Modalities of fluid management in patients sustaining the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are challenging and controversial. Optimal fluid management should provide adequate oxygen delivery to the body, while avoiding inadvertent increase in lung edema which further impairs gas exchange. In ARDS patients, positive fluid balance has been associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, longer ICU and hospital stay, and higher mortality. Accordingly, a restrictive strategy has been compared to a more liberal approach in randomized controlled trials conducted in various clinical settings. Restrictive strategies included fluid restriction guided by the monitoring of extravascular lung water, pulmonary capillary wedge or central venous pressure, and furosemide targeted to diuresis and/or albumin replacement in hypoproteinemic patients. Overall, restrictive strategies improved oxygenation significantly and reduced duration of mechanical ventilation, but had no significant effect on mortality. Fluid management may require different approaches depending on the time course of ARDS (i.e., early vs. late period). The effects of fluid strategy management according to ARDS phenotypes remain to be evaluated. Since ARDS is frequently associated with sepsis-induced acute circulatory failure, the prediction of fluid responsiveness is crucial in these patients to avoid hemodynamically inefficient—hence respiratory detrimental—fluid administration. Specific hemodynamic indices of fluid responsiveness or mini-fluid challenges should be preferably used. Since the positive airway pressure contributes to positive fluid balance in ventilated ARDS patients, it should be kept as low as possible. As soon as the hemodynamic status is stabilized, correction of cumulated fluid retention may rely on diuretics administration or renal replacement therapy.

Activation of arginine–vasopressin is one of the hormonal responses to face vasodilation-related hypotension. Released from the post-pituitary gland, vasopressin induces vasoconstriction through the activation of V1a receptors located on vascular smooth muscle cells. Due to its non-selective receptor affinity arginine–vasopressin also activates V2 (located on renal tubular cells of collecting ducts) and V1b (located in the anterior pituitary and in the pancreas) receptors, thereby potentially promoting undesired side effects such as anti-diuresis, procoagulant properties due to release of the von Willebrand’s factor and platelet activation. Finally, it also cross-activates oxytocin receptors. During septic shock, vasopressin plasma levels were reported to be lower than expected, and a hypersensitivity to its vasopressor effect is reported in such situation. Terlipressin and selepressin are synthetic vasopressin analogues with a higher affinity for the V1 receptor, and, hence, potentially less side effects. In this narrative review, we present the current knowledge of the rationale, benefits and risks of vasopressin use in the setting of septic shock and vasoplegic shock following cardiac surgery. Clearly, vasopressin administration allows reducing norepinephrine requirements, but so far, no improvement of survival was reported and side effects are frequent, particularly ischaemic events. Finally, we will discuss the current indications for vasopressin and its agonists in the setting of septic shock, and the remaining unresolved questions.

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of kidney transplants from uncontrolled DCD (uDCD) with kidney transplants from extended (ECD) and standard criteria donors (SCD). In this multicenter study, we included recipients from uDCD (n = 50), and from ECD (n = 57) and SCD (n = 102) who could be eligible for a uDCD program. We compared patient and graft survival, and kidney function between groups. To address the impact of preservation procedures in uDCD, we compared in situ cold perfusion (ICP) with normothermic regional perfusion (NRP). Patient and graft survival rates were similar between the uDCD and ECD groups, but were lower than the SCD group (P < 0.01). Although delayed graft function (DGF) was more frequent in the uDCD group (66%) than in the ECD (40%) and SCD (27%) groups (P = 0.08 and P < 0.001), graft function was comparable between the uDCD and ECD groups at 3 months onwards post-transplantation. The use of NRP in the uDCD group (n = 19) was associated with a lower risk of DGF, and with a better graft function at 2 years post-transplantation, compared to ICP-uDCD (n = 31) and ECD. In conclusion, the use of uDCD kidneys was associated with post-transplantation results comparable to those of ECD kidneys. NRP preservation may improve the results of uDCD transplantation.

