key: cord-0049971-xlvi6eno
authors: Biondi-Zoccai, Giuseppe; Cavarretta, Elena; Frati, Giacomo; Versaci, Francesco
title: Of size and men: a call for larger trials and meta-analyses on vasopressors during general anesthesia
date: 2020-09-15
journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2020.09.097
sha: a35fe25a2bf1c730da0ba68d25e2671ea7713d21
doc_id: 49971
cord_uid: xlvi6eno

nan

Hypotension during invasive procedures requiring general anesthesia represents a particularly challenging scenario, as several different mechanisms may cause hypotension (eg myocardial dysfunction, hemorrhage or neurogenic vasodilation).(10-11) Accordingly, uncertainty of the comparative efficacy and safety of vasopressors clearly applies in this clinical context as well. In particular, a focus of intense research has been the quest to identify the most effective vasopressor, capable of optimizing blood pressure as well as cardiac output, without undue effects on heart rate, or, more in general, cardiac physiology (eg myocardial perfusion pressure and myocardial oxygen demand), with the utmost interest being reserved for vasopressin (which leads to vasoconstriction by acting on peripheral V1 receptors, and fluid retention by acting on renal V2 receptors) and the vasopressin analogue terlipressin. (12) In this issue of the Journal, Hoshijima and colleagues report the results of an updated metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials comparing vasopressin or terlipressin versus norepinephrine for the management of hypotension in patients undergoing general anesthesia.(13) They retrieved a total of 6 trials including 197 patients, with mean within-arm age ranging between 57 and 73 years, in whom indications for general anesthesia included abdominal surgery, carotid endarterectomy, and coronary artery bypass grafting. Outcomes of interest were mean blood pressure (reported by 5 trials), heart rate (reported by 5 trials), central venous pressure (reported by 4 trials), cardiac output (reported by 2 trials) and cardiac index (reported by 3 trials). No significant differences were found between these agents for any of such endpoints, despite evident statistical heterogeneity and inconsistency due to disparate between-study effect estimates (eg p value at chi-squared test <0.001, tau-squared 27, and I-squared 84% for mean blood pressure), leading to quite large confidence intervals (for instance -5.9 to +4.2 mm Hg for mean blood pressure). Additional analyses, including trial-sequential meta-analysis, confirmed the limited informativeness of the accrued evidence base, with minimum sample sizes for adequately powered future meta-analyses ranging between 93 subjects (for central venous pressure) and 1850 patients (for cardiac index).

Indeed, strengths of this work include the use of several established meta-analytic methods, including trial sequential analysis, whereas key limitation include lack of details on additional endpoints, eg death, stroke, infarction, renal failure, urine output, and so forth. In addition, small study effects and publication bias remain potential validity threats. (14) Accordingly, we can infer from this work that, according to the evidence accrued to date, there is no significant difference in terms of immediate surrogate hemodynamic endpoints between vasopressin, terlipressin, and norepinephrine. Taking into account the lower cost of norepinephrine, this agent is thus probably the first choice drug for the management of general anesthesia complicated by hypotension and vasoplegic schock. Conversely, no conclusions can be drawn on all other and often more relevant outcomes in patients with hypotension during general anesthesia ( Figure 1 ). More in general, the main conclusion of the meta-analysis by Hoshijima et al is that we need to work more intensively and more collaboratively to design and conduct larger trials on the comparative effectiveness and safety of vasopressors for hypotension. Randomized trials of adequate size, alone or combined within a meta-analysis (possibly based on an individual patient level dataset) will be key to overcome the drawbacks of past studies on this topic, and better inform clinical practitioners and researchers. (15) On top of simple head-to-head trials, we could envision adaptive and platform trials suitable for more flexible testing and comparing, similar to the ones recently adopted for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), given the need for refined research tools suitable for the complexities of management strategies for hypotension occurring during general anesthesia. (16) In particular, another theoretically appealing approach is combining different vasopressors or their sequential use in a stepwise fashion,(17) even if the evidence for such combo regimens is very limited. (18) Along the same lines, another intriguing area of research is timing and order of discontinuation in case two or more vasopressors are simultaneously used. (19) In conclusion, larger and more numerous trials are direly needed to better inform clinical decision making for patients undergoing general anesthesia with hypotension or shock. In the meanwhile, equipoise between norepinephrine and vasopressin still holds, at least for surrogate hemodynamic endpoints such as mean blood pressure, heart rate, central venous pressure, cardiac output, and cardiac index.

Prof. Biondi-Zoccai has consulted for InnovHeart, Milan, Italy, Meditrial, Rome, Italy, and Replycare, Rome, Italy. 

Resuscitation Fluids in Septic Shock: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Inotropes and vasopressors use in cardiogenic shock: when, which and how much?

Impella: pumps overview and access site management

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for critically ill patients with coronavirus-associated disease 2019: an updated perspective of the European experience

Vasoplegia During Cardiopulmonary Bypass: Current Literature and Rescue Therapy Options

Comparative efficacy of vasoactive medications in patients with septic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Vasopressors During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Principles of hemodynamics for mechanical circulatory support: patho-physiological key aspects of assisted PCI

Intraoperative hypotension and its prediction

Reverse Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy After Caesarean Section With Epidural Anesthesia: Initial Assessment and Follow-up

Vasopressin and its analogues in shock states: a review

Norepinephrine Under General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials with Trial Sequential Analysis

Preoperative Pulse Pressure and Adverse Postoperative Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis

Network Meta-Analysis: Evidence Synthesis with Mixed Treatment Comparisons

Combination era, using combined vasopressors showed benefits in treating septic shock patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Association of Vasopressin Plus Catecholamine Vasopressors vs Catecholamines Alone With Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Distributive Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Norepinephrine vs Vasopressin: Which Vasopressor Should Be Discontinued First in Septic Shock? A Meta-Analysis