McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Universitario de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
JAMA. 2018 May 8;319(18):1889-1900. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.4528.
Vasopressin is an alternative to catecholamine vasopressors for patients with distributive shock-a condition due to excessive vasodilation, most frequently from severe infection. Blood pressure support with a noncatecholamine vasopressor may reduce stimulation of adrenergic receptors and decrease myocardial oxygen demand. Atrial fibrillation is common with catecholamines and is associated with adverse events, including mortality and increased length of stay (LOS).
To determine whether treatment with vasopressin + catecholamine vasopressors compared with catecholamine vasopressors alone was associated with reductions in the risk of adverse events.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to February 2018. Experts were asked and meta-registries searched to identify ongoing trials.
Pairs of reviewers identified randomized clinical trials comparing vasopressin in combination with catecholamine vasopressors to catecholamines alone for patients with distributive shock.
Two reviewers abstracted data independently. A random-effects model was used to combine data.
The primary outcome was atrial fibrillation. Other outcomes included mortality, requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT), myocardial injury, ventricular arrhythmia, stroke, and LOS in the intensive care unit and hospital. Measures of association are reported as risk ratios (RRs) for clinical outcomes and mean differences for LOS.
Twenty-three randomized clinical trials were identified (3088 patients; mean age, 61.1 years [14.2]; women, 45.3%). High-quality evidence supported a lower risk of atrial fibrillation associated with vasopressin treatment (RR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.88]; risk difference [RD], -0.06 [95% CI, -0.13 to 0.01]). For mortality, the overall RR estimate was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.97; RD, -0.04 [95% CI, -0.07 to 0.00]); however, when limited to trials at low risk of bias, the RR estimate was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.11). The overall RR estimate for RRT was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08; RD, -0.07 [95% CI, -0.12 to -0.01]). However, in an analysis limited to trials at low risk of bias, RR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.92, P for interaction = .77). There were no significant differences in the pooled risks for other outcomes.
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the addition of vasopressin to catecholamine vasopressors compared with catecholamines alone was associated with a lower risk of atrial fibrillation. Findings for secondary outcomes varied.
血管加压素是治疗分布性休克(一种由于过度血管扩张引起的疾病,最常见于严重感染)患者的儿茶酚胺类血管加压药的替代品。使用非儿茶酚胺类血管加压药进行血压支持可能会减少对肾上腺素能受体的刺激,并降低心肌耗氧量。心房颤动在使用儿茶酚胺类药物时很常见,与不良事件有关,包括死亡率和住院时间(LOS)延长。
确定血管加压素+儿茶酚胺类血管加压药与单独使用儿茶酚胺类血管加压药相比,是否会降低不良事件的风险。
从 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 CENTRAL 数据库建立开始至 2018 年 2 月进行了检索。询问了专家并检索了元注册数据库,以确定正在进行的试验。
配对的评审员确定了比较血管加压素联合儿茶酚胺类血管加压药与儿茶酚胺类血管加压药单独用于分布性休克患者的随机临床试验。
两名评审员独立提取数据。使用随机效应模型对数据进行合并。
主要结局为心房颤动。其他结局包括死亡率、需要肾脏替代治疗(RRT)、心肌损伤、室性心律失常、中风以及重症监护病房和医院的 LOS。临床结局的关联指标以风险比(RR)和 LOS 的平均差异报告。
共确定了 23 项随机临床试验(3088 例患者;平均年龄 61.1 岁[14.2];女性占 45.3%)。高质量证据支持血管加压素治疗与心房颤动风险降低相关(RR,0.77[95%CI,0.67 至 0.88];差异风险[RD],-0.06[95%CI,-0.13 至 0.01])。对于死亡率,总体 RR 估计值为 0.89(95%CI,0.82 至 0.97;RD,-0.04[95%CI,-0.07 至 0.00]);然而,当仅限于低偏倚风险的试验时,RR 估计值为 0.96(95%CI,0.84 至 1.11)。RRT 的总体 RR 估计值为 0.74(95%CI,0.51 至 1.08;RD,-0.07[95%CI,-0.12 至 -0.01])。然而,在仅限于低偏倚风险的试验的分析中,RR 为 0.70(95%CI,0.53 至 0.92,P 交互=0.77)。其他结局的汇总风险没有显著差异。
在这项系统评价和荟萃分析中,与单独使用儿茶酚胺类血管加压药相比,血管加压素联合儿茶酚胺类血管加压药与心房颤动风险降低相关。次要结局的发现存在差异。