During hemorrhagic shock, blood loss causes a fall in blood pressure, decreases cardiac output, and, consequently, O₂ transport. The current guidelines recommend the administration of vasopressors in addition to fluids to maintain arterial pressure when life-threatening hypotension occurs in order to prevent the risk of organ failure, especially acute kidney injury. However, different vasopressors exert variable effects on the kidney, depending on the nature and dose of the substance chosen as follows: Norepinephrine increases mean arterial pressure both via its α-1-mediated vasoconstriction leading to increased systemic vascular resistance and its β1-related increase in cardiac output. Vasopressin, through activation of V1-a receptors, induces vasoconstriction, thus increasing mean arterial pressure. In addition, these vasopressors have the following different effects on renal hemodynamics: Norepinephrine constricts both the afferent and efferent arterioles, whereas vasopressin exerts its vasoconstrictor properties mainly on the efferent arteriole. Therefore, this narrative review discusses the current knowledge of the renal hemodynamic effects of norepinephrine and vasopressin during hemorrhagic shock.

Criteria for the Sepsis-3 definition of septic shock include vasopressor treatment to maintain a mean arterial pressure > 65 mmHg and a lactate concentration > 2 mmol/L. The impact of hyperoxia in patients with septic shock using these criteria is unknown. A post hoc analysis was performed of the HYPER2S trial assessing hyperoxia versus normoxia in septic patients requiring vasopressor therapy, in whom a plasma lactate value was available at study inclusion. Mortality was compared between patients fulfilling the Sepsis-3 septic shock criteria and patients requiring vasopressors for hypotension only (i.e., with lactate ≤ 2 mmol/L). Of the 434 patients enrolled, 397 had available data for lactate at inclusion. 230 had lactate > 2 mmol/L and 167 ≤ 2 mmol/L. Among patients with lactate > 2 mmol/L, 108 and 122 were “hyperoxia”- and “normoxia”-treated, respectively. Patients with lactate > 2 mmol/L had significantly less COPD more cirrhosis and required surgery more frequently. They also had higher illness severity (SOFA 10.6 ± 2.8 vs. 9.5 ± 2.5, p = 0.0001), required more renal replacement therapy (RRT), and received vasopressor and mechanical ventilation for longer time. Mortality rate at day 28 was higher in the “hyperoxia”-treated patients with lactate > 2 mmol/L as compared to “normoxia”-treated patients (57.4% vs. 44.3%, p = 0.054), despite similar RRT requirements as well as vasopressor and mechanical ventilation-free days. A multivariate analysis showed an independent association between hyperoxia and mortality at day 28 and 90. In patients with lactate ≤ 2 mmol/L, hyperoxia had no effect on mortality nor on other outcomes. Our results suggest that hyperoxia may be associated with a higher mortality rate in patients with septic shock using the Sepsis-3 criteria, but not in patients with hypotension alone.

Data for ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) patients requiring intensive care are scarce. We included 97 consecutive patients with acute AAV manifestations (new onset or relapsing disease), admitted to 18 intensive care units (ICUs) over a 10-year period (2002–2012). A group of 95 consecutive AAV patients with new onset or relapsing disease, admitted to two nephrology departments with acute vasculitis manifestations, constituted the control group. In the ICU group, patients predominantly showed granulomatosis with polyangiitis and proteinase-3 ANCAs. Compared with the non-ICU group, the ICU group showed comparable Birmingham vasculitis activity score and a higher frequency of heart, central nervous system and lungs involvements. Respiratory assistance, renal replacement therapy and vasopressors were required in 68.0, 56.7 and 26.8% of ICU patients, respectively. All but one patient (99%) received glucocorticoids, 85.6% received cyclophosphamide, and 49.5% had plasma exchanges as remission induction regimens. Fifteen (15.5%) patients died during the ICU stay. The following were significantly associated with ICU mortality in the univariate analysis: the need for respiratory assistance, the use of vasopressors, the occurrence of at least one infection event in ICU, cyclophosphamide treatment, sequential organ failure assessment at admission and simplified acute physiology score II. After adjustment on sequential organ failure assessment or infection, cyclophosphamide was no longer a risk factor for mortality. Despite a higher initial mortality rate of ICU patients within the first hospital stay (p < 0.0001), the long-term mortality of hospital survivors did not differ between ICU and non-ICU groups (18.6 and 20.4%, respectively, p = 0.36). Moreover, we observed no renal survival difference between groups after a 1-year follow-up (82.1 and 80.5%, p = 0.94). This study supports the idea that experiencing an ICU challenge does not impact the long-term prognosis of AAV patients.