Terlipressin for septic shock patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled study

Effect of different infusion approaches on safety and efficacy of terlipressin: Current controversies

Terlipressin, a synthetic analog of vasopressin, has been widely used to treat acute variceal bleeding, hepatorenal syndrome, and other complications of cirrhosis. However, among different infusion approaches of terlipressin, its safety and efficacy are also heterogeneous. Previous studies have demonstrated that continuous infusion of terlipressin is more effective with a lower incidence of adverse events than intermittent intravenous infusion. This paper aims to review the relevant literature and summarize the data regarding the safety and effectiveness of different infusion approaches of terlipressin to guide clinical practice.

A plea for personalization of the hemodynamic management of septic shock

Although guidelines provide excellent expert guidance for managing patients with septic shock, they leave room for personalization according to patients' condition. Hemodynamic monitoring depends on the evolution phase: salvage, optimization, stabilization, and de-escalation. Initially during the salvage phase, monitoring to identify shock etiology and severity should include arterial pressure and lactate measurements together with clinical examination, particularly skin mottling and capillary refill time. Low diastolic blood pressure may trigger vasopressor initiation. At this stage, echocardiography may be useful to identify significant cardiac dysfunction. During the optimization phase, echocardiographic monitoring should be pursued and completed by the assessment of tissue perfusion through central or mixed-venous oxygen saturation, lactate, and carbon dioxide veno-arterial gradient. Transpulmonary thermodilution and the pulmonary artery catheter should be considered in the most severe patients. Fluid therapy also depends on shock phases. While administered liberally during the resuscitation phase, fluid responsiveness should be assessed during the optimization phase. During stabilization, fluid infusion should be minimized. In the de-escalation phase, safe fluid withdrawal could be achieved by ensuring tissue perfusion is preserved. Norepinephrine is recommended as first-line vasopressor therapy, while vasopressin may be preferred in some patients. Essential questions remain regarding optimal vasopressor selection, combination therapy, and the most effective and safest escalation. Serum renin and the angiotensin I/II ratio may identify patients who benefit most from angiotensin II. The optimal therapeutic strategy for shock requiring high-dose vasopressors is scant. In all cases, vasopressor therapy should be individualized, based on clinical evaluation and blood flow measurements to avoid excessive vasoconstriction. Inotropes should be considered in patients with decreased cardiac contractility associated with impaired tissue perfusion. Based on pharmacologic properties, we suggest as the first test a limited dose of dobutamine, to add enoximone or milrinone in the second line and substitute or add levosimendan if inefficient. Regarding adjunctive therapies, while hydrocortisone is nowadays advised in patients receiving high doses of vasopressors, patients responding to corticosteroids may be identified in the future by the analysis of selected cytokines or specific transcriptomic endotypes. To conclude, although some general rules apply for shock management, a personalized approach should be considered for hemodynamic monitoring and support.

Addition of terlipressin to norepinephrine in septic shock and effect of renal perfusion: a pilot study

Purpose

Terlipressin improves renal function in patients with septic shock. However, the mechanism remains unclear. Here, we aimed to evaluate the effects of terlipressin on renal perfusion in patients with septic shock.

Materials and Methods

This pilot study enrolled patients with septic shock in the intensive care unit of the tertiary hospital from September 2019 to May 2020. We randomly assigned patients to terlipressin and usual care groups using a 1:1 ratio. Terlipressin was intravenously pumped at a rate of 1.3 μg/kg/hour for 24 h. We monitored renal perfusion using renal contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). The primary outcome was peak sonographic signal intensity (a renal perfusion parameter monitored by CEUS) at 24 h after enrollment.

Results

22 patients were enrolled in this study with 10 in the terlipressin group and 12 in the usual care group. The baseline characteristics of patients between the two groups were comparable. The peak sonographic signal intensity at 24 h after enrollment in the terlipressin group (60.5 ± 8.6 dB) was significantly higher than that in the usual care group (52.4 ± 7.0 dB; mean difference, 7.1 dB; 95% CI, 0.4–13.9; adjusted p = .04). Patients in the terlipressin group had a lower time to peak, heart rates, norepinephrine dose, and a higher stroke volume at 24 h after enrollment. No significant difference in the urine output within 24 h and incidence of acute kidney injury within 28 days was found between the two groups.

Conclusions

Terlipressin improves renal perfusion, increases stroke volume, and decreases norepinephrine dose and heart rates in patients with septic shock.

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.

Non-catecholamine vasopressors in the treatment of adult patients with septic shock-evidence from meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Norepinephrine (NE) has currently been the first-choice vasopressor in treating septic shock despite generally insufficient for patients with refractory septic shock. The aim of this update meta-analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of a combination of non-catecholamine vasopressors (vasopressin/pituitrin/terlipressin/selepressin/angiotensin II) and NE versus NE in managing adult septic shock patients.

METHODS

We conducted this study of literatures published from the inception to April 30, 2020, using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases without language restriction. Randomized controlled trials comparing NE with non-catecholamine vasopressors among adult septic shock patients were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled effects of relative risk (RR) or standard mean difference (SMD) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies covering 4380 participants were finally enrolled. The combined analysis of non-catecholamine vasopressors resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in 90-day/ICU/hospital mortality except for a decreased in 28-day mortality (n = 4217; RR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.86-0.99; P = 0.02). This favorable result was subsequently verified by the subgroup analyses of low risk of bias studies (RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.84 to 0.98; P = 0.02) and catecholamine-resistant refractory shock patients group (RR, 0.84; 95% CI = 0.70-1.00; P = 0.048). The pooled analysis of non-catecholamine vasopressors showed a 14% higher success rate of shock reversal at 6 h, a 29% decreased risk of continuous renal replacement therapy, but a 51% increased risk of hyponatremia and a 2.43 times higher risk of digital ischemia. Besides, the pooled data showed that non-catecholamine vasopressors decreased heart rate (HR) (SMD, - 0.43; 95% CI - 0.66 - - 0.19; P < 0.001), serum creatinine (- 0.15; 95% CI - 0.29 - - 0.01; P = 0.04), and the length of mechanical ventilation (MV) (- 0.19; 95% CI - 0.31 - - 0.07; P < 0.01, but there was no significant difference in other parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Current pooled results suggest that the addition of NE to non-catecholamine vasopressors was associated with a marginally significant reduction in 28-day mortality. Moreover, they were able to shorten the length of MV, improved renal function, decreased HR, and increased the 6-h shock reversal success rate at the expense of increased the risk of hyponatremia and digital ischemia.

Clinical Efficiency of Vasopressin or Its Analogs in Comparison With Catecholamines Alone on Patients With Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Vasopressin is an efficient remedy for septic shock patients as its great capacity in promoting hemodynamic stabilization. The aim of current systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the clinical efficiency of vasopressin or its analogs with sole catecholamines on patients with septic shock.

METHODS

A systematic search of Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed online databases was performed up to 30 Oct 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing use of vasopressin or its analogs (e.g., terlipressin, selepressin) with administration of catecholamines alone.

RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs with 4,225 patients in the current study. Compared with solely use of catecholamines, administration of vasopressin or its analogs was not associated with reduced 28-day or 30-day mortality among patients with septic shock [RR=0.94 (95% CI, 0.87-1.01), P=0.08, I2 = 0%]. The result of primary endpoint remained unchanged after conducting sensitivity analysis. Despite a significantly higher risk of digital ischemia in patients receiving vasopressin or its analogs [RR=2.65 (95% CI, 1.26-5.56), P < 0.01, I2 = 48%], there was no statistical significance in the pooled estimate for other secondary outcomes, including total adverse events, arrhythmia, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiac arrest, acute mesenteric ischemia, ICU/hospital length of stay, and mechanical ventilation (MV) duration.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of vasopressin or its analogs was not associated with reduced 28-day or 30-day mortality among patients with septic shock, while an increased incidence of digital ischemia should be noted in patients receiving agonists for vasopressin receptors.

Terlipressin for the treatment of septic shock in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

From a pressure-guided to a perfusion-centered resuscitation strategy in septic shock: Critical literature review and illustrative case

PURPOSE

To support a paradigm shift in the management of septic shock from pressure-guided to perfusion-centered, expected to improve outcome while reducing adverse effects from vasopressor therapy and aggressive fluid resuscitation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Critical review of the literature cited in support of vasopressor use to achieve a predefined mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mmHg and review of pertinent clinical trials and studies enabling deeper understanding of the hemodynamic pathophysiology supportive of a perfusion-centered approach, accompanied by an illustrative case.

RESULTS

Review of the literature cited by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign revealed lack of controlled clinical trials supporting outcome benefits from vasopressors. Additional literature review revealed adverse effects associated with vasopressors and worsened outcome in some studies. Vasopressors increase MAP primarily by peripheral vasoconstriction and in occasions by a modest increase in cardiac output when using norepinephrine. Thus, achieving the recommended MAP of 65 mmHg using vasopressors should not be presumed indicative that organ perfusion has been restored. It may instead create a false sense of hemodynamic stability hampering shock resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose focusing the hemodynamic management of septic shock on reversing organ hypoperfusion instead of attaining a predefined MAP target as the key strategy for improving outcome.

Combination era, using combined vasopressors showed benefits in treating septic shock patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Septic shock is one of the major healthcare problems, affecting millions of people around the world every year. The object of this study is to find the best kind of regimen of vasopressors treatment in septic shock.

Methods

The PubMed, and the Web of Science were used to find the included studies. Stata 15.1 was performed to this systemic review and network meta-analysis.

Results

After searching and screening the articles, finally we included articles about 31 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 11 arms (dopamine, dopexamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, norepinephrine + dobutamine, norepinephrine + dopexamine, norepinephrine + epinephrine, norepinephrine + vasopressin, phenylephrine, terlipressin, vasopressin) and total 5,928 patients with septic shock. Compared with dopamine, the regimens (epinephrine, norepinephrine, norepinephrine + dobutamine, and vasopressin) have significantly lower 28-day mortality. Ranking the regimens in the order of estimated probabilities of each treatment by using the network meta-analysis for 28-day mortality, the result showed that norepinephrine + dopexamine was the best one (57.3%), followed by norepinephrine + epinephrine (14.8%), norepinephrine + dobutamine (10.9%), dopexamine (11.2%), terlipressin (9.8%), norepinephrine + vasopressin (2.4%), phenylephrine (1.2%), epinephrine (1.0%), vasopressin (0.5%), norepinephrine (0.0%), and dopamine (0.0%). In addition, for the results of arrhythmia and increased heart rate, the combination regimens groups did not showed inferiority to other single regimen groups.

Conclusions

Single dopamine had significantly higher 28d mortality. Combination regimens of vasopressors accounted for the best three therapeutic regimens. In treating patients with septic shock, using combining regimens probably gets more benefits.