Dataset Information

Non-Adrenergic Vasopressors in Patients with or at Risk for Vasodilatory Shock. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

ABSTRACT: Hypotensive state is frequently observed in several critical conditions. If an adequate mean arterial pressure is not promptly restored, insufficient tissue perfusion and organ dysfunction may develop. Fluids and catecholamines are the cornerstone of critical hypotensive states management. Catecholamines side effects such as increased myocardial oxygen consumption and development of arrhythmias are well known. Thus, in recent years, interest in catecholamine-sparing agents such as vasopressin, terlipressin and methylene blue has increased; however, few randomized trials, mostly with small sample sizes, have been performed. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials to investigate the effect of non-catecholaminergic vasopressors on mortality.PubMed, BioMed Central and Embase were searched (update December 31st, 2014) by two independent investigators. Inclusion criteria were: random allocation to treatment, at least one group receiving a non-catecholaminergic vasopressor, patients with or at risk for vasodilatory shock. Exclusion criteria were: crossover studies, pediatric population, non-human studies, studies published as abstract only, lack of data on mortality. Studied drugs were vasopressin, terlipressin and methylene blue. Primary endpoint was mortality at the longest follow-up available.A total of 1,608 patients from 20 studies were included in our analysis. The studied settings were sepsis (10/20 studies [50%]), cardiac surgery (7/20 [35%]), vasodilatory shock due to any cause (2/20 [19%]), and acute traumatic injury (1/20 [5%]). Overall, pooled estimates showed that treatment with non-catecholaminergic agents improves survival (278/810 [34.3%] versus 309/798 [38.7%], risk ratio = 0.88, 95% confidence interval = 0.79 to 0.98, p = 0.02). None of the drugs was associated with significant reduction in mortality when analyzed independently. Results were not confirmed when analyzing studies with a low risk of bias.Catecholamine-sparing agents in patients with or at risk for vasodilatory shock may improve survival. Further researches on this topic are needed to confirm the finding.

SUBMITTER: Belletti A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4641698 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Non-Adrenergic Vasopressors in Patients with or at Risk for Vasodilatory Shock. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Belletti Alessandro A Musu Mario M Silvetti Simona S Saleh Omar O Pasin Laura L Monaco Fabrizio F Hajjar Ludhmila A LA Fominskiy Evgeny E Finco Gabriele G Zangrillo Alberto A Landoni Giovanni G

PloS one 20151111 11

<h4>Introduction</h4>Hypotensive state is frequently observed in several critical conditions. If an adequate mean arterial pressure is not promptly restored, insufficient tissue perfusion and organ dysfunction may develop. Fluids and catecholamines are the cornerstone of critical hypotensive states management. Catecholamines side effects such as increased myocardial oxygen consumption and development of arrhythmias are well known. Thus, in recent years, interest in catecholamine-sparing agents s ...[more]

PMID: 26558621

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionCatecholamines are the most used vasopressors in vasodilatory shock. However, the development of adrenergic hyposensitivity and the subsequent loss of catecholamine pressor activity necessitate the search for other options. Our aim was to evaluate the effects of vasopressin and its analog terlipressin compared with catecholamine infusion alone in vasodilatory shock.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of publications between 1966 and 2011 was performed. The Medline and CENTRAL databases were searched for studies on vasopressin and terlipressin in critically ill patients. The meta-analysis was limited to randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of vasopressin and/or terlipressin compared with catecholamine in adult patients with vasodilatory shock. The assessed outcomes were: overall survival, changes in the hemodynamic and biochemical variables, a decrease of catecholamine requirements, and adverse events.ResultsNine trials covering 998 participants were included. A meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model showed a reduction in norepinephrine requirement among patients receiving terlipressin or vasopressin infusion compared with control (standardized mean difference, -1.58 (95% confidence interval, -1.73 to -1.44); P < 0.0001). Overall, vasopressin and terlipressin, as compared with norepinephrine, reduced mortality (relative risk (RR), 0.87 (0.77 to 0.99); P = 0.04). Vasopressin compared with norepinephrine decreased mortality in adult patients (RR, 0.87 (0.76 to 1.00); P = 0.05) and in patients with septic shock (42.5% vs. 49.2%, respectively; RR, 0.87 (0.75 to 1.00); P = 0.05; number needed to treat, 1 to 15). There was no difference in adverse events between the vasopressin and control groups (RR, 0.98 (0.65 to 1.47); P = 0.92).ConclusionsVasopressin use in vasodilatory shock is safe, associated with reduced mortality, and facilitates weaning of catecholamines. In patients with septic shock, use of vasopressin compared with norepinephrine may also decrease mortality.

