Dataset Information

Phenylephrine versus norepinephrine for initial hemodynamic support of patients with septic shock: a randomized, controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Previous findings suggest that a delayed administration of phenylephrine replacing norepinephrine in septic shock patients causes a more pronounced hepatosplanchnic vasoconstriction as compared with norepinephrine. Nevertheless, a direct comparison between the two study drugs has not yet been performed. The aim of the present study was, therefore, to investigate the effects of a first-line therapy with either phenylephrine or norepinephrine on systemic and regional hemodynamics in patients with septic shock.We performed a prospective, randomized, controlled trial in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit in a university hospital. We enrolled septic shock patients (n = 32) with a mean arterial pressure below 65 mmHg despite adequate volume resuscitation. Patients were randomly allocated to treatment with either norepinephrine or phenylephrine infusion (n = 16 each) titrated to achieve a mean arterial pressure between 65 and 75 mmHg. Data from right heart catheterization, a thermodye dilution catheter, gastric tonometry, acid-base homeostasis, as well as creatinine clearance and cardiac troponin were obtained at baseline and after 12 hours. Differences within and between groups were analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance for repeated measurements with group and time as factors. Time-independent variables were compared with one-way analysis of variance.No differences were found in any of the investigated parameters.The present study suggests there are no differences in terms of cardiopulmonary performance, global oxygen transport, and regional hemodynamics when phenylephrine was administered instead of norepinephrine in the initial hemodynamic support of septic shock.ClinicalTrial.gov NCT00639015.

SUBMITTER: Morelli A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2646303 | biostudies-literature | 2008

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Phenylephrine versus norepinephrine for initial hemodynamic support of patients with septic shock: a randomized, controlled trial.

Morelli Andrea A Ertmer Christian C Rehberg Sebastian S Lange Matthias M Orecchioni Alessandra A Laderchi Amalia A Bachetoni Alessandra A D'Alessandro Mariadomenica M Van Aken Hugo H Pietropaoli Paolo P Westphal Martin M

Critical care (London, England) 20081118 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>Previous findings suggest that a delayed administration of phenylephrine replacing norepinephrine in septic shock patients causes a more pronounced hepatosplanchnic vasoconstriction as compared with norepinephrine. Nevertheless, a direct comparison between the two study drugs has not yet been performed. The aim of the present study was, therefore, to investigate the effects of a first-line therapy with either phenylephrine or norepinephrine on systemic and regional hemodynam ...[more]

PMID: 19017409

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSeptic shock is often characterized by tachycardia and a hyperdynamic hemodynamic profile. Use of the beta antagonist esmolol has been proposed as a therapy to lower heart rate, thereby improving diastolic filling time and improving cardiac output, resulting in a reduction in vasopressor support.MethodsWe conducted a two-center, open-label, randomized, Phase II trial comparing esmolol to placebo in septic shock patients with tachycardia. The primary endpoint was improvement in hemodynamics as measured by the difference in norepinephrine equivalent dose (NED) between groups at 6 hours after initiation of study drug. Secondary outcomes included assessing differences in inflammatory biomarkers and oxygen consumption (VO2).ResultsA total of 1,122 patients were assessed for eligibility and met inclusion criteria; 42 underwent randomization, and 40 received study interventions (18 in the esmolol arm and 22 in the usual care arm). The mean NED at 6 h was 0.30 ± 0.17 mcg/kg/min in the esmolol arm compared to 0.21 ± 0.19 in the standard care arm (P = 0.15). There was no difference in number of shock free days between the esmolol (2, IQR 0, 5) and control groups (2.5, IQR 0, 6) (P = 0.32). There were lower levels of C-reactive protein at 12 and 24 h in the esmolol arm, as well as a statistically significant difference in trend over time between groups. There were no differences in terms of IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, and TNFα. Among a subset who underwent VO2 monitoring, there was decreased oxygen consumption in the esmolol patients; the mean difference between groups at 24 h was -2.07 mL/kg/min (95% CI -3.82, -0.31) (P = 0.02), with a significant difference for the trend over time (P < 0.01).ConclusionAmong patients with septic shock, infusion of esmolol did not improve vasopressor requirements or time to shock reversal. Esmolol was associated with decreased levels of C-reactive protein over 24 h.Trial registrationwww.clinicaltrials.gov. Registered February 24, 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02369900.

