Vasopressin Versus Norepinephrine for the Management of Shock After Cardiac Surgery (VaNCS study): a randomized controlled trial
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hajjar L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3642574 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5415714 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPrevious findings suggest that a delayed administration of phenylephrine replacing norepinephrine in septic shock patients causes a more pronounced hepatosplanchnic vasoconstriction as compared with norepinephrine. Nevertheless, a direct comparison between the two study drugs has not yet been performed. The aim of the present study was, therefore, to investigate the effects of a first-line therapy with either phenylephrine or norepinephrine on systemic and regional hemodynamics in patients with septic shock.MethodsWe performed a prospective, randomized, controlled trial in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit in a university hospital. We enrolled septic shock patients (n = 32) with a mean arterial pressure below 65 mmHg despite adequate volume resuscitation. Patients were randomly allocated to treatment with either norepinephrine or phenylephrine infusion (n = 16 each) titrated to achieve a mean arterial pressure between 65 and 75 mmHg. Data from right heart catheterization, a thermodye dilution catheter, gastric tonometry, acid-base homeostasis, as well as creatinine clearance and cardiac troponin were obtained at baseline and after 12 hours. Differences within and between groups were analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance for repeated measurements with group and time as factors. Time-independent variables were compared with one-way analysis of variance.ResultsNo differences were found in any of the investigated parameters.ConclusionsThe present study suggests there are no differences in terms of cardiopulmonary performance, global oxygen transport, and regional hemodynamics when phenylephrine was administered instead of norepinephrine in the initial hemodynamic support of septic shock.Trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov NCT00639015.
| S-EPMC2646303 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBlood-based cardioplegia is the standard myocardial protection strategy in pediatric cardiac surgery. Custadiol (histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate), an alternative, may have some advantages but is potentially less effective at myocardial protection. This study aimed to test whether custadiol is not inferior to blood-based cardioplegia in pediatric cardiac surgery.MethodsThe study was designed as a randomized controlled trial with a blinded outcome assessment. All pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegia, including neonates, were eligible. Emergency surgery was excluded. The primary outcome was a composite of death within 30 days, an ICU stay longer than 5 days, or arrhythmia requiring intervention. Secondary endpoints included total hospital stay, inotropic score, cardiac troponin levels, ventricular function, and extended survival postdischarge. The sample size was determined a priori for a noninferiority design with an expected primary outcome of 40% and a clinical significance difference of 20%.ResultsBetween January 2018 and January 2021, 226 patients, divided into the Custodiol cardioplegia (CC) group (n = 107) and the blood cardioplegia (BC) group (n = 119), completed the study protocol. There was no difference in the composite endpoint between the CC and BC groups, 65 (60.75%) vs. 71 (59.66%), respectively (P = 0.87). The total length of stay in the hospital was 14 (Q2-Q3: 10-19) days in the CC group vs. 13 (10-21) days in the BC group (P = 0.85). The inotropic score was not significantly different between the CC and BC groups, 5 (2.6-7.45) vs. 5 (2.6-7.5), respectively (P = 0.82). The cardiac troponin level and ventricular function did not differ significantly between the two groups (P = 0.34 and P = 0.85, respectively). The median duration of follow-up was 32.75 (Q2-Q3: 18.73-41.53) months, and there was no difference in survival between the two groups (log-rank P = 0.55).ConclusionsCustodial cardioplegia is not inferior to blood cardioplegia for myocardial protection in pediatric patients. Trial registration The trial was registered in Clinicaltrials.gov, and the ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier number is NCT03082716 Date: 17/03/2017.
