Terlipressin Versus Norepinephrine for Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Huang P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6936170 | biostudies-literature | 2019
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Terlipressin Versus Norepinephrine for Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Huang Po P Guo Yuhong Y Li Bo B Liu Qingquan Q
Frontiers in pharmacology 20191223
<b>Purpose:</b> The meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of terlipressin compared with norepinephrine for septic shock. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> The relevant studies from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase were searched by two independent investigators. A variety of keywords were used to search the studies. Stata software (version 11.0, Stata Corp LP, College Station, TX, USA) was used for statistical analysis. <b>Results:</b> A total of six studies were identified and inco ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionMost experts recommend norepinephrine as the first-line agent in septic shock. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness and safety of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Epistemonikos, as well as MEDLINE from 1966 till August 2019. Screening of full texts, evaluation for eligibility, and data extraction were done by four independent reviewers. We estimated risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) using a random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary outcomes included the number of participants who achieved the target mean arterial pressure (MAP), time to achieve the target MAP, and number of participants with all-cause 28-day mortality. The secondary outcomes included the length of stay in the intensive care unit, length of hospital stay, incidence of arrhythmia and myocardial infarction, vasopressor-free days, and number of participants with all-cause 90-day mortality.ResultsWe identified 11 randomized controlled trials with a total of 4,803 participants. There was no difference in the number of participants who achieved the target MAP between those patients receiving norepinephrine and other vasopressors (RR 1.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 6.54; P = 0.640; I2 = 94%; two trials, 116 participants). There was no significant difference in time to achieve the target MAP (MD -0.05; 95%, CI, -0.32 to 0.21; P = 0.690; I2 = 26%; two trials, 1763 participants) and all-cause 28-day mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.02; P = 0.160; I2 = 0%; seven trials, 4,139 participants). Regarding the secondary outcome, norepinephrine may significantly reduce the incidence of arrhythmia as compared to other vasopressors (RR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.97; P = 0.030; I2 = 64%; six trials, 3974 participants). There was no difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction (RR 1.28; 95% CI, 0.79 to 2.09), vasopressor-free day (RR 0.46; 95% CI, -1.82 to 2.74) and all-cause 90-day mortality (RR 1.08; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.21) between norepinephrine and vasopressors.ConclusionIn minimizing the occurrence of an arrhythmia, norepinephrine is superior to other vasopressors, making it safe to be used in septic shock. However, there was insufficient evidence concerning mortality and achievement of the target MAP outcomes.
| S-EPMC7972398 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Catecholamines are the first-line vasopressors used in patients with septic shock. However, the search for novel drug candidates is still of great importance due to the development of adrenergic hyposensitivity accompanied by a decrease in catecholamine activity. Terlipressin (TP) is a synthetic vasopressin analogue used in the management of patients with septic shock. In the current study, we aimed to compare the effects of TP and catecholamine infusion in treating septic shock patients. METHODS:A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by searching articles published in PUBMED, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials between inception and July 2018. We only selected randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of TP and catecholamine in adult patients with septic shock. The primary outcome was overall mortality. The secondary outcomes were the ICU length of stay, haemodynamic changes, tissue perfusion, renal function, and adverse events. RESULTS:A total of 9 studies with 850 participants were included in the analysis. Overall, no significant difference in mortality was observed between the TP and catecholamine groups (risk ratio(RR), 0.85 (0.70 to 1.03); P?=?0.09). In patients <?60?years old, the mortality rate was lower in the TP group than in the catecholamine group (RR, 0.66 (0.50 to 0.86); P?=?0.002). There was no significant difference in the ICU length of stay (mean difference, MD), -?0.28?days; 95% confidence interval (CI), -?1.25 to 0.69; P?=?0.58). Additionally, TP improved renal function. The creatinine level was decreased in patients who received TP therapy compared to catecholamine-treated participants (standard mean difference, SMD), -?0.65; 95% CI, -?1.09 to -?0.22; P?=?0.003). No significant difference was found regarding the total adverse events (Odds Ratio(OR), 1.48(0.51 to 4.24); P?=?0.47), whereas peripheral ischaemia was more common in the TP group (OR, 8.65(1.48 to 50.59); P?=?0.02). CONCLUSION:The use of TP was associated with reduced mortality in septic shock patients less than 60?years old. TP may also improve renal function and cause more peripheral ischaemia. PROSPERO registry: CRD42016035872.
