ReviewCureus2026
Vasopressin Versus Norepinephrine As First-Line Vasopressor Therapy for Vasoplegic Shock Following Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vasoplegic shock following cardiac surgery is associated with significant morbidity. While norepinephrine is recommended as first-line therapy, vasopressin has been proposed as an alternative due to catecholamine-independent mechanisms. Comparative evidence in postcardiac surgery populations remains limited. We conducted a systematic review of randomized and observational studies comparing vasopressin versus norepinephrine as initial vasopressor therapy in adults with vasoplegic shock following cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Primary outcomes included mortality and major postoperative complications. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools. Two studies (n = 638 patients) met inclusion criteria: one randomized trial (VANCS) and one propensity score-matched observational cohort study. In the randomized trial, vasopressin was associated with a lower incidence of composite morbidity (32.2% vs 49.0%), reduced incidence of acute kidney injury requiring dialysis, and shorter ICU stay, without a difference in mortality. In contrast, the observational study in patients with severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction showed no benefit and suggested higher rates of arrhythmias and mortality with vasopressin. Available evidence suggests that the effect of vasopressin in postcardiac surgery vasoplegia may depend on baseline ventricular function. Vasopressin may be considered as an early catecholamine-sparing strategy in selected patients with preserved ventricular function, but current evidence does not support a universal change from norepinephrine to vasopressin as first-line therapy for all patients. In patients with severe ventricular dysfunction, vasopressin should be used cautiously, and adequately powered phenotype-stratified randomized trials are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.