Zi-Meng Liu1, Juan Chen1, Qiuye Kou2, Qinhan Lin3, Xiaobo Huang4, Zhanhong Tang5, Yan Kang6, Ke Li7, Lixin Zhou8, Qing Song9, Tongwen Sun10, Ling Zhao11, Xue Wang12, Xiandi He13, Chunting Wang14, Benquan Wu15, Jiandong Lin16, Shiying Yuan17, Qin Gu18, Kejian Qian19, Xianqing Shi20, Yongwen Feng21, Aihua Lin22, Xiaoshun He1, Xiang-Dong Guan23. 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 58 Zhongshan 2nd Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China. 2. Department of Critical Care Medicine, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, 26 Yuancun Erheng Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China. 3. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Qingyuan People's Hospital, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, 24 Yinquan Road, Qingyuan, 511500, Guangdong, China. 4. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences & Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, 32 West Second Section First Ring Road, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610000, China. 5. Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, GuangXi Medical University, 6 Shuangyong Road, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, China. 6. Department of Critical Care Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China. 7. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Chinese PLA 302 Hospital, 100 Xisihuan Middle Road, Beijing, 100000, China. 8. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Foshan First Municipal People's Hospital, 81 Lingnan North Road, Foshan, 528000, Guangdong, China. 9. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Chinese PLA General Hospital, 28 Fuxing Road, Beijing, 100000, China. 10. Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhengzhou University, 1 Jianshe East Road, Zhengzhou, 450000, Henan, China. 11. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhuhai People's Hospital, 79 Kangning Road, Zhuhai, 519000, Guangdong, China. 12. Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, Xi An JiaoTong University, 277 Yanta West Road, Xi an, 710000, Shanxi, China. 13. Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, Bengbu Medical College, 287 Changhuai Road, Bengbu, 233000, Henan, China. 14. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Shandong Provincial Hospital, 324 Jingwuweiqi Road, Jinan, 250000, Shandong, China. 15. Department of Critical Care Medicine, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, 600 TianHe Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China. 16. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Fujian Provincial Hospital, 134 East Street Fuzhou, Fujian, 350000, China. 17. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Wuhan Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 127 Jiefangda Road Wuhan, Hubei, 430000, China. 18. Department of Critical Care Medicine, The Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, 321 Zhongshan Road, Nanjing, 210000, Jiangsu Province, China. 19. Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, Nanchang University, 17 Yongwaizheng Road, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China. 20. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Guizhou Provincial Hospital, 97 Boai Road, Guiyang, 550002, Guizhou, China. 21. Department of Critical Care Medicine, The Second People's Hospital of Shenzhen, Sungang Road, Shenzhen, 518000, Guangdong, China. 22. School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, 74 Zhongshan 2nd Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China. 23. Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 58 Zhongshan 2nd Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China. guanxiangdong1962@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recent clinical data suggest that terlipressin, a vasopressin analogue, may be more beneficial in septic shock patients than catecholamines. However, terlipressin's effect on mortality is unknown. We set out to ascertain the efficacy and safety of continuous terlipressin infusion compared with norepinephrine (NE) in patients with septic shock. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial, patients with septic shock recruited from 21 intensive care units in 11 provinces of China were randomised (1:1) to receive either terlipressin (20-160 µg/h with maximum infusion rate of 4 mg/day) or NE (4-30 µg/min) before open-label vasopressors. The primary endpoint was mortality 28 days after the start of infusion. Primary efficacy endpoint analysis and safety analysis were performed on the data from a modified intention-to-treat population. RESULTS:Between 1 January 2013 and 28 February 2016, 617 patients were randomised (312 to the terlipressin group, 305 to the NE group). The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 526 (85.3%) patients (260 in the terlipressin group and 266 in the NE group). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality rate between the terlipressin group (40%) and the NE group (38%) (odds ratio 0.93 [95% CI 0.55-1.56]; p = 0.80). Change in SOFA score on day 7 was similar between the two groups: - 7 (IQR - 11 to 3) in the terlipressin group and - 6 (IQR - 10 to 5) in the NE group. There was no difference between the groups in the number of days alive and free of vasopressors. Overall, serious adverse events were more common in the terlipressin group than in the NE group (30% vs 12%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial, we observed no difference in mortality between terlipressin and NE infusion in patients with septic shock. Patients in the terlipressin group had a higher number of serious adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: ID NCT01697410.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Recent clinical data suggest that terlipressin, a vasopressin analogue, may be more beneficial in septic shockpatients than catecholamines. However, terlipressin's effect on mortality is unknown. We set out to ascertain the efficacy and safety of continuous terlipressin infusion compared with norepinephrine (NE) in patients with septic shock. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial, patients with septic shock recruited from 21 intensive care units in 11 provinces of China were randomised (1:1) to receive either terlipressin (20-160 µg/h with maximum infusion rate of 4 mg/day) or NE (4-30 µg/min) before open-label vasopressors. The primary endpoint was mortality 28 days after the start of infusion. Primary efficacy endpoint analysis and safety analysis were performed on the data from a modified intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Between 1 January 2013 and 28 February 2016, 617 patients were randomised (312 to the terlipressin group, 305 to the NE group). The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 526 (85.3%) patients (260 in the terlipressin group and 266 in the NE group). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality rate between the terlipressin group (40%) and the NE group (38%) (odds ratio 0.93 [95% CI 0.55-1.56]; p = 0.80). Change in SOFA score on day 7 was similar between the two groups: - 7 (IQR - 11 to 3) in the terlipressin group and - 6 (IQR - 10 to 5) in the NE group. There was no difference between the groups in the number of days alive and free of vasopressors. Overall, serious adverse events were more common in the terlipressin group than in the NE group (30% vs 12%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial, we observed no difference in mortality between terlipressin and NE infusion in patients with septic shock. Patients in the terlipressin group had a higher number of serious adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: ID NCT01697410.
Authors: Mitchell M Levy; William L Macias; Jean-Louis Vincent; James A Russell; Eliezer Silva; Benjamin Trzaskoma; Mark D Williams Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: J L Vincent; A de Mendonça; F Cantraine; R Moreno; J Takala; P M Suter; C L Sprung; F Colardyn; S Blecher Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Andrea Morelli; Monica Rocco; Giorgio Conti; Alessandra Orecchioni; Andrea De Gaetano; Giuliana Cortese; Flaminia Coluzzi; Enrico Vernaglione; Paolo Pelaia; Paolo Pietropaoli Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2003-12-12 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: R P Dellinger; Mitchell M Levy; Andrew Rhodes; Djillali Annane; Herwig Gerlach; Steven M Opal; Jonathan E Sevransky; Charles L Sprung; Ivor S Douglas; Roman Jaeschke; Tiffany M Osborn; Mark E Nunnally; Sean R Townsend; Konrad Reinhart; Ruth M Kleinpell; Derek C Angus; Clifford S Deutschman; Flavia R Machado; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Steven Webb; Richard J Beale; Jean-Louis Vincent; Rui Moreno Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-01-30 Impact factor: 17.440
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: Daniel De Backer; Maurizio Cecconi; Jeffrey Lipman; Flavia Machado; Sheila Nainan Myatra; Marlies Ostermann; Anders Perner; Jean-Louis Teboul; Jean-Louis Vincent; Keith R Walley Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Gary Duclos; Michel Cantaloube; Sophie Medam; Noémie Resseguier; Marc Leone Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jan Bakker; Eduardo Kattan; Djillali Annane; Ricardo Castro; Maurizio Cecconi; Daniel De Backer; Arnaldo Dubin; Laura Evans; Michelle Ng Gong; Olfa Hamzaoui; Can Ince; Bruno Levy; Xavier Monnet; Gustavo A Ospina Tascón; Marlies Ostermann; Michael R Pinsky; James A Russell; Bernd Saugel; Thomas W L Scheeren; Jean-Louis Teboul; Antoine Vieillard Baron; Jean-Louis Vincent; Fernando G Zampieri; Glenn Hernandez Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2021-12-15 Impact factor: 17.440