| S-EPMC7057452 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a severe and progressive functional renal failure occurring in patients with cirrhosis and ascites. Terlipressin is recognized as an effective treatment of HRS, but it is expensive and not widely available. Norepinephrine could be an effective alternative. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of norepinephrine compared to terlipressin in the management of HRS.MethodsWe searched the Medline, Embase, Scopus, CENTRAL, Lilacs and Scielo databases for randomized trials of norepinephrine and terlipressin in the treatment of HRS up to January 2014. Two reviewers collected data and assessed the outcomes and risk of bias. The primary outcome was the reversal of HRS. Secondary outcomes were mortality, recurrence of HRS and adverse events.ResultsFour studies comprising 154 patients were included. All trials were considered to be at overall high risk of bias. There was no difference in the reversal of HRS (RR?=?0.97, 95% CI?=?0.76 to 1.23), mortality at 30 days (RR?=?0.89, 95% CI?=?0.68 to 1.17) and recurrence of HRS (RR?=?0.72; 95% CI?=?0.36 to 1.45) between norepinephrine and terlipressin. Adverse events were less common with norepinephrine (RR?=?0.36, 95% CI?=?0.15 to 0.83).ConclusionsNorepinephrine seems to be an attractive alternative to terlipressin in the treatment of HRS and is associated with less adverse events. However, these findings are based on data extracted from only four small studies.
| S-EPMC4159336 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Surviving Sepsis Guidelines suggest the use of vasopressin in case of catecholamine-refractory septic shock. Terlipressin (TP) as a V1-selective AVP analogue is a potential alternative, though data regarding the first-line administration in septic shock are scarce. The present study explored and compared the effects of first-line vs. second-line infusion of TP or sole norepinephrine regarding organ function, fluid and norepinephrine requirements and survival in fulminant ovine septic shock. Peritoneal sepsis was induced in 23 ewes after laparotomy and faecal withdrawal from the caecum. After onset of shock, causal and supportive sepsis therapy (antibiotics, peritoneal lavage, fluids and open-label norepinephrine) was performed in all animals. Concurrently, animals were randomized to receive 0.9% sodium chloride (control group) or TP (2?µg?kg-1?h-1, first-line group) after shock onset. In the second-line TP group, TP (2?µg?kg-1?h-1) was started once norepinephrine requirements exceeded 0.5?µg?kg-1?min-1. No significant differences were found between groups regarding survival, haemodynamics as well as fluid- and catecholamine-requirements. Kidney function and electron microscopic kidney injury were comparable between groups. In the present model of fulminant ovine septic shock, first-line TP infusion had no significant effect on fluid and norepinephrine requirements or organ dysfunction as compared to second-line TP infusion or placebo.
| S-EPMC5940827 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:The effect of the timing of norepinephrine initiation on clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock is uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of early and late start of norepinephrine support on clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock. METHODS:We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies from inception to the 1st of March 2020. We included studies involving adult patients (>?18?years) with septic shock. All authors reported our primary outcome of short-term mortality and clearly comparing early versus late norepinephrine initiation with clinically relevant secondary outcomes (ICU length of stay, time to achieved target mean arterial pressure (??65?mmHg), and volume of intravenous fluids within 6?h). Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS:Five studies including 929 patients were included. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis showed that the short-term mortality of the early group was lower than that of the late group (odds ratio [OR]?=?0.45; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.61; P <?0.00001; ?2 = 3.74; I2 =?0%). Secondary outcomes demonstrated that the time to achieved target MAP of the early group was shorter than that of the late group (mean difference?=?-?1.39; 95% CI, -?1.81 to -?0.96; P?<?0.00001; ?2?=?1.03; I2 =?0%). The volume of intravenous fluids within 6?h of the early group was less than that of the late group (mean difference?=?-?0.50; 95% CI, -?0.68 to -?0.32; P?<?0.00001; ?2?=?33.76; I2 =?94%). There was no statistically significant difference in the ICU length of stay between the two groups (mean difference?=?-?0.11; 95% CI, -?1.27 to 1.05; P?=?0.86; ?2?=?0.85; I2 =?0%). CONCLUSIONS:Early initiation of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock was associated with decreased short-term mortality, shorter time to achieved target MAP, and less volume of intravenous fluids within 6?h. There was no significant difference in ICU length of stay between early and late groups. Further large-scale RCTs are still required to confirm these results.
