Renal Outcomes of Vasopressin and Its Analogs in Distributive Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Prospective randomized double-blind study to evaluate the superiority of Vasopressin versus Norepinephrine in the management of the patient at renal risk undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (NOVACC trial)

BACKGROUND

Cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury (CS-AKI) affects up to 30% of patients, increasing morbidity and healthcare costs. This condition results from complex factors like ischemia-reperfusion injury and renal hemodynamic changes, often exacerbated by surgical procedures. Norepinephrine, commonly used in cardiac surgeries, may heighten the risk of CS-AKI. In contrast, vasopressin, a noncatecholaminergic agent, shows potential in preserving renal function by favorably affecting renal hemodynamic. Preliminary findings, suggest vasopressin could reduce the incidence of CS-AKI compared to norepinephrine. Additionally, vasopressin is linked to a lower incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation, another factor contributing to longer hospital stays and higher costs. This study hypothesizes that vasopressin could effectively reduce CS-AKI occurrence and severity by optimizing renal perfusion during cardiac surgeries.

STUDY DESIGN

The NOVACC trial (NCT05568160) is a multicenter, randomized, double blinded superiority-controlled trial testing the superiority of vasopressin over norepinephrine in patients scheduled for cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). The primary composite end point is the occurrence of acute kidney injury and death. The secondary end points are neurological, cardiologic, digestive, and vasopressor related complications at day 7, day 30, day 90, hospital and intensive care unit lengths of stay, medico-economic costs at day 90.

CONCLUSION

The NOVACC trial will assess the effectiveness of vasopressin in cardiac surgery with CPB in reducing acute kidney injury, mortality, and medical costs.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05568160.

Vasopressin in Sepsis and Other Shock States: State of the Art

This review of the use of vasopressin aims to be comprehensive and highly practical, based on the available scientific evidence and our extensive clinical experience with the drug. It summarizes controversies about vasopressin use in septic shock and other vasodilatory states. Vasopressin is a natural hormone with powerful vasoconstrictive effects and is responsible for the regulation of plasma osmolality by maintaining fluid homeostasis. Septic shock is defined by the need for vasopressors to correct hypotension and lactic acidosis secondary to infection, with a high mortality rate. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend vasopressin as a second-line vasopressor, added to norepinephrine. However, these guidelines do not address specific debates surrounding the use of vasopressin in real-world clinical practice.

Vasoplegic Syndrome after Cardiopulmonary Bypass in Cardiovascular Surgery: Pathophysiology and Management in Critical Care

Vasoplegic syndrome (VS) is a common complication following cardiovascular surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), and its incidence varies from 5 to 44%. It is defined as a distributive form of shock due to a significant drop in vascular resistance after CPB. Risk factors of VS include heart failure with low ejection fraction, renal failure, pre-operative use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, prolonged aortic cross-clamp and left ventricular assist device surgery. The pathophysiology of VS after CPB is multi-factorial. Surgical trauma, exposure to the elements of the CPB circuit and ischemia-reperfusion promote a systemic inflammatory response with the release of cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8, and TNF-α) with vasodilating properties, both direct and indirect through the expression of inducible nitric oxide (NO) synthase. The resulting increase in NO production fosters a decrease in vascular resistance and a reduced responsiveness to vasopressor agents. Further mechanisms of vasodilation include the lowering of plasma vasopressin, the desensitization of adrenergic receptors, and the activation of ATP-dependent potassium (KATP) channels. Patients developing VS experience more complications and have increased mortality. Management includes primarily fluid resuscitation and conventional vasopressors (catecholamines and vasopressin), while alternative vasopressors (angiotensin 2, methylene blue, hydroxocobalamin) and anti-inflammatory strategies (corticosteroids) may be used as a rescue therapy in deteriorating patients, albeit with insufficient evidence to provide any strong recommendation. In this review, we present an update of the pathophysiological mechanisms of vasoplegic syndrome complicating CPB and discuss available therapeutic options.

Diabetes Insipidus after Vasopressin Withdrawal: A Scoping Review

Objectives

The objective of this study is to synthesize the current literature about the relationship between the occurrence of diabetes insipidus (DI), its diagnosis criteria, and management after withdrawal of vasopressin (VP) in critically ill.

Data sources

This scoping review followed the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR). The search literature was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, until March 2022. A manual search was also conducted in order to include articles that were not identified in the initial search performed in the databases.

Study selection and data extraction

The selection of studies and extraction of data were carried out in a paired and independent manner. There was no restriction regarding the language of publication of the included manuscripts.