Project description:BackgroundThe effects of vitamin C supplementation on patients with septic shock remain controversial. We aimed to evaluate the effects of different vitamin C dosages on norepinephrine (NE) synthesis in adult patients with septic shock.MethodsA total of 58 patients with septic shock admitted to our intensive care unit (ICU) between July 2021 and December 2022 were included. Patients were randomly divided into 3 groups: high-dose vitamin C (150 mg/kg/d, group A), low-dose vitamin C (50 mg/kg/d, group B), and placebo (group C). NE synthesis-related indicators (dopamine-β-hydroxylase [DβH], tyrosine hydroxylase [TH], tetrahydrobiopterin [BH4], and dopamine [DA]), plasma NE, and vitamin C levels were measured every 24 hours and analyzed. All-cause mortality within 28 days and other clinical outcomes (including Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE], Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA], and Multiple-Organ Dysfunction Syndrome [MODS] scores) were compared.ResultsChanges in TH, BH4, and DβH levels at 96 hours in groups A and B were greater than those in group C. These differences became more pronounced over the course of the intravenous vitamin C administration. Significant differences between groups A and C were detected at 96-hours TH, 72-hours BH4, 96-hours BH4, 96-hours DA, and DβH levels every 24 hours. The 96-hours TH, 96-hours BH4, and 48-hours DβH in group B were significantly higher than those in group C. The NE levels every 24 hours in groups A and B were higher than those in group C, group A and group C had a statistically significant difference. The 96-hours exogenous NE dosage in groups A and B was significantly lower than that in group C. No significant reductions in APACHE, SOFA, or MODS scores were observed in the vitamin C group, including the duration of ICU stay and mechanical ventilation. The 28-days mortality was lower in groups A and B than in group C (0%, 10%, and 16.67%, P = .187), but the difference was not significant.ConclusionFor patients with septic shock, treatment with vitamin C significantly increased TH, BH4, and DβH levels and reduced the exogenous NE dosage, but did not significantly improve clinical outcomes.

Project description:IntroductionRecent clinical data suggest that early administration of vasopressin analogues may be advantageous compared to a last resort therapy. However, it is still unknown whether vasopressin and terlipressin are equally effective for hemodynamic support in septic shock. The aim of the present prospective, randomized, controlled pilot trial study was, therefore, to compare the impact of continuous infusions of either vasopressin or terlipressin, when given as first-line therapy in septic shock patients, on open-label norepinephrine requirements.MethodsWe enrolled septic shock patients (n = 45) with a mean arterial pressure below 65 mmHg despite adequate volume resuscitation. Patients were randomized to receive continuous infusions of either terlipressin (1.3 microg.kg-1.h-1), vasopressin (.03 U.min-1) or norepinephrine (15 microg.min-1; n = 15 per group). In all groups, open-label norepinephrine was added to achieve a mean arterial pressure between 65 and 75 mmHg, if necessary. Data from right heart and thermo-dye dilution catheterization, gastric tonometry, as well as laboratory variables of organ function were obtained at baseline, 12, 24, 36 and 48 hours after randomization. Differences within and between groups were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA for repeated measurements with group and time as factors. Time-independent variables were compared with one-way ANOVA.ResultsThere were no differences among groups in terms of systemic and regional hemodynamics. Compared with infusion of .03 U of vasopressin or 15 microg.min-1 of norepinephrine, 1.3 microg.kg-1.h-1 of terlipressin allowed a marked reduction in catecholamine requirements (0.8 +/- 1.3 and 1.2 +/- 1.4 vs. 0.2 +/- 0.4 microg.kg-1.min-1 at 48 hours; each P < 0.05) and was associated with less rebound hypotension (P < 0.05). At the end of the 48-hour intervention period, bilirubin concentrations were higher in the vasopressin and norepinephrine groups as compared with the terlipressin group (2.3 +/- 2.8 and 2.8 +/- 2.5 vs. 0.9 +/- 0.3 mg.dL-1; each P < 0.05). A time-dependent decrease in platelet count was only observed in the terlipressin group (P < 0.001 48 hours vs. BL).ConclusionsThe present study provides evidence that continuous infusion of low-dose terlipressin--when given as first-line vasopressor agent in septic shock--is effective in reversing sepsis-induced arterial hypotension and in reducing norepinephrine requirements.

Dataset Information

Phenylephrine versus norepinephrine for initial hemodynamic support of patients with septic shock: a randomized, controlled trial.

Publications

Phenylephrine versus norepinephrine for initial hemodynamic support of patients with septic shock: a randomized, controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets