ReviewCritical care (London, England)2025
Vasopressin and its analogues in patients with septic shock: holy Grail or unfulfilled promise?
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing Timing and Dose of Starting Norepinephrine and Vasopressin in Septic Shock.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Managing sepsis in the era of precision medicine: a narrative review.Acute and critical care · 2026Article
- Modulation of the Vasopressin System in Distributive and Cardiogenic Shock: Theoretical Principles and Practical Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Attenuated hemodynamic response to adjunct vasopressin in obese septic shock patients: a physiological or dose-dependent effect?Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Impact of Early versus Delayed Vasopressin Initiation on 28-Day Mortality in Older Adults with Septic Shock.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2026Article
- Treatment of supraventricular arrhythmias in critical care patients with sepsis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Prolonged Loss of Oxidative Phosphorylation and Mitochondrial Mass Characterize CD66bbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Heart-Lung Interactions in Combined Distributive Shock and ARDS: Applied Cardiopulmonary Physiology at the Bedside.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) recommends norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor in patients with septic shock. For many years, there has been growing evidence that high doses of norepinephrine might have cardiac and immunological adverse effects and be associated with poorer outcomes. Current SSC guidelines therefore suggest adding vasopressin, a non-catecholaminergic vasopressor, as a second-line vasopressor rather than increasing the norepinephrine dose in patients requiring doses of norepinephrine base > 0.25-0.50 µg/kg/min, after excluding persistent hypovolemia and cardiac dysfunction. Vasopressin is a peptide hormone that causes vasoconstriction through its specific receptor, the arginine vasopressin receptor V1. Up to one-third of patients with septic shock may have vasopressin deficiency, which contributes to refractory septic shock. Vasopressin use is associated with a norepinephrine-sparing effect, which may in turn reduce the complications induced by high-doses of norepinephrine, by decreasing the vasopressor load: this is the concept of decatecholaminization. Nevertheless, the use of vasopressin in patients with septic shock has not yet demonstrated clear benefits in terms of patient outcomes, such as less cardiotoxicity, reduced use of renal replacement therapy or decreased mortality. The heterogeneity in the use of vasopressin and the definition of early vasopressin administration between different studies as well as many unresolved issues regarding the use of vasopressin in patients with septic shock could explain the absence of clear and relevant clinical benefits. Thus, the identification of subgroups of patients likely to benefit the most from vasopressin, the management of vasopressin administration (time to initiation, optimal doses, weaning strategy) and a better understanding of the interactions between vasopressin and corticosteroids represent major areas of research for future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.