Data synthesis

The analysis included 17 studies (16 case reports and one retrospective cohort). All studies used VP, with a median time of drug infusion of 48 hours (IQR: 16-72) and DI incidence of 1.53%. The diagnosis of DI was based on diuresis output and concomitant hypernatremia or changes in serum sodium concentration, with median time to symptoms onset after discontinuation of VP of 5 hours (IQR: 3-10). The treatment of DI consisted mainly of fluid management and the use of desmopressin.

Conclusions

DI after VP withdrawal was present in 51 patients described in 17 studies, but diagnosis and management varied among each report. Using the available data, we propose a diagnosis suggestion and a flowchart for managing patients with DI after withdrawal of VP in the Intensive Care Unit. Multicentric collaborative research is urgently needed to obtain more quality data on this topic.

How to cite this article

Pérsico RS, Viana MV, Viana LV. Diabetes Insipidus after Vasopressin Withdrawal: A Scoping Review. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(7):846-852.

Vasopressor and inotrope treatment for septic shock: An umbrella review of reviews

PURPOSE

To review the characteristics, findings and quality of systematic reviews (SRs) on the effect of any vasopressor/inotrope on outcomes in adult patients with sepsis compared with either no treatment, another vasopressor or inotrope or fluids.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed and Embase (January 1993-March 2021). Descriptive statistics were used.

RESULTS

Among the 28 SRs identified, mortality was the primary outcome in most (26/28) and mortality was usually (23/28) studied using randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Fifteen SRs focused exclusively on patients with sepsis or septic shock. Sepsis and septic shock were always grouped for the analysis. Publication bias was consistently low when studied. The most consistent findings were a survival advantage with norepinephrine versus dopamine, which disappeared in analyses restricted to 28-day mortality, and more arrhythmias with dopamine. However, these analyses were dominated by a single study. Only 2 SRs were judged to be of moderate-high quality. Lack of blinding and attrition bias may have affected the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of SRs on the effect of vasopressors/inotropes on the outcomes of adult patients with sepsis can be improved, but high-quality, multicenter, RCTs should be preferred to additional SRs on this topic.

Beneficial Effects of Vasopressin Compared With Norepinephrine on Renal Perfusion, Oxygenation, and Function in Experimental Septic Acute Kidney Injury

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of restoring mean arterial pressure with vasopressin or norepinephrine on systemic hemodynamics, renal blood flow, intrarenal perfusion and oxygenation, and renal function in ovine septic acute kidney injury.

DESIGN

Interventional Study.

SETTING

Research Institute.

SUBJECTS

Adult Merino ewes.

INTERVENTIONS

Flow probes were implanted on the pulmonary and renal arteries (and the mesenteric artery in sheep that received vasopressin). Fiber-optic probes were implanted in the renal cortex and medulla to measure tissue perfusion and oxygen tension (PO2). Conscious sheep were administered Escherichia coli to induce septic acute kidney injury. Vasopressin (0.03 IU/min [0.03-0.05 IU/min]; n = 7) or norepinephrine (0.60 μg/kg/min [0.30-0.70 μg/kg/min]; n = 7) was infused IV and titrated to restore baseline mean arterial pressure during 24-30 hours of sepsis.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Ovine septic acute kidney injury was characterized by reduced mean arterial pressure (-16% ± 2%) and creatinine clearance (-65% ± 9%) and increased renal blood flow (+34% ± 7%) but reduced renal medullary perfusion (-44% ± 7%) and PO2 (-47% ± 10%). Vasopressin infusion did not significantly affect renal medullary perfusion or PO2 and induced a sustained (6 hr) ~2.5-fold increase in creatinine clearance. Vasopressin reduced sepsis-induced mesenteric hyperemia (+61 ± 13 to +9% ± 6%). Norepinephrine transiently (2 hr) improved creatinine clearance (by ~3.5-fold) but worsened renal medullary ischemia (to -64% ± 7%) and hypoxia (to -71% ± 6%).

CONCLUSIONS

In ovine septic acute kidney injury, restoration of mean arterial pressure with vasopressin induced a more sustained improvement in renal function than norepinephrine, without exacerbating renal medullary ischemia and hypoxia or reducing mesenteric blood flow below baseline values.

