Commentary on: Catecholamines in Sepsis: Pharmacological Insights and Clinical Applications – A Narrative Review

Jacopo Belfiore

Anesthesia and Transplant Intensive Care Unit, University of Pisa, Italy

Abstract

The review by Belfiore et al. offers a comprehensive examination of catecholamine pharmacology and clinical application in septic shock, emphasizing their cardiovascular, metabolic, immunomodulatory, and endothelial effects. The authors highlight the dual role of catecholamines, which are essential for hemodynamic support yet capable of exacerbating sepsis through immune dysregulation and endothelial dysfunction. Key topics include catecholamine refractoriness, β2-adrenergic immunomodulation, corticosteroid synergy, and endothelial permeability. While the review provides a robust mechanistic framework and updates classical knowledge with recent immunologic and metabolic insights, future research directions are identified. These include expanding vasoactive strategies, advancing precision medicine approaches, investigating metabolic consequences, addressing catecholamine-resistant shock, and developing endothelial-targeted therapies. Overall, the review is a valuable resource for critical care clinicians, though further integration of individualized therapeutic strategies and broader exploration of emerging treatments would enhance future discourse.

Introduction

The review by Belfiore et al. provides an extensive overview of the pharmacology and clinical use of catecholamines in septic shock, focusing on their cardiovascular, metabolic, immunomodulatory, and endothelial effects. This work offers insights for anesthesiologists and intensivists, reaffirming the central role of catecholamines in critical care while highlighting potential adverse effects and emerging therapeutic strategies¹.

One of the most important conclusions of the manuscript is the complex duality of catecholamines in sepsis: while vital for hemodynamic support, their widespread effects on immune function and endothelial permeability can paradoxically exacerbate sepsis pathophysiology. The authors appropriately underline the concept of “catecholamine refractoriness” and the immunoparalysis induced by persistent adrenergic stimulation, two areas of critical concern that demand clinical awareness^2-3.

The review also highlights the immunomodulatory role of norepinephrine via β2-adrenergic receptors and presents a nuanced discussion of the timing and synergy between catecholamines and corticosteroids. These sections are highly relevant, given the ongoing debates surrounding corticosteroid timing and precision medicine approaches in septic shock^4-5. Belfiore et al. succeed in providing a broad yet detailed pharmacological background, helping readers understand the molecular basis behind clinical practices. The mechanistic explanations, including G-protein coupled receptor pathways and endothelial cytoskeleton modulation, are particularly strong and align with modern molecular critical care literature^6-7.

Moreover, the paper thoroughly discusses endothelial dysfunction and vascular leak, which are underrepresented in many sepsis-focused reviews despite being fundamental to organ failure and mortality⁸.

Finally, the integration of recent immunological and metabolic findings regarding sepsis-induced immunosuppression demonstrates the authors' commitment to updating classical knowledge with newer scientific paradigms.

Despite the review’s substantial contributions, several domains could have been more deeply explored, particularly with an eye toward future research directions:

Broadening Vasoactive Strategies

While norepinephrine remains the cornerstone of septic shock management, alternative or adjunctive vasopressors (e.g., vasopressin, angiotensin II, selepressin) offer potential means of minimizing adrenergic overstimulation and catecholamine dependence. Future investigations should aim to define optimal sequencing or combination strategies tailored to specific patient endotypes^9-10.

Precision Medicine and Endotyping

As the authors acknowledge, patient heterogeneity in immune response may critically influence therapeutic efficacy. Future research should prioritize the development of biomarker-driven algorithms to identify subgroups most likely to benefit—or to be harmed—by high-dose catecholamines and corticosteroids^11-12. Integration of transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic data into clinical decision-making remains an unmet need.

Metabolic Consequences and Mitochondrial Dysfunction

The potential for catecholamines to exacerbate metabolic derangements, including mitochondrial dysfunction, hyperglycemia, and lactate accumulation, warrants further investigation. Understanding the balance between hemodynamic benefit and metabolic cost may guide personalized titration strategies in septic shock¹³.

