Vasopressin in vasoplegic shock in surgical patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Acta cirurgica brasileira Pub Date : 2023-12-01 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1590/acb387523
Taís Felix Szeles, Juliano Pinheiro de Almeida, José Arnaldo Shiomi da Cruz, Everson Luiz Almeida Artifon
{"title":"Vasopressin in vasoplegic shock in surgical patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Taís Felix Szeles, Juliano Pinheiro de Almeida, José Arnaldo Shiomi da Cruz, Everson Luiz Almeida Artifon","doi":"10.1590/acb387523","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Vasoplegia, or vasoplegic shock, is a syndrome whose main characteristic is reducing blood pressure in the presence of a standard or high cardiac output. For the treatment, vasopressors are recommended, and the most used is norepinephrine. However, new drugs have been evaluated, and conflicting results exist in the literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis, written according to the recommendations of the PRISMA report. The SCOPUS, PubMed, and ScienceDirect databases were used to select the scientific articles included in the study. Searches were conducted in December 2022 using the terms \"vasopressin,\" \"norepinephrine,\" \"vasoplegic shock,\" \"postoperative,\" and \"surgery.\" Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4. The endpoint associated with the study was efficiency in treating vasoplegic shock and reduced risk of death.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 2,090 articles were retrieved; after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, ten studies were selected to compose the present review. We found no significant difference when assessing the outcome mortality comparing vasopressin versus norepinephrine (odds ratio = 1.60; confidence interval 0.47-5.50), nor when comparing studies on vasopressin versus placebo. When we analyzed the length of hospital stay compared to the use of vasopressin and norepinephrine, we identified a shorter length of hospital stay in cases that used vasopressin; however, the meta-analysis did not demonstrate statistical significance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Considering the outcomes included in our study, it is worth noting that most studies showed that using vasopressin was safe and can be considered in managing postoperative vasoplegic shock.</p>","PeriodicalId":93850,"journal":{"name":"Acta cirurgica brasileira","volume":"38 ","pages":"e387523"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10691175/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta cirurgica brasileira","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/acb387523","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Vasoplegia, or vasoplegic shock, is a syndrome whose main characteristic is reducing blood pressure in the presence of a standard or high cardiac output. For the treatment, vasopressors are recommended, and the most used is norepinephrine. However, new drugs have been evaluated, and conflicting results exist in the literature.

Methods: This is a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis, written according to the recommendations of the PRISMA report. The SCOPUS, PubMed, and ScienceDirect databases were used to select the scientific articles included in the study. Searches were conducted in December 2022 using the terms "vasopressin," "norepinephrine," "vasoplegic shock," "postoperative," and "surgery." Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4. The endpoint associated with the study was efficiency in treating vasoplegic shock and reduced risk of death.

Results: In total, 2,090 articles were retrieved; after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, ten studies were selected to compose the present review. We found no significant difference when assessing the outcome mortality comparing vasopressin versus norepinephrine (odds ratio = 1.60; confidence interval 0.47-5.50), nor when comparing studies on vasopressin versus placebo. When we analyzed the length of hospital stay compared to the use of vasopressin and norepinephrine, we identified a shorter length of hospital stay in cases that used vasopressin; however, the meta-analysis did not demonstrate statistical significance.

Conclusions: Considering the outcomes included in our study, it is worth noting that most studies showed that using vasopressin was safe and can be considered in managing postoperative vasoplegic shock.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
血管麻痹性休克手术患者的血管加压素:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:血管截瘫或血管截瘫性休克是一种综合征,其主要特征是在心输出量正常或高的情况下血压降低。对于治疗,血管加压药是推荐的,最常用的是去甲肾上腺素。然而,新的药物已经被评估,并在文献中存在矛盾的结果。方法:根据PRISMA报告的建议,对文献进行meta分析的系统综述。使用SCOPUS、PubMed和ScienceDirect数据库选择纳入研究的科学文章。搜索于2022年12月进行,使用术语“抗利尿激素”、“去甲肾上腺素”、“血管麻痹性休克”、“术后”和“手术”。meta分析采用Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4进行。与该研究相关的终点是治疗血管截瘫性休克的效率和降低死亡风险。结果:共检索到2090篇文献;在应用纳入和排除标准后,选择10项研究组成本综述。在评估抗利尿激素与去甲肾上腺素的结局死亡率时,我们发现两者无显著差异(优势比= 1.60;置信区间0.47-5.50),当比较抗利尿激素与安慰剂的研究时也没有。当我们分析与使用抗利尿激素和去甲肾上腺素相比的住院时间时,我们发现使用抗利尿激素的病例住院时间更短;然而,meta分析没有显示统计学意义。结论:考虑到我们的研究结果,值得注意的是,大多数研究表明加压素是安全的,可以考虑用于治疗术后血管截瘫性休克。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate and ciprofol in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy in the elderly. Comparison of the therapeutic effects of different pneumoperitoneum pressures on laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair: a randomized controlled trail. Pharmacological effects of triamcinolone associated with surgical glue on cutaneous wound healing in rats. Brazilian authorship gender trends on academic surgery: a bigdata analysis. Cesarean scar dehiscence in early puerperium and influence of barbed suture: tridimensional ultrasound evaluation in a randomized clinical study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1