| S-EPMC10552411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionRecent clinical data suggest that early administration of vasopressin analogues may be advantageous compared to a last resort therapy. However, it is still unknown whether vasopressin and terlipressin are equally effective for hemodynamic support in septic shock. The aim of the present prospective, randomized, controlled pilot trial study was, therefore, to compare the impact of continuous infusions of either vasopressin or terlipressin, when given as first-line therapy in septic shock patients, on open-label norepinephrine requirements.MethodsWe enrolled septic shock patients (n = 45) with a mean arterial pressure below 65 mmHg despite adequate volume resuscitation. Patients were randomized to receive continuous infusions of either terlipressin (1.3 microg.kg-1.h-1), vasopressin (.03 U.min-1) or norepinephrine (15 microg.min-1; n = 15 per group). In all groups, open-label norepinephrine was added to achieve a mean arterial pressure between 65 and 75 mmHg, if necessary. Data from right heart and thermo-dye dilution catheterization, gastric tonometry, as well as laboratory variables of organ function were obtained at baseline, 12, 24, 36 and 48 hours after randomization. Differences within and between groups were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA for repeated measurements with group and time as factors. Time-independent variables were compared with one-way ANOVA.ResultsThere were no differences among groups in terms of systemic and regional hemodynamics. Compared with infusion of .03 U of vasopressin or 15 microg.min-1 of norepinephrine, 1.3 microg.kg-1.h-1 of terlipressin allowed a marked reduction in catecholamine requirements (0.8 +/- 1.3 and 1.2 +/- 1.4 vs. 0.2 +/- 0.4 microg.kg-1.min-1 at 48 hours; each P < 0.05) and was associated with less rebound hypotension (P < 0.05). At the end of the 48-hour intervention period, bilirubin concentrations were higher in the vasopressin and norepinephrine groups as compared with the terlipressin group (2.3 +/- 2.8 and 2.8 +/- 2.5 vs. 0.9 +/- 0.3 mg.dL-1; each P < 0.05). A time-dependent decrease in platelet count was only observed in the terlipressin group (P < 0.001 48 hours vs. BL).ConclusionsThe present study provides evidence that continuous infusion of low-dose terlipressin--when given as first-line vasopressor agent in septic shock--is effective in reversing sepsis-induced arterial hypotension and in reducing norepinephrine requirements.
| S-EPMC2750187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale: Sepsis patients suffer from severe metabolic and immunologic dysfunction that may be amplified by standard carbohydrate-based nutritional regimes. We therefore hypothesize that a ketogenic diet improves sepsis treatment. Objectives: We investigated the safety and feasibility of a ketogenic diet in sepsis patients. Methods: We conducted a monocentric open-labeled randomized controlled trial (DRKS00017710) enrolling adult sepsis patients randomly assigned to either ketogenic or standard high-carbohydrate diet for 14 days with follow-up until day 30. The primary outcome measure was β-hydroxybutyrate serum concentration on day 14. Secondary outcomes included safety, clinical and immunological changes. Measurements and Main Results: 40 critically ill septic patients were assigned to the study groups. Increase in β-hydroxybutyrate concentrations from baseline to day 14 was markedly greater under ketogenic diet (1.2 ±0.9) compared to controls (-0.3 ±0.4); estimated mean difference 1.4 (95%-CI 1.0-1.8; p<0.0001). During ketogenic diet, no patient required insulin treatment beyond day 4, whereas 35% to 60% of control patients did (p=0.0095). Metabolic side effects were not observed under ketogenic diet. Ventilation-free (IRR 1.7; 95%-CI: 1.5 to 2.1; p<0.0001), vasopressor-free (IRR 1.7; 95%-CI: 1.5 to 2.0; p<0.0001), dialysis-free (IRR 1.5; 95%-CI: 1.3 to 1.8; p<0.0001), and ICU-free days (IRR 1.7; 95%-CI: 1.4 to 2.1; p<0.0001) significantly increased in patients under ketogenic diet. There was no difference in 30-day mortality. Analyses indicated favorable changes towards immune homeostasis. Conclusions: Ketogenic diet is a feasible and safe nutritional regimen in septic patients promoting recovery from sepsis-related organ dysfunction and could become a new tool in modern treatment concepts.