Catecholamine-Resistant Shock

Mechanisms underpinning catecholamine-resistant vasoplegia—including receptor desensitization, downregulation, and intracellular signaling dysfunction—represent a critical area for future study. The development of adjunctive therapies capable of restoring adrenergic responsiveness, or bypassing adrenergic pathways altogether, could redefine shock management paradigms¹⁴. The ATHOS-3 trial demonstrated the superiority of angiotensin II over placebo in the treatment of catecholamine-resistant shock, showing significant improvements in mean arterial pressure (MAP) and a concurrent reduction in SOFA scores¹⁵. Furthermore, Kotani et al. conducted a meta-analysis of multiple randomized controlled trials, revealing a reduction in mortality among patients with septic shock treated with non-catecholaminergic vasopressors. The main limitation of the meta-analysis appears to be the lack of statistical significance when analyzing individual vasopressor agents¹⁶. Nonetheless, the combined use of non-catecholaminergic and catecholaminergic vasopressors appears to be a promising strategy for managing catecholamine-refractory shock.

Endothelial-Targeted Therapeutics

Given the emerging evidence of catecholamines’ effects on endothelial stability, it would be valuable to explore targeted therapies that synergize with catecholamines to preserve endothelial integrity without augmenting systemic adrenergic stress^7-8.

Conclusions

This narrative review by Belfiore et al. represents an important contribution to the understanding of catecholamine pharmacology in sepsis. It succeeds in synthesizing historical knowledge with recent scientific advances, providing a resource for anesthesiologists and intensivists.

However, future reviews or updates could benefit from a broader exploration of vasopressor diversity, a stronger integration of precision medicine perspectives, and an emphasis on visual summaries to enhance clinical translation. Ultimately, optimizing catecholamine use in sepsis will require a delicate balance between restoring hemodynamics and minimizing immunologic and endothelial harm.

References

1. Belfiore J, Taddei R, Biancofiore G. Catecholamines in sepsis: pharmacological insights and clinical applications—a narrative review. J Anesth Analg Crit Care. 2025; 5(1): 17.
2. Stolk RF, van der Pasch E, Naumann F, et al. Norepinephrine Dysregulates the Immune Response and Compromises Host Defense during Sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020; 202(6): 830-842.
3. Uhel F, van der Poll T. Norepinephrine in Septic Shock: A Mixed Blessing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020; 202(6): 788-789.
4. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Crit Care Med. 2021; 49(11): e1063-e1143.
5. Ammar MA, Ammar AA, Wieruszewski PM, et al. Timing of vasoactive agents and corticosteroid initiation in septic shock. Ann Intensive Care. 2022; 12(1): 47.
6. Joffre J, Lloyd E, Wong E, et al. Catecholaminergic Vasopressors Reduce Toll-Like Receptor Agonist-Induced Microvascular Endothelial Cell Permeability but Not Cytokine Production. Crit Care Med. 2021; 49(3): e315-e326.
7. López García butLomana A, Vilhjálmsson AI, McGarrity S, et al. Metabolic Response in Endothelial Cells to Catecholamine Stimulation Associated with Increased Vascular Permeability. Int J Mol Sci. 2022; 23(6): 3162.
8. McMullan RR, McAuley DF, O'Kane CM, et al. Vascular leak in sepsis: physiological basis and potential therapeutic advances. Crit Care. 2024; 28(1): 97.
9. Annane D, Renault A, Brun-Buisson C, et al. CRICS-TRIGGERSEP Network. Hydrocortisone plus Fludrocortisone for Adults with Septic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378(9): 809-818.
10. Lambden S, Creagh-Brown BC, Hunt J, et al. Definitions and pathophysiology of vasoplegic shock. Crit Care. 2018; 22(1): 174.
11. Antcliffe DB, Burnham KL, Al-Beidh F, et al. Transcriptomic Signatures in Sepsis and a Differential Response to Steroids. From the VANISH Randomized Trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019; 199(8): 980-986.
12. Wong HR, Hart KW, Lindsell CJ, et al. External Corroboration That Corticosteroids May Be Harmful to Septic Shock Endotype A Patients. Critical Care Medicine. 2021; 49(1): p e98-e101.
13. Preau S, Vodovar D, Jung B, et al. Energetic dysfunction in sepsis: a narrative review. Ann Intensive Care. 2021; 11(1): 104.
14. Wieruszewski PM, Khanna AK. Vasopressor Choice and Timing in Vasodilatory Shock. Crit Care. 2022; 26(1): 76
15. Chawla LS, Russell JA, Bagshaw SM, et al. Angiotensin II for the Treatment of High-Output Shock 3 (ATHOS-3): protocol for a phase III, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Crit Care Resusc. 2017; 19(1): 43-49.
16. Kotani Y, Belletti A, D’Amico F, et al.Non-adrenergic vasopressors for vasodilatory shock or perioperative vasoplegia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care. 2024; 28: 439.