Distributive shock is a subset of shock marked by decreased systemic vascular resistance, organ hypoperfusion and altered oxygen extraction. Despite the use of intravenous fluids and either higher dose of catecholamines or other additional exogenous vasopressors to maintain blood pressure in the target range, the rate of mortality remains higher in patients with septic shock. Therefore, there is clearly an unmet need for additional safe and effective treatments. The use of angiotensin II to raise the mean arterial pressure (MAP) could provide additional therapy and the opportunity to evaluate a catecholamine-sparing effect by decreasing the dose of concomitant catecholamines while maintaining a target MAP. ATHOS-3 (Angiotensin II for the Treatment of High-Output Shock phase 3; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02338843) was an adequate and well-controlled trial. The primary endpoint was the rate of MAP response at hour 3 of treatment with study drug, defined as either a 10-mmHg increase from baseline in MAP or a MAP of at least 75 mmHg. The secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (total and cardiovascular). Mortality was an exploratory endpoint. The trial provided substantial evidence of the effectiveness of angiotensin II in raising blood pressure over placebo in patients with distributive shock, while keeping catecholamine levels constant. There was no change in the secondary endpoint of total SOFA scores relative to placebo when catecholamine use was reduced in lieu of angiotensin II treatment. There was a slight decrease in the secondary endpoint of cardiovascular SOFA score relative to placebo during the catecholamine-sparing phase, reflecting the catecholamine-sparing effect. There was a consistent trend in decreased mortality relative to placebo over the 28-day study period. Based on the agreements emanating from the special protocol assessment to assess blood pressure effects, the data from this single study supported approval of angiotensin II by the Food and Drug Administration for marketing in the USA.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
No external funds were used in the preparation of this manuscript.
Conflict of interest
Fortunato Senatore, Gowraganahalli Jagadeesh, Martin Rose, Venkateswaran C. Pillai, Sudharshan Hariharan, Ququan Liu, McDowell Tzu-Yun, Mohan K. Sapru, Mary Ross Southworth, and Norman Stockbridge declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this article.
Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:304–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy MM, Evans LE, Rhodes A. The surviving sepsis campaign bundle: 2018 update. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:997–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassi E, Park M, Azevedo LCP. Therapeutic strategies for high-dose vasopressor-dependent shock. Crit Care Res Pract. 2013;2013:654708.Google Scholar
Brand D, Patrick PA, Berger JT, et al. Intensity of vasopressor therapy for septic shock and the risk of in-hospital death. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2017;53:938–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balakumar P, Jagadeesh G. A century old renin–angiotensin system still grows with endless possibilities: AT1 receptor signaling cascades in cardiovascular physiopathology. Cell Signal. 2014;26:2147–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busse LW, Wang XS, Chalikonda DM, et al. Clinical experience with intravenous angiotensin II administration: a systematic review of safety. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:1285–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley SE, Parker B. The hemodynamic effects of angiotonin in normal man. J Clin Invest. 1941;20:715–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas VL, Nielsen MS. Administration of angiotensin II in refractory septic shock. Crit Care Med. 1991;19:1084–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yunge M, Petros A. Angiotensin for septic shock unresponsive to noradrenaline. Arch Dis Child. 2000;82:388–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chawla LS, Busse LW, Brasha-Mitchell E, et al. Intravenous angiotensin II for the treatment of high-output shock (ATHOS trial): a pilot study. Crit Care. 2014;18:534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busse LW, McCurdy MT, Ali O, et al. The effect of angiotensin II on blood pressure in patients with circulatory shock: a structured review of the literature. Crit Care. 2017;21:324–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khanna A, English SW, Wang XS, et al. Angiotensin II for the treatment of vasodilatory shock. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:419–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Gall J-R, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F. A new simplified acute physiology score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. JAMA. 1993;270:2957–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong DT, Knaus WA. Predicting outcome in critical care: the current status of the APACHE prognostic scoring system. Can J Anaesth. 1991;38:374–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22:707–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira FL, Bota DP, Bross A, et al. Serial evaluation of the SOFA score to predict outcome in critically ill patients. JAMA. 2001;286:1754–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisner R, Edwards E, Freeman R, et al. Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and allocation of donor livers. Gastroenterology. 2003;124:91–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magness RR, Cox K, Rosenfeld CR, et al. Angiotensin II metabolic clearance rate and pressor responses in nonpregnant and pregnant women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;171:668–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batlle D, Wysocki J, Soler MJ, et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2: enhancing the degradation of angiotensin II as a potential therapy for diabetic nephropathy. Kidney Int. 2012;81:520–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velez JC. The importance of the intrarenal renin-angiotensin system. Nat Clin Pract Nephrol. 2009;5:89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Admiraal PJ, Danser AH, Jong MS, et al. Regional angiotensin II production in essential hypertension and renal artery stenosis. Hypertension. 1993;21:173–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown NJ, Vaughan DE. Prothrombin effects of angiotensin. Adv Intern Med. 2000;45:419–29.Google Scholar