The effect of early vasopressin use on patients with septic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effect of early vasopressin 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 start of vasopressin support within 6 h after the diagnosis on clinical outcomes in septic shock patients.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies from inception to the 1st of February 2021. We included studies involving adult patients (> 16 years)with septic shock. All authors reported our primary outcome of short-term mortality and in the experimental group patients in the studies receiving vasopressin infusion within 6 h after diagnosis of septic shock and in the control group patients in the studies receiving no vasopressin infusion or vasopressin infusion 6 h after diagnosis of septic shock, clearly comparing with clinically relevant secondary outcomes(use of renal replacement therapy(RRT),new onset arrhythmias, ICU length of stay and length of hospitalization). Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Five studies including 788 patients were included. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis showed that short-term mortality between the two groups was no difference (odds ratio [OR] = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.48; P = 0.6; χ2 = 0.83; I2 = 0%). Secondary outcomes demonstrated that the use of RRT was less in the experimental group than that of the control group (OR = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.88; P = 0.007; χ2 = 3.15; I2 = 36%).The new onset arrhythmias between the two groups was no statistically significant difference (OR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.1; P = 0.10; χ2 = 4.7; I2 = 36%). There was no statistically significant difference in the ICU length of stay(mean difference = 0.16; 95% CI, - 0.91 to 1.22; P = 0.77; χ2 = 6.08; I2 = 34%) and length of hospitalization (mean difference = -2.41; 95% CI, -6.61 to 1.78; P = 0.26; χ2 = 8.57; I2 = 53%) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Early initiation of vasopressin in patients within 6 h of septic shock onset was not associated with decreased short-term mortality, new onset arrhythmias, shorter ICU length of stay and length of hospitalization, but can reduce the use of RRT. Further large-scale RCTs are still needed to evaluate the benefit of starting vasopressin in the early phase of septic shock.

Vasopressor Therapy in Cardiac Surgery-An Experts' Consensus Statement

Hemodynamic conditions with reduced systemic vascular resistance commonly are observed in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and may range from moderate reductions in vascular tone, as a side effect of general anesthetics, to a profound vasodilatory syndrome, often referred to as vasoplegic shock. Therapy with vasopressors is an important pillar in the treatment of these conditions. There is limited guidance on the appropriate choice of vasopressors to restore and optimize systemic vascular tone in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. A panel of experts in the field convened to develop statements and evidence-based recommendations on clinically relevant questions on the use of vasopressors in cardiac surgical patients, using a critical appraisal of the literature following the GRADE system and a modified Delphi process. The authors unanimously and strongly recommend the use of norepinephrine and/or vasopressin for restoration and maintenance of systemic perfusion pressure in cardiac surgical patients; despite that, the authors cannot recommend either of these drugs with respect to the risk of ischemic complications. The authors unanimously and strongly recommend against using dopamine for treating post-cardiac surgery vasoplegic shock and against using methylene blue for purposes other than a rescue therapy. The authors unanimously and weakly recommend that clinicians consider early addition of a second vasopressor (norepinephrine or vasopressin) if adequate vascular tone cannot be restored by a monotherapy with either norepinephrine or vasopressin and to consider using vasopressin as a first-line vasopressor or to add vasopressin to norepinephrine in cardiac surgical patients with pulmonary hypertension or right-sided heart dysfunction.

Vasopressin Versus Norepinephrine for the Management of Septic Shock in Cancer Patients: The VANCS II Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

Previous trials suggest that vasopressin may improve outcomes in patients with vasodilatory shock. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether vasopressin could be superior to norepinephrine to improve outcomes in cancer patients with septic shock.

DESIGN

Single-center, randomized, double-blind clinical trial, and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

SETTING

ICU of a tertiary care hospital.

PATIENTS

Two-hundred fifty patients 18 years old or older with cancer and septic shock.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were assigned to either vasopressin or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor therapy. An updated meta-analysis was also conducted including randomized trials published until October 2018.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. Prespecified secondary outcomes included 90-days all-cause mortality rate; number of days alive and free of advanced organ support at day 28; and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score 24 hours and 96 hours after randomization. We also measure the prevalence of adverse effects in 28 days. A total of 250 patients were randomized. The primary outcome was observed in 71 patients (56.8%) in the vasopressin group and 66 patients (52.8%) in the norepinephrine group (p = 0.52). There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (90 patients [72.0%] and 94 patients [75.2%], respectively; p = 0.56), number of days alive and free of advanced organ support, adverse events, or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score.

CONCLUSIONS

In cancer patients with septic shock, vasopressin as first-line vasopressor therapy was not superior to norepinephrine in reducing 28-day mortality rate.