| S-EPMC7409707 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCatecholamines are commonly used in septic shock but face limitations of their hypo-responsiveness and adverse events due to high dose. Terlipressin is a synthetic vasopressin analog with greater selectivity for the V1-receptor. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of terlipressin in septic shock.MethodsWe searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database from inception up to July 15, 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they reported data on any of the predefined outcomes in patients with septic shock and managed with terlipressin or any catecholamines. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were explored.ResultsTen studies with 928 patients were included. Despite the shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, use of terlipressin did not reduce the risk of mortality (RR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.05; I 2 = 0%; P = 0.28) when compared with control. This finding was confirmed by further subgroup and sensitivity analyses. In addition, lactate clearance, length of stay in ICU or hospital, total adverse events, digital ischemia, and arrhythmia were also similar between groups, while terlipressin was associated with shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and less norepinephrine requirements.ConclusionsCurrent results suggest terlipressin did not show added survival benefit in septic shock therapy when compared with catecholamines.
| S-EPMC6419496 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMultiple corticosteroids and treatment regimens have been used as adjuncts in the treatment of septic shock. Qualitative and quantitative differences exist at cellular and tissular levels between the different drugs and their patterns of delivery. The objective of this study was to elucidate any differences between the drugs and their treatment regimens regarding outcomes for corticosteroid use in adult patients with septic shock.MethodsNetwork meta-analysis of the data used for the recently conducted Cochrane review was performed. Studies that included children and were designed to assess respiratory function in pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, as well as cross-over studies, were excluded. Network plots were created for each outcome, and all analyses were conducted using a frequentist approach assuming a random-effects model.ResultsComplete data from 22 studies and partial data from 1 study were included. Network meta-analysis provided no clear evidence that any intervention or treatment regimen is better than any other across the spectrum of outcomes. There was strong evidence of differential efficacy in only one area: shock reversal. Hydrocortisone boluses and infusions were more likely than methylprednisolone boluses and placebo to result in shock reversal.ConclusionsThere was no clear evidence that any one corticosteroid drug or treatment regimen is more likely to be effective in reducing mortality or reducing the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding or superinfection in septic shock. Hydrocortisone delivered as a bolus or as an infusion was more likely than placebo and methylprednisolone to result in shock reversal.
| S-EPMC5371269 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC2750187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveInternational guidelines recommend dopamine or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor agents in septic shock. Phenylephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin and terlipressin are considered second-line agents. Our objective was to assess the evidence for the efficiency and safety of all vasopressors in septic shock.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis. We searched electronic database of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, LILACS and conference proceedings up to June 2014. We included randomized controlled trials comparing different vasopressors for the treatment of adult patients with septic shock. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Other clinical and hemodynamic measurements were extracted as secondary outcomes. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled.ResultsThirty-two trials (3,544 patients) were included. Compared to dopamine (866 patients, 450 events), norepinephrine (832 patients, 376 events) was associated with decreased all-cause mortality, RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.81-0.98), corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 11% and number needed to treat of 9. Norepinephrine was associated with lower risk for major adverse events and cardiac arrhythmias compared to dopamine. No other mortality benefit was demonstrated for the comparisons of norepinephrine to epinephrine, phenylephrine and vasopressin / terlipressin. Hemodynamic data were similar between the different vasopressors, with some advantage for norepinephrine in central venous pressure, urinary output and blood lactate levels.ConclusionsEvidence suggests a survival benefit, better hemodynamic profile and reduced adverse events rate for norepinephrine over dopamine. Norepinephrine should be regarded as the first line vasopressor in the treatment of septic shock.
| S-EPMC4523170 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimCombined hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone therapy for septic shock has not been evaluated with an independent systematic review. We aimed to elucidate the beneficial effects of a dual corticosteroid treatment regime involving both hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone for adult patients with septic shock on mortality.MethodsWe searched the Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ICHUSHI databases for reports published before April 2019. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the use of both hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone with either corticosteroid-free or hydrocortisone-only treatments on adult patients with septic shock. Three researchers independently reviewed the studies. The meta-analyses were undertaken to assess primary outcome (28-day mortality) and secondary outcomes (in-hospital mortality, long-term mortality, shock reversal, and adverse events).ResultsAmong the four studies eligible for data synthesis, we included 2,050 patients from three studies for quantitative synthesis. All studies used similar regimens (hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone for 7 days without tapering). The 28-day mortality rate was reduced after dual corticosteroid treatment (risk ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.78-0.99). The heterogeneity between the studies was low (I 2 = 0%). Patients who underwent dual corticosteroid treatment had lower long-term mortality rates (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98) and higher rate of shock reversal after 28 days (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12) than control patients. Adverse events (except for hyperglycemia) were similar among the treatment groups.ConclusionsThe available evidence suggests that a combination of fludrocortisone and hydrocortisone is more effective than adjunctive therapy and could be recommended for septic shock.
| S-EPMC7507448 | biostudies-literature