Delayed vasopressor initiation is associated with increased mortality in patients with septic shock.

PURPOSE: Mortality rate for septic shock, despite advancements in knowledge and treatment, remains high. Treatment includes administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics and stabilization of the mean arterial pressure (MAP) with intravenous fluid resuscitation. Fluid-refractory shock warrants vasopressor initiation. There is a paucity of evidence regarding the timing of vasopressor initiation and its effect on patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, single-centered, cohort study included patients with septic shock from January 2017 to July 2017. Time from initial hypotension to vasopressor initiation was measured for each patient. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Of 530 patients screened,119 patients were included. There were no differences in baseline patient characteristics. Thirty-day mortality was higher in patients who received vasopressors after 6 h (51.1% vs 25%, p < .01). Patients who received vasopressors within the first 6 h had more vasopressor-free hours at 72 h (34.5 h vs 13.1, p = .03) and shorter time to MAP of 65 mmHg (1.5 h vs 3.0, p < .01). CONCLUSION: Vasopressor initiation after 6 h from shock recognition is associated with a significant increase in 30-day mortality. Vasopressor administration within 6 h was associated with shorter time to achievement of MAP goals and higher vasopressor-free hours within the first 72 h.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line vasopressors for the treatment of septic shock.

PURPOSE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of escalating doses of norepinephrine or norepinephrine plus the adjunctive use of vasopressin or angiotensin II as a second-line vasopressor for septic shock. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Decision tree analysis was performed to compare costs and outcomes associated with norepinephrine monotherapy or the two adjunctive second-line vasopressors. Short- and long-term outcomes modeled included ICU survival and lifetime quality-adjusted-life-years (QALY) gained. Costs were modeled from a payer's perspective, with a willingness-to-pay threshold set at $100,000/unit gained. One-way (tornado diagrams) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Adjunctive vasopressin was the most cost-effective therapy, and dominated both norepinephrine monotherapy and adjunctive angiotensin II by producing higher ICU survival at less cost. For the lifetime horizon, while norepinephrine monotherapy was least expensive, adjunctive vasopressin was the most cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,762 / QALY gained. Although adjunctive angiotensin II produced more QALYs compared to norepinephrine monotherapy, it was dominated in the long-term evaluation by second-line vasopressin. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated model robustness and medication costs were not significant drivers of model results. CONCLUSIONS: Vasopressin is the most cost-effective second-line vasopressor in both the short- and long-term evaluations. Vasopressor price is a minor contributor to overall cost.

Noradrenaline is as Effective as Terlipressin in Hepatorenal Syndrome Type 1: A Prospective, Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a functional renal failure occurring in end stage liver disease, which is associated with poor prognosis. Terlipressin has been shown to be effective in treatment of HRS. More recently, it was suggested that noradrenaline, an alpha-adrenergic drug may be also effective in HRS. We aimed to compare the efficacy of noradrenaline versus terlipressin in treatment of HRS type 1. METHODS: Consecutive patients with cirrhosis and HRS type 1 were enrolled and randomised into 2 groups- Group A received intravenous noradrenaline infusion (0.5-3 mg/h) and group B received intravenous terlipressin (0.5-2 mg/6h) for 2 weeks. Intravenous albumin (20 g/day) was given to both groups. RESULTS: Out of 55 cirrhotics screened, 41 were randomised into group A (n=21) or group B (n=20). Baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. HRS reversal was seen in 47.6%(10/21) patients in group A, and 45% (9/20) patients in group B (p=1.00). In both groups, there was a significant decrease in serum creatinine from baseline (group A- 3.1±1.4 mg/dl to 2.2±1.3 mg/dl, p=0.028; group B- 3.4±1.6 mg/dl to 2.3±1.3 mg/dl, p=0.035). Both the groups showed a significant increase in mean arterial pressure (group A- 77.3±8.6 mmHg to 103.4±8.3 mmHg, p=0.0001; group B- 76.8±11.6 mmHg to 100±9.4 mmHg, p=0.0001). Noradrenaline was associated with fewer adverse events and was significantly cheaper than terlipressin. Lower baseline MELD score was an independent predictor of response to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Noradrenaline is as effective and safe as terlipressin in the treatment of HRS type 1.

TERLIPRESSIN VERSUS NORADRENALINE FOR HEPATORENAL SYNDROME. Economic evaluation under the perspective of the Brazilian Public Health System.

BACKGROUND: - Terlipressin and noradrenaline are the best studied treatments for hepatorenal syndrome, and there is no evidence of superiority of one over the other regarding to efficacy. While the former drug is more costly, the latter requires admission into an intensive care unit. OBJECTIVE: - The aim of this study was to perform an economic evaluation, comparing treatments for hepatorenal syndrome with terlipressin and noradrenaline. METHODS: - For the economic evaluation, a cost-minimization analysis was performed. Direct medical costs of the two treatment strategies were compared under the perspective of the Brazilian Public Health System as the third-party payer. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: - The costs of treatments with terlipressin or noradrenaline were 287.77 and 2,960.45 International Dollars (Int$) respectively. Treatment using terlipressin would save Int$2,672.68 for the Public Health System for each hospital admission related to hepatorenal syndrome. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, it was verified that the cost of the treatment with noradrenaline could vary between Int$2,326.53 and Int$3,644.16, while costs related to the treatment using terlipressin are not variable. CONCLUSION: - The treatment strategy using terlipressin was more economical than that using noradrenaline under the perspective of the Brazilian Public Health System as the third-party payer.