Vasopressor and Inotrope Therapy in Cardiac Critical Care

Patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) are often in shock and require hemodynamic support. Identifying and addressing the pathophysiology mechanisms operating in an individual patient is crucial to achieving a successful outcome, while initiating circulatory support therapy to restore adequate tissue perfusion. Vasopressors and inotropes are the cornerstone of supportive medical therapy for shock, in addition to fluid resuscitation when indicated. Timely initiation of optimal vasopressor and inotrope therapy is essential for patients with shock, with the ultimate goals of restoring effective tissue perfusion in order to normalize cellular metabolism. Use of vasoactive agents for hemodynamic support of patients with shock should take both arterial pressure and tissue perfusion into account when choosing therapeutic interventions. For most patients with shock, including cardiogenic or septic shock, norepinephrine (NE) is an appropriate choice as a first-line vasopressor titrated to achieve an adequate arterial pressure due to a lower risk of adverse events than other catecholamine vasopressors. If tissue and organ perfusion remain inadequate, an inotrope such as dobutamine may be added to increase cardiac output to a sufficient level that meets tissue demand. Low doses of epinephrine or dopamine may be used for inotropic support, but high doses of these drugs carry an excessive risk of adverse events when used for vasopressor support and should be avoided. When NE alone is inadequate to achieve an adequate arterial pressure, addition of a noncatecholamine vasopressor such as vasopressin or angiotensin-II is reasonable, in addition to rescue therapies that may improve vasopressor responsiveness. In this review, we discuss the pharmacology and evidence-based use of vasopressor and inotrope drugs in critically ill patients, with a focus on the CICU population.

Narrative Review of Controversies Involving Vasopressin Use in Septic Shock and Practical Considerations

Objective: To summarize literature evaluating vasopressin use, focusing on clinical controversies regarding initiation, dosing, and discontinuation and interaction of vasopressin with other therapies in septic shock patients. Data Sources: A PubMed English-language literature search (January 2008 to December 2019) was performed using these terms: arginine vasopressin, septic, shock, and sepsis. Citations, including controlled trials, observational studies, review articles, guidelines, and consensus statements, were reviewed. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Relevant clinical data focusing on specific controversial questions regarding the utility of vasopressin in patients with septic shock were narratively summarized. Data Synthesis: Current literature does not strongly support the use of vasopressin as a first-line initial therapy for septic shock. Additionally, there are conflicting data for weight-based dosing of vasopressin in overweight patients. Evidence for vasopressin renal protection and interaction with corticosteroids is minimal. However, vasopressin has the ability to reduce catecholamine requirements in septic shock patients and may provide a mortality benefit in specific subgroups. Discontinuation of vasopressin last, not second to last, in resolving septic shock may reduce hypotension development. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review addresses specific clinical controversies that drive vasopressin use in septic shock patients in real-world practice. Conclusion: Vasopressin should remain second-line adjunct to norepinephrine to augment mean arterial pressures. Dosing should be initiated at 0.03 U/min, and higher doses offer minimal benefit. There are conflicting data on the impact of weight on vasopressin response. Studies have failed to show renal benefit with vasopressin use or an interaction with corticosteroid therapy.

Vasopressin in septic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

PURPOSE

We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis to investigate the possible benefits and harms of vasopressin therapy in adults with septic shock both overall and in pre-defined subgroups.

METHODS

Our pre-specified study protocol is published on PROSPERO, CRD42017071698. We identified randomised clinical trials up to January 2019 investigating vasopressin therapy versus any other vasoactive comparator in adults with septic shock. Individual patient data from each trial were compiled. Conventional two-stage meta-analyses were performed as well as one-stage regression models with single treatment covariate interactions for subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

Four trials were included with a total of 1453 patients. For the primary outcomes, there was no effect of vasopressin on 28-day mortality [relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.86-1.12] or serious adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82-1.26). Vasopressin led to more digital ischaemia [absolute risk difference (ARD) 1.7%, 95% CI 0.3%-3.2%] but fewer arrhythmias (ARD - 2.8%, 95% CI - 0.2% to - 5.3%). Mesenteric ischaemia and acute coronary syndrome events were similar between groups. Vasopressin reduced the requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT) (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-0.99), but this finding was not robust to sensitivity analyses. There were no statistically significant interactions in the pre-defined subgroups (baseline kidney injury severity, baseline lactate, baseline norepinephrine requirement and time to study inclusion).

CONCLUSIONS

Vasopressin therapy in septic shock had no effect on 28-day mortality although the confidence intervals are wide. It appears safe but with a different side effect profile from norepinephrine. The finding on reduced RRT should be interpreted cautiously. Future trials should focus on long-term outcomes in select patient groups as well as incorporating cost effectiveness analyses regarding possible reduced RRT use.