Vasopressin in vasoplegic shock: A systematic review

Hemodynamic Management with Vasopressin for Cardiovascular Surgery

Background and Objectives: Vasopressin increases blood pressure through aquaporin-2-mediated water retention and is useful for managing hemodynamics after surgery. However, even after decades of study, clear clinical guidelines on doses and ideal use cases after cardiovascular surgery remain unclear. Here, the existing literature is synthesized on vasopressin use for cardiac surgeries and coupled with real-world clinical experience to outline a clearer clinical path for vasopressin use. Materials and Methods: Literature from 1966 to the present was searched, and information on surgical outcomes for cardiovascular surgery was extracted. Clinicians from the University of Tsukuba with extensive vasopressin experience in pediatric cardiovascular patients were consulted for general use guidelines. Results: Vasopressin response after cardiovascular surgery is multifaceted, and low-power trials, plus conflicting study reports, generally render it as a secondary choice behind norepinephrine. Clinical experience indicates that low doses of 0.2-0.3 mU/kg/min with constant blood pressure and oxygen monitoring for response are required. Although sole use is not recommended, vasopressin may aid in controlling hemodynamics when given with other volemic or osmolal drugs. Conclusions: Vasopressin may work in a select population of first-line non-responders, but relevant response factors remain unanalyzed and clear guidelines for use remain unestablished. Future, large-scale studies are needed to delineate temporal and demographic characteristics that affect response to vasopressin for the purpose of managing post-surgical capillary leakage and hemodynamics.

Severe Vasoplegic Shock After Heart Transplant Successfully Treated With Multimodal Therapeutic Approach

Vasoplegia describes a constellation of low vascular resistance and normal cardiac output. Vasoplegia is common after cardiac surgery in general and in heart transplant recipients more specifically and occurs in over one-half of all heart transplant recipients with a varying degree of severity. The pathophysiology of vasoplegia is multifactorial and associated with a cascade of inflammatory mediators. Routine treatment of vasoplegia is based on medical vasopressor therapy, but in severe cases this may be insufficient to maintain adequate blood pressure and does not address the underlying pathophysiology. We report a case of severe vasoplegic shock in a heart transplant recipient who was successfully managed with a multimodal therapy combination of methylene blue, immunoglobulins enriched with immunoglobulin M, cytokine adsorption, and broad-spectrum antibiotics. This represents a promising therapeutic approach for heart transplant patients with vasoplegia.

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

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.

The pharmacotherapeutic options in patients with catecholamine-resistant vasodilatory shock

INTRODUCTION

Septic and vasoplegic shock are common types of vasodilatory shock (VS) with high mortality. After fluid resuscitation and the use of catecholamine-mediated vasopressors (CMV), vasopressin, angiotensin II, methylene blue (MB) and hydroxocobalamin can be added to maintain blood pressure.

AREAS COVERED

VS treatment utilizes a phased approach with secondary vasopressors added to vasopressor agents to maintain an acceptable mean arterial pressure (MAP). This review covers additional vasopressors and adjunctive therapies used when fluid and catecholamine-mediated vasopressors fail to maintain target MAP.

EXPERT OPINION

Evidence supporting additional vasopressor agents in catecholamine resistant VS is limited to case reports, series, and a few randomized control trials (RCTs) to guide recommendations. Vasopressin is the most common agent added next when MAPs are not adequately supported with CMV. VS patients failing fluids and vasopressors with cardiomyopathy may have cardiotonic agents such as dobutamine or milrinone added before or after vasopressin. Angiotensin II, another class of vasopressor is used in VS to maintain adequate MAP. MB and/or hydoxocobalamin, vitamin C, thiamine and corticosteroids are adjunctive therapies used in refractory VS. More RCTs are needed to confirm the utility of these drugs, at what doses, which combinations and in what order they should be given.

Adjusting vasopressin availability and formulation: A cost-savings initiative

Disclaimer

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

Purpose

The increase in vasopressin price has required many healthcare systems to consider cost-saving strategies. To combat rising medication costs, our institution changed formulations from 50 units/250 mL to 20 units/100 mL and removed vasopressin from automated dispensing cabinets (ADCs).

Methods

This retrospective review occurred at a 545-bed academic medical center with 97 adult intensive care unit beds. Adult patients receiving a continuous vasopressin infusion were included with no exclusion criteria. A 1-month period was assessed before and after changing the formulation (pre and post groups, respectively). Duplicate bags compounded by pharmacy and bedside teams were also assessed in the pre group. The primary outcome was the estimated annual cost savings due to formulation change with a secondary outcome of estimated annual cost savings due to removal of vasopressin from ADCs. Each 20-unit vial of vasopressin cost $183.21 (wholesale acquisition cost) at the time of the study.

Results

In the pre group, 39 patients requiring a vasopressin infusion were allocated an average of 2 bags each costing $1,099.26 per patient. In the post group, 41 patients required an average of 4 bags each costing $732.84 per patient. With respect to the primary outcome, a savings of $366.42 per patient and an average of 40 patients per month would lead to an annual cost savings of $175,881.60. Secondary outcome analysis identified 9 duplicate bags prepared in the pre group; therefore, removal of vasopressin from ADCs is estimated to provide additional cost savings of $59,360.04. The estimated annual cost savings from both initiatives is $235,241.64.

Conclusion

Changing the vasopressin formulation and removing it from ADCs resulted in a significant cost savings to the health system.

The Use of Methylene Blue during Liver Transplantation for Vasoplegia

The use of methylene blue for vasoplegia in cardiac cases with cardiopulmonary bypass, septic shock, and acute liver failure is well documented. Use of MB for liver transplantation has been largely limited to case reports. We describe three separate liver transplantation patients with significant hypotension following reperfusion. Administration of methylene blue to each patient resulted in a significant decrease in vasopressor medication and two patients weaned completely. We argue that the use of MB should be considered as a treatment option for refractory hypotension.