Terlipressin versus noradrenaline in the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome: systematic review with meta-analysis and full economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and costs of terlipressin and noradrenaline for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome from the perspective of the Brazilian public health system and that of a major private health insurance. METHODS: Comparison of efficacy was performed through a systematic review with a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials using a random-effects model. Economic evaluation was carried out through cost minimization. RESULTS: Four studies (154 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. There was no evidence of a difference between treatments with terlipressin or noradrenaline in terms of 30-day survival (risk ratio=1.04, 95% confidence interval=0.84-1.30, P=0.70). From the perspective of the public health system, costs of the treatments with terlipressin or noradrenaline were Int$7437.04 and Int$8406.41, respectively. From the perspective of the private health insurance, costs of treatments with terlipressin and noradrenaline were Int$13,484.57 and Int$15,061.01, respectively. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of superiority between treatment strategies using terlipressin or noradrenaline in terms of the survival of patients with hepatorenal syndrome, but the strategy using terlipressin was more economical under two different perspectives.

Noradrenaline or terlipressin for hepatorenal syndrome?

Hepatorenal syndrome is a condition associated with very high mortality that may be reverted in some cases with vasoconstrictors. Terlipressin has generally been considered standard treatment, but noradrenaline has been postulated as alternative. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening 30 databases, we identified six systematic reviews including four pertinent randomized controlled trials. We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings following the GRADE approach. We concluded noradrenaline and terlipressin probably have similar effects on reverting hepatorrenal syndrome and decreasing mortality, but noradrenaline is associated with less adverse effects, and has lower costs.

El síndrome hepatorrenal es una condición asociada a altísima mortalidad, que puede ser recuperada en ciertos casos con el uso de vasoconstrictores. Generalmente se considera que terlipresina es el tratamiento estándar, pero noradrenalina se ha planteado como una alternativa. Utilizando la base de datos Epistemonikos, la cual es mantenida mediante búsquedas en 30 bases de datos, identificamos seis revisiones sistemáticas que en conjunto incluyen cuatro estudios aleatorizados. Realizamos un metanálisis y tablas de resumen de los resultados utilizando el método GRADE. Concluimos que noradrenalina y terlipresina son probablemente igual de efectivas en lograr mejoría del síndrome hepatorrenal y disminuir la mortalidad, pero que noradrenalina se asocia a menos efectos adversos, y tiene un menor costo.

Noradrenalin vs terlipressin in patients with hepatorenal syndrome: a prospective, randomized, unblinded, pilot study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Treatment of hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is based on vasoconstrictors. Terlipressin is the one with the soundest evidence. Noradrenalin has been suggested as an effective alternative. The current study was aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of noradrenalin vs terlipressin in patients with HRS. METHODS: Twenty-two consecutive cirrhotic patients with HRS (9 with HRS type 1; 13 with HRS type 2) were included. Patients were randomly assigned to be treated with noradrenalin (0.1-0.7 microg/kg/min) and albumin (10 patients) or with terlipressin (1-2 mg/4h) and albumin (12 patients). Treatment was administered until HRS reversal or for a maximum of two weeks. Patients were followed-up until liver transplantation or death. RESULTS: Reversal of HRS was observed in 7 of the 10 patients (70%) treated with noradrenalin and in 10 of the 12 patients (83%) treated with terlipressin, p=ns. Treatment led in both groups to a significant improvement in renal and circulatory function. No patient developed signs of myocardial ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this unblinded, pilot study suggest that noradrenalin is as effective and safe as terlipressin in patients with HRS. These results would support the use of noradrenalin, a cheap and widely available drug, in the management of these patients.

Noradrenaline and albumin in paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction in cirrhosis: a randomized pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Therapeutic paracentesis in patients with cirrhosis is associated with a circulatory dysfunction. Intravenous albumin has been used to prevent the circulatory dysfunction; however, the use of albumin is controversial and costly. Splanchnic vasodilation is mainly responsible for circulatory dysfunction in these patients. There are no reports of use of noradrenaline, a vasoconstrictor, on the prevention of paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction in patients with cirrhosis. Therefore, we studied the preventive effect of noradrenaline on paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction in patients with cirrhosis after therapeutic paracentesis and compared it with that of intravenous albumin in a randomized pilot study. METHODS: Forty patients with cirrhosis and tense ascites underwent therapeutic paracentesis with albumin or noradrenaline in a randomized controlled trial at a tertiary centre. Effective arterial blood volume was assessed by measuring plasma renin activity at baseline and at 6 days after treatment. RESULTS: Effective arterial blood volume as indicated by plasma renin activity before and 6 days after paracentesis did not differ in the two groups (20.62 +/- 10.27-22.02 +/- 10.15 ng mL(-1) h(-1); P = 0.11 in the albumin group and 19.66 +/- 8.91-20.78 +/- 9.41 ng mL(-1) h(-1); P = 0.37 in the noradrenaline group). Plasma aldosterone concentration before and 6 days after paracentesis were also similar in both groups (1196.5 +/- 434.2-1217.0 +/- 405.7 pg mL(-1); P = 0.7 in the albumin group and 1206.0 +/- 522.5-1273.5 +/- 444.8 pg mL(-1); P = 0.22 in the noradrenaline group). The cost of noradrenaline treatment was significantly lower when compared with that of albumin (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Noradrenaline is as effective as albumin in preventing paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction in patients with cirrhosis after therapeutic paracentesis, but at a fraction of the cost.