Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17265038›Full record

Trial reportDer Anaesthesist2007

[Vasopressin for therapy of persistent traumatic hemorrhagic shock: The VITRIS.at study].

H G Lienhart, V Wenzel, J Braun, V Dörges, M Dünser, A Gries, W R Hasibeder, M Helm, R Lefering, T Schlechtriemen and 6 more

Abstract readEnglish AbstractMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Der Anaesthesist, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Vasopressors for hypotensive shock.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

H G LienhartUniv.-Klinik für Anästhesie und Allg. Intensivmedizin, Medizinische Universität Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Osterreich.
V Wenzel
J Braun
V Dörges
M Dünser
A Gries
W R Hasibeder
M Helm
R Lefering
T Schlechtriemen
H Trimmel
H Ulmer
W Ummenhofer
W G Voelckel
C Waydhas
K Lindner
Innsbruck Medical University · ATDeutsche Gesellschaft für Gefäßchirurgie und Gefäßmedizin · DEBundeswehrkrankenhaus · DEDeutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin · DEKlinikum Saarbrücken · DEMedical University of Vienna · ATSuva · CHUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While fluid management is established in controlled hemorrhagic shock, its use in uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock is being controversially discussed, because it may worsen bleeding. In the irreversible phase of hemorrhagic shock that was unresponsive to volume replacement, airway management and catecholamines, vasopressin was beneficial due to an increase in arterial blood pressure, shift of blood away from a subdiaphragmatic bleeding site towards the heart and brain and decrease of fluid resuscitation requirements. The purpose of this multicenter, randomized, controlled, international trial is to assess the effects of vasopressin (10 IU IV) vs. saline placebo IV (up to 3 injections at least 5 min apart) in patients with prehospital traumatic hemorrhagic shock that persists despite standard shock treatment. The study will be carried out by helicopter emergency medical service teams in Austria, Germany, Czech Republic, Portugal, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Inclusion criteria are adult trauma patients with presumed traumatic hemorrhagic shock (systolic arterial blood pressure <90 mmHg) that does not respond to the first 10 min of standard shock treatment (endotracheal intubation, fluid resuscitation and use of vasopressors) after arrival of the first emergency physician at the scene. The time window for randomization will close after 30 min of shock treatment. Exclusion criteria are terminal illness, no intravenous access, age <18 years, injury >60 min before randomization, cardiac arrest before randomization, presence of a do-not-resuscitate order, untreated tension pneumothorax, untreated cardiac tamponade, or known pregnancy. Primary study end-point is the hospital admission rate, secondary end-points are hemodynamic variables, fluid resuscitation requirements and hospital discharge rate.

Indexed as

Air AmbulancesBlood PressureDouble-Blind MethodEmergency Medical ServicesEndpoint DeterminationHumansResuscitation OrdersShock, HemorrhagicVasoconstrictor AgentsVasopressinsWounds and InjuriesVasoconstrictor AgentsVasopressins

Identifiers

PMID17265038
OpenAlexW184960859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.