Norepinephrine Versus Vasopressin as First-Line Vasopressor Therapy in Septic Shock: Implications for Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65759/aszttx19Keywords:
Septic shock, norepinephrine, vasopressin, emergency department, vasopressorsAbstract
Background: Septic shock requires rapid restoration of perfusion with infection treatment. Norepinephrine is the recommended initial vasopressor, while vasopressin offers an alternative mechanism of vascular support. This review examines comparative clinical outcomes and their relevance to emergency department treatment. Methods: A systematic review was reported according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to May 2026. Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, resolving disagreements through consensus. We include comparative studies of adults with septic shock, renal outcomes, hemodynamic responses, and adverse events. Initial and adjunctive treatment comparisons were distinguished, and overlapping trial reports were linked. Results: Ten original articles represented seven independent study populations, including three secondary analyses of VASST. In VASST, involving 778 treated patients, mortality at 28 days was 35.4% with vasopressin and 39.3% with norepinephrine. VANISH enrolled 409 patients and demonstrated no improvement in its primary kidney outcome, despite lower renal replacement therapy use with vasopressin. VANCS II enrolled 250 patients with cancer and found no significant mortality difference. Smaller investigations documented blood pressure responses and selected renal physiological improvements. Differences in treatment timing, concomitant vasopressors, and patient selection restricted direct comparison across studies. Conclusion: Renal and catecholamine-sparing findings support further investigation of selected treatment strategies. Emergency department recommendations remain largely extrapolated from intensive care evidence, with a need for trials specifically evaluating initial vasopressor selection during early emergency resuscitation.
References
1. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–810. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0287.
2. Shankar-Hari M, Phillips GS, Levy ML, et al. Developing a new definition and assessing new clinical criteria for septic shock: for the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):775–787. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0289.
3. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47:1181–1247. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y.
4. Landry DW, Levin HR, Gallant EM, et al. Vasopressin deficiency contributes to the vasodilation of septic shock. Circulation. 1997;95(5):1122–1125. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.95.5.1122.
5. Sharshar T, Blanchard A, Paillard M, et al. Circulating vasopressin levels in septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(6):1752–1758. doi:10.1097/01.CCM.0000063046.82359.4A.
6. Permpikul C, Tongyoo S, Viarasilpa T, et al. Early use of norepinephrine in septic shock resuscitation (CENSER). A randomized trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199(9):1097–1105. doi:10.1164/rccm.201806-1034OC.
7. Shapiro NI, Douglas IS, Brower RG, et al. Early restrictive or liberal fluid management for sepsis-induced hypotension. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:499–510. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2212663.
8. Russell JA, Walley KR, Singer J, et al. Vasopressin versus norepinephrine infusion in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:877–887. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa067373.
9. Gordon AC, Mason AJ, Thirunavukkarasu N, et al. Effect of early vasopressin vs norepinephrine on kidney failure in patients with septic shock: the VANISH randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316(5):509–518. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.10485.
10. Hajjar LA, Zambolim C, Belletti A, et al. Vasopressin versus norepinephrine for the management of septic shock in cancer patients: the VANCS II randomized clinical trial. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(12):1743–1750. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000004023.
11. Patel BM, Chittock DR, Russell JA, Walley KR. Beneficial effects of short-term vasopressin infusion during severe septic shock. Anesthesiology. 2002;96(3):576–582. doi:10.1097/00000542-200203000-00011.
12. Lauzier F, Lévy B, Lamarre P, Lesur O. Vasopressin or norepinephrine in early hyperdynamic septic shock: a randomized clinical trial. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32(11):1782–1789. doi:10.1007/s00134-006-0378-0.
13. Morelli A, Ertmer C, Rehberg S, et al. Continuous terlipressin versus vasopressin infusion in septic shock (TERLIVAP): a randomized, controlled pilot study. Crit Care. 2009;13:R130. doi:10.1186/cc7990.
14. Hall LG, Oyen LJ, Taner CB, et al. Fixed-dose vasopressin compared with titrated dopamine and norepinephrine as initial vasopressor therapy for septic shock. Pharmacotherapy. 2004;24(8):1002–1012. doi:10.1592/phco.24.11.1002.36139.
15. Gordon AC, Russell JA, Walley KR, et al. The effects of vasopressin on acute kidney injury in septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36:83–91. doi:10.1007/s00134-009-1687-x.
16. Russell JA, Walley KR, Gordon AC, et al. Interaction of vasopressin infusion, corticosteroid treatment, and mortality of septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(3):811–818. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181961ace.
17. Gordon AC, Wang N, Walley KR, et al. The cardiopulmonary effects of vasopressin compared with norepinephrine in septic shock. Chest. 2012;142(3):593–605. doi:10.1378/chest.11-2604.
18. Nagendran M, Russell JA, Walley KR, et al. Vasopressin in septic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Intensive Care Med. 2019;45:844–855. doi:10.1007/s00134-019-05620-2.
19. McIntyre WF, Um KJ, Alhazzani W, et al. Association of vasopressin plus catecholamine vasopressors vs catecholamines alone with atrial fibrillation in patients with distributive shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2018;319(18):1889–1900. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.4528.
20. Gamper G, Havel C, Arrich J, et al. Vasopressors for hypotensive shock. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2:CD003709. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003709.pub4.
21. Asfar P, Meziani F, Hamel JF, et al. High versus low blood-pressure target in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1583–1593. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1312173.
22. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71.
