Correspondence
Kotani and colleagues should be commended for comparing the vasopressive effects of most vasopressors available on the market. Their work aims at harmonizing the vasopressive burden in patients with shock [1].
In our opinion, the authors forgot to mention that, depending on countries and institutions, two formulations of norepinephrine are available: either as tartrate/bitartrate at 2 mg/mL or as base at 1 mg/mL. This means that the equipotent vasopressive formulations can require to adapt the dose by a factor 2, a conversion factor of paramount importance in daily practice. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SCC) 2021 recommended adding vasopressin in septic shock patients when the dose of norepinephrine reaches 0.25 −0.5 μg/kg/min [2]. For an 80-kg adult, this translates by introducing vasopressin at a threshold ranging from 1.2 mg/h of norepinephrine when the base formulation is used at the lowest recommendation to 4.8 mg/h when the tartrate/bitartrate formulation is used at the higher recommendation. Interestingly, in an international survey on the adhesion to SSC guidelines, 50% of 820 respondents were unaware of the formulations used in their units [3]. This bias can lead to unwanted high doses of norepinephrine and misinterpretation of clinical trial results. In addition, delayed vasopressin introduction may be less effective than an early multimodal strategy based on combination of several vasopressors [4, 5].
In conclusion, there is a need for homogenizing the norepinephrine formulation in order to improve the interprofessional communication on vasopressive equivalence scores across the different publications and practices all over the world.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Author contributions
NM, QDR, ML and PG wrote and approved the final manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
No funding was required.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
NM and PG received consulting fees from AOP Health. ML served as consultant for Viatris, Gilead, AOP Pharma and LFB and as speaker for AOP Pharma. QDR has no potential conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Kotani Y, Gioia AD, Landoni G, Belletti A, Khanna AK. An updated “norepinephrine equivalent” score in intensive care as a marker of shock severity. Crit Care. 2023;27:29. doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04322-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, Antonelli M, Coopersmith CM, French C, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intens Care Med. 2021;47:1181–1247. doi: 10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Bitton E, Zimmerman S, Azevedo LCP, Benhamou D, Cecconi M, Waele JJD, et al. An international survey of adherence to Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines 2016 regarding fluid resuscitation and vasopressors in the initial management of septic shock. J Crit Care. 2022;68:144–154. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2021.11.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Guerci P, Belveyre T, Mongardon N, Novy E. When to start vasopressin in septic shock: the strategy we propose. Crit Care. 2022;26:125. doi: 10.1186/s13054-022-04001-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Leone M, Einav S, Antonucci E, Depret F, Lakbar I, Martin-Loeches I, et al. Multimodal strategy to counteract vasodilation in septic shock. Anaesth Crit Care Pa. 2023;42:101193. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2023.101193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.