2024-06-13 | PXD046061 | Pride
Project description:IntroductionClinical effects of furosemide (F) and ethacrynic acid (EA) continuous infusion on urine output (UO), fluid balance, and renal, cardiac, respiratory, and metabolic function were compared in infants undergoing surgery for congenital heart diseases.MethodsA prospective randomized double-blinded study was conducted. Patients received 0.2 mg/kg/h (up to 0.8 mg/kg/h) of either F or EA.ResultsIn total, 38 patients were enrolled in the F group, and 36, in the EA group. No adverse reactions were recorded. UO at postoperative day (POD) 0 was significantly higher in the EA group, 6.9 (3.3) ml/kg/h, compared with the F group, 4.6 (2.3) ml/kg/h (P = 0.002) but tended to be similar in the two groups thereafter. Mean administered F dose was 0.33 (0.19) mg/kg/h compared with 0.22 (0.13) mg/kg/h of EA (P < 0.0001). Fluid balance was significantly more negative in the EA group at postoperative day 0: -43 (54) ml/kg/h versus -17 (32) ml/kg/h in the F group (P = 0.01). Serum creatinine, cystatin C and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin levels and incidence of acute kidney injury did not show significant differences between groups. Metabolic alkalosis occurred frequently (about 70% of cases) in both groups, but mean bicarbonate level was higher in the EA group: 27.8 (1.5) M in the F group versus 29.1 (2) mM in the EA group (P = 0.006). Mean cardiac index (CI) values were 2.6 (0.1) L/min/m(2) in the F group compared with 2.98 (0.09) L/min/m(2) in the EA group (P = 0.0081). Length of mechanical ventilation was shorter in the EA group, 5.5 (8.8) days compared with the F group, 6.7 (5.9) (P = 0.06). Length of Pediatric Cardiac Intensive Care Unit (PCICU) admission was shorter in the EA group: 14 (19) days compared with 16 (15) in the F group (P = 0.046).ConclusionsIn cardiac surgery infants, EA produced more UO compared with F on POD0. Generally, a smaller EA dose is required to achieve similar UO than F. EA and F were safe in terms of renal function, but EA caused a more-intense metabolic alkalosis. EA patients achieved better CI, and shorter mechanical ventilation and PCICU admission time.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01628731. Registered 24 June 2012.
| S-EPMC4305226 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo evaluate if an opiate sparing multimodal regimen of dexamethasone, gabapentin, ibuprofen and paracetamol had better analgesic effect, less side effects and was safe compared to a traditional morphine and paracetamol regimen after cardiac surgery.MethodsOpen-label, prospective randomized controlled trial. 180 patients undergoing cardiac procedures through median sternotomy, were included in the period march 2007-August 2009. 151 patients were available for analysis. Pain was assessed with the 11-numeric rating scale (11-NRS).ResultsPatients in the multimodal group demonstrated significantly lower average pain scores from the day of surgery throughout the third postoperative day. Extensive nausea and vomiting, was found in no patient in the multimodal group but in 13 patients in the morphine group, p < 0.001. Postoperative rise in individual creatinine levels demonstrated a non-significant rise in the multimodal group, 33.0±53.4 vs. 19.9±48.5, p = 0.133. Patients in the multimodal group suffered less major in-hospital events in crude numbers: myocardial infarction (MI) (1 vs. 2, p = 0.54), stroke (0 vs. 3, p = 0.075), dialysis (1 vs. 2, p = 0.54), and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (0 vs. 1, p = 0.31). 30-day mortality was 1 vs. 2, p = 0.54.ConclusionsIn patients undergoing cardiac surgery, a multimodal regimen offered significantly better analgesia than a traditional opiate regimen. Nausea and vomiting complaints were significantly reduced. No safety issues were observed with the multimodal regimen.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01966172.
| S-EPMC3975463 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sepsis patients suffer from severe metabolic and immunologic dysfunction that may be amplified by standard nutritional approaches relying primarily on carbohydrates. We here hypothesize that a ketogenic diet improves sepsis treatment. We conducted a monocentric open-labeled randomized controlled trial enrolling 40 adult sepsis patients. Patients were randomly assigned to either ketogenic diet (KD) or standard high-carbohydrate nutrition for 14 days and followed up until day 30. The primary outcome measure was β-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) serum concentration on day 14. We assessed feasibility and safety of KD, as well as diet-associated clinical and immunological changes. The respective nutrition protocols were successfully applied, dropouts did not occur. Regression analysis revealed a greater increase in BHB concentrations from baseline to day 14 in KD patients compared to controls. Metabolic side effects were not observed under ketogenic diet. Ventilation-free, vasopressor-free, dialysis-free and ICU-free days significantly increased in patients under ketogenic diet. Transcriptome profiling of both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells at day 14 revealed substantial differential regulation of gene expression in the KD vs. the control group indicating a reduced T-cell activation and a shift towards a more regulated immunity.
