Dataset Information

Comparison of first-line and second-line terlipressin versus sole norepinephrine in fulminant ovine septic shock.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Kampmeier TG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5940827 | biostudies-other | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of first-line and second-line terlipressin versus sole norepinephrine in fulminant ovine septic shock.

Kampmeier Tim G TG Arnemann Philip H PH Hessler Michael M Seidel Laura M LM Becker Karsten K Morelli Andrea A Rehberg Sebastian W SW Ertmer Christian C

Scientific reports 20180508 1

The Surviving Sepsis Guidelines suggest the use of vasopressin in case of catecholamine-refractory septic shock. Terlipressin (TP) as a V<sub>1</sub>-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 sep ...[more]

PMID: 29740065

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.

Project description:Background:Use of high-dose norepinephrine is thought to have an immunosuppressive action that increases mortality. This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between norepinephrine dosage and prognosis of patients with septic shock. Methods:This study was a nested cohort of the DExmedetomidine for Sepsis in Intensive Care Unit Randomized Evaluation (DESIRE) trial. We evaluated 112 patients with septic shock and an initial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Cardiovascular (SOFA-C) category score >?2 and initial lactate level >?2 mmol/L. We divided the patients into two groups according to the norepinephrine dosage administered over the initial 7 days: high dose (??416 ?g/kg/week) (H group, n?=?56) and low dose (<?416 ?g/kg/week) (L group, n?=?56). The primary outcome of interest was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were ventilator-free days, initial 24-h infusion volume, initial 24- to 48-h infusion volume, and the need for renal replacement therapy. For comparisons between the H group and L group, we used the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and the t test or Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables. For time-to-event outcomes, Cox proportional hazards models were used. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were created for graphical representation. Results:Patient characteristics appeared to be similar between the two groups except for the SOFA-C score and fibrinogen degradation product level. The cumulative incidence of death at 28 days was 29.9% (16 patients) in the L group and 29.7% (15 patients) in the H group (p?=?0.99). The median number of 28-day ventilator-free days was 20 (0, 25) in the L group and 16 (0, 22) in the H group (p?<?0.05). Initial infusion volume at 0-24 h in the H group was significantly higher than that in the L group (p?=?0.004). Infusion volume at 24-48 h in the H group was also significantly higher than that in the L group (p?=?0.03). Conclusions:No statistically significant difference was observed in 28-day mortality between patients with septic shock treated with high-dose norepinephrine compared with those treated with low-dose norepinephrine. However, the number of ventilator-free days in the L group was higher than that in the H group. Trial registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01760967 Date of trial registration: January 4, 2013.

Project description:PurposeIt is not clear whether vasopressin versus norepinephrine changed mortality in clinical practice in the Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial (VASST) coordinating center hospital after VASST was published. We tested the hypothesis that vasopressin changed mortality compared to norepinephrine using propensity matching of vasopressin to norepinephrine-treated patients in the VASST coordinating center hospital before (SPH1) and after (SPH2) VASST was published.MethodsVasopressin-treated patients were propensity score matched to norepinephrine-treated patients based on age, APACHE II, respiratory, renal, and hematologic dysfunction, mechanical ventilation status, medical/surgical status, infection site, and norepinephrine dose. The propensity score estimated the probability that a patient would have received vasopressin given baseline characteristics. For sensitivity analysis, we then excluded patients who had underlying severe congestive heart failure. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality.ResultsVasopressin- and norepinephrine-treated patients were similar after matching in SPH1 (pre-VASST); vasopressin-treated patients (n = 158) had a significantly higher mortality than norepinephrine-treated patients (n = 158) (60.8 vs. 46.2%, p = 0.009). In SPH2 after matching, the 28-day mortality rates were not significantly different; 31.2% and 26.9% in the vasopressin (n = 93) and norepinephrine (n = 93) groups, respectively (p = 0.518). The day 1 vasopressin dose in SPH1 vs. SPH2 was 0.036 units/min (SD 0.009) vs. 0.032 units/min (SD 0.005), p = 0.001, significantly lower in SPH2 after VASST.ConclusionsBefore VASST, vasopressin use was associated with increased mortality compared to norepinephrine in the VASST coordinating center hospital. After VASST, there was no difference in mortality between vasopressin- and norepinephrine-treated patients. This may be the first retrospective propensity-matched cohort study of a sepsis treatment in a center that had previously coordinated a large pivotal randomized controlled trial of that treatment and could be a useful approach for other sepsis therapies.Trial registrationRegistration: ISRCTN94845869.

Project description:IntroductionThe present study was designed to determine the effects of continuously infused norepinephrine (NE) plus (1) terlipressin (TP) or (2) arginine vasopressin (AVP) or (3) placebo on sublingual microcirculation in septic shock patients. The primary study end point was a difference of ≥ 20% in the microvascular flow index of small vessels among groups.MethodsThe design of the study was a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. NE was titrated to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) between 65 and 75 mmHg after establishment of normovolemia in 60 septic shock patients. Thereafter patients (n = 20 per group) were randomized to receive continuous infusions of either TP (1 μg/kg/hour), AVP (0.04 U/minute) or placebo (isotonic saline). In all groups, open-label NE was adjusted to maintain MAP within threshold values if needed. The sublingual microcirculatory blood flow of small vessels was assessed by sidestream dark-field imaging. All measurements, including data from right heart catheterization and norepinephrine requirements, were obtained at baseline and 6 hours after randomization.ResultsTP and AVP decreased NE requirements at the end of the 6-hour study period. The data are medians (25th and 75th interquartile ranges (IQRs)): 0.57 μg/kg/minute (0.29 to 1.04) vs. 0.16 μg/kg/minute (0.03 to 0.37) for TP and 0.40 μg/kg/minute (0.20 to 1.05) vs. 0.23 μg/kg/minute (0.03 to 0.77) for AVP, with statistical significance of P < 0.05 vs. baseline and vs. placebo. There were no differences in sublingual microcirculatory variables, systemic hemodynamics, oxygen transport and acid-base homeostasis among the three study groups during the entire observation period. The proportions of perfused vessels increased in relation to baseline within all study groups, and there were no significant differences between groups. The specific data were as follows (median (IQR)): 9.7% (2.6 to 19.8) for TP, 8.9% (0.0 to 17.8) for AVP, and 6.9% (3.5 to 10.1) for placebo (P < 0.05 vs. baseline for each comparison), as well as perfused vessel density 18.6% (8.6 to 36.9) for TP, 20.2% (-3.0 to 37.2) for AVP, and 11.4% (-3.0 to 19.4) for placebo (P < 0.05 vs. baseline for each comparison).ConclusionsThe present study suggests that to achieve a MAP of 65 to 75 mmHg in septic patients treated with NE, the addition of continuously infused low-dose TP or AVP does not affect sublingual microcirculatory blood flow. In addition, our results suggest that microcirculatory flow abnormalities are mainly related to other factors (for example, volume status, timing, hemodynamics and progression of the disease) rather than to the vasopressor per se.Trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov NCT00995839.

Dataset Information

Comparison of first-line and second-line terlipressin versus sole norepinephrine in fulminant ovine septic shock.

Publications

Comparison of first-line and second-line terlipressin versus sole norepinephrine in fulminant ovine septic shock.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets