Oxygen (O₂) toxicity remains a concern, particularly to the lung. This is mainly related to excessive production of reactive oxygen species (ROS).Supplemental O₂, i.e. inspiratory O₂concentrations (F_IO₂) > 0.21 may causehyperoxaemia(i.e. arterial (a) PO₂ > 100 mmHg) and, subsequently,hyperoxia(increased tissue O₂concentration), thereby enhancing ROS formation. Here, we review the pathophysiology of O₂toxicity and the potential harms of supplemental O₂in various ICU conditions. The current evidence base suggests that PaO₂ > 300 mmHg (40 kPa) should be avoided, but it remains uncertain whether there is an “optimal level” which may vary for given clinical conditions. Since even moderately supra-physiological PaO₂may be associated with deleterious side effects, it seems advisable at present to titrate O₂to maintain PaO₂within the normal range, avoiding both hypoxaemia and excess hyperoxaemia.

This review summarizes the (patho)-physiological effects of ventilation with high FiO2 (0.8–1.0), with a special focus on the most recent clinical evidence on its use for the management of circulatory shock and during medical emergencies. Hyperoxia is a cornerstone of the acute management of circulatory shock, a concept which is based on compelling experimental evidence that compensating the imbalance between O2 supply and requirements (i.e., the oxygen dept) is crucial for survival, at least after trauma. On the other hand, “oxygen toxicity” due to the increased formation of reactive oxygen species limits its use, because it may cause serious deleterious side effects, especially in conditions of ischemia/reperfusion. While these effects are particularly pronounced during long-term administration, i.e., beyond 12–24 h, several retrospective studies suggest that even hyperoxemia of shorter duration is also associated with increased mortality and morbidity. In fact, albeit the clinical evidence from prospective studies is surprisingly scarce, a recent meta-analysis suggests that hyperoxia is associated with increased mortality at least in patients after cardiac arrest, stroke, and traumatic brain injury. Most of these data, however, originate from heterogenous, observational studies with inconsistent results, and therefore, there is a need for the results from the large scale, randomized, controlled clinical trials on the use of hyperoxia, which can be anticipated within the next 2–3 years. Consequently, until then, “conservative” O2 therapy, i.e., targeting an arterial hemoglobin O2 saturation of 88–95 % as suggested by the guidelines of the ARDS Network and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, represents the treatment of choice to avoid exposure to both hypoxemia and excess hyperoxemia.

Vasopressors are commonly applied to restore and maintain blood pressure in patients with sepsis. We aimed to evaluate the current practice and therapeutic goals regarding vasopressor use in septic shock as a basis for future studies and to provide some recommendations on their use. From November 2016 to April 2017, an anonymous web-based survey on the use of vasoactive drugs was accessible to members of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). A total of 17 questions focused on the profile of respondents, triggering factors, first choice agent, dosing, timing, targets, additional treatments, and effects of vasopressors. We investigated whether the answers complied with current guidelines. In addition, a group of 34 international ESICM experts was asked to formulate recommendations for the use of vasopressors based on 6 questions with sub-questions (total 14). A total of 839 physicians from 82 countries (65% main specialty/activity intensive care) responded. The main trigger for vasopressor use was an insufficient mean arterial pressure (MAP) response to initial fluid resuscitation (83%). The first-line vasopressor was norepinephrine (97%), targeting predominantly a MAP > 60–65 mmHg (70%), with higher targets in patients with chronic arterial hypertension (79%). The experts agreed on 10 recommendations, 9 of which were based on unanimous or strong (≥ 80%) agreement. They recommended not to delay vasopressor treatment until fluid resuscitation is completed but rather to start with norepinephrine early to achieve a target MAP of ≥ 65 mmHg. Reported vasopressor use in septic shock is compliant with contemporary guidelines. Future studies should focus on individualized treatment targets including earlier use of vasopressors.

Guidelines recommend that a mean arterial pressure (MAP) value greater than 65 mm Hg should be the initial blood pressure target in septic shock, but what evidence is there to support this statement? We searched Pubmed and Google Scholar by using the key words ‘arterial pressure’, ‘septic shock’, and ‘norepinephrine’ and retrieved human studies published between 1 January 2000 and 31 July 2014. We identified seven comparative studies: two randomized clinical trials and five observational studies. The results of the literature review suggest that a MAP target of 65 mm Hg is usually sufficient in patients with septic shock. However, a MAP of around 75 to 85 mm Hg may reduce the development of acute kidney injury in patients with chronic arterial hypertension. Because of the high prevalence of chronic arterial hypertension in patients who develop septic shock, this finding is of considerable importance. Future studies should assess interactions between time, fluid volumes administered, and doses of vasopressors.

Background: Growing evidence associates organ dysfunction(s) with impaired metabolism in sepsis. Recent research has increased our understanding of the role of substrate utilization and mitochondrial dysfunction in the pathophysiology of sepsis-related organ dysfunction. The purpose of this review is to present this evidence as a coherent whole and to highlight future research directions. Main text: Sepsis is characterized by systemic and organ-specific changes in metabolism. Alterations of oxygen consumption, increased levels of circulating substrates, impaired glucose and lipid oxidation, and mitochondrial dysfunction are all associated with organ dysfunction and poor outcomes in both animal models and patients. The pathophysiological relevance of bioenergetics and metabolism in the specific examples of sepsis-related immunodeficiency, cerebral dysfunction, cardiomyopathy, acute kidney injury and diaphragmatic failure is also described. Conclusions: Recent understandings in substrate utilization and mitochondrial dysfunction may pave the way for new diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. These findings could help physicians to identify distinct subgroups of sepsis and to develop personalized treatment strategies. Implications for their use as bioenergetic targets to identify metabolism- and mitochondria-targeted treatments need to be evaluated in future studies.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is characterized by severe impairment of gas exchange. Hypoxemia is mainly due to intrapulmonary shunt, whereas increased alveolar dead space explains the alteration of CO₂ clearance. Assessment of the severity of gas exchange impairment is a requisite for the characterization of the syndrome and the evaluation of its severity. Confounding factors linked to hemodynamic status can greatly influence the relationship between the severity of lung injury and the degree of hypoxemia and/or the effects of ventilator settings on gas exchange. Apart from situations of rescue treatment, targeting optimal gas exchange in ARDS has become less of a priority compared with prevention of injury. A complex question for clinicians is to understand when improvement in oxygenation and alveolar ventilation is related to a lower degree or risk of injury for the lungs. In this regard, a full understanding of gas exchange mechanism in ARDS is imperative for individualized symptomatic support of patients with ARDS.