Project description:Background: Norepinephrine (NE) has currently been the first-choice vasopressor in treating septic shock despite generally insufficient for patients with refractory septic shock. The aim of this update meta-analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of a combination of non-catecholamine vasopressors (vasopressin/pituitrin/terlipressin/selepressin/angiotensin II) and NE versus NE in managing adult septic shock patients.Methods: We conducted this study of literatures published from the inception to April 30, 2020, using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases without language restriction. Randomized controlled trials comparing NE with non-catecholamine vasopressors among adult septic shock patients were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled effects of relative risk (RR) or standard mean difference (SMD) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model.Results: Twenty-three studies covering 4380 participants were finally enrolled. The combined analysis of non-catecholamine vasopressors resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in 90-day/ICU/hospital mortality except for a decreased in 28-day mortality (n = 4217; RR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.86-0.99; P = 0.02). This favorable result was subsequently verified by the subgroup analyses of low risk of bias studies (RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.84 to 0.98; P = 0.02) and catecholamine-resistant refractory shock patients group (RR, 0.84; 95% CI = 0.70-1.00; P = 0.048). The pooled analysis of non-catecholamine vasopressors showed a 14% higher success rate of shock reversal at 6?h, a 29% decreased risk of continuous renal replacement therapy, but a 51% increased risk of hyponatremia and a 2.43 times higher risk of digital ischemia. Besides, the pooled data showed that non-catecholamine vasopressors decreased heart rate (HR) (SMD, - 0.43; 95% CI - 0.66 - - 0.19; P < 0.001), serum creatinine (- 0.15; 95% CI - 0.29 - - 0.01; P = 0.04), and the length of mechanical ventilation (MV) (- 0.19; 95% CI - 0.31 - - 0.07; P < 0.01, but there was no significant difference in other parameters.Conclusions: Current pooled results suggest that the addition of NE to non-catecholamine vasopressors was associated with a marginally significant reduction in 28-day mortality. Moreover, they were able to shorten the length of MV, improved renal function, decreased HR, and increased the 6-h shock reversal success rate at the expense of increased the risk of hyponatremia and digital ischemia.

Project description:BackgroundInitial goal-directed resuscitation for hypotensive shock usually includes administration of intravenous fluids, followed by initiation of vasopressors. Despite obvious immediate effects of vasopressors on haemodynamics, their effect on patient-relevant outcomes remains controversial. This review was published originally in 2004 and was updated in 2011 and again in 2016.ObjectivesOur objective was to compare the effect of one vasopressor regimen (vasopressor alone, or in combination) versus another vasopressor regimen on mortality in critically ill participants with shock. We further aimed to investigate effects on other patient-relevant outcomes and to assess the influence of bias on the robustness of our effect estimates.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015 Issue 6), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PASCAL BioMed, CINAHL, BIOSIS and PsycINFO (from inception to June 2015). We performed the original search in November 2003. We also asked experts in the field and searched meta-registries to identify ongoing trials.Selection criteriaRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing various vasopressor regimens for hypotensive shock.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors abstracted data independently. They discussed disagreements between them and resolved differences by consulting with a third review author. We used a random-effects model to combine quantitative data.Main resultsWe identified 28 RCTs (3497 participants) with 1773 mortality outcomes. Six different vasopressors, given alone or in combination, were studied in 12 different comparisons.All 28 studies reported mortality outcomes; 12 studies reported length of stay. Investigators reported other morbidity outcomes in a variable and heterogeneous way. No data were available on quality of life nor on anxiety and depression outcomes. We classified 11 studies as having low risk of bias for the primary outcome of mortality; only four studies fulfilled all trial quality criteria.In summary, researchers reported no differences in total mortality in any comparisons of different vasopressors or combinations in any of the pre-defined analyses (evidence quality ranging from high to very low). More arrhythmias were observed in participants treated with dopamine than in those treated with norepinephrine (high-quality evidence). These findings were consistent among the few large studies and among studies with different levels of within-study bias risk.Authors' conclusionsWe found no evidence of substantial differences in total mortality between several vasopressors. Dopamine increases the risk of arrhythmia compared with norepinephrine and might increase mortality. Otherwise, evidence of any other differences between any of the six vasopressors examined is insufficient. We identified low risk of bias and high-quality evidence for the comparison of norepinephrine versus dopamine and moderate to very low-quality evidence for all other comparisons, mainly because single comparisons occasionally were based on only a few participants. Increasing evidence indicates that the treatment goals most often employed are of limited clinical value. Our findings suggest that major changes in clinical practice are not needed, but that selection of vasopressors could be better individualised and could be based on clinical variables reflecting hypoperfusion.

