Vasopressin versus Norepinephrine in Patients with Vasoplegic Shock after Cardiac Surgery: The VANCS Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Vasoplegic syndrome is a common complication after cardiac surgery and impacts negatively on patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether vasopressin is superior to norepinephrine in reducing postoperative complications in patients with vasoplegic syndrome. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted at the Heart Institute, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil, between January 2012 and March 2014. Patients with vasoplegic shock (defined as mean arterial pressure less than 65 mmHg resistant to fluid challenge and cardiac index greater than 2.2 l · min · m) after cardiac surgery were randomized to receive vasopressin (0.01 to 0.06 U/min) or norepinephrine (10 to 60 µg/min) to maintain arterial pressure. The primary endpoint was a composite of mortality or severe complications (stroke, requirement for mechanical ventilation for longer than 48 h, deep sternal wound infection, reoperation, or acute renal failure) within 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 330 patients were randomized, and 300 were infused with one of the study drugs (vasopressin, 149; norepinephrine, 151). The primary outcome occurred in 32% of the vasopressin patients and in 49% of the norepinephrine patients (unadjusted hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.80; P = 0.0014). Regarding adverse events, the authors found a lower occurrence of atrial fibrillation in the vasopressin group (63.8% vs. 82.1%; P = 0.0004) and no difference between groups in the rates of digital ischemia, mesenteric ischemia, hyponatremia, and myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' results suggest that vasopressin can be used as a first-line vasopressor agent in postcardiac surgery vasoplegic shock and improves clinical outcomes.

A liberal strategy of red blood cell transfusion reduces cardiogenic shock in elderly patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery who are aged 60 years or more or less than 60 years after implementation of a restrictive or a liberal transfusion strategy. METHODS: This is a substudy of the Transfusion Requirements After Cardiac Surgery (TRACS) randomized controlled trial. In this subgroup analysis, we separated patients into those aged 60 years or more (elderly) and those aged less than 60 years randomized to a restrictive or a liberal strategy of red blood cell transfusion. The primary outcome was a composite defined as a combination of 30-day all-cause mortality and severe morbidity. RESULTS: Of the 502 patients included in the Transfusion Requirements After Cardiac Surgery study, 260 (51.8%) were aged 60 years or more and 242 (48.2%) were aged less than 60 years and were included in this study. The primary end point occurred in 11.9% of patients in the liberal strategy group and 16.8% of patients in the restrictive strategy group (P = .254) for those aged 60 years or more and in 6.8% of patients in the liberal strategy group and 5.6% of patients in the restrictive strategy group for those aged less than 60 years (P = .714). However, in the older patients, cardiogenic shock was more frequent in patients in the restrictive transfusion group (12.8% vs 5.2%, P = .031). Thirty-day mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and acute renal injury were similar in the restrictive and liberal transfusion groups in both age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no difference between groups regarding the primary outcome, a restrictive transfusion strategy may result in an increased rate of cardiogenic shock in elderly patients undergoing cardiac surgery compared with a more liberal strategy. Cardiovascular risk of anemia may be more harmful than the risk of blood transfusion in older patients.