shock. Cool extremities are not typically associated with distributive shock and should make you consider shock states with high SVR such as cardiogenic or acute blood loss. In addition, a repeat skin exam may reveal new rashes – I look specifically for the presence of petechiae, purpura or urticaria. Urticaria should prompt consideration of anaphylaxis. If the patient has received any antibiotics yet this is an important consideration given antibiotics are one of the most common medication precipitants of anaphylaxis and this may be the source of their worsening shock state.

After completing your thorough exam, I strongly advocate for a sonographic assessment as well. This is where the RUSH exam, or at least a modified version, fits well into patient assessment and can offer a great deal of information. I pay particularly close attention to the cardiac and abdominal windows. This can aid in the rapid diagnosis of an obstructive shock state such as cardiac tamponade, or acute RV failure in the setting of massive PE. Free intra-abdominal fluid should be considered hemorrhage until proven otherwise in the shock patient. One reminder is that when assessing for occult bleeding, the FAST exam views are an excellent tool but not sufficiently sensitive for definitive rule out. In particular, the FAST exam lacks sensitivity for retroperitoneal bleeding and therefore if there remains high clinical concern, CT imaging should also be considered.

Once a thorough re-examination is completed, reconsider the patient’s medications as another source. Patients are on a myriad of antihypertensives and other agents that can lower blood pressure. Many of the pathways that metabolize or eliminate these drugs are compromised in a state of hypoperfusion and can lead to a synergistic worsening of hypotension. One example of this is the case of BRASH Syndrome. In addition to antihypertensives, a review of the patient’s medication list should include a particular search for steroids or other adrenal replacements such as fludrocortisone. An extremely important cause of refractory hypotension to consider is that of adrenal insufficiency. As Dr. Stulpin reviewed in her discussion above, this can come in both primary and secondary forms. The latter is far more common and induced by exogenous steroid use. A wise ICU attending once taught that no patient should die without stress dose steroids. While perhaps a bit morbid, the take home point here was that adrenal insufficiency can present in any patient, not just those with underlying disorders of glucocorticoid production. Pay particular attention to patients with autoimmune disorders or others on chronic steroid therapy as these are the populations that are particularly at risk. Patients presenting with unexplained hypoglycemia in the setting of sepsis or shock of any kind should also be strongly considered to receive stress dose steroids. Do not wait for a cortisol level to treat this condition. Consider, as well, checking TSH and free T3/T4 as patients with adrenal insufficiency can simultaneously harbor other endocrinopathies.

To summarize, refractory hypotension or failure to respond to traditional interventions is relatively uncommon but critical to identify in shock patients. Often these patients have a primary diagnosis of septic shock but can suffer from concurrent shock related to one or more of the differential considerations we have reviewed above. A thoughtful reassessment, both of the patient’s physical exam findings, US and other diagnostics, medication list and history of present illness will offer clues that may uncover an additional etiology critical to treat and to ensure the best outcome possible.

How To Cite This Post:

[Peer-Reviewed, Web Publication] Stulpin, E. Wibberly, A. (2022, Jan 24). Vasopressor Nonresponse. [NUEM Blog. Expert Commentary by Zimmerman, J]. Retrieved from http://www.nuemblog.com/blog/vasopressor-nonresponse