Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 10, 1492
eCollection

Terlipressin Versus Norepinephrine for Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Affiliations

Terlipressin Versus Norepinephrine for Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Po Huang et al. Front Pharmacol.

Abstract

Purpose: The meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of terlipressin compared with norepinephrine for septic shock. Materials and Methods: The relevant studies from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase were searched by two independent investigators. A variety of keywords were used to search the studies. Stata software (version 11.0, Stata Corp LP, College Station, TX, USA) was used for statistical analysis. Results: A total of six studies were identified and incorporated into the meta-analysis. The results showed that there was no difference for 28-day mortality (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = [0.85,1.15], P = 0.849), AE (RR = 2.54, 95% CI = [0.58,11.08], P = 0.214), and MAP (SMD = -0.10, 95% CI = [-0.35,0.14], P = 0.405), OI, urinary output, Scr, total bilirubin, ALT, and AST between TP group and NE group. While TP could decrease HR at 24 and 48 h compared with NE. Conclusions: Current results suggest that terlipressin showed no added survival benefit for septic shock when compared with norepinephrine, while terlipressin could decrease heart rate in the late phase of septic shock compared with norepinephrine without further liver and kidney injury. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019128743). Available online at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42019128743.

Keywords: meta-analysis; norepinephrine; septic shock; systematic review; terlipressin.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of included studies selection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot of 28–day mortality.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot of AE.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot of MAP.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot of HR.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Albanese J., Leone M., Delmas A., Martin C. (2005). Terlipressin or norepinephrine in hyperdynamic septic shock: a prospective, randomized study. Crit. Care Med. 33 (9), 1897–1902. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000178182.37639.D6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Anantasit N., Boyd J. H., Walley K. R., Russell J. A. (2014). Serious adverse events associated with vasopressin and norepinephrine infusion in septic shock. Crit. Care Med. 42 (8), 1812–1820. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000333 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Annane D., Bellissant E., Cavaillon J. M. (2005). Septic shock. Lancet. 365, 63–78. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17667-8 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Annane D., Vignon P., Renault A., Bollaert P. E., Charpentier C., Martin C., et al. (2007). Norepinephrine plus dobutamine versus epinephrine alone for management of septic shock: a randomised trial. Lancet 370, 676–684. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61344-0 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Asfar P., Hauser B., Iványi Z., Ehrmann U., Kick J., Albicini M., et al. (2005). Low-dose terlipressin during long-term hyperdynamic porcine endotoxemia: effects on hepatosplanchnic perfusion, oxygen exchange, and metabolism. Crit. Care Med. 33 (2), 373–380. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000152253.45901.FB - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback