Dataset Information

Vasopressors: Do they have any role in hemorrhagic shock?

ABSTRACT: The priority in the management of patients with traumatic hemorrhagic shock is to control the bleeding with simultaneous volume resuscitation to maintain adequate tissue perfusion. Fluid replacement remains the mainstay of initial resuscitation in hemorrhagic shock. Traditionally, vasopressors are contraindicated in the early management of hemorrhagic shock due to their deleterious consequences, although vasopressors may have a role in resuscitation when vasoplegic shock ensues and blood pressure cannot be maintained by fluids alone. Use of vasopressors is not recommended according to the Advanced Trauma Life SupportR management principles. The role of vasopressors remains controversial with no clear guidelines on the timing, type, and dose of these drugs in hemorrhagic shock. Among vasopressors, norepinephrine and vasopressin have been used in the majority of the trials, although not many studies compare the effect of these two on long-term survival in trauma patients. This article reviews the pathophysiology of hemorrhagic shock, adverse effects of fluid resuscitation, and the various experimental and clinical studies on the use of vasopressors in the early phase of resuscitation in hemorrhagic shock.

SUBMITTER: Gupta B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5374828 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan-Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Vasopressors: Do they have any role in hemorrhagic shock?

Gupta Babita B Garg Neha N Ramachandran Rashmi R

Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology 20170101 1

The priority in the management of patients with traumatic hemorrhagic shock is to control the bleeding with simultaneous volume resuscitation to maintain adequate tissue perfusion. Fluid replacement remains the mainstay of initial resuscitation in hemorrhagic shock. Traditionally, vasopressors are contraindicated in the early management of hemorrhagic shock due to their deleterious consequences, although vasopressors may have a role in resuscitation when vasoplegic shock ensues and blood pressur ...[more]

PMID: 28413267

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundEarly vasopressor utilization has been associated with improved outcomes of patients with spinal shock; however, there are difficulties in weaning off vasopressors, in which patients after recovery from spinal shock develop a state of persistent vasodilation, which may take a few days to resolve and delays the discharge in the intensive care unit (ICU). Therefore, we tested the hypothesis using two oral vasopressors (midodrine and minirin) to facilitate weaning off intravenous vasopressors, reducing the ICU length of stay, and compare them for more efficacy.MethodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted in the trauma ICU at the Assiut University Hospital in Egypt in patients with spinal shock who required intravenous vasopressor for ≥24 h. A convenience sample was classified into three groups, in which 30 patients were included for each group. The midodrine group received midodrine 10 mg per oral every 8 h with gradual weaning off intravenous (IV) vasopressor (noradrenaline) after receiving 4 doses, the minirin group received minirin 60 μg per oral every 8 h with gradual weaning off IV vasopressor after receiving 4 doses, whereas the control group received IV vasopressor (noradrenaline) with gradual weaning according to the routine hospital care without adding oral vasopressors. The primary outcome was shortening the duration of IV vasopressor requirements. The secondary outcome was reducing the ICU length of stay.ResultsOur results showed that the duration of IV vasopressor requirements in the midodrine (3.3 ± 1.32) and minirin groups (4.8 ± 1.83) was significantly lower than in the control group (6.93 ± 2.32). Additionally, the ICU length of stay (days) in the midodrine (5.13 ± 1.83) and minirin groups (5.5 ± 1.91) was significantly lower than in the control group (9.03 ± 3.74).ConclusionMidodrine and minirin accelerated liberation from intravenous noradrenaline and effective in reducing the ICU length of stay in patients with spinal shock.

Dataset Information

Vasopressors: Do they have any role in hemorrhagic shock?

Publications

Vasopressors: Do they have any role in hemorrhagic shock?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets