The role of vasopressin and terlipressin in catecholamine-resistant shock and cardio-circulatory arrest in children: Review of the literature

Adrenaline and vasopressin for cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND

Adrenaline and vasopressin are widely used to treat people with cardiac arrest, but there is uncertainty about the safety, effectiveness and the optimal dose.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether adrenaline or vasopressin, or both, administered during cardiac arrest, afford any survival benefit.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and DARE from their inception to 8 May 2018, and the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation 2015 Advanced Life Support Consensus on Science and Treatment Recommendations. We also searched four trial registers on 5 September 2018 and checked the reference lists of the included studies and review papers to identify potential papers for review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any randomised controlled trial comparing: standard-dose adrenaline versus placebo; standard-dose adrenaline versus high-dose adrenaline; and adrenaline versus vasopressin, in any setting, due to any cause of cardiac arrest, in adults and children. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials for review, assessed risks of bias and extracted data, resolving disagreements through re-examination of the trial reports and by discussion. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare dichotomous outcomes for clinical events. There were no continuous outcomes reported. We examined groups of trials for heterogeneity. We report the quality of evidence for each outcome, using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 studies (21,704 participants).Moderate-quality evidence found that adrenaline increased survival to hospital discharge compared to placebo (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.86; 2 studies, 8538 participants; an increase from 23 to 32 per 1000, 95% CI 25 to 42). We are uncertain about survival to hospital discharge for high-dose compared to standard-dose adrenaline (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.62; participants = 6274; studies = 10); an increase from 33 to 36 per 1000, 95% CI 24 to 53); standard-dose adrenaline versus vasopressin (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.85; 6 studies; 2511 participants; an increase from 72 to 90 per 1000, 95% CI 60 to 133); and standard-dose adrenaline versus vasopressin plus adrenaline (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.22; 3 studies; 3242 participants; a possible decrease from 24 to 18 per 1000, 95% CI 11 to 29), due to very low-quality evidence.Moderate-quality evidence found that adrenaline compared with placebo increased survival to hospital admission (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.76; 2 studies, 8489 participants; an increase from 83 to 209 per 1000, 95% CI 139 to 313). We are uncertain about survival to hospital admission when comparing standard-dose with high-dose adrenaline, due to very low-quality evidence. Vasopressin may improve survival to hospital admission when compared with standard-dose adrenaline (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.54; 3 studies, 1953 participants; low-quality evidence; an increase from 260 to 330 per 1000, 95% CI 270 to 400), and may make little or no difference when compared to standard-dose adrenaline plus vasopressin (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.08; 3 studies; 3249 participants; low-quality evidence; a decrease from 218 to 207 per 1000 (95% CI 181 to 236).There was no evidence that adrenaline (any dose) or vasopressin improved neurological outcomes.The rate of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was higher for standard-dose adrenaline versus placebo (RR 2.86, 95% CI 2.21 to 3.71; participants = 8663; studies = 3); moderate-quality evidence; an increase from 115 to 329 per 1000, 95% CI 254 to 427). We are uncertain about the effect on ROSC for the comparison of standard-dose versus high-dose adrenaline and standard-does adrenaline compared to vasopressin, due to very low-quality evidence. Standard-dose adrenaline may make little or no difference to ROSC when compared to standard-dose adrenaline plus vasopressin (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.08; 3 studies, 3249 participants; low-quality evidence; a possible decrease from 299 to 290 per 1000, 95% CI 260 to 323).The source of funding was not stated in 11 of the 26 studies. The study drugs were provided by the manufacturer in four of the 26 studies, but neither drug represents a profitable commercial option. The other 11 studies were funded by organisations such as research foundations and government funding bodies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides moderate-quality evidence that standard-dose adrenaline compared to placebo improves return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital admission and survival to hospital discharge, but low-quality evidence that it did not affect survival with a favourable neurological outcome. Very low -quality evidence found that high-dose adrenaline compared to standard-dose adrenaline improved return of spontaneous circulation and survival to admission. Vasopressin compared to standard dose adrenaline improved survival to admission but not return of spontaneous circulation, whilst the combination of adrenaline and vasopressin compared with adrenaline alone had no effect on these outcomes. Neither standard dose adrenaline, high-dose adrenaline,vasopressin nor a combination of adrenaline and vasopressin improved survival with a favourable neurological outcome. Many of these studies were conducted more than 20 years ago. Treatment has changed in recent years, so the findings from older studies may not reflect current practice.

Successful treatment of severe arterial hypotension and anuria in a preterm infant with renal tubular dysgenesis- a case report

Background

Oligohydramnios sequence can be caused by renal tubular dysgenesis (RTD), a rare condition resulting in pulmonary and renal morbidity. Besides typical features of Potter-sequence, the infants present with severe arterial hypotension and anuria as main symptoms. Establishing an adequate arterial blood pressure and sufficient renal perfusion is crucial for the survival of these infants.

Case presentation

We describe a male preterm infant of 34 + 0 weeks of gestation. Prenatally oligohydramnios of unknown cause was detected. After uneventful delivery and good adaptation the infant developed respiratory distress due to a spontaneous right-sided pneumothorax and required thoracocentesis and placement of a chest tube; he showed no major respiratory concerns thereafter and needed only minimal ventilatory support. Echocardiography revealed no abnormalities, especially no pulmonary hypertension. However, he suffered from severe arterial hypotension and anuria refractory to catecholamine therapy (dobutamine, epinephrine and noradrenaline). After 36 h of life, vasopressin therapy was initiated resulting in an almost immediate stabilization of arterial blood pressure and subsequent onset of diuresis. Therapy with vasopressin was necessary for three weeks to maintain adequate arterial blood pressure levels and diuresis. Sepsis and adrenal insufficiency were ruled out as inflammation markers, microbiological tests and cortisol level were normal. At two weeks of age, our patient developed electrolyte disturbances which were successfully treated with fludrocortisone. He did not need renal replacement therapy. Genetic analyses revealed a novel compound hyterozygous mutation of RTD. Now 17 months of age, the patient is in clinically stable condition with treatment of fludrocortisone and sodium bicarbonate. He suffers from stage 2 chronic kidney disease; blood pressure, motor and cognitive development are normal.

Conclusions

RTD is a rare cause of oligohydramnios sequence. Next to pulmonary hypoplasia, severe arterial hypotension is responsible for poor survival. We present the only second surviving infant with RTD, who did not require renal replacement therapy during the neonatal period. It can be speculated whether the use of vasopressin prevents renal replacement therapy as vasopressin increases urinary output by improving renal blood flow.

Safety and Efficacy of Terlipressin in Pediatric Distributive Shock: A Retrospective Analysis in 20 Children

INTRODUCTION

Data are still lacking about the use of terlipressin or vasopressin in the treatment of pediatric patients who are in a state of therapy-refractory shock.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of terlipressin on hemodynamics in children with distributive shock and to describe any severe side effects.

METHODS

Consecutive patients (n = 20) with catecholamine-resistant distributive shock who were treated with terlipressin were retrospectively enrolled in this study. We analyzed response in terms of mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate, vasoactive inotropic score (VIS), urinary output, and serum lactate.

RESULTS

The hemodynamics of 12 children significantly improved within 6 h of commencing terlipressin (mean blood pressure increase of ≥20 % without VIS increase, or mean blood pressure increase of ≥10 % with VIS decrease of ≥10 %). The hemodynamics of eight patients did not improve, regardless of treatment dosage or duration. More children died in the responders group (n = 7 [58.3 %]) than in the non-responders group (n = 2 [25.0 %]), but this was not statistically significant. Two patients (one in each group) who received high dosages of terlipressin developed rhabdomyolysis. One case of Takotsubo cardiomyopathy was observed, which could be related to terlipressin.

CONCLUSIONS

Although treatment with terlipressin resulted in rapid positive hemodynamic responses in some children, it did not seem to have a positive effect in other pediatric patients. Therefore, the possible benefits of terlipressin should be always weighed against potential severe adverse effects.

Role of vasopressin and terlipressin in refractory shock compared to conventional therapy in the neonatal and pediatric population: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis

Background

Vasopressin (AVP) and terlipressin (TP) have been used as last-line therapy in refractory shock in children. However, the efficacy and safety profiles of AVP and TP have not been determined in pediatric refractory shock of different origins. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the addition of AVP/TP therapy in pediatric refractory shock of all causes compared to conventional therapy with fluid resuscitation and vasopressor and inotropic therapy.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) comparing AVP and TP to conventional therapy. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to February 2016. The systematic review included all reports of AVP/TP use in the pediatric population. Reports of clinical trials were pooled using random-effects models and TSA. Main outcomes were mortality and tissue ischemia.

Results

Three randomized controlled trials and five “before-and-after clinical” trials (without comparator) met the inclusion criteria. Among 224 neonates and children (aged 0 to 18 years) with refractory shock, 152 received therapy with AVP or TP. Pooled analyses showed no association between AVP/TP treatment and mortality (relative risk (RR),1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71–2.00), length of stay in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) (mean difference (MD), –3.58 days; 95% CI, –9.05 to 1.83), and tissue ischemia (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.47–4.62). In TSA, no significant effect on mortality and risk for developing tissue ischemia was observed with AVP/TP therapy.

Conclusion

Our results emphasize the lack of observed benefit for AVP/TP in terms of mortality and length of stay in the PICU, and suggest an increased risk for ischemic events. Our TSA suggests that further large studies are necessary to demonstrate and establish benefits of AVP/TP in children.

PROSPERO registry: CRD42016035872

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1589-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Experts' recommendations for the management of cardiogenic shock in children

Cardiogenic shock which corresponds to an acute state of circulatory failure due to impairment of myocardial contractility is a very rare disease in children, even more than in adults. To date, no international recommendations regarding its management in critically ill children are available. An experts’ recommendations in adult population have recently been made (Levy et al. Ann Intensive Care 5(1):52, 2015; Levy et al. Ann Intensive Care 5(1):26, 2015). We present herein recommendations for the management of cardiogenic shock in children, developed with the grading of recommendations’ assessment, development, and evaluation system by an expert group of the Groupe Francophone de Réanimation et Urgences Pédiatriques (French Group for Pediatric Intensive Care and Emergencies). The recommendations cover four major fields of application such as: recognition of early signs of shock and the patient pathway, management principles and therapeutic goals, monitoring hemodynamic and biological variables, and circulatory support (indications, techniques, organization, and transfer criteria). Major principle care for children with cardiogenic shock is primarily based on clinical and echocardiographic assessment. There are few drugs reported as effective in childhood in the medical literature. The use of circulatory support should be facilitated in terms of organization and reflected in the centers that support these children. Children with cardiogenic shock are vulnerable and should be followed regularly by intensivist cardiologists and pediatricians. The experts emphasize the multidisciplinary nature of management of children with cardiogenic shock and the importance of effective communication between emergency medical assistance teams (SAMU), mobile pediatric emergency units (SMUR), pediatric emergency departments, pediatric cardiology and cardiac surgery departments, and pediatric intensive care units.

Comparison of normal saline, hypertonic saline albumin and terlipressin plus hypertonic saline albumin in an infant animal model of hypovolemic shock

Introduction

In series of cases and animal models suffering hemorrhagic shock, the use of vasopressors has shown potential benefits regarding hemodynamics and tissue perfusion. Terlipressin is an analogue of vasopressin with a longer half-life that can be administered by bolus injection. We have previously observed that hypertonic albumin improves resuscitation following controlled hemorrhage in piglets. The aim of the present study was to analyze whether the treatment with the combination of terlipressin and hypertonic albumin can produce better hemodynamic and tissular perfusion parameters than normal saline or hypertonic albumin alone at early stages of hemorrhagic shock in an infant animal model.

Methods

Experimental, randomized animal study including 39 2-to-3-month-old piglets. Thirty minutes after controlled 30 ml/kg bleed, pigs were randomized to receive either normal saline (NS) 30 ml/kg (n = 13), 5% albumin plus 3% hypertonic saline (AHS) 15 ml/kg (n = 13) or single bolus of terlipressin 15 μg/kg i.v. plus 5% albumin plus 3% hypertonic saline 15 ml/kg (TAHS) (n = 13) over 30 minutes. Global hemodynamic and tissular perfusion parameters were compared.

Results

After controlled bleed a significant decrease of blood pressure, cardiac index, central venous saturation, carotid and peripheral blood flow, brain saturation and an increase of heart rate, gastric PCO₂ and lactate was observed. After treatment no significant differences in most hemodynamic (cardiac index, mean arterial pressure) and perfusion parameters (lactate, gastric PCO₂, brain saturation, cutaneous blood flow) were observed between the three therapeutic groups. AHS and TAHS produced higher increase in stroke volume index and carotid blood flow than NS.

Conclusions

In this pediatric animal model of hypovolemic shock, albumin plus hypertonic saline with or without terlipressin achieved similar hemodynamics and perfusion parameters than twice the volume of NS. Addition of terlipressin did not produce better results than AHS.