4.7 Article

A randomized trial comparing terlipressin and noradrenaline in patients with cirrhosis and septic shock

期刊

LIVER INTERNATIONAL
卷 37, 期 4, 页码 552-561

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/liv.13252

关键词

cirrhosis; septic shock; terlipressin; vasopressor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims: The choice of vasopressor for treating cirrhosis with septic shock is unclear. While noradrenaline in general is the preferred vasopressor, terlipressin improves microcirculation in addition to vasopressor action in non-cirrhotics. We compared the efficacy and safety of noradrenaline and terlipressin in cirrhotics with septic shock. Patients and Methods: Cirrhotics with septic shock underwent open label randomization to receive either terlipressin (n=42) or noradrenaline (n=42) infusion at a titrated dose. The primary outcome was mean arterial pressure (MAP) >65 mm Hg at 48 h. Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the terlipressin and noradrenaline groups. SBP and pneumonia were major sources of sepsis. A higher proportion of patients on terlipressin were able to achieve MAP >65 mm of Hg (92.9% vs 69.1% P=.005) at 48 h. Subsequent discontinuation of vasopressor after hemodynamic stability was better with terlipressin (33.3% vs 11.9%, P<.05). Terlipressin compared to noradrenaline prevented variceal bleed (0% vs 9.5%, P=.01) and improved survival at 48 h (95.2% vs 71.4%, P=.003). Percentage lactate clearance (LC) is an independent predictor of survival [P=.0001, HR=3.9 (95% CI: 1.85-8.22)] after achieving the target MAP. Therapy related adverse effect were comparable in both the arms (40.5% vs 21.4%, P=.06), mostly minor (GradeII-88%) and reversible. Conclusions: Terlipressin is as effective as noradrenaline as a vasopressor in cirrhotics with septic shock and can serve as a useful drug. Terlipressin additionally provides early survival benefit and reduces the risk of variceal bleed. Lactate clearance is a better predictor of outcome even after achieving target MAP, suggesting the role of microcirculation in septic shock.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据