SynthesisIntensive care medicine2019
Vasopressin in septic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
84 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The effects of vasopressor choice on renal outcomes in septic shock: a systematic review of randomised trials as a guide for future research.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- ADJUNCTIVE VASOPRESSORS AND SHORT-TERM MORTALITY IN ADULTS WITH SEPTIC SHOCK: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of restrictive fluid resuscitation on severe acute kidney injury in septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Non-adrenergic vasopressors for vasodilatory shock or perioperative vasoplegia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Canadian Critical Care Society clinical practice guideline: The use of vasopressin and vasopressin analogues in critically ill adults with distributive shock.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2020Guideline
- Clinical Efficiency of Vasopressin or Its Analogs in Comparison With Catecholamines Alone on Patients With Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Pooled it
- Effect of vasopressin and its analogues on microcirculatory perfusion: a systematic review.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Review
- Ultra-early versus early adjunctive vasopressin initiation after norepinephrine escalation in septic shock: a target trial emulation.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- The usual suspects: a pragmatic framework to identify and address reversible contributors in apparent refractory septic shock.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
- Review
- Optimizing Timing and Dose of Starting Norepinephrine and Vasopressin in Septic Shock.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Early combination of terlipressin and norepinephrine in the treatment of patients with septic shock.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2026.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Mastering the practical application of vasopressin at the bedside in septic shock.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Modulation of the Vasopressin System in Distributive and Cardiogenic Shock: Theoretical Principles and Practical Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Perioperative Vasopressor Management in Noncardiac Surgical Patients.Anesthesiology · 2026Article
- When should we start vasopressin in septic shock? Revisiting an old question.Journal of intensive medicine · 2026Article
- Vasoactive drug use in children with community acquired septic shock in Australia and New Zealand.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Article
- Early adjunctive vasopressin was not associated with a lower 7-day risk of renal replacement therapy in norepinephrine-treated patients with cirrhosis: a target-trial-informed study with external replication.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Septic shock in the era of precision medicine: rethinking fluids, vasopressors, and immunomodulation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
31062052What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.