2024-06-13 | GSE240861 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundVasopressin is widely used for vasopressor support in septic shock patients, but experimental evidence suggests that selective V1A agonists are superior. The initial pharmacodynamic effects, pharmacokinetics, and safety of selepressin, a novel V1A-selective vasopressin analogue, was examined in a phase IIa trial in septic shock patients.MethodsThis was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial in 53 patients in early septic shock (aged ≥18 years, fluid resuscitation, requiring vasopressor support) who received selepressin 1.25 ng/kg/minute (n = 10), 2.5 ng/kg/minute (n = 19), 3.75 ng/kg/minute (n = 2), or placebo (n = 21) until shock resolution or a maximum of 7 days. If mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥65 mmHg was not maintained, open-label norepinephrine was added. Co-primary endpoints were maintenance of MAP >60 mmHg without norepinephrine, norepinephrine dose, and proportion of patients maintaining MAP >60 mmHg with or without norepinephrine over 7 days. Secondary endpoints included cumulative fluid balance, organ dysfunction, pharmacokinetics, and safety.ResultsA higher proportion of the patients receiving 2.5 ng/kg/minute selepressin maintained MAP >60 mmHg without norepinephrine (about 50% and 70% at 12 and 24 h, respectively) vs. 1.25 ng/kg/minute selepressin and placebo (p < 0.01). The 7-day cumulative doses of norepinephrine were 761, 659, and 249 μg/kg (placebo 1.25 ng/kg/minute and 2.5 ng/kg/minute, respectively; 2.5 ng/kg/minute vs. placebo; p < 0.01). Norepinephrine infusion was weaned more rapidly in selepressin 2.5 ng/kg/minute vs. placebo (0.04 vs. 0.18 μg/kg/minute at 24 h, p < 0.001), successfully maintaining target MAP and reducing norepinephrine dose vs. placebo (first 24 h, p < 0.001). Cumulative net fluid balance was lower from day 5 onward in the selepressin 2.5 ng/kg/minute group vs. placebo (p < 0.05). The selepressin 2.5 ng/kg/minute group had a greater proportion of days alive and free of ventilation vs. placebo (p < 0.02). Selepressin (2.5 ng/kg/minute) was well tolerated, with a similar frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events for selepressin 2.5 ng/kg/minute and placebo. Two patients were infused at 3.75 ng/kg/minute, one of whom had the study drug infusion discontinued for possible safety reasons, with subsequent discontinuation of this dose group.ConclusionsIn septic shock patients, selepressin 2.5 ng/kg/minute was able to rapidly replace norepinephrine while maintaining adequate MAP, and it may improve fluid balance and shorten the time of mechanical ventilation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01000649 . Registered on September 30, 2009.
| S-EPMC5557574 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionVasopressin is an alternative vasopressor in the management of septic shock. It spares catecholamine use but whether it improves outcome remains uncertain. Current evidence suggests that it may be most effective if used early and possibly in conjunction with corticosteroids. This trial will compare vasopressin to noradrenaline as initial vasopressor in the management of adult septic shock and investigate whether there is an interaction of vasopressin with corticosteroids.Methods and analysisThis is a multicentre, factorial (2×2), randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. 412 patients will be recruited from multiple UK intensive care units and randomised to receive vasopressin (0-0.06 U/min) or noradrenaline (0-12 µg/min) as a continuous intravenous infusion as initial vasopressor therapy. If maximum infusion rates of this first study drug are reached, the patient will be treated with either hydrocortisone (initially 50 mg intravenous bolus six-hourly) or placebo, before additional open-label catecholamine vasopressors are prescribed. The primary outcome of the trial will be the difference in renal failure-free days between treatment groups. Secondary outcomes include need for renal replacement therapy, survival rates, other organ failures and resource utilisation.Ethics and disseminationThe trial protocol and information sheets have received a favourable opinion from the Oxford A Research Ethics Committee (12/SC/0014). There is an independent Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee and independent membership of the Trial Steering Committee including patient and public involvement. The trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international scientific meetings.Trial registration numberISRCTN 20769191 and EudraCT 2011-005363-24.
| S-EPMC4091463 | biostudies-literature