Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31062052›Full record

SynthesisIntensive care medicine2019

Vasopressin in septic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Myura Nagendran, James A Russell, Keith R Walley, Stephen J Brett, Gavin D Perkins, Ludhmila Hajjar, Alexina J Mason, Deborah Ashby, Anthony C Gordon

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Intensive care medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

84 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors.

Myura NagendranSection of Anaesthetics, Pain Medicine and Intensive Care, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
James A RussellCentre for Heart Lung Innovation, St. Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Keith R WalleyCentre for Heart Lung Innovation, St. Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Stephen J BrettSection of Anaesthetics, Pain Medicine and Intensive Care, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Gavin D PerkinsWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Ludhmila HajjarInstituto do Coracao, Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Alexina J MasonDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Deborah AshbyImperial Clinical Trials Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Anthony C GordonSection of Anaesthetics, Pain Medicine and Intensive Care, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK. anthony.gordon@imperial.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health NIHR/CS/009/007Department of Health PB-PG-0610-22350
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe performed an individual patient data meta-analysis to investigate the possible benefits and harms of vasopressin therapy in adults with septic shock both overall and in pre-defined subgroups.

methodsOur pre-specified study protocol is published on PROSPERO, CRD42017071698. We identified randomised clinical trials up to January 2019 investigating vasopressin therapy versus any other vasoactive comparator in adults with septic shock. Individual patient data from each trial were compiled. Conventional two-stage meta-analyses were performed as well as one-stage regression models with single treatment covariate interactions for subgroup analyses.

resultsFour trials were included with a total of 1453 patients. For the primary outcomes, there was no effect of vasopressin on 28-day mortality [relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.86-1.12] or serious adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82-1.26). Vasopressin led to more digital ischaemia [absolute risk difference (ARD) 1.7%, 95% CI 0.3%-3.2%] but fewer arrhythmias (ARD - 2.8%, 95% CI - 0.2% to - 5.3%). Mesenteric ischaemia and acute coronary syndrome events were similar between groups. Vasopressin reduced the requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT) (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-0.99), but this finding was not robust to sensitivity analyses. There were no statistically significant interactions in the pre-defined subgroups (baseline kidney injury severity, baseline lactate, baseline norepinephrine requirement and time to study inclusion).

conclusionsVasopressin therapy in septic shock had no effect on 28-day mortality although the confidence intervals are wide. It appears safe but with a different side effect profile from norepinephrine. The finding on reduced RRT should be interpreted cautiously. Future trials should focus on long-term outcomes in select patient groups as well as incorporating cost effectiveness analyses regarding possible reduced RRT use.

Indexed as

AgedAPACHEFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicShock, SepticSurvivorsVasoconstrictor AgentsVasopressinsVasoconstrictor AgentsVasopressinsIndividual patient dataMeta-analysisSeptic shockVasopressin

Identifiers

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.