Project description:In 2012, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning regarding potential adverse effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) on cognition, based on the Adverse Events Reporting System and a review of the medical literature. We aimed to synthesize randomized clinical trial (RCTs) evidence on the association between statin therapy and cognitive outcomes.We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL through December 2012, and reviewed published systematic reviews of statin treatment. We sought RCTs that compared statin treatment versus placebo or standard care, and reported at least one cognitive outcome (frequency of adverse cognitive events or measurements using standard neuropsychological cognitive test scores). Studies reporting sufficient information to calculate effect sizes were included in meta-analyses. Standardized and unstandardized mean differences were calculated for continuous outcomes for global cognition and for pre-specified cognitive domains. The main outcome was change in cognition measured by neuropsychological tests; an outcome of secondary interest was the frequency of adverse cognitive events observed during follow-up.We identified 25 RCTs (all placebo-controlled) reporting cognitive outcomes in 46,836 subjects, of which 23 RCTs reported cognitive test results in 29,012 participants. Adverse cognitive outcomes attributable to statins were rarely reported in trials involving cognitively normal or impaired subjects. Furthermore, meta-analysis of cognitive test data (14 studies; 27,643 participants) failed to show significant adverse effects of statins on all tests of cognition in either cognitively normal subjects (standardized mean difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval, CI, -0.01 to 0.03, p?=?0.42) or Alzheimer's disease subjects (standardized mean difference -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10, p?=?0.38).Statin therapy was not associated with cognitive impairment in RCTs. These results raise questions regarding the continued merit of the FDA warning about potential adverse effects of statins on cognition.

Project description:IntroductionThe benefit of medications used in out-of-hospital, shock-refractory cardiac arrest remains controversial. This study aims to compare the treatment outcomes of medications for out-of-hospital, shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (pVT).MethodsThe inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials of participants older than eight years old who had atraumatic, out-of-hospital, shock-refractory VF/pVT in which at least one studied group received a medication. We conducted a database search on October 28, 2019, that included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL Complete, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Citations of relevant meta-analyses were also searched. We performed frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) to combine the comparisons. The outcomes were analyzed by using odds ratios (OR) and compared to placebo. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. The secondary outcomes included the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, and the neurological outcome at discharge. We ranked all outcomes using surface under the cumulative ranking score.ResultsWe included 18 studies with 6,582 participants. The NMA of 20 comparisons included 12 medications and placebo. Only norepinephrine showed a significant increase of ROSC (OR = 8.91, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.88-42.29). Amiodarone significantly improved survival to hospital admission (OR = 1.53, 95% CI, 1.01-2.32). The ROSC and survival-to-hospital admission data were significantly heterogeneous with the I2 of 55.1% and 59.1%, respectively. This NMA satisfied the assumption of transitivity.ConclusionNo medication was associated with improved survival to hospital discharge from out-of-hospital, shock-refractory cardiac arrest. For the secondary outcomes, norepinephrine was associated with improved ROSC and amiodarone was associated with an increased likelihood of survival to hospital admission in the NMA.

Dataset Information

Non-Adrenergic Vasopressors in Patients with or at Risk for Vasodilatory Shock. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Publications

Non-Adrenergic Vasopressors in Patients with or at Risk for Vasodilatory Shock. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets