Myura Nagendran1, Mahiben Maruthappu2, Anthony C Gordon3, Kurinchi S Gurusamy4. 1. Section of Anaesthetics, Pain Medicine and Intensive Care, Imperial College London, London, UK. 2. North West Thames Foundation School, Imperial College London, London, UK. 3. Section of Anaesthetics, Pain Medicine and Intensive Care, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, UK. 4. Department of Surgery, University College London, London, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Septic shock is a life-threatening condition requiring vasopressor agents to support the circulatory system. Several agents exist with choice typically guided by the specific clinical scenario. We used a network meta-analysis approach to rate the comparative efficacy and safety of vasopressors for mortality and arrhythmia incidence in septic shock patients. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive electronic database search including Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and the Cochrane database. Randomised trials investigating vasopressor agents in septic shock patients and specifically assessing 28-day mortality or arrhythmia incidence were included. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. RESULTS: Thirteen trials of low to moderate risk of bias in which 3146 patients were randomised were included. There was no pairwise evidence to suggest one agent was superior over another for mortality. In the network meta-analysis, vasopressin was significantly superior to dopamine (OR 0.68 (95% CI 0.5 to 0.94)) for mortality. For arrhythmia incidence, standard pairwise meta-analyses confirmed that dopamine led to a higher incidence of arrhythmias than norepinephrine (OR 2.69 (95% CI 2.08 to 3.47)). In the network meta-analysis, there was no evidence of superiority of one agent over another. CONCLUSIONS: In this network meta-analysis, vasopressin was superior to dopamine for 28-day mortality in septic shock. Existing pairwise information supports the use of norepinephrine over dopamine. Our findings suggest that dopamine should be avoided in patients with septic shock and that other vasopressor agents should continue to be based on existing guidelines and clinical judgement of the specific presentation of the patient.
INTRODUCTION: Septic shock is a life-threatening condition requiring vasopressor agents to support the circulatory system. Several agents exist with choice typically guided by the specific clinical scenario. We used a network meta-analysis approach to rate the comparative efficacy and safety of vasopressors for mortality and arrhythmia incidence in septic shock patients. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive electronic database search including Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and the Cochrane database. Randomised trials investigating vasopressor agents in septic shock patients and specifically assessing 28-day mortality or arrhythmia incidence were included. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. RESULTS: Thirteen trials of low to moderate risk of bias in which 3146 patients were randomised were included. There was no pairwise evidence to suggest one agent was superior over another for mortality. In the network meta-analysis, vasopressin was significantly superior to dopamine (OR 0.68 (95% CI 0.5 to 0.94)) for mortality. For arrhythmia incidence, standard pairwise meta-analyses confirmed that dopamine led to a higher incidence of arrhythmias than norepinephrine (OR 2.69 (95% CI 2.08 to 3.47)). In the network meta-analysis, there was no evidence of superiority of one agent over another. CONCLUSIONS: In this network meta-analysis, vasopressin was superior to dopamine for 28-day mortality in septic shock. Existing pairwise information supports the use of norepinephrine over dopamine. Our findings suggest that dopamine should be avoided in patients with septic shock and that other vasopressor agents should continue to be based on existing guidelines and clinical judgement of the specific presentation of the patient.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anaesthesia and intensive care; resuscitation; septic shock; vasoactive drugs
Authors: Daniel De Backer; Patrick Biston; Jacques Devriendt; Christian Madl; Didier Chochrad; Cesar Aldecoa; Alexandre Brasseur; Pierre Defrance; Philippe Gottignies; Jean-Louis Vincent Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James A Russell; Keith R Walley; Joel Singer; Anthony C Gordon; Paul C Hébert; D James Cooper; Cheryl L Holmes; Sangeeta Mehta; John T Granton; Michelle M Storms; Deborah J Cook; Jeffrey J Presneill; Dieter Ayers Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ary Serpa Neto; Antônio P Nassar; Sérgio O Cardoso; José A Manetta; Victor G M Pereira; Daniel C Espósito; Maria C T Damasceno; James A Russell Journal: Crit Care Date: 2012-08-14 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Muhammad Y Jan; Sharon M Moe; Oluwafisayo Adebiyi; Jeannie Chen; John Powelson; Heather N Burney; Muhammad S Yaqub; Dennis P Mishler; Ranjani N Moorthi; Tim E Taber; Melissa D Anderson; Yang Li; Xiaochun Li; Jonathan A Fridell; William C Goggins; Asif A Sharfuddin Journal: Kidney Int Rep Date: 2022-04-07
Authors: William F McIntyre; Kevin J Um; Waleed Alhazzani; Alexandra P Lengyel; Ludhmila Hajjar; Anthony C Gordon; François Lamontagne; Jeff S Healey; Richard P Whitlock; Emilie P Belley-Côté Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 56.272