Outcomes of Vasopressin-Receptor Agonists Versus Norepinephrine in Adults With Perioperative Hypotension: A Systematic Review

Consensus statements recommend the use of norepinephrine and/or vasopressin for hypotension in cardiac surgery. However, there is a paucity of data among other surgical subgroups and vasopressin analogs. Therefore, the authors conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare vasopressin-receptor agonists with norepinephrine for hypotension among those undergoing surgery with general anesthesia. This review was registered prospectively (CRD42022316328). Literature searches were conducted by a medical librarian to November 28, 2023, across MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science. The authors included RCTs enrolling adults (≥18 years of age) undergoing any surgery under general anesthesia who developed perioperative hypotension and comparing vasopressin receptor agonists with norepinephrine. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). Thirteen (N = 719) RCTs were included, of which 8 (n = 585) enrolled patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Five trials compared norepinephrine with vasopressin, 4 trials with terlipressin, 1 trial with ornipressin, and the other 3 trials used vasopressin as adjuvant therapy. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality. Among patients with vasoplegic shock after cardiac surgery, vasopressin was associated with significantly lower intensive care unit (N = 385; 2 trials; mean 100.8 v 175.2 hours, p < 0.005; median 120 [IQR 96-168] v 144 [96-216] hours, p = 0.007) and hospital lengths of stay, as well as fewer cases of acute kidney injury and atrial fibrillation compared with norepinephrine. One trial also found that terlipressin was associated with a significantly lower incidence of acute kidney injury versus norepinephrine overall. Vasopressin and norepinephrine restored mean arterial blood pressure with no significant differences; however, the use of vasopressin with norepinephrine was associated with significantly higher mean arterial blood pressure versus norepinephrine alone. Further high-quality trials are needed to determine pooled treatment effects, especially among noncardiac surgical patients and those treated with vasopressin analogs.

Appraisal of Postoperative Outcomes of Volatile and Intravenous Anesthetics: A Network Meta-Analysis of Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative efficacy of specific regimens used as primary anesthetics, as well as the potential combination of volatile and intravenous anesthetics among patients undergoing cardiac, thoracic, and vascular surgery.

DESIGN

This frequentist, random-effects network meta-analysis was registered prospectively (CRD42022316328) and conducted according to the PRISMA-NMA framework. Literature searches were conducted up to April 1, 2022 across relevant databases. Risk of bias (RoB) and confidence of evidence were assessed by RoB-2 and CINeMA, respectively. Pooled treatment effects were compared with propofol monotherapy.

SETTING

Fifty-three randomized controlled trials (N = 8,085) were included, of which 46 trials (N = 6,604) enrolled patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

PARTICIPANTS

Trials enrolling adults (≥18) undergoing cardiac, thoracic, and vascular surgery, using the same induction regimens, and comparing volatile and/or total intravenous anesthesia for the maintenance of anesthesia. Given that the majority of trials focused on those undergoing cardiac surgery and the heterogeneity, analyses were restricted to this population.

MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS

Outcomes of interest included intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), myocardial infarction, in-hospital and 30-day mortality, stroke, and delirium. Across 19 trials (N = 1,821; 9 arms; I2 = 64.5%), sevoflurane combined with propofol decreased ICU LOS (mean difference [MD] -18.26 hours; 95% CI -34.78 to -1.73 hours), whereas midazolam with propofol (MD 17.51 hours; 95% CI 2.78-32.25 hours) was associated with a significant increase in ICU LOS, when compared with propofol monotherapy. Among 27 trials (N = 4,080; 10 arms; I2 = 0%), midazolam was associated with significantly greater risk of myocardial infarction versus propofol (risk ratio 1.94; 95% CI 1.01-3.71). There were no significant differences across other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, sevoflurane with propofol was associated with decreased ICU LOS compared with propofol monotherapy. Midazolam with propofol increased ICU LOS compared with propofol alone. The combined use of intravenous and volatile anesthetics should be explored further. Future trials in thoracic and vascular surgery are warranted.